{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_304","title":"Compliance court orders","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":null,"dc_date":["2001-10/2001-12"],"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","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","School administrators"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance court orders"],"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/304"],"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\nRECEIVED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION NOV 13 2001 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF DEPOSITION TO: Mr. Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Margie Powell Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that at beginning at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, November 14, 2001, at the law offices of Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, LLP, 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000, Little Rock, Arkansas, that the undersigned will take the depositions upon oral examination of Gene Jones, Ann Marshall and Margie Powell, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure before a notary public or other officer duly authorized to administer oaths.You are notified to appear at such time and place and take part in the examination as you may be advised. Respectfully submitted, John C. Pendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 TEL: (501)376-2011 FAX: (501)376-2147 Attorneys for Plaintiff By: :ndley, Jr. F:\\HOME\\BBrown\\Fcndley\\LRS D\\desegrcgation'Dqx)Notk:e2.wpd -2- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing pleading has been served by facsimile and U.S. mail on this 9* day of November 2001 upon: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Arm Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Sammye Taylor Office of the Atttomey 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 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Dr. Ken James Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 W Markham Little Rock, AR 72202 F \\HOME\\BBrown\\Fendky\\LRSD\\desegrcgation\\DepoNotice2 wpd -3- '. Fendley, Jr. AO 88 (Rey. 11/91) Subpoena in a Civil Case UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS TO: SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM MS. MARGIE POWELL Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the United States District Court at the place, date, and time specified below to testify in the above case. PLACE OF TESTIMONY COURTROOM DATE AND TIME [X] YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the place, date and time specified below to testify at the taking of a deposition in the above case. PLACE OF DEPOSITION Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, LLP 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 DATE AND TIME Wednesday, November 14, 2001 1:00 p.m. (until completed) [X] YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce and permit inspection and copying of the following documents or objects at the place, date, and time specified below (list documents or objects): See the attached Exhibit A. PLACE Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, LLP 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 DATE AND TIME Wednesday, November 14, 2001 1:00 p.m. (until completed) I I YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit inspection of the following premises at the date and time specified below. PREMISES DATE AND TIME Any organization not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shall designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may set forth, for each person designated, the matters on which the person will testify. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 30(b)(6). ISSUING OFFICER SIGNATURE AND TITLE (INDICATE IF ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT) , Attorney for Plaintiff DATE November 9, 2001ISSUING OFFICER'S NAME, ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER John C. Fendley, Jr. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, LLP 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-2011 AO 88 (Rev. 11/91) Subpoena in a Civil Case (See Rule 45, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Parts C \u0026amp; D on Reverse) PROOF OF SERVICE DATE PLACE SERVED ON (PRINT NAME) SERVED BY (PRINT NAME) SERVED MANNER OF SERVICE TITLE DECLARATION OF SERVER I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing information contained in the Proof of Service is true and correct. Executed on DATE SIGNATURE OF SERVER ADDRESS OF SERVER(Rule 45, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Parts C \u0026amp; D: (c) PROTECTION OF PERSONS SUBJECT TO SUBPOENAS. (0 A party or an attorney responsible for the issuance and service of a subpoena shall take responsible steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to that subpoena. The court on behalf of which the subpoena was issued shall enforce this duty and impose upon the party or attorney in breach of this duty an appropriate sanction, which may include, but is not limited to, lost earnings and a reasonable attorney's fee. axA) A person commanded to produce and permit inspection and copying of designated books, papers, documents or tangible things, or inspection of premises need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless commanded to appear for deposition, hearing or trial. (B) Subject to paragraph (dX2) of this rule, a person commanded to produce and permit inspection and copying may, within 14 days after service of the subpoena or before the time specified for compliance if such time is less than 14 days after service, serve upon the party or attorney designated in the subpoena written objection to inspection or copying of any or all of the designated materials or of the premises. If objection is made, the party serving the subpoena shall not be entitled to inspect and copy the materials or inspect the premises except pursuant to an order of the court by which the subpoena was issued. If objection has been made, the party serving the subpoena may, upon notice to the person commanded to produce, move at any time for an order to compel the production. Such an order to compel production shall protect any person who is not a party or an officer of a party from signiflcant expense resulting from the inspection and copying commanded. (3XA) On timely motion, the court by which a subpoena was issued shall quash or modify the subpoena if it 0) (ii) fails to allow reasonable time for compliance\nrequires a person who is not a party or an officer of a party to travel to a place more than 100 miles from the place where that person resides, is employed or regularly transacts business In person, except that, subject to (B) (Hi) (iv) If a subpoena (0 (ii) the provisions of clause (cX3XBXiii) of this rule, such a person may in order to attend trial be commanded to travel from any such place within the state in which the trial is held, or requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter and no exception or waiver applies, or subjects a person to undue burden. requires disclosure of a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information, or requires disclosure of an unretained expert's opinion or information not describing specific events or occurrences in dispute and resulting from the expert's study made not at the request of any party, or (iii) requires a person who is not a party or an offlcer of a party to incur substantial expense to travel more than 100 miles to attend trial, the court may, to protect a person subject to or affected by the subpoena, quash or modify the subpoena or, if the party in whose behalf the subpoena is issued shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met without undue hardship and assures that the person to whom the subpoena is addressed will be reasonably compensated, the court may order appearance or production only upon specified conditions. (d) DUTIES IN RESPONDING TO SUBPOENA. (1) correspond with the categories in the demand. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents shall produce them as they are kept in the usual course of business or shall organize and label them to (2) When information subject to a subpoena is withheld on a claim that is privileged or subject to protection as trial preparation materials, the claim shall be made expressly and shall be supported by a description of the nature of the documents, communications, or things not produced that is sufficient to enable the demanding party to contest the claim.Exhibit \"A' II Please produce the following: All documents pertaining to communications between the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Judge Susan Webber Wright or her law clerks pertaining to LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and/or LRSD's compliance therewith from January 21, 1998, to the present, not previously made available to the parties in this case. Incorporating the definitions set forth below, the documents to be produced include, but are not limited to, notes of any meetings between anyone from ODM and Judge Susan Webber Wright, briefing documents prepared by anyone from ODM for Judge Susan Webber Wright, calendar entries which reflect the dates and times of meetings between employees of ODM and Judge Susan Webber Wright\nany email communications between the ODM and Judge Susan Webber Wright and any other documents in any form which reflect the substance of communications between the ODM and Judge Susan Webber Wright which have not been previously made available to the parties in this case. Definitions \"Document\" shall mean any original written, typewritten, handwritten, printed or electronically recorded material, as well as all tapes, disks, non-duplicate copies and transcripts thereof, now or at any time in your possession, custody or control\nand, without limiting the generality of the foregoing definition, but for the purposes of illustration only, \"document\" includes notes, correspondence, memoranda, business records (stored electronically or otherwise), e-mails, diaries, calendars, address and telephone records, photographs, tape recordings and videotapes. \"Pertaining to \" shall mea n constituting, embodying, arising out of, incident to, referring to, mentioned, bearing upon, reflecting, evidencing, affecting, concerning, providing evidence for, or relating to the transaction, individual, entity, act, object, conference, contention, communication, allegation or activity identified. \"Communication \" shall mean every manner or means of disclosure, transfer or exchange, and every disclosure, transfer or exchange of information whether orally or by document or whether face to face, by telephone, U.S. mail, e-mail, personal delivery, or otherwise. \"Office of Desegregation Monitoring\" or \"ODM\" shall include all persons employed by or otherwise working on behalf of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas.AO 8S (Rev. 11/91) Subpoena in a Civil Case UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW__*_ RECEIVED NOV 1 3 ?001 DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL UlTlbL u. DESEGREGATION MONITOm INTERVENORS SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM TO: MS. ANN MARSHALL Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the United States District Court at the place, date, and time specified below to testify in the above case. PLACE OF TESTIMONY COURTROOM DATE AND TIME [X] YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the place, date and time specified below to testify at the taking of a deposition in the above case. PLACE OF DEPOSITION Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, LLP 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 DATE AND TIME Wednesday, November 14, 2001 9:00 a.m. (until completed) [XI YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce and permit inspection and copying of the following documents or objects at the place, date, and time specified below (list documents or objects): See the attached Exhibit A. PLACE Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, LLP 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 DATE AND TIME Wednesday, November 14, 2001 9:00 a.m. (until completed)  YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit inspection of the following premises at the date and time specified below. PREMISES DATE AND TIME Any organization not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shall designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may set forth, for each person designated, the matters on which the person will testify. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 30(b)(6). ISSUING OFFICER SIGNATURE AND TITLE (INDICATE IF ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT) , Attorney for Plaintiff DATE November 9, 2001ISSUING OFFICER'S NAME. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER John C. Fendley, Jr. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, LLP 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-2011 AO 88 (Rev. 11Z9I) Subpoena in a Civil Case (See Rule 45. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Parts C \u0026amp; D on Reverse) PROOF OF SERVICE DATE PLACE SERVED ON (PRINT NAME) SERVED BY (PRINT NAME) SERVED MANNER OF SERVICE TITLE DECLARATION OF SERVER I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing information contained in the Proof of Service is true and correct. Executed on DATE SIGNATURE OF SERVER ADDRESS OF SERVERRule 45, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Parts C \u0026amp; D: (c) PROTECTION OF PERSONS SUBJECT TO SUBPOENAS. (1) A party or an attorney responsible for the issuance and service of a subpoena shall take responsible steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to that subpoena. The court on behalf of which the subpoena was issued shall enforce this duty and impose upon the party or attorney in breach of this duty an appropriate sanction, which may include, but is not limited to, lost earnings and a reasonable attorney's fee. (2XA) A person commanded to produce and permit inspection and copying of designated books, papers, documents or tangible things, or inspection of premises need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless commanded to appear for deposition, hearing or trial. (B) Subject to paragraph (dX2) of this rule, a person commanded to produce and permit inspection and copying may, within 14 days after service of the subpoena or before the time specifled for compliance if such time is less than 14 days after service, serve upon the party or attorney designated in the subpoena written objection to inspection or copying of any or all of the designated materials or of the premises. If objection is made, the party serving the subpoena shall not be entitled to inspect and copy the materials or inspect the premises except pursuant to an order of the court by which the subpoena was issued. If objection has been made, the party serving the subpoena may, upon notice to the person commanded to produce, move at any time for an order to compel the production. Such an order to compel production shall protect any person who is not a party or an officer of a party from significant expense resulting from the inspection and copying commanded. (3XA) On timely motion, the court by which a subpoena was issued shall quash or modify the subpoena if It (I) () fails to allow reasonable time for compliance\nrequires a person who is not a party or an officer of a party to travel to a place more than 100 miles from the place where that person resides, is employed or regularly transacts business in person, except that, subject to (B) (iii) (iv) If a subpoena (I) 00 the provisions of clause (cXJXBXUO of this rule, such a person may in order to attend trial be commanded to travel from any such place within the state in which the trial is held, or requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter and no exception or waiver applies, or subjects a person to undue burden. requires disclosure of a trade secret or other confldential research, development, or commercial information, or requires disclosure of an unretained expert's opinion or information not describing specific events or occurrences in dispute and resulting from the expert's study made not at the request of any party, or (iii) requires a person who is not a party or an officer of a party to Incur substantial expense to travel more than 100 miles to attend trial, the court may. to protect a person subject to or affected by the subpoena, quash or modify the subpoena or, if the party in whose behalf the subpoena is issued shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met without undue hardship and assures that the person to whom the subpoena is addressed will be reasonably compensated, the court may order appearance or production only upon specified conditions. (d) DUTIES IN RESPONDING TO SUBPOENA. (1) correspond with the categories in the demand. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents shall produce them as they are kept io the usual course of business or shall organize and label them to (2) When information subject to a subpoena is withheld on a claim that is privileged or subject to protection as trial preparation materials, the claim shall be made expressly and shall be supported by a description of the nature of the documents, communications, or things not produced that is sufficient to enable the demanding party to contest the claim.Exhibit \"A\" Please produce the following: All documents pertaining to communications between the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Judge Susan Webber Wright or her law clerks pertaining to LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and/or LRSD's compliance therewith from January 21, 1998, to the present, not previously made available to the parties in this case. Incorporating the definitions set forth below, the documents to be produced include, but are not limited to, notes of any meetings between anyone from ODM and Judge Susan Webber Wright, briefing documents prepared by anyone from ODM for Judge Susan Webber Wright, calendar entries which reflect the dates and times of meetings between employees of ODM and Judge Susan Webber Wright\nany email communications between the ODM and Judge Susan Webber Wright and any other documents in any form which reflect the substance of communications between the ODM and Judge Susan Webber Wright which have not been previously made available to the parties in this case. Definitions \"Document\" shall mean any original written, typewritten, handwritten, printed or electronically recorded material, as well as all tapes, disks, non-duplicate copies and transcripts thereof, now or at any time in your possession, custody or control\nand, without limiting the generality of the foregoing definition, but for the purposes of illustration only, \"document\" includes notes, correspondence, memoranda, business records (stored electronically or otherwise), e-mails, diaries, calendars, address and telephone records, photographs, tape recordings and videotapes. \"Pertaining to\" shall mea n constituting, embodying, arising out of, incident to, referring to, mentioned, bearing upon, reflecting, evidencing, affecting, concerning, providing evidence for, or relating to the transaction, individual, entity, act, object, conference, contention, communication, allegation or activity identified. \"Communication \" shall mean every manner or means of disclosure, transfer or exchange, and every disclosure, transfer or exchange of information whether orally or by document or whether face to face, by telephone, U.S. mail, e-mail, personal delivery, or otherwise. \"Office of Desegregation Monitoring\" or \"ODM\" shall include all persons employed by or otherwise working on behalf of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas.G. Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1922-1994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P A. BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR., P.A. JOE D. BELL, P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY, P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY, P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR.. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM HI. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR., P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL Ill. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. F A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN, P.A. RICHARD D. TAYLOR. P.A JOSEPH B HURST. JR., P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P A. ROBERT S. SHAPER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN HI. P.A. MICKAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III, P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL, JR., P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER, P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH, JR , P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER, JR., P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT, P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER, P.A. TONIA P. JONES, P.A. DAVID D. WILSON. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE, SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703-4811 TELEPHONE 501-885-2011 FAX 501-695-2147 JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GRAF, P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR.. P.A. JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO. P.A. R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.A. GREGORY D. TAYLOR, P.A. TONY L. WILCOX. P.A. FRAN C. HICKMAN, P.A. BETTY J DEMORY, P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON, P.A. JAMES W. SMITH. P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT. P.A. DANIEL L. HERRINGTON, P.A. MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK, JR. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL MICHAEL E, KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON PHILIP B. MONTGOMERY KRISTEN S. RIGGINS ALANG. BRYAN OF COUNSEL B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE, P.A. JOHN C, ECHOLS. P.A. A D- MCALLISTER 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2898 FAX 870-762-2918 November 9, 2001 CHRISTOPHER HELLER LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-1508 FAX 501-244-5344 hellerQfec.nat HAND DELIVERED Ms. Aim Marshall Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza RECEIVED NOV 2001 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 OffICEOf DESESREGmMOIOyHG Re: ODM Depositions Dear Ann: Please find enclosed copies of our Motion in Limine and Brief, which were filed today, as well as Deposition Notices and Subpoenas for yourself and members of your staff. As you can see from our Motion in Limine, we believe that the people in your office should not be allowed to testify in this proceeding. The purpose of the depositions is not to learn what a particular witnesses testimony might be in court, but only to determine whether the court has received extra-judicial information on the merits of the case from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. We believe we are required to investigate the possibility of extra-judicial communications on the merits of this case before the hearing continues on November 19, 2001. We therefore have little flexibility in the scheduling of the depositions but, if Tuesday or Thursday would be more convenient for you than Wednesday, we would be amenable to rescheduling for one of those days. Finally, please let me know whether you will accept service of the enclosed subpoenas or if it will be necessary for us to secure service in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.RECEIVED KOV ' 2001 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION QiRGtOfr LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS TO: NOTICE OF DEPOSITION Mr. Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Margie Powell Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 1 Ms. Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that at beginning at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, November 14, 2001, at the law offices of Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, LLP, 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000, Little Rock, Arkansas, that the undersigned will take the depositions upon oral examination of Gene Jones, Ann Marshall and Margie Powell, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure before a notary public or other officer duly authorized to administer oaths.You are notified to appear at such time and place and take part in the examination as you may be advised. Respectfully submitted, John C. Pendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 TEL: (501)376-2011 FAX: (501)376-2147 Attorneys for Plaintiff By\nC. Fendley, Jr. 4- F:\\HOME\\BBrown\\Fendley\\LRSD\\dcsegrcgalion\\DepoNotice2 wpd -2- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing pleading has been served by facsimile and U.S. mail on this 9* day of November 2001 upon: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Sammye Taylor Office of the Atttomey 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 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Dr. Ken James Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 W Markham Little Rock, AR 72202 Jl C. Fendley, Jr. F:\\HOME\\BBrown\\Fcndley\\LRSD\\desegregation\\DepoNotice2.wpd -3- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION IN LIMINE TO PROHIBIT TESTIMONY BY OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The ODM was created under the courts inherent equitable powers, at the direction of the Eighth Circuit, to replace the Office of Metropolitan Supervisor. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (8th Cir. 1990). The purpose of the ODM is to function as an \"agent\" of the court for the ongoing \"supervision or monitoring\" of the settlement agreement. Id. at 1386,1388. Indeed, the Eighth Circuit has made clear that the ODMs monitoring of the parties compliance with the settlement agreement is equivalent to monitoring by the court itself under its retained jurisdiction to oversee implementation of the settlement agreement. Id. at 1390\ncompare Jenkins v. State of Missouri, 890 F.2d 65, 67-68 (8th Cir. 1989) (noting that the creation of a desegregation monitoring committee at the remedial stage was within the courts inherent equitable powers). The only intimation of a testimonial role for the ODM in the opinions of the Eighth Circuit is with regard to its budgetary process. In Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 971 F.2d 160, 166 (8th Cir. 1992), the Eighth Circuit held that the parties wereentitled to review the ODMs proposed budget and to submit recommendations and objections to the court. The Eighth Circuit noted that there might be \"rare occasions when issues are of such importance that an evidentiary hearing is required,\" id., but such a hearing clearly would be limited to issues involving the budgetary needs of the ODM and the allocation of its funds. Since its creation, the ODMs primary function has been to monitor the school districts progress in meeting the requirements of the settlement agreement. See Order entered 1/18/91, Docket No. 1418 (vesting the ODM with the authority \"to monitor the school districts compliance with the settlement plans and settlement agreement\"). The ODM discharges this obligation through periodic reports to the court and the parties, typically drawing upon statistical and other information provided by the school districts. The ODM also facilitates collaboration among the parties by serving as a conduit for informal communication and information-sharing. See Order entered 10/24/94, Docket No. 2319 (charging the ODM with \"coordinating among the parties the plan modification process\" for a proposed change in the Desegregation Facilitators title and duties)\nand Order entered 12/27/96, docket No. 2901 (authorizing the ODM to \"participate in negotiations as a facilitator\" with regard to proposed modifications to the LRSD desegregation plan). The ODMs collaborative function was given formal expression in Section 8.2.4 of the LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, dated January 16, 1998, which requires the ODM to attempt to facilitate agreement between the LRSD and a party seeking to resolve a compliance issue. The ODM cannot fulfill its functions of encouraging collaboration among the parties or facilitating agreement on compliance issues if it adopts a partisan position or is perceived as partisan. If the members of the ODM are called to testify, then the parties have a fundamental right to cross-examine them. See Reilly v. United States, 863 F.2d 149, 159 (1st Cir. 1988) (noting that 2the parties had no right to cross-examine a technical advisor appointed by the court, provided that 'the advisor was not an evidentiary source\"). Likewise, making reports available to the parties regarding the ODM witnesses findings and allowing depositions in advance of the hearing would be important procedural safeguards. Id. at 156 (noting that depositions and cross-questioning are inapposite if a court advisor makes no findings and supplies no evidence)\ncompare PRE 706(a) (setting procedural requirements for expert witnesses appointed by the court, including advising the parties of the witness findings, submitting to depositions, and being subject to cross-examination by each party, including the party calling the witness). Indeed, due process requires an evidentiary hearing before evidence supplied by the ODM or any other source may become the basis for findings of fact by the court. JuanF.v. lPe/cA:er, 37 F.3d 874, 880(2d Cir. 1994)\n^A:er5 v. Ohio Department of Liquor Control, 902 F.2d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1990). The LRSD will be at a significant disadvantage if it opposes the ODM witnesses testimony. yet it appears to have no other option. The Federal Monitor has already stated publicly that the LRSD \"is not ready for unitary status.\" Such a statement lies near the heart of the ultimate issue and cannot go unreported or unchallenged if the ODM becomes an evidentiary source at all. Since the Federal Monitor is an appointee of the court, not as an expert witness or technical advisor, but as an agent for \"supervision or monitoring,\" Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d at 1388, to oppose the Federal Monitor is very nearly to oppose the court itself. The ODM has further been clothed with neutrality by a decade of experience in interacting with the court and with the parties on an impartial basis. It is not to be expected that the court can impartially weigh a conflict in the evidence between its own agent and the LRSDs witnesses. Therefore, the ODM must be strictly circumscribed to its non-partisan, non-testimonial role. See In re Kansas City 3Star Co., 73 F.3d 191,193,196 (Sth Cir. 1996) (noting that a desegregation monitoring committee was an II arm of the court\" whose authority \"must be strictly monitored and carefully tailored to match the requirements of its mission\"). Finally, the change in the ODMs role from monitor to witness, which was alluded to by the court at the hearing on June 29,2001 and which has been raised formally by the Joshua Intervenors decision to name three ODM members as witnesses, raises serious questions concerning the courts impartiality. In Edgar v. K.L., 93 F.3d 256 (7th Cir. 1996), the Seventh Circuit disqualified a district judge in litigation challenging the constitutionality of the Illinois mental health system. The Seventh Circuit found that at least one ex parte meeting between the court and the members of a court- appointed panel of mental health experts had addressed the merits of the case. The Court noted that the \"discussions in chambers were calculated, material, and wholly unnecessary\" and that two members of the panel had become partisan by their public criticisms of the states mental health system. 93 F.3d at 259-260\ncompare Association of Mexican-American Educators v. State of California, 231 F.3d 572,591 (9th Cir. 2000) (finding no evidence that the district court relied upon a court-appointed technical advisor as \"a source of evidence\")\nand Liddell v. Board of Education of City of St. Louis, 105 F.3d 1208, 1211-1212 (Sth Cir. 1997) (noting a ruling by the district court that court-ordered negotiations between a settlement coordinator and the parties \"would be confidential from the court and outside parties\" and that the coordinator \"would not recommend to the court how the case should be resolved\"). The district judge in Edgar v. K.L. was disqualified on the basis of 28 U.S.C.  455(a) and (b)(1), which requires disqualification when the impartiality of the court might reasonably be questioned, or when the court has acquired personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts, respectively, and Canon 3A(4) of the Code of Conduct for United States 4Judges, which prohibits a judge from considering ex parte communications on the merits or on procedures affecting the merits. 175 F.R.D. 363, 367 (1998). CONCLUSION The LRSD seeks only an impartial hearing on its request for recognition of its achievements in complying with its desegregation obligations and its attainment of unitary status. Such a hearing cannot be had in fairness to the LRSD if the historic role of the ODM is now changed from that of a monitor and facilitator to that of a material adverse witness. For this reason, and for the reasons set forth above, the LRSD requests the court to prohibit testimony by the ODM at the hearing on the LRSDs request for unitary status. Respectfully submitted. Little Rock School District, Robert S. Shafer Christopher Heller and John C. Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 (501)376-2011 By- TSt^her Helie^j^^^^NA 81083 5CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following persons by mail on November 9, 2001: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen 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 Ms. Ann Marshall (Hand Delivered) Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagameier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller F:\\HOME\\BRENDAK\\lrsd\\deseg-mcmorandum wpd 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION NOV/ J ?00l LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MOTION IN LIMINE TO PROHIBIT TESTIMONY BY OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Comes the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), by its undersigned attorneys, and for its motion in limine to prohibit testimony by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\"), states: 1. Counsel for the Joshua Intervenors has given notice that three members of the ODM will be called as witnesses for the Intervenors at the hearing on unitary status. 2. The ODM was created as an arm of the court for the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the settlement agreement. Pursuant to that purpose, the ODM (i) operates under a budget approved by the court and subject to the courts broad discretion, (ii) has access to school district personnel and to information concerning the school districts, (iii) reports to the court and to the parties regarding progress with the requirements of the Districts desegregation plans, (iv) serves a collaborative function in identifying and facilitating discussion among the parties with regard to desegregation remedies, and (v) facilitates agreement between the Joshua Intervenors and the LRSD with regard to compliance issues under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 3. It is contrary to the purpose and function of the ODM for its members to testify as witnesses on adversarial issues between the parties, particularly the issue of unitary status. Testimony by ODM members regarding the factual predicates for unitary status will be perceived as either hostile or favorable to particular parties. It will be the duty of counsel to cross-examine the ODM witnesses for bias or impeachment. In short, appearing as a witness on the issue of unitary status is contrary to the ODMs long-standing and historic function as an agent of the court and destructive of its collaborative and facilitating role with the parties. 4. If the members of the ODM are permitted to appear as witnesses on the issue of unitary status, then the LRSD has a due process right, supported by Rule 706(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence (\"FRE\"), to depose them with regard to their expected testimony and to cross-examine them at the hearing. The LRSD will be entitled to explore (i) whether the ODM witnesses have formed conclusions or opinions regarding the LRSDs request for unitary status, (ii) the basis for those conclusions or opinions, and (iii) the witnesses credibility. 5. The issue of credibility will place the parties in the untenable and unfair position of asking the court to disbelieve witnesses who (i) represent the remedial arm of the court itself, and (ii) have had more than a decade of experience in working with the court and the parties in the role of monitor and facilitator. The working relationship over that period of time includes numerous ex parte contacts between the ODM and the court. 6. The court stated at the hearing held on June 29, 2001 (i) that counsel for the Joshua Intervenors was free to call the members of the ODM as witnesses \"to the extent ... they have knowledge on the matters at issue,\" and (ii) that the court had spoken informally with an ODM staff member and that the court had no objection to such member sharing with the parties \"the information she has.\" (Transcript of 6/29/01 Hearing, 27-28) These statements by the court necessarily indicate a belief that the ODM has evidence which is relevant to the issue of unitary status and that is not 2merely cumulative of evidence that may be presented independently by the parties. 7. The LRSD is aware of a recent statement by the Federal Monitor in a public forum to the effect that the LRSD \"is not ready for unitary status.\" This circumstance indicates that the Federal Monitor (i) has formed an opinion or conclusion that is not strictly within the ODMs charge to act as a monitor for the court and a facilitator for the parties, and (ii) has aligned herself publicly and to a significant degree with the position of the Joshua Intervenors on the issue of unitary status. 8. Independently of the ODM witnesses testimony on the merits, it is material to the LRSDs case whether the ODM and the court have had ex parte discussions on the issue of unitary status or related issues. If such discussions have occurred, issues arise concerning (i) whether the court has acquired personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.  455(b)(1), (ii) whether the impartiality of the court might reasonably be questioned, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.  455(a), and (iii) whether the court has considered ex parte communications on the merits or on procedures affecting the merits, within the meaning of Canon 3A(4) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. 9. The LRSD reserves it right to investigate whether there have been ex parte communications between the ODM and the court on any and all matters affecting the LRSDs right to an impartial hearing on its request for unitary status, and if so, to seek an appropriate remedy. WHEREFORE, the LRSD prays that the court prohibit testimony by members of the ODM at the hearing on the LRSDs request for unitary status, and for all other just and proper relief. 3Respectfully submitted, Little Rock School District, Robert S. Shafer Christopher Heller and John C. Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 (501)376-2011 Byf 'hristopher Heller, AR car No7 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following persons by mail on November 9, 2001: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen 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 4Ms. Ann Marshall (Hand Delivered) Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagameier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller F:\\HOME\\BRENDAK\\lnd\\dcscg-motion in limine, wpd 5 FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NOV 14 2001 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMES By\n___: ! W. McCqRMACK, CLEF CLERK sw LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. Let al.. Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al.. Intervenors. * * * * * *   * * * * * No. 4:82CV00866 SWW RECEIVED NOV 16 200! Office OF OESEGREGOiMQSRGftijia ORDER Now before the Court is the motion of the Little Rock School District to compel responses by Joshua Intervenors to LRSDs first set of interrogatories and requests for production, as well as Joshuas response. The Court previously addressed these discovery issues in relation to LRSDs second set of interrogatories and requests for production in the October 2, 2001 hearing on Joshuas motion for definition and clarification of the issues. For the same reasons set forth in that hearing, LRSDs motion to compel is hereby DENIED. LRSD is once again reminded that the hearings scheduled on November 19 and 20, 2001, concern Joshuas objections to the March 15, 2001 Compliance Report, in which the LRSD represented to the Court that the district had achieved unitary status. There is no reason to obfuscate the issue by complaining about Joshuas activities- Joshuas activities are not relevant unless such activities relate to the trustworthiness of evidence presented by Joshua. The Court looks forward to the LRSDs presenting evidence on November 19 and 20,2001, that the representations made in the Compliance Report are accurate and truthful, particularly as to the I 3^5 4 0issues of program evaluation and student discipline. IT IS SO ORDERED THIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2001 THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP BY. 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION U.S OraTWCT COURT eastern district ARKANSAS NOV 1 4 2001 JAMES yv McCOHMACK, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. l,etal.. Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al.. Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al.. Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * * * By\nNo. 4:82CV00866 SWW NOV 16 21ISI ORDER On November 13, 2001, the Court held a hearing in this matter to address the Little Rock School Districts November 9, 2001, motion in limine to prohibit testimony by Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The Court received the Joshua Intervenors November 13, 2001, response in opposition and motion to quash the deposition subpoenas shortly before that hearing. On the basis of the motions and response, and the arguments made at the hearing, the Court issues the following Order consistent with the Courts rulings at the November 13,2001 hearing. The LRSD requests that the ODM monitors be excluded as witnesses on adversarial issues, particularly the issue of unitary status now before the Court. The LRSD further seeks to depose certain ODM monitors to investigate whether there have been ex parte communications between the ODM and the Court concerning LRSDs request for unitary status. The LRSDs motion in limine to exclude the ODM monitors as witnesses is hereby denied. The Court regards the ODM monitors as employees charged with assisting the Court in performing its monitoring function, as directed by the Court of Appeals. The ODM monitors 3 5 3 9 have testified in this case on several occasions,' and the Court has relied upon their written reports and their testimony in many rulings. Some of these reports have benefitted the LRSD, which has been released from monitoring in several areas. LRSD has never questioned the accuracy or thoroughness of any reports, and in the most recent hearings LRSD witnesses testified to the usefulness of these reports and that the recommendations in the report on discipline had been followed. In the eyes of the Court, the testimony of the ODM monitors concerning their monitoring activities and information derived therefrom does not differ from the ODMs published reports which may be entered into the record. The testimony is subject to cross examination and the reports are subject to challenge by the parties. Even though the ODM has served the Court extremely well in this case, the Court will not decide the pending motion for unitary status, or any other motion, on the basis of any opinions of the ODM monitors, none of whom are lawyers. While the ODM may work for the Court, and thus the Court may engage in ex parte communications with the ODM concerning monitoring duties, the Court does not rely on the ODM to assist the Court in finding the relevant law and deciding the districts compliance therewith. The Court assures the parties that it does not decide motions on the basis of conversations with the ODM monitors. The ODM monitors work for the Court but do not speak for it. Much like the Courts law clerk is charged with the special responsibilities of assisting the Court in ferreting out the applicable law and preparing orders and opinions in this case, the ODM is charged with the special responsibility of assisting 'By way of example, ODM personnel have previously testified in this case as follows: Ann Marshall, 01-21-92, 06-30-98\nMelissa Guldin, 01-23-92, 05-29-92, 03-29-93, 04-19-93, 01- 27-94\nBill Mooney, 06-23-95, 08-11-95\nBob Morgan, 12-18-91, 06-23-95\nMargie Powell, 03- 19-93, 04-19-93, 11-17-93, 01-26-94, 06-30-98\nHorace Smith, 01-22-92, 03-19-93, 04-19-93, 11-17-93\nConnie Tanner, 04-19-93, 06-09-93, 01-27-94. 2the Court in performing its monitoring duties. While the Court may rely on ODM to make recommendations to the parties as a result of its monitoring, the Court does not rely on ODM to make recommendations concerning the disposition of this case. The Court decides the motions in this case in light of the applicable law and solely upon the record in the case, which, in this hearing, may or may not depending on the parties decisions as to the evidence to be presented include the testimony of the ODM monitors and the ODMs reports. In the eleven years that this judge has presided in this case, no party before now has publicly accused the Court or the ODM of bias. In the interest of maintaining impartiality in this hotly contested matter, the Court directed the desegregation monitor to provide any information she had to both sides if she provided it to either side. The Court is well aware that any witness may be biased. If the ODM personnel testify in this case, they may be treated like any other witness, and the parties may impeach their testimony and/or demonstrate such bias if and when appropriate. The Court wishes to make clear that although the Court has engaged in ex parte communications with the ODM desegregation monitor concerning her monitoring duties, the Court is not relying on ODM-produced information on the student discipline and program evaluation issues now before the Court. If the ODM monitors might be called as witnesses, the LRSD may take their depositions as requested, and the Court would waive its privilege as to any information on student discipline and program evaluation provided the Court by ODM. As previously stated, the Court notes that it is not relying on the ODM in this proceeding- rather, the burden rests upon Joshua to demonstrate a failure in compliance by LRSD with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Although in this instance the ODM has published no report. 3the ODM may still have information pertinent to the issues before the Court. However, it is up to the parties, if they so desire, to elicit this information and to bring it before the Court as part of the record. The Court does not, and will not, seek out any such information independently. In conclusion, the LRSDs motion in limine is hereby DENIED\nand Joshuas motion to quash is also hereby DENIED. There is no need to obfuscate the issue before the Court by, this time, pointing a finger at the Court or the ODM. Once again, the Court must direct the LRSD to focus on presenting evidence that its representations made in the March 15, 2001 Compliance Report are accurate and truthful, particularly as to the issues of program evaluation and student discipline. The Court looks forward to hearing this evidence on November 19-20, 2001. IT IS SO ORDERED THIS DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2001 hi: JUD UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON .BY V\\ ?------------ 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS AFFIDAVIT OF DR. LINDA BROWN I, Linda Brown, after being duly sworn, state under oath: I am the Principal of Parkview Arts and Science Magnet High School in the Little Rock School District and have been since July, 1998. I am also a member of Trinity Episcopal Cathedral. I attended Trinity Episcopal Cathedrals annual meeting in January 2001 and heard Judge Susan Webber Wright address the meeting. I have read the February 9,2001 article in The Insider Section of the Arkansas Times Newspaper. That article acurately describes Judge Wrights remarks at Trinity Episcopal Cathedrals annual meeting. Further the affiant sayeth not. lown STATE OF ARKANSAS) ) SS. COUNTY OF PULASKI) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, on this ^U^ay of November, 2001. My Commission Expires: \u0026amp; sr EXHIBIT si RE^ ^'7.3 NOV 16 2001 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OFFICE 0. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS AFFIDAVIT OF DR. DON STEWART I, Don Stewart, after being duly sworn, state under oath: I am the Chief Financial Officer of the Little Rock School District and have been since February 2000. On January 16,1998, the Little Rock School District Board of Directors approved the Little Rock School Districts Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan was subsequently approved by the District Court. The Revised Plan states that the Little Rock School District would be declared unitary and released from federal court supervision at the end of the 2000-2001 school year if the District substantially complied with the terms of the Plan. Soon after the LRSD Board of Directors approved the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, the District established a Compliance Committee. I was a member of that Committee. The responsibility of the Committee was to assure the Districts compliance with the Revised Plan. The Committee developed a compliance plan and a compliance handbook and, with few exceptions, met on a weekly basis to determine the status of LRSDs compliance and to resolve any compliance issues. The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan required that LRSD report to the District Court the status of its compliance on March 15, 2001. The Compliance Committee was charged J exhibit f 1with the responsibility to prepare the required compliance report. During the time the Committee was in the process of preparing that report, I had a conversation with federal monitor Ann Marshall. Ms. Marshall expressed to me her belief that the Little Rock School District was not ready for unitary status because some aspects of the Districts operation needed further attention. Further the affiant sayeth not. STATE OF ARKANSAS) ) SS. COUNTY OF PULASKI) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, on this of November, 2001. 03 'Q. iires: F: \\H0ME\\BRENDAK\\lr8d\\des-affidavit-Stewart .wpd otary Public -2- (2^ /\\ioTARyV i ^esa^ fee'I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS AFFIDAVIT OF BONNIE LESLEY I, Bonnie Lesley, after being duly sworn, state under oath: I am the Associate Superintendent for Instruction of the Little Rock School District and have been in this position since June 1998. Ann (Brown) Marshall has, over the past three years, been very helpful to me in my role both as an Associate Superintendent and as a member of the Compliance Team. She provided me with background information, history, and frequent advice. both substantive and process. In at least three conversations in the last several months, Ms. Marshall has expressed to me several opinions relating to the Districts position for unitary status. She told me that the three-year period of the plan was too short to accomplish all the necessary changes. She told me that the District might regret losing the protection of the federal court, especially as it relates to finances. And she most recently told me that she believed we should withdraw from our pursuit of unitary status and go back and \"do it right.\" When I asked her what she thought we had not done, she said. \"program evaluation - page 148.\" (I understood this to be a reference to page 148 of the March 2001 Compliance Report.) In this last conversation, it was my impression that she wanted me to relay that advice to my superintendent and to the attorneys, which I did. EXHIBIT IFurther the affiant sayeth not. ,esle\nSTATE OF ARKANSAS) ) SS. COUNTY OF PULASKI) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, on this of November, 2001. Notary Public My Commi^jsjPft^xpires: X X **nnH*** F:\\HOME\\BRENDAK\\lrsd\\des-affidavit-lesley.wpd -2-RECEIVtu IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION NOV16Z001 QfDKOF OBtSRESROM**'* LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 4\n82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS AFFIDAVIT OF SUE STRICKLAND I, Sue Strickland, after being duly sworn, state under oath: I am a member of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors and have been since September 1994. I have served as President, Vice President and Secretary of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors. On January 16,1998, the Little Rock School District Board of Directors approved the Little Rock School Districts Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan was subsequently approved by the District Court. The Revised Plan states that the Little Rock School District would be declared unitary and released from federal court supervision at the end of the 2000-2001 school year if the District substantially complied with the terms of the Plan. The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan required that the District file a report in the District Court on the status of its compliance with the Plan on March 15, 2001. During the time LRSD was preparing the report which would show that the District had substantially complied with its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, I had a conversation with federal monitor Ann Marshall. She told me that I should not let our Superintendent, Dr.^ Les Camine, pursue unitary status because the District was not ready for it and if we tried to get it we would only make Judge Susan Webber Wright mad. 1 1 s X EXHIBIT 4Further the affiant sayeth not. \u0026gt;ue Stricfcfand STATE OF ARKANSAS) ) SS. COUNTY OF PULASKI) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, on this /t^^day of November, 2001. My Commission Expires: V Fs \\HOME\\BRENDAK\\ lrsd\\des-affidavit-Strickland, wpd -2- otary Public B Multi-Page TM IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et. al., PLAINTIFFS, VS. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, DEFENDANT, LORENE JOSHUA, et. al., INTERVENORS, KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, et. al.. INTERVENORS. -X ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) X LR-C-82-866 received 16 ^soi - -o- - BE IT REMEMBERED that the above-entitled proceedings came on to be heard on Tuesday, November 13, 2001 before the HONORABLE SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, United States District Judge. - -o- - LRSD: Motion to take depositions of ODM. Motion in limine. --O-- COURT REPORTER: WAUNZELLE P. PETRE, CCR Debbye L. Petre, CCR Post Office Box 1027 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203-1027 PETRES STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-14112 APPEARANCES: ON BEHALF OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT: CHRISTOPHER HELLER, ESQUIRE JOHN C. FENDLEY, ESQUIRE Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ON BEHALF OF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT: M. SAMUEL JONES, III, ESQUIRE Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ON BEHALF OF NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT: STEPHEN W. JONES, ESQUIRE JAMES A. CARNEY, ESQUIRE Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ON BEHALF OF JOSHUA INTERVENORS: JOHN W. WALKER, ESQUIRE JOY SPRINGER, (NON-ATTORNEY) John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 South Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 ROBERT PRESSMAN, ESQUIRE Attorney at Law 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Massachusetts 02173 ON BEHALF OF KNIGHT INTERVENORS: RICHARD ROACHELL, ESQUIRE (Not Present) Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol Avenue, Fifth Floor Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-14113 APPEARANCES: (Continued.) ON BEHALF OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS: MARK HAGEMEIER, ESQUIRE Assistant Attorneys General Office of Attorney General 200 Tower Building 323 Center Street, Little Rock, Arkansas Suite 200 72201 ON BEHALF OF THE OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING: ANN MARSHALL, Federal Monitor POLLY RAMER, Office Manager HORACE SMITH MELISSA GULDIN MARJIE POWELL GENE JONES (Not Present) Office of Desegregation Monitoring 124 West Capitol Street, Little Rock, Arkansas Suite 1900 72201 - -o- - PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-14114 INDEX   * * WITNESS: Page: (None Present.) - -o- - EXHIBITS *  * it k (None Marked.) - -o- - Reporter's Certificate 29 - -o- - PETRE'S STENOGRT^H SERVICE (501) 376-14111 5 PROCEEDINGS 2   3 *  TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2001 4   5 THE MARSHAL: Please rise. The United 6 States District Court is in session. The 7 Honorable Susan Webber Wright presiding. 8 You may be seated. 10 11 12 THE COURT: Good afternoon. ALL : Afternoon. THE COURT: matters. I think we are here on two One involves the issue of whether 9 13 the LRSD will take the depositions of the 14 monitors tomorrow. And the other involves 15 the Motion in Limine filed by LRSD, is that 16 correct ? 17 18 19 MR. WALKER: THE COURT: motion, Yes, Your Honor. All right. I have read the and I read the response. Now, does 20 anyone have anything else to add? 21 MR. HELLER: Your Honor, I have just a 22 brief response. 23 -24 THE COURT: All right. MR. HELLER: Does the Court wants us to 25 argue the issue or just say whether or not we PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-14116 10 11 12 rest on our briefs, but I would like to say that we don't seek to prohibit the testimony of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring unless the Court allows their depositions. We very specifically said we believe the monitors' testimony in this matter is inappropriate, depositions. whether or not we take their And we've specifically said that we wanted to take their depositions for another purpose, not to determine whether or not court, or what their testimony might be in but to determine whether or not there 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 13 had been an ex parte communications on the 14 merits with the Court. 15 16 So, I thought we made that clear in the deposition subpoenas. that was our only 17 purpose for the depositions. 18 THE COURT: Well, let me just say now. 19 I have ex parte conversations with the 20 21 22 23 24 25 monitors, as I do with my law clerks, and I always have. I have always decided the case the motions on the merits. And in this instance, in your motion you seem to say that the Court must have evidence that it is going to consider and has personal PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-14117 1 knowledge of evidence in the case, which is 2 not true. 3 All of the evidence I am considering so 4 far. on the issues before the Court, is the 5 6 7 evidence that you've presented. and that is your Compliance Report and also. the evidence Joshua has submitted, that Joshua did not get 10 11 12 13 14 through monitors really. from the monitors. If Joshua got it I am not aware of it being part of the record in this case. I am aware that both sides had approached Ms. Marshall about the possibility of talking to her. And my instructions to her, and I think I said this on the record. 8 9 15 was that if she has information that you want 16 her to share with you. she should not do it 17 except when both of you are present. In 18 other words. she should share it with both 19 sides. 20 And that does not mean that I know what 21 information she has, because Joshua, unlike 22 other proceedings where I have relied on 23 -24 25 monitoring reports and all, Joshua, in this case, because of the terms of the settlement. has the burden of proof. PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-14118 1 And so, I have not been acquainted with, 2 or I shouldn't say acquainted with, I have 3 not been familiar with any information the 4 monitors might have. And she has Ms. 5 Marshall had told me that you all had asked 6 her, and I said. \"Don't talk to them unless 7 you talk to both of them, because this is an 8 adversary proceeding\". 9 And I would never gather information and 10 consider it without making it part of the 11 record of this case. That is wrong. that is 12 something a judge should never do, and I 13 think that in the 11 years that I have had 14 this case. I have decided the merits of the 15 issues before the Court on the record and not 16 on conversations I have had with the 17 18 monitors. For one thing. one I talk with. Ms. Marshall is the She is not a lawyer. none 19 of the monitors are lawyers. 20 I am the one who has to decide the case. 21 that is what I am paid to do. that is what I 22 am supposed to do. 23 Just as I have conversations with my law -_24 clerk about what they are doing, I have 25 conversation with Ms. Marshall about her PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-1411 I1 monitoring activities, but when it comes to 9 2 evidence that is relevant to this issue, 3 I don't know what evidence she has, except the 4 evidence that Joshua has entered. 5 if I did. I wouldn't consider it. 6 7 8 And even Now, as far as her being a witness, she has been a witness. she has been a witness many or several times. I don't know how 9 recently, but she and the other monitors have 10 been. And they are usually, when they are 11 witnesses, they have submitted reports and we 12 are basing court decisions on their evidence, 13 and I don't intend to do that. 14 I am not even sure that Mr. Walker is 15 going to call any of the monitors, but they 16 have been on his witness list for a long 17 time. And I presume that they are on the 18 witness list now that he has rested, but they 19 20 21 22 are for rebuttal purposes. Mr. Walker, is that why? MR. WALKER: is that correct. I have two and a half hours, as I understood, to use as I please, 23 Your Honor. -,24 25 THE COURT: MR. WALKER: Well, you have to be But it will basically be PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-14111 10 for cross-examination and rebuttal. 2 THE COURT: And you know, rebuttal has 3 to be rebuttal of something he didn't 4 anticipate. So, as far as ex parte 5 conversations, I will tell you right now. 6 I have ex parte conversations with Ms. 7 Marshall, as I do with other people who work 8 for the Court. 9 And I think that the law would be that 10 would be, you know. that those conversations 11 are privileged. but I certainly do not go 12 behind the scenes and consider evidence that 13 is not in the record, that is not subject to 14 cross - examination. That is why we have these 15 lengthy hearings. 16 And I don't know, you know, what else to 17 say about it. And if she has some evidence. 18 I told her to share it with both of you, not 19 just to share it with one side. in the 20 interest of being fair. I don't know whether 21 she has any, because she was not charged in 22 your plan with monitoring your compliance. 23 All the objections come from someone -2 4 25 else, and so she is not a party to the litigation and her burden was not to come PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-14111 forward with evidence. And so, as far as I 2 know and she certainly 3 with any to me. The only 4 considered is what Joshua 5 presented. 6 MR. HELLER: 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 -.24 25 11 hasn't come forward evidence I and you have Your Honor, first of all, it is not fair to say that the monitors have been on Joshua's witness list for any extended period initial witness which the Court required Joshua Court, of time. They were on an list of about 50 people. pared down in a hearing, and to tell the parties and the who he really intended to call. And at that point, the monitors were deleted from the witness list. and at that point I wrote Ann Marshall to say. \"Since you won't be a witness, we won't have to meet with you.\" resolved. But we So, are several things. that is how that was concerned. Your Honor, about First of all, that ODM has had a role in this case. as a facilitator and collaborator. in addition to the monitoring role. The monitoring been very well described. It is PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-1411 formal role hasn't described12 1 generally in the executive orders and in this 2 Court's orders. But there are 10 THE COURT: Well, I think it is described also in the New Plan, isn't it, that they will remain available, as a resource? MR. HELLER: Well, the New Plan says in Section Eight, Your Honor, that concerning Joshua's obligations to bring issues of plan non-compliance forward. The only steps in 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 that process after he brings them to the 12 School District's attention is to go to ODM 13 for facilitation. 14 And that is a role. if you look at the 15 orders throughout the decade concerning the 16 Pulaski County School District for 17 development of our revised plan and other 18 situations. The monitor has played in some 19 situations a facilitating role and has to in 20 others. 21 And there is nothing in the Eighth 22 Circuit decision converting the Office of 23 Supervisor to the Office of Desegregation -2 4 Monitoring, which suggests the testimonial 25 role. PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-1411 I1 2 13 And we believe. in fact, there is discussion in some of the other cases. 3 Jenkins and Lavelle about the role of the 4 monitors and it has to be strictly 5 circumscribed to fulfill their function. 6 And we believe the job can be conformed without 7 them having to take a testimonial role, and 8 they had done that for years prior to the 9 time they testified in Pulaski County in the 10 unitary status hearing. 11 THE COURT\nWell, hold it. Now, we have 12 had monitors testify numerous times, haven't 13 we? It's not just in the unitary status 14 hearing. We have had them testify as fact 15 witnesses with respect to compliance 16 17 18 MR. WALKER: THE COURT: MR. WALKER: Your Honor, I have on numerous occasions. You probably remember the 19 Court's use of Mr. Mooney with respect to 20 Little Rock's budget issues. Most of the 21 testimony began with Little Rock being the 22 23 -2 4 25 party before the Court. THE COURT: This is before No, they have both been before the Court. MR. WALKER: Well, I understand, but for PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-1411 I1 14 the longest period it was Little Rock, and 2 you recall them having the Board Members come 3 and sit in? 4 THE COURT: Oh, yes, I do remember that. 5 yes . 6 7 MR. WALKER: All right. Well, then all the monitors. or virtually all of the 8 monitors had occasions to have something to 9 say to the Court at one time or another, and 10 it was in Little Rock. 11 MR. HELLER: Well, Your Honor, my 12 position is that the job that was set out in 13 the Eight Circuit's Order and this Court's 14 Order, the monitors can be done without their 15 testimony. 16 They can provide reports to the parties 17 and the Court, and I think that is their 18 19 primary function. They can work as facilitator. and if issues come to the 20 attention of the parties or the Court that 21 require a hearing. then we can have a hearing 22 and resolve those things. 23 And the problem with the monitors 24 becoming witnesses is that it puts the 25 parties in a very difficult position. because PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-141115 1 the monitors have been described repeatedly, 2 as an arm of the Court. 3 I think in one transcript the Court 4 says, \"The monitors are a part of the Court\". 5 And at another place, just before Ann 6 Marshall's testimony in the PCSSD hearings. 7 the Court says. \"People tend to think that 8 when the monitor speaks she speaks for me. 9 10 11 but she doesn't.\" common perception. for the parties. And I think that's a So, it creates a problem 12 And I think in the way communication is 13 perceived in the public, if the parties are 14 required to oppose the people. who are 15 described as an arm of the Court, hired by 16 the Court, and in whom the Court has placed 17 its confidence over the last decade. 18 THE COURT: Well, this is the first time 19 any party in this litigation has called into 20 question whether the monitor should testify. 21 22 23 -J24 25 as to what she finds in her monitoring. can't testify. no one in the Office of Desegregation Monitoring can testify. whether the District is unitary. suggest that. She as to I have to PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-141110 11 12 13 14 15 16 I don't know why she shouldn't be able to testify, as to what she has found, if anything, with respect to the representations that the Little Rock School District has made in it's Compliance Report, to the extent that the office has information about that. And  again, if they have specific information they have not shown it to me. and the reason is we are pursuing it from a different direction. I emphasize to all concerned that this was Joshua, who has to carry the burden of proof, and it is Joshua's evidence. Now, i f Ms . Marshall has some evidence, she has not shared it with me. I don't have it, and the only thing I am going to look at 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 16 is what has been presented and received in 17 this Court. 18 And the Court now, she might have 19 20 21 22 23 -J2 4 25 some, any. I have not specifically asked her for I just said, \"If you have anything. share it with both parties at the same time.\" That has been the extent of my involvement. because I put the burden, as I should, I believe, under the plan. on Joshua. therefore, I don't believe I am Now, PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-14111 17 going to overrule your request that the 2 monitor be excluded. The monitor will be 3 4 5 6 7 8 treated like any other witness. You are free to impeach the monitor. You claim in your motion she has made statements or a statement against your client, and you may impeach her and put that on the record, to see if that is her if 9 she made that statement, and if she is biased 10 11 against your client on that basis. you are entitled to do that. I think if you have a 12 good faith basis for asking her that 13 question. 14 Now, keep in mind that I am not even 15 certain that Mr. Walker will call them, that 16 is up to him. All of the evidence I have 17 looked at so far has been Joshua's evidence. 18 and mostly from your School District 19 employees. 20 And I want you and Mr. Pendley to focus 21 on evidence to show the Court that what you 22 have presented to the Court on March 15 with 23 24 respect to your compliance was truthful. accurate, and honest\nspecifically with and 25 respect to the evaluations and the discipline. PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-141118 1 Those are the two areas we are focusing 2 on. That is what I am going to be focusing 3 on, not on what Ms. Marshall said or 4 anything, but she hasn't I don't need to 5 talk with her about this, all I need to do is 6 focus on the evidence in this hearing and the 7 hearings we've had previously and the ones 8 that we will have next week. 9 That is the focus of the Court. 10 And I don't think I am going to need her 11 testimony to make a decision. And I don't 12 think that but if Mr. Walker wants to get 13 her testimony into the record, he may. 14 15 Now, with respect to her deposition. you want to if she is going to be a if 16 witness and you want to take her deposition, 17 I think that is fine. And you may ask her 18 about ex parte communications, except those 19 to the extent that she might have given me 20 evidence. 21 But usually, any ex parte -- anything 22 like that is going to be absolutely 23 privi1eged. But if you want her to share 24 with you any evidence she has given me, I 25 will say I waive the privilege. PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-14111 MR. HELLER: So, I can assume, Your 2 Honor, is that doesn't really provide us an 3 adequate way to get at the problem if, in 4 fact, there have been ex 5 in which the monitor has 6 evidence on the merits. 7 THE COURT: Well, I 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19 parte conversations. provided the Court tell you what. I don't know how else to deal with this. I know that years and years ago, when I believe there was an Arkansas Democrat reporter. that right. was it remember I was all had had some major Democrat reporter? IS MS . MARSHALL: Business. THE COURT: It I thought it Anyway, office, wanted of me is some then a Democrat reporter? laid up from surgery. surgery. Was it a I I I believe it was Arkansas was Arkansas Business? was the Arkansas Democrat. reporter went to Ms. Marshall's it was Ms. Brown's office, and to see all her records. And my direction to her was show him all your records. to you or you privileged. I but any communications from to me, don't show him. look upon her just as I PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-1411 That1 would a law clerk, in 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 terms of the privilege of the communication. But if she had anything else, you know, to show that reporter, show him. ever came of it. And nothing She showed him the whole. you know, all of her files and everything else. And you know, I would tell her the same thing. tell you the same thing, the Democrat Gazette is here. look at whatever she has. She has been very thorough in her 11 reports. 12 Usually when an issue is before the 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Court, it is something that she has investigated and reported. and we have an opportunity for you to object and all. am and I not intending to rely on her for that. am going to place the burden on Joshua. so. if you want to depose her. right with me. Now, Ms . And that's all I think Mr. Jones is not here, but Powell is. I think you wanted to depose I 22 Gene Jones, Marjie Powell, and Ann Marshall, 23 is that right? 24 25 MR. HELLER: THE COURT: Yes, Your Honor. And that is fine with me. PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-14111 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 21 If they might be witnesses, I will certainly permit you to depose them. MR. HELLER: Let me just say, Your Honor, the Court's description of the monitor. as similar to your law clerk. we think is exactly correct. And I think the case law IS clear that a law clerk can never be deposed and can never be a witness. in a 10 11 case before the THE COURT: correct, except Court. Well, that is absolutely in this case. The Eighth 9 12 Circuit has told me to appoint a monitor. I 13 14 did, that . and the Eighth Circuit directed me to do And I will recite into the record now 15 all the times that Ann Marshall and someone 16 in her office has testified in this matter. 17 The record will reflect that on January 18 19 21, 1992, and on June 30, testified. Also, Ms. 1998 Ms. Marshall Guldin testified on 20 January 23rd, 1992, May 29, 1992, March 19, 21 1993, April 19, 1993 and January 27, 1994. 22 23 24 Bill Mooney testified June 23, August 11, 1995 . December 18, 1995 and Bob Morgan testified 1991 and June 23rd, 1995. 25 Marjie Powell testified March 19, ' 93 , PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-14111 2 3 4 5 6 22 April 19, '93, November 17, '93, January 26, ' 94 and June 3 0, Horace Smith testified January 22nd, '92, March 19, '93, April 19, '93, and November 17, Connie Hickman Tanner, testified April 19, '93, June 6, ' 93 ' 98 . ' 93 . and January 27, '94. 7 Again, anything that I frankly don't 8 even know whether Ms. Marshall has any 9 personal knowledge about the issues that are 10 before the Court today. If she does, she may 11 testify about them. 12 And I know that this case is unusual, 13 14 but I've received her testimony before. have received it and I I've received stuff from 15 her before that was very favorable to the 16 District, and in fact you have been released 17 from some of our supervision based on her 18 - that was based on her reports to this 19 Court. And I don't know how her testimony 20 differs from her monitoring reports in terms 21 of its evidentiary value. 22 And you know, the Court has considered 23 evidence when it went in favor of the 24 25 District, some Intervenors. even against the Joshua So, this is the way I have PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-141123 1 handled it in the past, but I can assure you 2 I will decide any motion before the Court 3 solely on the record, not on conversations 4 that I have with my law clerk or with her. 5 or with Ms. Marshall that is. 6 I don't know how else to handle it. 7 If it need be. the Eighth Circuit I am sure. can 8 give me guidance with respect to the 9 procedures I should follow. 10 I have always tried to stay on the record with the parties. 11 and I will continue to do that. I don't have 12 ex parte conversations with the parties, but 13 I do with the monitor. 14 And so, my ruling is you may take the 15 16 depositions. Mr. Walker, are you available for deposition - I mean. are you available. 17 if they want to depose Ms. Marshall? 18 MR. WALKER: Yes, I am. I am available 19 tomorrow. 20 21 THE COURT: MR. WALKER: All right. Anyway I had understood that that 22 was the date that Mr. Heller wanted to take 23 24 her deposition. Your Honor, Your Honor, this I think. what Mr. Heller is really saying. 25 if you look at the last paragraph, the next PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-141124 1 to last paragraph of Mr. Heller's motion, he 2 is really asking the Court to recuse. 3 And his statement to the Court indicated that by 4 analogy to a law clerk, that that was the 5 Court's general view. he picked up on that. 6 I think that he should be man enough on 7 the record to reflect that he is really 8 asking the Court to recuse. And that way we 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 can address that issue. I don't think that we are here on the depositions tomorrow, they are to be taken. to afford him an if opportunity to inquire outside of the facts of this case about various things that are unrelated to this motion into the relationship of the monitor. THE COURT: I just said that any evidence that Ann Marshall has given me about the motions before the Court, which are your objections to the discipline and the evaluations, you know, she can give to him. MR. WALKER: THE COURT: Well, Your Honor I have your evidence, which is before the Court, but I don't anticipate receiving any, you know, I don't - I call Ms. Marshall, as sometimes a witness when I have 9 PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-141125 1 an issue, or call one of her monitors, and I 2 didn't anticipate calling them in this 3 matter. I frankly did not. 4 And sometimes I ask her for evidence and 5 documents and what have you before a hearing. 6 and I didn't, because I am counting on 7 because Mr. Walker has the burden of 8 proof. I can't make it clearer than that. 9 And it is up to Mr. Walker whether he wants 10 to call her. 11 MR. WALKER: Your Honor, my only concern 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 is that Mr. Heller not be in a position where tomorrow, anyway. he asks about the various communications and conversations that Ms. Brown or any of her staff have had directly with you. THE COURT: all the time. Well, I think we we talk You know, we get on the 19 telephone, and we talk a lot about this case. 20 21 22 about her monitoring activities. know, all of that is privileged. is privileged. And so, you All of that 23 But to the extent that she has provided 24 25 me with evidence about your case. her to show it to you. I direct because I don't PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-14111 2 3 4 26 remember what it was. Maybe she has given me something, and I don't remember it. MR. WALKER: That's fine, Your Honor. THE COURT: And I don't intend to rely 5 on anything she says or any opinion she has. 6 because I have always said it is up to 7 Joshua, you know, the compliance report was 8 filed as scheduled. and the Little Rock 9 School District at that point was 10 presumptively in compliance until someone 11 carries the burden of proof, to show that 12 they are not. 13 14 Mr. Walker filed his objections. now we are in the midst of whether and so of 15 finding whether his objections are well 16 taken. And all of this. pursuing Ms. 17 Marshall or the Court or anything like that. 18 trying to point the finger at me, when you 19 should be trying to determine whether, in 20 21 fact, you have evidence to support your compliance statement of March 15, 2001, 22 particularly with respect to those two 23 areas. That is what I am going to be looking 24 at . 25 And I anticipate that you will have PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-14111 27 evidence to show me that what you presented 2 3 4 5 is accurate, as I said earlier. Are there any other issues? MR. HELLER: No, Your Honor. MR. WALKER: No, Your Honor. 6 COUNSEL: (Indicated no or no response.) 7 THE COURT: If you want to take her 8 deposition or the deposition of Ms. Powell, 9 that is fine. Mr. Jones is out of town. she 10 tells me. 11 MS. MARSHALL: He is out of the state. 12 Your Honor. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 THE COURT: All right. MS. MARSHALL: can be located. THE COURT: MR. WALKER: I have no idea where he Okay. Your Honor, we will not impose an objection for us taking Mr. Jones' deposition after Court on Monday, if they want to do that, that's the 19th. THE COURT: All right. And keep in mind. this is not I am not going to 23 receive testimony in this hearing from a 24 monitor on that monitor's opinion on unitary 25 status . That is improper. and I would not do PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-141110 11 12 13 14 28 that. That is up to me to decide. I don't receive opinions like that, that is strictly a judicial determination. And keep in mind the monitors are not lawyers. And I am not even sure the extent to which the monitors are aware of what is going on in other courts, because their job is just to determine compliance with your plans, plural. And that is what they do, they just try to find out whether you are doing what you had promised to do in your Consent Decrees. And unitary status is something entirely different. And I am very aware of that, and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 15 I know that is why I am paid, although 16 nothing extra. I might add. 17 Anything else? 18 19 20 21 MR. HELLER: THE COURT: MR. WALKER: (THEREUPON, No, Your Honor. All right. No, Your Honor. at 3:00 p.m., the taking of 22 the above-entitled hearing was concluded.) 23 - -o- - 24 25 PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-141129 CERTIFICATE STATE OF ARKANSAS SS . : COUNTY OF HEMPSTEAD ) ) ) I, Waunzelle P. Petre, Certified Court Reporter and notary public in and for the County of Hempstead, State of Arkansas, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full. true and correct transcript of the proceedings had in the entitled and numbered cause on the date hereinabove set forth. The said proceedings were reduced to typewritten form by me or under my supervision and the same fully. truly and correctly reflects the proceedings had. WHEREFORE, I have subscribed my signature and affixed my notarial seal as such notary public at the City of Hope, County of Hempstead, State of Arkansas, this 15th day of November 2001. K iQiuui JU TV T TXT rz rn T T n WAUNZELLE IE . PETRE, CCR NOTARY PUBLIC IN ANIX-.FOR  SGUNTYT^ ARKANSAS HEMPS TE, LS CERT ICATE #119 i I I My Commission Expires: . December 19, 2009 . , PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-1411Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866SWW 6 7 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS 8 9 10 MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL RECEIVED INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL NOV 1 6 2001 INTERVENORS 11 12 13 UfriCt Or OeSEGREGATiON MOWTOflINQ k k k k k k Jr Jr  k * k k * * * * * * * -k * * 14 ORAL DEPOSITION OF ANN MARSHALL 15 (Taken November 14, 2001) 16 k k k k Jr k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k Jr k 17 18 APPEARTVNCES: 19 20 21 22 On Behalf of the Plaintiff MR. CHRIS HELLER and MR. CLAY FENDLEY Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 23 24 25 I? EXHiBIT 1 2 3 On Behalf of North Little Rock School District MR. J. ALLEN CARNEY Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Page 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 On Behalf of Intervenors Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al MR. JOHN WALKER Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ALSO PRESENT: JOY SPRINGER, TAMMY DOWNS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 4 ANSWERS AND DEPOSITION OF ANN MARSHALL, a witness produced at the request of the Plaintiff, taken in the above-styled and numbered cause on Wednesday, the 14th day of November, 2001, before Jerry R. Lawson, CCR, a Notary Public in and for Jefferson County, Arkansas, commencing at 2:40 p.m., at the offices of Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000, Little Rock Arkansas 72201, pursuant to the agreement hereinafter set forth. STIPULATIONS IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED BY and between the parties through their respective counsel that the deposition of ANN MARSHALL may be taken for any and all purposes according to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Page 3 Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 INDEX TOPIC Stipulations PAGE 4 Witness Sworn In: Ann Marshall Examination by Mr. Heller Examination by Mr. Walker Further Examination by Mr. Heller Further Examination by Reporter's Certificate Mr. Walker 5 5 118 125 129 133 EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Eidiibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 23 23 23 24 24 80 (Exhibits Attached Following Transcript.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS WHEREUPON, ANN MARSHALL, having been called for examination by counsel for the Plaintiff, and having first been duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: EXAMINATION BY MR. HELLER: Q. Would you tell us your name and address, please, Ms. Marshall. A. Ann Marshall, 1 Riviera Circle, Little Rock, Arkansas. Q. Okay. And how are you employed? A. Im a desegregation monitor for Judge Susan Webber Wright. Q. Would you review for us briefly your education. A. I have an undergraduate from Hendrix College in English. I have an advanced degree in volunteer management from the Arkansas Public Administration Consortium. I'm certified in planning and training with the Institute of Cultural Affairs. I'm a certified master trainer with the National Association of Partners in Education, which is headquartered in Washington, D C. Q. Do you have any other certifications relating to 2 (Pages 2 to 5)Page 6 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 \u0026lt;) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the field of education? A. Not that are current Q, Have you previously been certified in the field of education? A Q A Q A Q Yes. What certifications did you hold? English. Okay. And you're certified to teach English? Yes. And would you review briefly your employment history. A. How long do you want me to go  how far would you like for me to go back? Q. Well, let's- A. Do you want me to start now and go backwards? Q. Let's start at the beginning of the things related to education. A. I taught English and science in Forrest City from approximately 1970 to 1972. 1 moved to Little Rock and was the -- no, I'm sorry, that's incorrect. 1 was an order editor for Eaton Hoisting Equipment in Forrest City for approximately a year and a half. Then I moved to Little Rock, and 1 was the first woman employed as an epidemiologist in the field of venereal disease for the State Health Department. 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 8 Q. Prior to the time you assumed your position as the director of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, what was your highest salary, approximately? A. 1 don't recall. Are you saying as an associate in the -- Q. Well, let's say  A.  Office of Metropolitan Supervisor? Q.  before you went to work for the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor, what was the highest paying job you held? A. Probably coordinator of Volunteers in Public Schools and Partners in Education. Q. And approximately what did that pay? A. I have no recollection, Chris. I could - somewhere probably in the high 4O's. I'm not sure. It's been a long time. Q. And do you recall what your beginning salary was with the Office of Metropolitan Supervisor? A. No, I don't. Q. Okay. Do you recall what your beginning salary was as director of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring? A. I believe it was ninety-eight five in that - perhaps ninety-eight. 1 don't recall exactly. But that's close. Page? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Then I joined the Little Rock School District as the coordinator of Volunteers in Public Schools. I was in that position until approximately 1984, '85, when 1 was employed by the Arkansas Department of Education as a coordinator to develop the Arkansas School Volunteer Program. I remained in that position for about a year. 1 returned to the Little Rock School District as coordinator of Volunteers in Public Schools. Also during that time, I was coordinator of Partners in Education. I was employed by Mr. Revelle as an associate monitor in the Office of Metropolitan Supervisor beginning in 1989. '88 or '89. And since that time with the conversion of the office to the Office of Desegregation Monitonng, I've been employed steadily, assuming the position of monitor in April of 1991. Q. Okay. Did you teach in Forrest City for one year or two years? A. Approximately a year and a half. Q. Okay, And which school or school district did you  A. Forrest Academy. Q.  teach in? A. It was Forrest Academy. It was a private school. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 9 Q. So, you've never worked as a school administrator, principal or assistant principal or anything like that? A. Ive worked as an administrator in a school district by virtue of my employment, on the administrative salary scale, in Partners in Education, but I have not been a principal or an assistant principal. Q. Have you received any training from the Arkansas Department of Education related to their new ACTAP system and benchmark exams or Smart Start or anything related to that new state curriculum standards and benchmarks? A. Training  can you be a little bit more specific? Q. Well, was there any formal training that you attended to learn about the ACTAP standards or the benchmark exams? A. I think the sessions that 1 attended would be more accurately called awareness sessions. To me, there is a distinction behveen awareness and training. But 1 did attend a session that was to begin to help people understand what was coming. Q. Do you know whether or not ADE offers any formal training related to the implementation of ACTAP, the benchmark exams or the ciuriculum standards? 3 (Pages 6 to 9)Page 10 Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 (\u0026gt; 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Yes, they do for the  for the State's teachers and administrators. Q. Has anyone in your office received such training? A. I believe that Gene Jones has attended sessions. Q. How would you describe your relationship with Judge Wright? A. She's my supervisor. Q. Do you ever see Judge Wright socially? A. As far as--well, 1 see her at lunch. We share lunch. She's in - it's her custom to take staff members to lunch for their birthdays, and I'm asked to join that. She and I attend the same church\nand so we occasionally will see each other at services, although she tends to go to the early service and I tend to go to the later one. Q. Okay. Have you been to her home or has she been to your home? A, I was  she's never been to my home. 1 was in her home approximately maybe eight or nine years ago. It's been a long time. Q. And has Judge Wright ever been to your offices? A. She's been to the new offices one time, to see them. And before that in our old offices when we were over at the River Market, she was also there one time, to see  just to see what we've done with the space. 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 telling you what to do, because I'm not representing you. But I would suggest to you tliat's not within the scope of what she told Cliris that he could talk about. THE REPORTER: She told what? MR. WALKER: Chris that he could inquire into. THE REPORTER: Thank you. MR. HELLER: Well, unless I heard incorrectly  A. I said \"no.\" Q. (By Mr. Heller) Have you ever asked the judge for legal or personal advice on any matters? A. Never. Q. Have you ever made any public appearances with her or worked on any speeches for her or anything like that? A. I don't know if we are where we're supposed to be\nbut I certainly don't mind telling you, no. Q A. Q. A. How would you define your job? Hard. Could you give us the expanded version? Sometimes harder than others. My role is to assist the Court in monitoring the school case. Q. And how do you go about that? 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 11 Q. Besides your office and her chambers, what places have you been together with the judge? A. Q A. Q To lunch. Do you consider Judge Wright to be a friend? A colleague. Do you ever discuss family or personal matters with her? A. Well, I think that the judge was clear yesterday that what passes between us is privileged. So, I guess I would hesitate to go there. Q. Well, I'm not asking you what may have been said in that regard but only whether or not you and the judge have such discussions. A. In general terms. She has a school-age child and I have school-age children. So, comments in a general nature. Q. Did she discuss with you her decision about whether or not to put her child in private school? MR. WALKER: Objection - A. No. MR. WALKER: - to that. I don't think that would be a proper subject for inquiry, and I would just flag that for presentation to the judge for inquiry. And I would suggest to you  I'm not 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 13 A. Well, a number of approaches. Primarily we monitor in three main modes. We review a number of documents that are produced by the school districts, some on a routine basis, others may be exceptional in nature. We make visits to the schools, and we - we observ'e. We look around. .And thirdly, we will talk to individuals. Sometimes those people call us, unsolicited phone calls. But those are the three primary modes by which we collect infonmation. Sometimes we will target a specific topic by virtue of perhaps a provision in the desegregation plan, an issue that has become prominent by one means or another. And then oftentimes we will make a formal written report to the Court. And, of course, you've had  you've seen a number of those documents. Q. What's the purpose of assisting the Court in monitoring a school case? A. To enable the Court to fulfill  MR. WALKER: Just a - A.  its charge. MR. WALKER: -moment. I'm going to object to that, too. Tliat - that is something that the Court can only determine and the Court of Appeals and that's already specifically reduced to writing. 4 (Pages 10 to 13)Page 14 Page 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Now, if there is another purpose that Ms. Brown  Marshall has identified and reduced to writing and the Court has agreed on and it's pretty clear, then I don't think that there would be any objection to her answering that. But other than that, I think that that's a question properly  a question more properly directed to the Court. Q. (By Mr. Heller) Let me tell you this, Ms. Brown, since I believe that before we went on the record - I'm sorry, Ms. Marshall -- before we went on the record, you said you had not been deposed before, correct? A. I don't ever remember having been deposed. Q. Okay. Well, the way this works is Mr. Walker can make objections for the record, but you will still be required to answer the question unless you personally decide not to. But he's not your lawyer. MR. WALKER: That's right. A. I understand that. Q. (By Mr. Heller) 1 suppose he can advise you not to answer a question, but it's up to us whether or not to do that, so -- A. Well, 1 really don't -- MR. WALKER: Ms. Marshall - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 had -- I'm  that's been so long. But I started to say I think that it was perhaps based on that of the Metropolitan Supervisor, but I don't have direct knowledge of that. Q. Okay. Do you know  so, are you saying that this job description you're referring to was in existence when you assumed the office? A. No, not the same job description. It was certainly modified after the Eighth Circuit's ruling, and  and 1 don't have any direct knowledge. Q. Okay. How is your job described in that document? A. I haven't looked at it in years, and I didn't review it for today. I didn't anticipate that question. (5. Is it a document that Judge Wright has approved in any way, to your knowledge? A. As far as I know, it's  it came from her office. Q. Have you ever discussed your job description with Judge Wright? A. Q A. Q Years ago when 1 was hired, yes. Has your job description changed over the years? You mean the written document? Well, first the written document, has that  when Page 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A.  know the protocol. MR. WALKER: --1 would --1 would ask on that kind of question you recess the deposition to let the Court answer that question or be directed, because you're not represented by counsel. But you have to  of course, like he says, you have to exercise your own choice. A. 1 do know that the judge is available should we need a ruling\nbut candidly, this is a new procedure for me and I don't understand the - I don't know the protocol. Q. (By Mr. Heller) Well, my only question is that you described your job as assisting the Court in monitoring the school case\nand my question is: To what end? What's the -- what's the purpose of that work? A. In order to supply information to the parties and to the Court that can be helpful, particularly in promoting compliance with the commitments that the parties have made. Q. Okay. Do you have a written job description? A. Q. A. Ido. Where did that come from? 1 believe that it was a modification of what 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 17 is the last time the written document was changed'.^ A. I don't know that it has changed. Q. Has it changed in die last five years, to your knowledge? A. I don't believe so. Q. Do you ever have discussions with Judge Wright about exactly what your job is and what you're trying to accomplish? A. Well, certainly we'd discuss what it is that my job is. She is my supervisor, and 1 report to her. Q. Well, can you relate any discussions you've had about what your job is with Judge Wright? A. No. I guess perhaps I don't understand your question. I'm not trying to be coy. I'm just trying to understand what you're saying. Q. Well, I'm trying to understand what the understanding is between you and Judge Wright about what your job is. And if it's accurately described in a written job description, if you can tell me about that\nor if it's not, you can tell me about whatever discussions you've had with the judge. A. I believe that it's correctly embodied in the job description. And I don't have that with me, but it's something that's available. Q. Well, is there anything that you recall about it 5 (Pages 14 to 17)1 Page 18 or can relate now about the understanding between you 2 with Judge Wright about what your job is? 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. WALKER\nWell, let me say one other thing. As I understand it, this is about to get information in preparation for the hearing on Monday. It is not to deal with the question of disqualification, since Mr. Heller was not ambitious enough, if  if courageous enough to make a motion to recuse the Court. So, 1 ask, Ms. Brown, that you limit your questions or - or that you call the judge to see whether your questions should be limited to matters that relate to the evidentiary hearing that is set for the 19th and the 20th. If he wishes to challenge the Court and her authority based on her personal relationship with you or anjlJiing else, he'll have ample time beyond the time to prepare that we are supposed to be spending getting prepared for this hearing on Monday. MR. HELLER: Well, if you'll read the deposition subpoena, it's limited to matters concerning Ms. Brown's relationship to the Page 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 disqualify the Court. MR. HELLER\nYou are not required to sit here. MR. WALKER: So, I suggest that we recess the hearing and call the judge. I suggest we do that. MR. HELLER: There's no reason to. MR. WALKER: Ms. Brown, do you mind  Ms. Marshall, do you mind doing that? THE WITNESS: Well, actually considering what I've just told you, this varies considerably from what I had been given to understand by you yesterday. So, perhaps that will be best thing to do. MR. WALKER\nThe deposition notice says one thing and what Mr. Heller said in court is another thing, and they both have to be taken together. And the Court  MR. HELLER: You're absolutely incorrect. I pointed out to the Court that you were wrong when you suggested that I wanted to take these depositions about what their testimony might be. I pointed out in court -- and it will show up in the transcript -- that we specifically asked to Page 19 Page 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Court, not what her testimony might be on Monday. And that's what we intend to pursue. A. From our conversations jesterday, Chris, what I understood you intended to ask me was about documents that 1 had shared with the Court, which I've prepared. Any other area, I have not reviewed. Q. (By Mr. Heller) Okay. Well, I -- and I understand that, and I'm just asking you for as much as you can remember about these issues. And we're certainly going to talk about the documents, but our purpose is to talk about the communications generally and the relationship generally behveen your office and Judge Wright. MR. WALKER: Well, let us - I would like to suggest that we recess the hearing and call the judge. My understand is that we weren't to be wasting time on matters that the Court is not going to be addressing at this hearing. Even though she said you could depose her, I don't tliink I want to be sitting in a room listening to you take the time that we're supposed to be spending preparing for trial on the 19th and 20th, trying to  for you to find ways to try to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 take these depositions concerning the communications between the Court and the monitor's office. MR. WALKER: Well, that's concerning the hearing on Monday\nand she said very clearly on the issues that are before the Court on  on Monday and Tuesday, she can only  Ms. Brown's -- or Ms. Marshall's testimony can only relate to the issues that she told us both that we could present. THE WITNESS: Well, I'm happy to share what documents I found, Chris\nbut my understanding was that that was the thrust of your inquiry. And since I don't  I'm not represented by any counsel and I'm not eager to be in the middle of a disagreement between you hvo, maybe the best thing would be to call Judge Wright. MR. HELLER: Well, let's -- before we do that, let's at least take a look at the documents that you've brought with you in response to the deposition subpoena. ,. Two that I've sent to the Court  and these A. actually went to Julie, and I sent those today and they were the conununication that -- thank you, Tammy -- 1 6 (Pages 18 to 21)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 22 got from you. saying that the documents still weren't ready, so I informed Julie. Whether those were shared with the judge. I truly do not know. But I did send them to the Court, because we're responsible for organizing the documents and I can't get my work done without them, so I notified my boss. In July, Chris, you sent me a letter, which you copied to the parties\nand I shared that with the Court. MR. FENDLEY: Do you want to mark these separately? MR. HELLER: No, I want to take a look at them first. A. And I shared with the Court the response that I sent to you, Chris, with the errors that we had discovered in the compliance report. That, of course, also went to all counsel and to Dr. James\nand I notified her that we had, by means of a - of a copy of this letter, that we had shared this information with you-all. And then on the 23rd of July, which is the same day, I sent a letter to Dr. James, which I didn't copy to anybody\nbut 1 did ultimately share that with the Court, because 1 was very frustrated in my monitoring by not being able to procure  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Page 24 (Marshall Exhibit No. 4 was marked for identification.) MR. HELLER: And the July 23rd letter to Dr. Ken James from Arm Marshall will be No. 5. (Marshall Exhibit No. 5 was marked for identification.) (By Mr. Heller) Are those all the documents that you've brought here in response  A. Yes. Q.  to our request? A. Yes. Q. Have you ever provided any other written document to the Court that hasn't been provided to the parties? A. This is it. When you say \"ever,\" within the last recent time\nbut I have - I can recall nothing that has been shared with the Court that has not been shared with you-all and ultimately been a part of the record at no time. That's not my -- that's not the way I work. Q. Insofar as you can recall, these are the only written documents that you've provided the Court in the last several years\nis that fair to say? A. Yes, other than what's been public. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 23 THE WITNESS: And I dont know if you need these or not, Jerry. MR. HELLER: Well. let's go ahead and mark these as exhibits to the deposition in the order in which youve provided them, starting with  let's make No. 1 the  Q. (By Mr. Heller) Is this the first one, the one with the  the longer of the two? A. Yes, that's the first one. Q. Okay. MR. HELLER: Let's make this first E-mail document Exhibit 1. (Marshall Exhibit No. 1 was marked for identification.) MR. HELLER: The second one will be E?diibit 2. (Marshall Exhibit No. 2 was marked for identification.) MR. HELLER: Then the letter to Ann Marshall, dated July 16, 2001, will be No. 3. (Marshall E.xhibit No. 3 was marked for identification.) MR. HELLER: Tlie response from Ann Marshall, dated July 23rd, 2001, will be No. 4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 25 Q. What do you mean by \"what's been public\"? A. Just exactly what I said a minute ago. that either I have reported to the Court in a published report or its been part of the record. Q. What work is it that you're trying to get done that you need our exhibits to do? A. Because we are the repository for many court records and  and actually 1 think that's really a matter of space. But we are very organized, and we organize the library. And so, documents that might accumulate in the Court's chambers are sent to us. When we received the voluminous number of documents for the summer hearings, you-all delivered them to us and then we organized them for the Court. As a matter of fact, they are very unwieldy, and I'm sure you can appreciate that, because it was so many papers. You know, we've even joked about the  the time that I measured them and it was ox er 7 feet. Its now over 9 feet. But we organized them into notebooks so that they would be readily accessible for the Court and for you-all, too. As a matter of fact, Polly said - she suggested that you might want to organize them in notebooks rather than just individual documents. And so. to finish that job. to expedite the proceedings and 1 (Pages 22 to 25)Page 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 hopefully make it easier on all of us, we're trying to organize them. And that's why we didn't have this proceeding over there, because our table is full of documents that we're trying to get organized, so we know what we have. And, for example, you've given a list of exhibits\nand we're comparing that list with the documents that we have to find out what might be missing. Q. And what do you do once you've made your review- of those documents? Do you have any communication with the Court about the documents? A. We  they've been organized\nand they're all there, or if documents are missing  I'm not saying they're not  at this time, I don't know that we have documents missing. Just to let them know that they're in an organized order and we have them there with our little trolleys and boxes. Q. Do you have a routine that you follow to prepare for hearings in this case in your office? A. A general routine. It may vary from hearing to hearing. This hearing we've had little to do, because the burden of proof has been on Mr. Walker. Q. Do you usually meet with the judge before any hearing in this case? A. Sometimes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 28 upon me to let my supervisor know that I am about my work. Q, Have you ever said to anyone that part of your job is to help the judge, quote, \"prepare,\" closed quote, for court? A. I may have. Q. Well, do you understand that to be part of your job? A. That's what I do as part of my job when I can, like organizing documents. But I --1 don't have any legal training\nand so, legal matters are beyond my ken. Q. Well, I'm certainly not talking about legal matters\nbut my question is whether or not you have discussions with the judge concerning factual matters before or during any of the hearings in this case. MR. WALKER: Just a moment. I think that's another one of those questions that you should ask the judge. A. I think that's a little afield. I don't discuss  MR. WALKER: Well, let me say this. From time to time, the judge has said on the record when I've asked if Ms. Brown should  to give me this or give me that, to check the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 27 Q. It seems like you always enter the courtroom from the chambers. Is that part of the routine that you at least have some visit with the Court before the  A. Pleasantries. Q.  hearings? A. To be  she is my boss\nand so, 1 always want to be polite and speak. But many times there's absolutely nothing that passes between us about the proceedings. You know, it's, \"Hi, how's your job?\" Q. Have there been times when you have had substantive discussions about the issues with Judge Wright before a hearing? A. Q A. Q We've discussed monitoring issues many times. What do you mean by \"monitoring issues\"? The substance of my monitoring. That's my job. Do you mean that you've discussed the findings you've made during the course of your work? A. Those are published\nand once they've been published, yes. 1 mean, there are certainly times that - that - 1 mean, the best e.xample that 1 can give you right now was being Ihistrated and not being able to get the evaluation documents from Little Rock, communicating that to the judge in the form of a copy of the letter that 1 have written, and just to keep her posted about my efforts. 1 think it is incumbent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 29 record or do this or that. So, I think that that's the kind of thing that you should ask the judge. And she said that in public court. A. And, you know, that's routine is that type of thing. Nothing that's -- that's not part of how it is that we evolve on business together. Q. (By Mr. Heller) Do you recall the hearing held May 4 of this year concerning Pulaski County's plan for implementation at middle schools? A. There was a hearing, yes. Q. One of the first things that happened at that hearing was that Judge Wright talked to Sam Jones about\na chart that she intended to put in the record. Do you recall that discussion? A. I'm sorry, can you refresh my memory? Q. Okay. I'll read to you from page 9 of the transcript. \"The Office of Desegregation Monitoring has reviewed the materials, and so have 1, but not as carefully, of course, as ODM. But they have met with me\nand so, 1 am now prepared to hear any evidence that you have in support of your motion. Before I do that, though, I want to share with you  and I don't know whether Ms. Marshall has shared with you - some charts that her office has prepared with respect to this.\" 8 (Pages 26 to 29)Page 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q A. was. Does that help you remember - Yes.  what we were talking about? And 1  but 1 don't even remember what the chart Q. Okay. A. But that -- that was entered into the record. Q. All right. And my question is: What discussion about the case preceded the hearing that would allow Judge Wright to have a document at the very start of the hearing that she intended to introduce into evidence? MR. WALKER: 1 believe that's the kind of question that you would have to ask the judge. Ms. Bro^vn, I'd ask that you call the judge, because he's now just asking about the judge's conduct not yours. So, I would suggest that we interrupt this hearing and call Judge Wright. And I think the questions should be flagged, the last series of questions for sure, and any others that you have. Q. (By Mr. Heller) Would you be more comfortable if we did that, Ms. Brown, rather than proceed along these 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 32 with Clay Pendley, Allen Carney, Tammy Downs, Joy Springer, John Walker, Ann Marshall and our court reporter. THE COURT: Can 1 put you on a speakerphone, because Julie, the law clerk, is in here. MR. HELLER: Sure. THE COURT: Just a second. All right. MR. HELLER: Your Honor, we've had an issue raised by Mr. Walker  and Ms. Marshall seems to be concerned as well -- about the scope of the deposition. So, we thought it would be time to seek some clarification from you. 1 am asking about matters related to ODM's communications with the Court and was asking some particular questions about communications in your chambers related to the subject matter of the various hearings that have been held in this case. Mr. Walker says those are things 1 should not be able to inquire into. I've said that 1 thought I'd explained to everyone that the purpose of the deposition was to explore those types of things, rather than issues related to what Page 31 Page 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 lines? A. As I said, 1 don't want to be in the middle of your disagreement. So, perhaps that would be the best course. Q. I don't  you know, I don't want to go beyond what the judge has authorized us to do here. I understood the purpose of the deposition was to allow us to explore issues related to communications you've had with the judge. The judge said something yesterday about privileges. Mr. Walker seems to think this deposition is limited in ways that I don't think it is or should be limited. So, maybe the best thing to do is -- A. Yes, as a matter -- Q.  to discuss it with Judge Wright. A.  of clarification, I think that that would be the best course. MR. HELLER: I'll put it on the speakerphone so that you can transcribe it. (Short recess was taken.) (The following teleconference with Judge Wright was had, to wit:) THE COURT: Hello. MR. HELLER: Hello, Judge Wright. This is Chris Heller and you are on a speakerphone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ms. Browns testimony might be. So, that's our standoff at this point. THE COURT: Yesterday 1 told you that Ms. Marshall and 1 talk a lot about her monitoring, about her activities\nand so, 1 think that for the record you're trying to make, for the purposes you're trying to make it, my acknowledgment of that would be sufficient. Again, 1 regard her as an employee who is assisting me in my task of monitoring the compliance that the consent decrees. I'm charged with monitoring and she's charged with helping me do it. MR. HELLER: Well - THE COURT: 1 will acknowledge that, in fact, we talk about the  about the school case a lot. We have -- she does have conversations with me, and you call them ex parte. 1 look upon it the same way 1 do if 1 talk to a probation officer who works for the Court before I sentence someone or I talk to a law clerk before 1 sign an order. And so, to me that is the hpe of relationship 1 have with her, although in her 9 (Pages 30 to 33)Page 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 case 1 talk about her monitoring activities. I'm not going to permit you, in essence, that we have conversations outside the hearing of the parties. MR. HELLER: Well, we're trying to determine. Your Honor -- and maybe this is within the scope of what the Court's acknowledging - but we're trying to determine whether the conversations are about things like the budget and the staff or whether they touch on the merits of the issues before the Court. And that's the reason - THE COURT: Well, to the extent that they're  and not just pure questions of law. I mean, 1 don't -1 don't talk about questions  pure questions of law to her, but 1 do talk about her monitoring activities. But that's all I'm going to say, and that's all that she needs to say. I mean, we talk on an ongoing basis about what she's monitoring, what she might do next, areas of concern and that sort of thing. We talk about her budget, her staff, all of those things. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 36 have. And while it may later be appropriate, we're preparing for the proceeding on Monday and Tuesday. And if he wants to file a motion with respect to the impropriety of her working for you or her talking to you or anything like that or you're continuing on the case, that ought to be direct instead of indirect as it is appearing - appearing here to be. THE COURT: And 1 think that he's trying to make a record, and I think that my  my statement is - you know, if it's something that he wants a record he can use. And I, of course, try to  try to be fair to the parties, and I direct her to try to be fair to the parties. MR. HELLER: Well, if there aren't any other issues at the moment. Your Honor, we'll continue the deposition. THE WITNESS: May I ask a question? MR. HELLER: Yes. Just one moment. Ann Marshall wo\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   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\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_1713","title":"Court filings concerning responses to order filed October 3, 2001, answers of Leslie V. Carnine to Joshua intervenors' interrogatories, and PCSSD complaince with Plan 2000","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":["2001-10"],"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","Joshua Intervenors","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Arkansas. Department of Education","Little Rock School District","Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT)","Pulaski Association of Support Staff (PASS)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Court records","School management and organization","School integration","School superintendents","School improvement programs","School employees"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning responses to order filed October 3, 2001, answers of Leslie V. Carnine to Joshua intervenors' interrogatories, and PCSSD complaince with Plan 2000"],"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/1713"],"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":["79 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, two orders; District Court, response to order filed October 3, 2001; District Court, motion for order authorizing alternative means for preparation of transcript of the October 2, 2001, hearing; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to order filed October 3, 2001; District Court, two orders; District Court, plaintiff's motion to compel; District Court, memorandum brief in support of plaintiff's motion to compel; District Court, notice of audio-visual deposition; District Court, answers of Leslie V. Carnine to Joshua intervenors' interrogatories and requests for production of documents; District Court, responses of Leslie V. Carnine to Joshua intervenors' revised requests for admissions; District Court, Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT) and Pulaski Association of Support Staff (PASS) brief in support of motion to compet Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) complaince with Plan 2000, Section F (discipline); 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.  u.f!JmfRRT EASTERN DISTRICT ARl\u003cANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OCT O 3 200l EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. * No. 4:82CV00866 SWW * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * RECEI\\IE01 Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * OCT s 2001 Intervenors, * * OFFICE OF KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * DESEGREGATION MONITORING Intervenors. * ORDER On October 2, 2001, the Court held a hearing in this matter to address the Joshua Intervenors' motion for definition and clarification of the issues and other relief. For the reasons stated at that hearing and the reasons stated below, the Court made the following rulings on the issues presented in that motion: The Little Rock School District's second set of interrogatories and requests for production to Joshua are quashed except to the extent that the Court required Joshua to respond to the LRSD's contention interrogatories and requests for production during the hearing. Joshua is directed to provide the LRSD with any documents from Joshua monitors or members of the Joshua class that support or do not support an assertion that the LRSD has \"misled\" Joshua. If the LRSD cannot appreciate the significance of a witness or exhibit after Joshua provides its witness and exhibit lists to the LRSD for the upcoming hearing, the LRSD may ask Joshua for the significance of that witness or exhibit. The Court expects Joshua to stand by its representation at the hearing that it will provide that information. The parties will submit an agreed protective order governing e-mails requested from the LRSD by Joshua. Concerning Joshua's access to e-mails beyond March 15, 2001 , the LRSD is directed to notify the Court on or before Friday, October 5, 2001 , which of the two options it will choose: Option 1: (A) Present evidence concerning the LRSD's activities with respect to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan beyond the date of March 15, 2001; and (B) Produce the e-mails requested by Joshua beyond that date. Option 2: (A) Present evidence concerning the LRSD's activities with respect to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan up to the date of March 15, 2001, and not beyond; (B) Correspondingly, the LRSD would have no obligation to produce the e-mails requested by Joshua beyond that date. Should the LRSD choose Option 1, it is directed to ensure that it does not delete e-mails without preserving copies for Joshua. Other than the requirement in this paragraph to preserve copies of requested e-mails for Joshua should the LRSD select Option 1, the Court will not suspend implementation ofLRSD Administrative Directive EGAD (\"The Use and Deletion of Electronic Mail\"). By agreement of the parties as reflected at the hearing, the LRSD shall be permitted to take the depositions of the Joshua monitors and class representatives at a date and time to be agreed by the parties. If either party requests, the Court will be available to the parties during these depositions to address issues that cannot be resolved without the Court's intervention. The Court requests that the parties provide the Court advance notice of the dates and times for the depositions if the parties wish the Court to be available during the depositions. 2 Joshua is directed to pay the LRSD the amount required for the FOIA requests pursuant to LRSD Administrative Directive KDB (\"Process for Making Requests for Information Under the FOIA\"). Because the LRSD has assured the Court that LRSD Administrative Directive KDB applies to any person requesting FOIA material from the LRSD, the Court will not suspend implementation ofLRSD Directive KDB. Counsel for Joshua may, as always, participate in Joshua's continuing monitoring of the LRSD. The participation of counsel for Joshua in the monitoring shall be consistent with the Court's Order entered August 20, 2001 , in which the Court stated: [T]he Court directs counsel for Joshua Intervenors to go through counsel for the Little Rock School District when seeking information from the district or district officials and personnel that is pertinent to the case, and to inform counsel for the Little Rock School District prior to contacting district officials and personnel about matters not currently before the Court. To clarify, counsel for Joshua is .not required to inform counsel for the LRSD before visiting a LRSD campus; however, if counsel for Joshua intends to communicate with district officials and personnel while visiting, counsel for Joshua shall be required to contact counsel for the LRSD as set forth above. The LRSD Student Handbook shall govern issues relating to the presence of counsel for Joshua at individual student disciplinary hearings. r:53, IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 0 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2001 ~~:~ CHIEFWDG UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 ANO/OR 79(a) FRCP oN iO - 3 --0 I sv__.\\2t.....,_ _ _ FILED . U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OCT O 4 2001 ~~~ES\\1~~~~ ~ljRK DEPCLeRT\u003c LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs . 4:82CV00866 SWW NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL MRS. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED OCT !') ZOO! OfflCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 0 RD ER DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Court previously scheduled a hearing on Little Rock School District's motion for contempt against John . Walker. In lignt of the correspondence received from Clay Fendley, 1 counsel for the LRSD, the contempt hearing will not be necessary. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the contempt hearing scheduled for Tuesday, October 16, 2001, is hereby canceled, and the motion for contempt is denied as moot . . -t_{ DATED this -1- day of October, 2001 . r Chief United States District Judge THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE.58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON !O -() '-1-tJ I BY D'C ' 1A copy of Mr. Fendley's faxed letter is attached to .. - 516 RECEIVED OCT -9 2001 (1111(1- _ ___ IIIIJORING 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 RESPONSE TO ORDER FILED OCTOBER 3, 2001 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Response to Order filed October 3, 2001, states: 1. LRSD objects to being forced to select from the two options offered by the Court. Joshua has requested all e-mails of the District's administrators and principals. This request is over broad and would place an undue burden on LRSD to respond. Every e-mail created by an administrator or principal is not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. LRSD also objects to the Court's selection of March 15, 2001 , as a cut-off date for the presentation of evidence for two reasons. First, the term of the Revised Plan did not end until May 31, 2001, the last day for students for the 2000-01 school year. Second, late compliance could constitute substantial compliance, and LRSD should be granted unitary status if it has substantially complied with the Revised Plan. See Revised Plan, Section 11. 2. Without waiving these objections, LRSD states that it selects Option 2 with the understanding that documents \"concerning the LRSD's activities withrespect to the Revised Desegregation Plan up to the date of March 15, 2001\" will not be excluded from evidence simply because the documents are dated after March 15, 2001 . As LRSD understands the Court's decision, the Court does not want to hear evidence related to activities undertaken after March 15, 2001 , which should have been performed before March 15, 2001. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY: C\"{~l-~ }Z:,nristopher Heller ( #81083) ' t}ohn C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 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 (unless otherwise indicated) on October 5, 2001: Mr. John W. Walker (hand-delivered) JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown (hand-delivered) Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 3 RECEIVED OCT ~ 9 2001 - (IIU:lir ll\u0026BtllD'amtllG 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 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS MOTION FOR'ORDER AUTHORIZING ALTERNATIVE MEANS FOR PREPARATION OF TRANSCRIPT OF THE OCTOBER 2, 2001, HEARING For its Motion, Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") states: 1. This Court's Order of October 3, 2001 quashed LRSD's second set ofinterrogatories and requests for production \"except to the extent that the Court required Joshua to respond to LRSD's contention interrogatories and requests for production during the hearing\" of October 2, 2001 . 2. Immediately after the October 2, 2001 hearing, counsel for LRSD approached the court reporter about obtaining a transcript and was advised that a hearing transcript could not be prepared before the November 19, 2001 hearing due to preexisting obligations. Counsel asked the court reporter if someone else could transcribe the tape or if LRSD could obtain a tape of the proceeding and have it transcribed. We were advised that the court reporter was not authorized to release tapes of proceedings. 3. This Court has inherent authority to control proceedings before it and authorize some alternate means of having the transcript prepared prior to the November 19, 2001 hearing, including authorizing another reporter to transcribe the tape or authorizing release of the tape to LRSD to have it transcribed. LRSD would agree to provide all requesting parties a copy of the transcript prepared from the tape and to return the tape to the court reporter so an official transcript can be prepared at her convenience. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that this Court issue an Order authorizing the court reporter to employ some alternate means of preparing a transcript of the October 2, 2001 hearing, and for all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376- BY. C  p er Heller (#8108 John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 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 (unless otherwise indicated) on October 9, 2001: Mr. John W. Walker JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 3 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Ms. Ann Marshall (hand-delivered) Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 FILED, E~ 'i,11m~'ilt~SAS OCT 15 toot QfflCECI DESBH6A1Dlld_H_IIIE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OCT 1 1 2001 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ... ~ W a~RMACK, QERK WESTERN DIVISION J~  RMN . _ Sy: OE1' Cl11llt LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL J\\.1RS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO THE LRSD'S RESPONSE TO ORDER FILED OCTOBER 3, 2001 The Joshua Intervenors object to the response of the LRSD because it seeks to condition the Court's Order. The Court's Order was clear and unambiguous and should not be modified absent compelling cause which cause is stated for the record. By: Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (Tel.) (501) 374-4187 (Fax) -1- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the following counsel or record, postage prepaid on this A day of October, 2001. Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 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 \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol . Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Jo 1  Walker (._/ -2- QC I J  2001 FILED .. , .IJtOF IIEREGATION MONITORlf~G IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS OCT 17 2001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICTNO. 1,etal., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER No. 4:82CV00866 SWW -.ECEIVEt  OCT 18 200\\ QfflCE OF oES6EMlll talilllNG The Court is in receipt of Little Rock School District's response [docket no. 3517] to this Court's Order [docket no. 3515] filed October 3, 2001, as well as Joshua Intervenors' response in opposition [docket no. 3520] to LRSD's response. LRSD states in its response that it objects to \"being forced to select from the two options offered by the Court.\"1 LRSD also states that it objects to the March 15, 2001 cut-off date for the presentation of evidence. The Court notes LRSD's objections. The Court acknowledges that LRSD may have evidence concerning its activities with respect to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\") subsequent to March 1In its October 3, 2001 Order [docket no. 3515], the Court directed LRSD to choose from two options as follows: Option 1- Present evidence concerning the LRSD's activities with respect to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan beyond the date of March 15, 2001; and produce the e-mails requested by Joshua beyond that date.; Option 2- Present evidence concerning the LRSD's activities with respect to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan up to the date of March 15, 2001, and not beyond; and correspondingly, the LRSD would have no obligation to produce the e-mails requested by Joshua beyond that date. Without waiving its objections, LRSD has informed the Court that it selects Option 2. ,. ' , 15, 2001 which may bear on the issue of whether LRSD has complied with the Revised Plan. The Court gave LRSD an opportunity to elect to present this evidence and LRSD has now rejected this opportunity. Should the Court ultimately sustain Joshua's objections to the Compliance Report and deny unitary status to LRSD, LRSD may in the future, when circumstances ~arrant, file additional motions in support of unitary status that would include compliance activities subsequent to March 15, 2001. The Court wishes to reiterate to LRSD the significance of the March 15, 2001 deadline. On March 15, 2001, LRSD filed its Notice and Compliance Report (\"Compliance Report\") [ docket no. 341 0], representing to the Court that as of that date, the district had achieved unitary status. Specifically~ LRSD stated: LRSD hereby files the attached Compliance Report in accordance with Section 11 of its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"). LRSD has substantially and in good faith complied with terms of the Revised Plan.2 The Court reminds LRSD that the hearings scheduled on November 19 and 20, 2001, concern Joshua's objections to this Compliance Report. There is no reason to obfuscate the issue by complaining about Joshua's activities- Joshua's activities are not relevant unless such activities relate to the trustworthiness of evidence presented by Joshua. It is the Compliance Report, and Joshua's objections thereto, which are now before the Court, and upon which the Court will focus. The Compliance Report represents that LRSD had complied with certain requirements of the Revised Plan; however, the evidence presented to date by Joshua demonstrates otherwise. The Court anticipates that LRSD will present evidence that the representations in the Compliance 2Docket no. 3410 (\"Notice of Filing Compliance Report and Request for Scheduling Order\"), Paragraph No. 1. 2 Report are accurate and truthful. The truthfulness and accuracy ofLRSD's representations in the March 15, 2001 Compliance Report could have bearing on the Court's disposition of the unitary status question. The Court assumes, without deciding, that if the district is in compliance, good faith will not be an issue.3 However, should the Court find compliance in some areas but a failure of compliance in others, the district's good faith will determine the extent to which the Court may withdraw its monitoring activities. See Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467,491 (1992) (\"A court's discretion to order the incremental withdrawal of its supervision in a school desegregation case must be exercised in a manner consistent with the purposes and objectives of its equitable power. Among the factors which must inform the sound discretion of the court in ordering partial withdrawal [is] . . . whether the school district has demonstrated, to the public and to the parents and students of the once disfavored race, its good-faith commitment to the whole of the court's decree . . .. \"). THEREFORE, the Court's Order [docket no. 3515] of October 3, 2001 is hereby clarified to bring into focus for LRSD the significance of the March 15, 2001 deadline. -tr~ IT IS SO ORDERED THIS / I DAY OF OCTOBER, 2001 CHIEF JU~' UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3Toe Court is mindful that the district has promised good faith in the revised plan: \"LRSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African-American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis ofrace, color, or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools.\" LRSD Revised Desegregation and Education Plan of January 16, 1998 at 2.1 [Exhibit A to docket no. 3107]. 3 THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 ANO/OR 79(a) FRCP oN ID-- \\1-0\\ sv_sf( ____ ~ECEIVED OCT 19 2001 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS - OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OCT 1 7 2001 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ~~:M_E_S-'--~~f..J..A~~44-~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * VS. * * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * * * * * No. 4:82CV00866 SWW ORDER Before the Court is the request of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\") for - approval of the ODM budget for 2001-02. 1 Without objection, the Court hereby approves the ODM budget for 2001-02. fr..__ IT IS SO ORDERED THIS /7 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2001 ~#A~~ HIEFJUDGE ~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULJ: 58 AND/O~a) FRCP ON JO\"'( \"rf \"0 I 5y_V-'--\\ __ _ 1 The ODM communicated the proposed budget to the Court in a letter dated September 25, 2001. See docket no. 3509 [September 28, 2001 Order giving parties 15 days to object to the ODM budget for 2001-02], attachment. ra 5 2 2 10 - 30 -o I I .'30Jwt f, -c.l~- i-;J }r-e1 rVJ ~J:Je, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN.DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866RECE\\VED PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Orr\\CtOf OESEGRf.GA1\\0ll lAOmt0mi\u0026 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL Plaintiff Little Rock School District for its Motion for Compel states: PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS 1. Plaintiff served the Joshua Intervenors with Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents (Exhibit 1 attached) by mail on August 9, 2001, making Joshua's responses due on or before September 11, 2001. Joshua hand-delivered responses to LRSD on September 24, 2001. 2. Joshua's responses (Exhibit 2 attached) were unverified and otherwise failed to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff outlined the deficiencies in a letter dated September 27, 2001 (Exhibit 3 attached), and requested that Joshua supplement its responses. 3. Joshua has not responded to Plaintiffs letter of September 27, 2001. 4. Joshua should be compelled to provide responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents that comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 5. Joshua attached a copy of Plaintiffs September 27, 2001, letter to their Motion for Definition and Clarification of the Issues and for Other Relief. This Court held a hearing on that Motion on October 2, 2001, and issued an Order the following day. While the Court quashed Plaintiffs Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production, it did not address Joshua's responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that Joshua be ordered to provide full, complete and verified responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production to the Joshua Intervenors Regarding Joshua's Objections to Unitary Status; that Plaintiff be awarded its costs and attorneys' fees expended herein; and that Plaintiff be awarded all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501_) 376-2011 BY:_....,q.::c:..:;_::......::t:....,;,__J~=...,,..\u003cC\u003eo\u003c...f,.-4.---H_,.__ 2 hristopher Heller (#810 3). hn C. Fendley, Jr. (#9218 ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following persons by t.if _.. mail on October 25, 2001: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 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. Mark Hagameier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 F:\\HOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD 2001\\dcs-mot-compcl-clarification.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. I, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL 8-9- o I PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VENO RS PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGA TORJES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS REGARDING JOSHUA'S OBJECTIONS TO UNITARY STATUS Comes the Plaintiff, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), and submits the fo ll owing Interrogatories and Requests for Production to be answered within thirty days in accord with Rules 33 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. GENERAL DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS (A) \"you\" or \"your\" Shall mean the Joshua Intervenors' LRSD class representative and counsel for the Joshua Intervenors and any person (as defined below) acting on their behalf; (B) \"person\" Shall mean any individual, corporation, partnership, joint venture, firm , associa tion, proprietorship, agency, board, authority, commission, and other such entities; (C) \"communicate\" or \"communication\" Shall mean every manner or means of disclosure, transfer or exchange, and every disclosure, transfer or exchange of information whether orally or by document or whether foce to face, by telephone, mail , personal deli very, or otherwise; (D) \"document\" EXHIBIT Shall mean any original written, typewritten, handwritten, printed or recorded material, as well as all tapes, disks, non-duplicate copies and transcripts thereof, now or at any time in your possession, custody or control; and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing definition, but for the purposes of illustration only, \"document\" includes notes, correspondence, memoranda, business records, diaries, calendars, address and telephone records, photographs, tape recordings, videotapes and financial statements. Without limitation of the tenn \"control\" as used in the preceding sentence, a documen t is deemed to be in your control if you have the right to secure the document or a copy thereof from another person or a public or private entity having actual possession thereof. If a document that is responsive to a-request for identification or production is in you r co ntrol , but is not in your possession or custody, identify the person with possession - or custody. If any document that is responsive to a request for identification or production was, bu t is no longer, in your possession or subject to your control, state what disposition was made of it, by whom, and the date or dates or approximate date or dates on which disposition was made, and why; (E) \"identify\" (i) As to a person (as defined), shall mean the person's name, business and residence address( es), occupation, job title; and, if not an individual, state the type of entity and the address of its principal place of business; (ii) As to a document, shall mean the type of document (letter, memo, etc .) the identity of the author or originator, the date authored or originated, the identity of each person to whom the original or copy was addressed or delivered, the identi ty of such 2 The singular includes the plural number, and vice versa. The masculine includes the feminine and neuter genders. The past tense includes the present tense where the clear meaning is not distorted by change of tense. If you do not answer any Interrogatory or Request for Production because of a claim of privilege, set forth the privilege claimed, the facts upon which you rely to support the claim of privilege, and identify all documents for which such privilege is claimed. fNTERROGATORY NO. I: Please identify all persons who participated in the preparation of the responses hereto. fNTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please identify the Joshua Intervenors' LRSD class representati ve and the date on which that person became Joshua's class representative. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please identify all persons who performed - monitoring for you during the term of LRSD's Revi sed Desegregation and Education Plan . REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. I: Please produce all of your monitoring reports that were shared with LRSD during the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. fNTERROGATORY NO. 4: Please identify and describe in detail all areas of noncompliance and bad faith implementation communicated by you to LRSD during the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Please produce all documents pertaining to areas of noncompliance and bad faith implementation communicated by you to LRSD during the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 4 fNTERROGATORY NO. 5: Please state whether you received a copy ofLRSD's Compliance Plan dated June IO, 1999, on July, I, 1999, and if not, please state when you received a copy of LRSD's Compliance Plan dated June I 0, 1999. fNTERROGATORY NO. 6: Please identify and describe in detail all communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the format or content of LRSD's Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Please produce all documents pertaining to communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the format or content of LRSD's Compliance Plan dated June I 0, I 999. fNTERROGATORY NO. 7: Please identify and describe in detail all communica tions between you and LRSD pertaining to the format or content of LRSD's Interim Compliance Report filed March 15, 2000. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Please produce all documents pertaining to all communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the content and format of LRSD's Interim Compliance Report filed March I 5, 2000. fNTERROGATORY NO. 8: Please identify and describe in detail all racial di sparities revealed by your monitoring during the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan; and for each area of racial disparity state: (a) When you became aware of the disparity; (b) When you communicated your knowledge of the disparity to LRSD; (c) Whether LRSD's response to the racial disparity complied with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan; and if not, why you did not invoke the process for ra ising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 5 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding Interrogatory regarding racial disparities. fNTERROGATORY NO. 9: Please identify and describe in detail all incidents of racial discrimination in the imposition of discipline which occurred during the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, and separately with regard to each such incident, please state: (a) When you became aware of the incident; (b) When you communicated your knowledge of the incident to LRSD; ( c) Whether LRSD's response to the incident complied with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan; and if not, why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Please produce all documents per1aining to yo ur response to the preceding Interrogatory regarding incidents of racia l discrimination in the imposition of discipline. fNTERROGA TORY NO. I 0: On average, about 85% of LRSD's suspensions nre of African-American students (See Compliance Report, March I 5, 2001, p. 24). Please explain how much of that 85%, if any, you contend results from racial discrimination by LRSD and identify all facts and documents with support that contention? REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Please produce all documents pertaining to you r response to the preceding inte "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_185","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":["2001-10-01"],"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","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","School integration"],"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/185"],"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\n,._, ,....JA./ r .... ~,...,,,\u0026gt; ,J.._,.,,._ _,._, ,v MAGHET GTUDEIIT QUARTEJU.YA TI\"EllllANCER !PORT FY 2001/02 (f'OR CAI\n..\"U\"..Al'ING ADT. AJ)A, AND ADM OF l'JICNP SCHOOL S.v\"DEITTS tN GRADE$ K-12) v\n,., 6001000 COUl\u0026lt;'N, P!JI.ASXI DISTlUCT: L1ttle Jloc:Jt School l)ist:nct OUIIRT6'l. 1(0. l l 2 4 5 6 OA\".(S DAYS DAYS PRES~ IN l'RtSENT NOif DAY$ Mrt ADA crra TAA\u0026gt;ISPOR'IXD TIU\\NSPOR'IED MSElfT 2/1 2+3/1 7601 LI rn.E ROO. S'tUDBNTS SENT TO 1~01 Lil\"?LE J!.00( HAGN!IT SOJOOJ:.S tO 5739:Z 15896 2995 H34.80 233:2,21. 1,02 NOaTii LITTLt ROCK ST1.ltlDITS SENT TO 7601 LlTil. l!OClC Ml',C:-,r: SO!OOLS ,o 124 191,2 778 3.ll l72.90 1so3 PULI\\SlCl co spgc1111. STUDEHTs SENT TO '7601. Liffi.X IIOCK MAGNET SCIIOQLS 40 241 35797 1.212 6,03 900.96  !OTl\\1, lU7I, ~, AND ADM OF \u0026amp;TUDBNTS A'I'I'WDUIG MAGNf Soro\u0026lt;)t.S : 1443.9,t 3706. 0? , 1'%lN 2.J,./1 2,01.01 .,:z,33 n1.2i\nlBJO 66 SI1JPJ\nN1'S ELIOUII.J: T0 BE: c= 115 nv.NSPOR'ttl) INCUJDE RESIDf.lff STUDl!NTS ~IJUNG T1IO ROtJTt! MILKS OR ~ FROH TRl\u0026gt;Ilt R.':PJE:CT:rvi: ASSIGNl!D S~OOI.S l M TOM STIJDEl'T Q\nMTERL\"!\n-:-:rt:,ro:cr 'l':VOR.T FY 2001/0i '-' ~ -Ll'lt-tl,,,__,_., .,._ -''-' ~V (FOR CALCUJATIUG l\u0026gt;.D'I. 11:)ll., l\\IO kOl'I OF M TO M 8C1!COL STUt\u0026gt;~'l:S IN GRl\u0026gt;.Pi:S K-12) !..EA, 600~00C COUNTY: PUI..ASKI DISTRICT: Little Rock School Oi~~riec QUA.TtTEI\\ NO. l NON-RESID~)l'l' STu\"IlWTS RliCE!V!:D TO (BY M TO M 1'RANSFE!ll 7701. LITn,E ROClt 7702 NORrH LITTLE ROC1' 7103 PUIASKI CO SPACIAL l DAYS IN 2 DAYS PRE8ellT QrR TRANSPORT),,() o 0 40 0 \u0026lt;0 0 'IOT!\u0026gt;,L APT, ADA, Al ADM OF M 'IO M l'..CEIVED .3 DA1(S PRESENT NON- DAY6 TRANSPORTJ.P ABSEJ-11' 0 508 17 l'.l2GS \\007 Al)'!' 2/1 0 00 0 00 0 00 o. 00 C.00 1:._59 331,)7 J~.3. 76 I 7 o.oc 13 00 356. 32 309.32 Sl\"UDfillTS L:GIB\n,,E TO\nill: COU?ITED T,$ TRM'SPORTED !ltCLUDE RESIDENT STUIJEl\"T6 RESIDING TWO ROUT\n)'IILS OR MOR FR.OM THEIR RSPC':'IVl'.: ASSIGNE!l SCHOOLS uec 1~ -UJ. J.U! ::.'ta NLI\u0026lt; !:,L,HUULS 5017718056 p. 1 (\\J Q., CD in M TOM STUDENTQ UARTERLJYIT BN:\u0026gt;ANCER EPORT FY 2001/02 (FOR CALCULATINAGD T, ADA, ANDA DMO F M TO M SCHOOLS TUDENTSI N GRADESK -12) LEA: 6002000 COUNTY: PULASKI NON-RESIDENTS TJDENTS RECEIVEDT O (BY M l'O M TRANSFER) 7701 L:TTLE ROCK 7702 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 7703 l?OLAS~I CO Sl?ECIAL 1 DAYS IN QTR 40 40 40 DISTRICT: N. Little Rock School 2 3 4 uAYS DAYS ?RESENT !?RESENT TRANSl?ORrED 0 0 0 NON-TRANSPORTED 444 0 10735 DAYS ABSENT 42 0 491 DistrictQOARTER NO. 5 ADI' 2/1 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 ADA 2+3/1 1.1.10 0.00 268. 40 1 7 ACM 2+3+4/1 12 .13 o.oo 280.64 TOTAL ADT, ADA, AND ADM OF M TO~ RECEIVED: 0.00 279.50 292.77 STUDENTSE LIGIBLE TO BE COUNTEDA S TRANS?ORTEDIN :'.:LODER ESIDENTS T'JDENTS: :i.ESIDINGT WOR OUTSM ILES OR )~OREF ROM ':'HEIR RESPECTIVE ASSIGNED SCHOOLS PAGE: 1 Date: To: Fax: Re: Sender: EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE ... ' ' ... Pulaski County Special School District Equity and Pupil Se11Jices 925 E. Dixon RtlJP.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, Arkamas 7221 6 (501) 490-6215 (501) 490-1352 Fax FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET 1i-11-oi 311-0100 PAGE 01/0~ YOU SHOULD RECEIVE Q PAGE(S). INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL (501) 490-6215. MESSA.GE: w (!) \u0026lt;r a.. uw H ii: w l!l _J H a.. J a.. ?.: H J 0 w M TOM STUDENT QUARTERLY ATTENDANCB RBPORT FY 2001/02 (FOR CALCULATING ADT, ADA, AND ADM OF M TO M SCJ!OOL STUDENTS IN GRADES I\u0026lt;-12) LEA: 6003000 COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: Pulaski Co. Spec. School Dist.QUARTER }JO. l 2 3 4 5 6 DAYS DAYS DAYS PRBSBNT IN PRESENT NON- DAYS ADT ADA QTR TRANSPORTBD TRANSPORTED ABSHNT 2/1 2+3/1 NON-RBSIDBNT STUDENTS RECBIVBD TO {BY M TON TRANSFER) 7701 LITrLE ROCK 41 0 45602 1324 0.00 1112.24 7702 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 41 0 7409 173 0.00 1B0.71 7703 PULASKI CO SPECIAL 41 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 1 7 ADM 2 ~3+4/1 - ---~ (1141.51) ~---- ( 184--:-94) 0.00 TOTAL ADT, ADA, AND ADM OF M TO M RECEIVED: 0 .00 1292. 95 1329. 45 STUDENTS ELIGIBLE TO BE COUNTBDA S TRANSPORTE:DIN CLUDE RBSIDBNT STUDBNTSR ESIDING TWO ROUTE MILES OR 1-!0RBF ROMT HEIR RBSPBCTIVE ASSIGNED SCHOOLS PAGE: 1 t-'A\\:lt:. tll/0~ STUDENT REGISTRATION OFFICE --- ~--- - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 SHERMAN ST. LITTLE ROCK AR 72202 PHONE: 324--2272 FAX: 324-2281 FAX COVER SHEET \" To: ToQ ~ J M Ck! FaxNumber:_ _ 3.\n::\n7,.._ _ I_ _- 0 I C~r ' J __ ..,..--_.1 From: ~ lOJvCl L Da1e_: __,_l-=.--'O-- \"\"'2---.'.-Ll---(_ o # Pages Including Cover Sheet. _ ___.\n.....__ Re:, _...:....F________, _'/-=-I_-_ cc:. ____________________ _ ACC ALC LRSD2 0012 002O fficial EnrollmentC ount Al T AGENCIES SUBTOT~ CLOVERO DUNBAR FORESTH HENDERS SUBT OTAL- ~~--4-082 1423 2tl0 5765  Counto oesn o! includeP 1,P 2, P3 alil He9dS tartP 4 students. 1 \u0026gt;1\\,..U... U.L/ CJ ... 95% 85')', 43% 71% 10-15-01 ~ae- 383 I r'R~C'~li.,,. \\..CQ s~0i~\n- 6~., I Carver I Chicot Cloverdale I Dodd 'fair Park 1 Forest Park  Franklin ru1bnght , Gc:)er Sprlllgs 0100\nI- - 1 ,efferson :\\..ir.g ~ ..c. e:,a\n' k.::)eIT'.:~tt i 'vt.:,adoYcli ff ',f':che'.l L C'rrer Cree1- !'uhs1\u0026lt;:i Heights r R.i!.'\"tse! 1 ll..o~kefel!er 1 Romine I Stephens . Terry. I Wakefield I Washmgton tWatson I Western Hills I \\villiams I kW1lson l I Wvodrutf I Grand Total Stwd~nt Registratiun 05.c~ Septerober 27, 2001 409 i 4llQ 271 304 400 532 491 358 324 471 715 .',. ..,. , 453 3:,8 :?.33 -lJ.5 350 j '.:96 481 l 403 646 597 416 678 534 320 490 340 314 15275 - L' - - / t r V TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: FAX# 37/- )/tz\u0026gt;O ~/\u0026lt;- u-:::,u 1-!NAl\u0026lt;\\..:lAL SE.RV #PAGES INCLUDING COVER:___,::i\u0026lt;.~------- PAGE Ell MY PHONE# _____________ _ THE CONTENTS OF THIS FAX IS CONFIDENTIAL AND IS ONLY FOR THE PERSON LISTED ABOVE. PLEASE DELIVER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. COMMENTS ----------------------------- .,_.,_u,, , ..::...uuJ. J.C. ~I ~t:.1.1...:,_4L.01~ Lt-'.:i!J 1-lllAllCIAL SERV PAGE 0~ Rockefeller October 1, 2001 GRADE AF AM BF BM Hf HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! Pl 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 3 3 12 P2 0 5 3 0 0 Q 0 4 3 16 --~- ~\n:,7r, P3 7 9 0 0 0 0 s ,,.7. 30 ,tt:\n)97~ !'4 7 0 0 ti 11 Q 0 0 7 /?8 '3' 34 GR.AND TOTAL: 8 3 15 25 0 0 0 19 21 92 -Y: ...l .). 0 /_\nJ., _, RECEIVED I ' STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OC2T 9 2001 OCTOBER 1, 2001 ENROLLMENT REPORT OFFOICfE DESEGREMGAOTNIIOTNO RING WITH PRE-K STUDENTS r------- r.01 - CENTRAL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! 09 5 7 184 195 2 3 0 110 123 630 10 6 3 141 138 2 2 94 97 485 11 4 4 121 91 0 2 0 I 05 102 430 120 ~ -~2 I) 12 6 0 0 89 91 401 --\u0026gt;-- ~ TOTALFOR:CENTRAL 21 15 566 516 5 8 2 2 398 413 f 1,946 \\002 - HALL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! ! 09 0 2 143 161 17 16 0 0 37 41 417 10 2 140 138 8 17 0 53 24 384 II 3 0 125 129 7 10 0 0 34 33 341 12 0 3 94 81 4 8 0 0 35 34 259 ~ ss 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 3 ~ 5 18 ,~ TOT AL FOR: HALL 4 7 503 518 36 51 0 162 \\ 13~ 1,419 .- 1003 - ~NN M/S GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTALj 06 6 3 82 65 4 0 0 77 50 288 07 3 3 79 72 2 4 0 2 74 41 280 .. 08 8 4 74 68 0 0 56 56 268 ~ 23s t2os 201 \"l141 ~ TOT AL FOR: MANN MIS 17 10 7 5 0 3 836 r---- 1 n~J!ARK1RW GRAD~ AE. .AM _B.E_ BM HF HM NF NM wi\n: WM TOT!-L I - 09 3 5 78 72 8 5 0 0 79 53 303 ---- -- -------- -- 10 5 5 71 72 6 0 0 80 47 287 -------- - ---- - - --- II 3 3 84 61 2 0 0 0 64 67 284 12 5 0 70 58 3 0 82 50 ~! 270 303 { ' p TOTAL FOR: PARKVJEW 16 13 263 17 9 0 305 I 217 ) 1,144 COMPlITER INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, October 16, 200 I Page 1 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2001 ENROLLMENT REPORT WITH PRE-K STUDENTS [~__6_o_ - _B_o_o_K_E___R G_RA_D__E A__F_ A_M__ BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL j 14 78 TOTAL FOR: BOOKER !001 - DU BAR MIS I TOT AL FOR: DUNBAR M/S I \\008-FAIR I 01 0 02 2 03 0 0 04 0 0 05 2 0 K 0 6 19 24 33 23 30 26 35 25 31 18 20 '- 27 '\u0026gt;' 168 ' 143 0 2 2 2 0 7 0 17 0 0 18 14 0 0 39 17 0 0 0 33 19 0 0 22 II 2 2 17 19 6 2 2 146 ~ 94 GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM 06 10 6 80 84 9 0 0 29 36 07 6 80 72 6 4 36 43 08 4 62 64 4 3 0 0 30  52 20 19 222 ' 220 15 16 95 131 GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM 09 0 0 101 120 7 27 24 10 0 0 87 105 2 0 2 19 30 II 0 0 94 89 3 0 0 0 20 19 12 0 70 64 4 0 JO 16 92 115 114 87 89 p. 575 259 254 227 \\ 740 282 246 225 167 ss 0 0 12 ~ ,._ 8 0 0 9 ~10 0 0 0 4 ~ 24 . TOTAL FOR: FAlR 0 364 386 4 16 1009-FO\n~~s Mts--G~\n--A-\n--:-M ---\nF -~~\n~ -HM--N-\n-- ~~---w-F_W_M __ T__o_T A~i i'- -- - -- ----------------------- - -- - --- ----- ------------- 06 0 0 91 88 0 0 0 43 36 259 07 0 2 80 93 0 0 42 39 258 08 0 5 84 80 2 0 44 31 247 3 f!L2 TOT AL FOR: FORST HTS MIS-----0 --8--25-8 ~ 27-3--4--3-- 0 SM 0 0 0 0 3 6 26 132 112 790 C:OMPUTER INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, October 16, 200 I Page 2 of I 7 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2001 ENROLLMENT REPORT WITH PRE-K STUDENTS jo10  PUL HTS M/S 7 GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! J 06 2 2 65 65 0 0 0 47 44 226 07 0 62 58 3 0 39 61 226 08 0 3 62 64 0 0 56 56 243 1-.. SM 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 I 2 9 ~ 190 ~ 192 \"' ~, TOT AL FOR: PUL HTS MIS 2 6 4 2 2 0 143 '1 163 704 tl 1  SOUTHWST MIS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! 06 0 O' 95 107 2 0 0 4 5 214 07 0 0 82 78 2 2 0 0 4 2 170 08 0 0 76 78 0 2 0 0 4 161 I SM 0 0 4 II 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 257 ~ 1' 274 ~ (,.~ TOT AL FOR: SOUTHWST MIS 0 0 3 6 0 0 12 8 560 jo12. ~CCLELLA GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! 09 0 0 130 159 2 5 0 0 5 15 316 10 0 0 148 129 3 0 0 9 5 295 11 0 0 102 126 0 0 0 8 18 255 12 0 0 104 78 2 2 0 0 10 5 201 ss 0 0 6 9 0 0 0 0 1 ~ \" 0 16 TOTALFOR:MCCLELLA 0 0 490 ~501 7 9 0 0 33 (\\ 43 ~\\,os3 l013  HENDERSN M/S GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL I --------- ---- ---- ----- 06 0 2 74 87 4 7 0 15 30 220 -- -- - -- -- -- - - --- ~------ 07 0 75 95 4 6 0 0 18 18 217 08 2 73 88 2 0 0 14 13 194 J .,._ (, SM 0 0 12  25 0 0 0 0 1 4 0- 42 ['I ~ 48 ~ TOTAL FOR: HENDERSN MIS 2 4 234 ~ 295 JO 13 65 iflj6 73 COMPUTER INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, October 16, 2001 Page3of17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2001 ENROLLMENT REPORT WITH PRE-K STUDENTS f -- - 1015 - CLOVR MIS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM 'TOTAL I 06 0 07 08 0 SM 0 TOT AL FOR: CLOVR M/S 0 121 131 2 127 125 0 115 99 0 2 0 ~ 1 363 ~ 356 II 4 6 0 21 15 10 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 6 6 7 8 0 0 19 ~ 20 290 281 243 I ~ 815 r-----------------------------------~ GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM F NM WF WM TOTAL r16-MABEL MIS 06 0 07 0 08 0 SM 0 TOT AL FOR: MABEL M/S 0 0 0 0 91 70 69 87 61 57 I \\l 10 222 t 224 2 2 0 0 20 20 0 2 II 15 2 2 18 14 0 0 0 I (} 1 6 6 2 3 50 50 I \\017 - BALE GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM 01 0 17 16 0 0 0 02 0 0 18 22 0 0 0 03 0 0 19 18 2 0 0 04 0 0 15 15 0 0 0 0 05 0 0 21 23 2 0 0 EE 3 3 0 0 0 0 K 0 0 21 27 0 0 p 0 TOTAL FOR: BALE ----- 2 ~ ---------- 13 14 2 0 --- --- --------- 127 138 9 6 0 I 0 COMPUTER INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, October 16, 2001 6 4 2 2 3 4 4 3 3 ~ 0 29 1-17 206 186 158 14 ~ 564 TOTAL\\ 42 50 45 35 54 15 Page 4 of 17 f\\\u0026lt;J STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2001 ENROLLMENT REPORT WITH PRE-K STUDENTS r- 1018- BRADY GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL L ___ 01 0 0 29 30 0 0 0 0 3 67 02 0 17 19 0 0 0 0 7 2 46 03 0 16 9 0 0 5 3 36 04 0 0 20 19 0 0 0 0 4 44 05 0 17 29 0 0 0 0 4 4 55 EE 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 K 0 0 27 21 0 0 4 5 59 A.\" p 0 0 2 ~ 7 0 0 0 6 2 18 TOTAL FOR: BRADY 2 130 -136 3 2 0 0 33 Y)2 5 ~ 332 ~ r---- 1019- BADGETT GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTALI I _ 01 0 0 11 9 0 0 0 0 0 21 02 0 0 15 16 0 0 0 0 33 03 0 0 16 14 0 0 0 0 0 31 04 0 0 14 11 0 0 0 0 27 05 0 0 9 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 K 0 0 7 11 0 0 0 19 ~ 0 0 1 ~ ~ TOTAL FOR: BADGETT 0 0 72 74 0 2 0 0 4~ 153 \\020 - MCDERMOT GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL\\ 01 2 2 18 12 2 2 0 0 13 12 63 - ----------- --- --------- - --- 02 0 18 9 5 0 17 9 63 ----------- ---- -- --- ----------- .. ---- ------ ----- 03 17 14 3 0 0 0 14 12 62 04 0 15 15 0 0 8 10 51 05 0 17 16 0 0 10 16 66 K 4 9 14 0 0 0 0 12 11 51 p 3 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 2 4 18 TOTAL FOR: MCDERMOT 13 4 98 85 12 11 0 76 ~ 74 374 COMPlITER INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, October 16, 2001 J\u0026gt;age 5 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2001 ENROLLMENT REPORT WITH PRE-K STUDENTS \\021 - CARVER GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL I ----' 01 0 21 17 0 0 0 0 15 24 78 02 2 0 19 24 0 0 0 14 25 85 03 0 0 22 28 0 0 9 24 85 04 0 25 21 0 0 0 0 16 21 84 05 3 25 24 0 0 0 0 13 25 91 ~ K 0 0 12 1/) 27 0 0 0 12 lo 20 ~ 72 {1 124 ~ 141 ' TOT AL FOR: CAR\\:'ER 6 2 0 2 79 r~ 139 495 022 - BASELINE GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 20 15 0 0 4 6 47 02 0 0 21 14 0 0 0 0 2 3 40 03 0 0 25 10 0 0 0 0 3 39 04 0 0 16 13 0 2 0 0 4 3 38 05 0 0 17 14 0 0 0 0 4 3 38 EE 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 6 K 0 0 18 18 0 0 0 0 2 39 p 0 0 14~ 18 0 0 0 2 \u0026amp;J 0 35 (Jc, TOTAL FOR: BASELINE 0 0 133 f1J1 05 2 4 0 0 21 , 17 ~ 282 1023 - FAIR PRK GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL] 01 0 17 17 0 0 Q 0 2 2 39 --- - - ____ ,.. __ _. 02 0 0 14 IO 0 0 0 0 4 7 35 -------- --------- ------- 03 0 0 11 9 0 0 0 0 2 2 24 04 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 2 0 21 05 0 0 8 9 0 0 0 0 2 3 22 K 0 0 I 8 10 0 0 0 0 5 4 37 r-e p 0 2 IO 12 0 0 0 0 5 {\\ 2 31 kl TOTAL FOR: FAIR PRK 2 89 ~ 75 0 0 0 0 22 ' 20 ~ 209 f\\ COMPlITER INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, October 16, 2001 Page 6 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2001 ENROLLMENT REPORT WITH PRE-K STUDENTS r~\n-F~O RSTP K GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL] ' 01 0 9 14 0 0 0 0 8 15 47 02 0 12 15 0 0 0 8 13 50 03 0 0 7 8 0 0 0 0 19 15 49 04 0 7 II 0 0 0 0 12 16 47 05 0 0 9 9 0 0 0 0 8 15 41 K 0 3 6 7 0 0 0 18 18 53 '\\ p 0 I ~ 0 0 0 0 4 Q II 0 18 t TOT AL FOR: FORST PK 6 51 ~ 64 2 0 0 77 ~ 103 \"' 305 1025  FRANK.LIN GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! 01 0 24 37 0 0 0 0 0 63 02 0 0 IS 29 2 0 0 0 0 47 03 0 0 19 19 0 0 0 0 0 39 04 0 0 31 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 05 0 29 30 0 0 0 0 0 61 EE 0 0 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 IO K 0 0 26 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 60  p 0 19 r\\. 28 0 0 0 0 0 2 50 I\\. 3 .-:) 2 ~388 Q\\ TOT AL FOR: FRANKLIN 3 0 166~ 210 2 2 0 0 xn futi~trnM- GRAD\"-Ex , A:M\"' '.EOHI BP- Bih IIF mv~!M \\l\nsF .-fJ.4 l ~ 01 0 2 20 I 5 0 0 13 17 69 ------ - ---- 02 0 14 18 2 0 0 16 9 61 03 0 0 9 14 2 0 0 0 8 12 45 04 0 0 13 13 0 0 0 IO 8 45 05 0 0 14 9 0 0 0 8 15 47 r..:: K 0 13 ~ 8 0 0 0 6 II ~o ~ TOTAL FOR: GIBBS 3 83 ~ 77 5 4 0 61 i,e7 2 307 COMPUTER INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, October 16, 2001 Page 7 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2001 ENROLLMENT REPORT WITH PRE-K STUDENTS I --- 1028 - CHICOT GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! 01 0 0 27 30 8 10 0 4 3 83 02 0 0 30 27 5 9 0 0 3 2 76 03 20 29 3 8 0 0 4 7 73 04 0 23 27 7 7 0 0 2 6 73 05 0 20 30 4 7 0 0 8 5 75 EE 0 0 5 8 0 0 0 2 3 19 K 0 0 34 21 7 0 0 4 2 73 p 0 0 14 Q 15 2 3 0 0 !ti 36 ~ 173 ~ 187 ~ ('\\ TOTAL FOR: CHICOT 3 34 52 0 28 -29 508 r----- e9-WESTHIL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! 01 0 0 10 20 2 0 0 6 3 42 02 0 0 15 20 2 0 0 0 7 45 03 0 0 18 14 0 0 0 9 5 47 04 0 13 17 0 0 0 4 37 OS 0 0 19 15 0 0 0 8 6 49 K 0 0 15 11 2 0 0 7 3 39 I\\: p 0 0 7 Q 7 0 0 0 0 4 0 18 ~ p. TOTAL FOR: WEST HIL 0 97 104 5 6 0 0 39 '\\'.\n25 'V 277 r030 -JEFFRSN GRADE AF AM BF BM m HM NF===r-cM W?62w1Vl' =11'ffl 01 0 0 14 15 0 0 0 17 16 63 ... -- ----- ------ ---- ------- - -- ------  - - - ------ --------- 02 0 0 20 15 0 0 0 0 19 18 72 03 0 0 20 10 0 0 0 0 15 21 66 04 0 13 14 0 0 0 28 19 76 05 2 16 10 0 0 0 0 g 14 51 EE 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 7 K 0 12 11 0 0 0 17 14 56 p 0 0 I'-. 2 0 0 0 0 51 IO 18 110 ~ 112 ~ TOTAL FOR: JEFFRSN 2 3 98 81 2 0 0 409 COMPUTER INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, October 16, 200 I Page 8 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2001 ENROLLMENT REPORT WITH PRE-K STUDENTS [031 - CLOVR EL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! -------- 01 0 31 29 5 4 0 0 2 2 74 02 0 0 30 34 4 0 0 3 73 03 0 0 27 22 3 4 0 0 0 57 04 0 0 26 21 0 2 0 0 0 50 05 0 0 30 28 3 5 0 0 2 2 70 K 0 24 28 6 2 0 0 2 3 66 0 u, 36 J/ p 0 16 13 4 0 0 0 2 :t 184 ', 115 6114 TOTAL FOR: CLOVR EL 0 2 19 25 0 426 I TOTAL\\ 1032-DODD GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM 01 0 0 5 12 0 0 0 0 5 8 30 02 0 0 11 8 0 0 0 10 4 34 03 0 9 7 0 0 0 4 4 26 04 0 0 9 5 0 0 0 2 6 23 05 0 0 10 5 0 0 2 2 21 EE 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 8 ------ K 0 0 5 10 0 0 5 7 29 '6 p 0 0 8 4 0 0 2 \\. l 17 \\5 TOT AL FOR: DODD 0 59 ~ 55 5 4 0 0 31 ,, 33 ~ 188 1033 - MEADCLIF \"GRJ!Wi,, Ar ~ .. Dr BM HF-\"IIM__.NF~M )}IF WM IQTAJ I I 01 0 0 15 24 0 0 0 4 5 49 -- - -- - --- - - - . - --------- 02 0 14 12 0 0 0 4 10 42 03 0 0 21 10 0 0 0 5 2 39 04 0 0 19 17 0 0 3 2 43 05 0 0 23 18 0 0 0 0 8 50 K 0 13 17 0 0 0 0 3 6 40 ~ p 0 0 3 C'--,1_1 0 0 0 1 ~- 17 TOTAL FOR: MEADCLIF 108 ...~.. 109 ~ l 34 ~ 4 2 0 0 21 280 COMPUTER INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, October 16, 2001 Page9 ofl7 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2001 ENROLLMENT REPORT WITH PRE-K STUDENTS j034 - MITCHELL ------ GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTALI L ____ -- 01 0 0 25 16 0 0 0 0 0 42 02 0 0 23 23 0 0 0 0 0 47 03 0 0 21 25 0 0 0 0 0 47 04 0 0 23 19 0 0 0 2 46 05 0 0 23 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 EE 0 0 3 9 0 0 0 0 14 K 0 0 17 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 ~ p 0 0 14~ 3 0 0 0 0 0 18 ~ TOT AL FOR: MITCHELL 0 0 149 r) 139 0 0 4 .\\} 4 ~ 298 f\n-~~~~NG GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL I 01 2 20 22 0 2 20 13 82 02 2 2 21 18 2 0 26 15 88 03 21 23 0 19 18 86 04 2 0 22 20 2 0 0 0 11 19 76 05 0 0 19 24 0 2 0 22 19 87 K 21 23 0 0 0 21 14 82 190\"-. 16 11 ' 19 11\\'ll p 2 0 2 0 0 YJ 70 ~ ~ TOTAL FOR: ML KING 8 8 143 !~ 146 6 8 3 2 130 rr 117 lf~ 571 [[[}~~FEEGRRXDE AF kM'\"''-'\"ffl'\"lffil''\"'\"'\"'l',.L, Pl~IM ~~l\\!M T-0.-H-1I -- 01 0 0 12 19 0 0 0 0 9 8 48 -- --- -- ------------------- 02 0 17 16 0 0 0 7 7 49 03 0 0 18 11 0 0 0 0 13 7 49 04 0 0 15 15 0 2 0 0 7 8 47 05 0 18 12 0 0 0 12 49 K 0 0 16 15 0 0 0 9 14 55 ' 19  21 ~ p 3 22 l'q 25 0 0 0 ~ 92 TOTAL FOR: ROCKFELR 2 4 118 Ct1)1 3 2 3 0 69 ' 77 389 ~ COMPUTER INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, October 16, 2001 Page10of17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2001 ENROLLMENT REPORT WITH PRE-K STUDENTS\n--- TOTAL I i037 - GEYER SP GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM l__ _ 01 0 0 27 22 0 0 0 0 0 50 02 0 0 22 20 0 0 2 3 49 03 0 0 23 18 0 0 0 4 4 50 04 0 0 19 29 0 0 0 0 52 05 0 0 15 25 2 0 0 2 3 48 K 0 0 IS 10 3 0 0 7 2 38 ,0 p 0 0 19 ~ I I 0 0 OQ 0 ~ 33 ~ ~ TOT AL FOR: GEYER SP 0 0 140 '1 135 4 10 0 11 \"D 13 320 1038-PULHTE GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTALI OJ 9 10 0 0 0 0 13 10 44 02 12 9 0 0 0 0 14 6 43 03 0 II JI 0 0 0 0 10 17 50 04 0 0 9 9 0 0 0 0 13 9 40 05 0 19 16 0 0 0 0 13 12 61 .. K 0 0 8 14 0 0 0 8 ~ 13 {\\ 44 t 68 ~ 71 ~ 67 TOTAL FOR: PUL HT E 3 3 69 0 0 0 282 \\039 - RJGHTSEL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF M WF WM TOTAL\\ 01 0 0 16 23 0 0 0 0 0 40 M (\\ n ?1 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 .,, 03 0 0 26 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 --- . --- ----------- - -- ------ -- - - ---------- 04 0 0 19 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 -------- 05 0 0 17 21 0 0 0 0 0 39 K 0 0 17 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 p 0 0 17 19 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 36 ~ 133 ~ 133 ~ ~ TOTAL FOR: RlGHTSEL 0 0 0 0 0 0 268 COMPUTER INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, October 16, 200 l Page 11 ofl 7 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2001 ENROLLMENT REPORT WITH PRE-K STUDENTS r-- TOTAL\\ \\040 - ROMINE GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM \\VF WM I 01 0 0 17 21 5 0 0 5 4 53 02 0 II 22 3 0 0 4 43 03 0 18 9 2 0 0 2 4 37 04 0 7 15 4 5 0 0 2 6 40 05 0 8 18 2 4 0 0 2 36 EE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 K 0 0 16 14 2 0 0 3 5 41 \\) p 0 0 8 td 11 0 0 0 9 4 \\J. 33 ~ TOT AL FOR: ROMINE 3 85 ~ 110 13 19 0 0 23 ~ 30 1l'J 284 lo,-\nS\nT EPHENS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTALI L__ ___ 01 0 0 36 35 0 0 75 02 0 0 42 41 0 4 0 0 89 03 0 0 40 26 2 2 0 0 0 71 04 0 0 37 36 0 0 0 0 0 74 05 0 0 34 35 2 0 0 0 73 EE 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 9 K 0 0 51 41 3 0 0 2 2 100 ' p 0 0 28 24 0 0 0 0 1  I 54 ' V1 ~ ~ _:rOTAL FOR: STEPHENS 0 269 ~ 242 8 8 0 9 545 .... COMPUTER INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, October 16, 2001 Page 12 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2001 ENROLLMENT REPORT WITH PRE-K STUDENTS l~\n~\nA-S_HN GTN GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! 01 3 16 24 6 6 0 0 8 11 75 02 0 3 13 20 0 3 0 0 8 5 52 03 15 17 6 2 0 0 7 12 61 04 0 13 20 6 7 0 0 II 63 05 18 12 3 4 0 0 10 16 65 EE 0 7 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 13 K 3 0 31 26 2 2 0 0 7 7 78 15 \\ 12  p 0 0 0 0 13 ? 10 f\\ ~ TOTAL FOR: WASHNGTN 7 11 128 I ij 134 23 24 0 0 60 ~ 72 459 [043 ~~ILLlAMS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 2 0 17 15 0 0 0 0 12 15 61 02 3 3 21 13 0 0 11 14 67 03 2 7 16 24 0 0 0 0 20 11 80 04 5 5 24 21 0 0 0 0 10 22 87 OS 27 24 0 0 0 19 18 91 12 a (\\_ K 18 0 0 0 0 17 'v 11 \u0026gt;-60 1) I!: TOTAL FOR: WILLIAMS 14 17 111'ft11s 0 89 91 110 446 044-WILSON GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 14 25 0 0 0 0 0 r---42---..- 02 0 0 19 23 0 0 0 45 --- ---------- 03 0 19 19 0 0 0 0 0 40 04 0 13 17 0 0 0 2 0 34 05 0 0 12 13 0 0 0 0 2 28 EE 0 2 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 K 0 0 II 17 0 0 0 2 0 31 I\\ 0 p 0 0 9 \"Q 7 0 0 0 0 0 17 ~ TOTAL FOR: WIL ON 4 0 99 'Jr1 33 2 2 0 5 6 f\\ 252 COMPUTER INFORMATION SER VICES DEPT Tuesday, October 16, 2001 Page 13 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2001 ENROLLMENT REPORT WITH PRE-K STUDENTS 1045 - WOODRUFF GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTALI I L ____ +_ 01 0 0 19 22 0 0 0 0 2 44 02 0 0 19 14 0 0 0 0 35 03 0 0 20 II 0 0 0 0 2 0 33 04 0 0 23 14 0 0 0 0 3 2 42 05 0 0 16 18 0 0 0 2 38 K 0 0 20 14 0 0 0 4 40 p 0 0 9 ~ 12 2 0 0 7 4 35 ~ TOTALFOR:WOODRUFF 0 0 1261 105 3 0 18 ~ 13 ~ ~ 046 - MABEL EL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 17 10 0 0 0 7 36 02 0 0 12 13 2 0 0 7 7 42 03 0 0 21 10 0 0 0 0 2 34 04 0 0 16 10 0 0 0 0 6 37 05 0 0 15 19 3 0 0 8 9 55 EE 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 0 2 2 12 - ----- ---- K 0 0 ll 19 0 0 0 5 37 ---------- ~ p 0 0 8 5 0 0 0 0 4 18 ~ \"i\n: 37 ~., ' . TOTAL FOR: MABEL EL 0 0 103 91 3 6 0 0 31 271 ---- io41:TERR -- GRAITT:-AF A\"M\"\"-BF BM HF HM NF -NM- WF WM TOTAL 01 2 4 22 14 2 0 0 16 I 3 74 --------- --------------- --- - .. - - - ~ ----- ---- 02 6 18 17 6 0 0 19 17 85 ---------- 03 4 15 17 4 4 0 0 13 10 68 04 5 0 26 24 0 3 0 0 II 13 82 05 26 12 3 2 0 0 20 15 80 K 4 7 18 26 0 4 0 0 20 21 JOO p 4 5 3 0 0 0 0 4 ~ I 18 ~ ~ 90 r'- TOTAL FOR: TERRY 23 1_8 130 f'a11 3 14 16 0 0 103 \\ 507 COMPUTER INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, October 16, 2001 Page 14 of17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2001 ENROLLMENT REPORT WITH PRE-K STUDENTS 1048 - FULBRIGH GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! I 01 2 0 12 6 0 0 0 17 33 71 02 2 l3 16 0 0 0 0 24 15 71 03 0 0 17 17 0 0 0 0 20 17 71 04 0 0 16 15 0 0 0 0 22 20 73 05 0 17 14 0 0 0 32 13 78 EE 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 2 7 K 0 0 11 8 0 0 0 23 34 77 Cl p I('\\ 5 0 0 0 4~5 ~ 18 f\\. TOTAL FOR: FULBRIGH 6 2 87 84 2 0 144 ~ 139 466 ~ 050 - OTTER CR GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 17 22 0 0 0 17 11 69 02 0 22 19 0 0 0 14 9 66 03 0 17 15 0 0 0 17 17 68 04 0 0 12 I 7 0 0 12 12 55 05 0 0 14 16 0 0 0 9 10 50 K 0 2 24 16 0 0 0 0 II 19 72 ~ p 0 6 0 0 0 0 5 I\\. 4 ~ 17 TOTAL FOR: OTTER CR 2 4 112 1106 3 0 2 85 ~ 82 397 ~ \\os1-W AKEFIEL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM ~OTALL 01 0 0 28 27 5 7 0 0 2 70 ------------- ----- -- --- ----- -- . 02 0 0 22 24 4 4 0 0 0 6 60 03 0 0 30 22 7 4 0 0 0 3 66 04 0 0 25 21 2 6 0 0 56 05 0 0 32 18 3 2 0 0 0 56 K 0 0 20 27 5 4 0 0 58 4~ ~ p 0 0 5 3 6 0 0 0 (\\ 0 ~ 18 V\\ -- ' \\7 f\\ TOTAL FOR: WAKEFIEL 0 0 161 144 29 33 0 0 4 13 384 COMPlJfER INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, October 16, 200 I Pagel5ofl7 r 1052- WATSON STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2001 ENROLLMENT REPORT WITH PRE-K STUDENTS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM 'T~ 01 0 0 36 32 2 0 0 73 02 0 0 32 29 0 0 0 0 63 03 0 0 36 43 0 0 0 0 81 04 0 0 24 26 0 0 0 2 54 05 0 0 30 36 2 0 0 2 72 K 0 0 40 33 0 0 2 0 77 p 0 0 0 0 0 TOT AL FOR: WATSON 0 0 13 I\\ 11 211~ 216 6 4 0 32 ~ 452 1124 - LRSD RE CHRTR GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 03 0 0 3 10 0 0 0 0 0 14 04 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 3 0 34 05 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 35 {',, TOT AL FOR: LRSD RE CHRTR SC 0 0 3 \\,_ 29 16 (\\ 60 0 0 0 5 - 2 83 1766-ALC GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 06 0 0 I 6 0 0 0 0 2 0 07 0 0 5 14 0 0 0 0 0 3 22 ---------\"\"A ~------------~~-~~~--r- rj 08 0 0 6 ~ 21 0 0 0 0 2 \" 2 I 31 t - 09 0 0 9 20 0 0 0 0 30 ----------- ------------------ 10 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 17 TOTAL FOR: ALC COMPUTER INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, October 16, 2001 Pagel6ofl7 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2001 ,- I ENROLLMENT REPORT WITH PRE-K STUDENTS r-------- TOTAL\\ t_::_-ACCLP GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM ------ 09 0 0 \\\\ 9 0 0 0 0 28 ------ \\0 o. 0 \\8 15 0 0 0 3 7 44 ------------ \\l 0 0 28 24 0 2 0 0 5 7 66 ~ 12 0 0 44 it~ 3 0 0 1 8 I) l 7 \\ 09 ~ TOT AL FOR: ACC LP 0 0 101 '- 84 4 2 ---0 - l __ 19V36l-L-~ 17\n.,Y\n\u0026amp;' I /~~-3/ (/17, TOTAL WITHOUT AGENCY STUDENTS 195 185 8690 8738 379 441 26 28 3371 3314 25,367 K 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 05 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 p 06 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 07 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 6 9 08 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 8 09 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 5 5 14 10 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 0 3 6 18 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 12 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 GRANDT OTAL: 195 185 8704 8755 379 441 26 28 3383 3346 25,442 ----------------------------- --~  ,..T\"\",.,.,,r,o C\" f\"\\t:'PT Tuesday, October 16, 2001 Page 17 of l 7 Grade Totals K 44 01 33 02 38 03 38 04 55 05 39 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 Totals 247 North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 2001 Pupil Enrollment as reported to the State Department of Education October 15, 2001 Park Hill Elementary 6002-064 M F M F M F M 15 8 9 12 0 0 0 6 5 9 13 0 0 0 8 8 11 10 0 1 0 9 11 8 8 2 0 0 13 10 18 12 1 1 0 7 12 8 11 0 1 0 !!oL l:J. '1 (.., 58 54 63 66 3 3 0 45.34% 52.23% 2.43% 0.00% F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 2001 Pupil Enrollment as reported to the State Department of Education October 15, 2001 Pike View Elementary 6002-065 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Am Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 60 9 13 21 15 1 1 0 0 0 0 01 59 12 7 19 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 61 11 10 19 19 1 0 1 0 0 0 03 71 9 9 20 31 0 2 0 0 0 0 04 56 9 9 18 18 1 0 0 1 0 0 05 66 16 11 26 10 1 1 1 0 0 0 06 07 08 09 10 11 12\n,?.5 1~7 JI Totals 373 66 59 123 114 4 4 2 1 0 0 33.51% 63.54% 2.14% 0.80% 0.00% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 2001 Pupil Enrollment as reported to the State Department of Education October 15, 2001 Seventh Street Elementary 6002-069 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac ls Am Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 48 0 1 24 22 0 1 0 0 0 0 01 51 0 0 26 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 53 2 1 20 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 64 2 3 34 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 59 7 4 25 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 48 3 2 17 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 ~ ,\ny1 I Totals 323 14 11 146 151 0 1 0 0 0 0 7.74% 91.95% 0.31% 0.00% 0.00% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 2001 Pupil Enrollment as reported to the State Department of Education October 15, 2001 Redwood Pre-School 6002-067 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Am Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 16 0 0 6 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 - ,01'\" :-J /\u0026amp;-1/ .5 0 .-Y /-.3 I / 0 t:) 0 0 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 ~ ,~~. ~ 12 M~ ~ 0 l',,,,(C 7~ I / V C 0 .:_) Totals ..A-0' .A ....a..-. - ...e.- -- ~- _Id, i, _o.,. . __.e~ _-0- _o _..e ~ 1.0~0% jl.00% ..Q.~ 0:00% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 2001 Pupil Enrollment as reported to the State Department of Education October 15, 2001 Poplar Street Middle School 6002-059 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Am Ind/A/a Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 01 02 03 04 05 06 658 110 104 222 204 10 6 0 2 0 0 07 08 09 10 11 , 12 :~/.,J./ -\"'~ JI( Totals 658 110 104 222 204 10 6 0 2 0 0 32.52% 64.74% 2.43% 0.30% 0.00% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 2001 Pupil Enrollment as reported to the State Department of Education October 15, 2001 Lakewood Middle School 6002-070 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Am Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 313 96 103 59 50 1 2 1 1 0 0 08 253 84 97 38 30 3 1 0 0 0 0 09 10 11 - 12 ~ /1// ? Totals 566 180 200 97 80 4 3 1 1 0 0 67.14% 31.27% 1.24% 0.35% 0.00% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 2001 Pupil Enrollment as reported to the State Department of Education October 15, 2001 Ridgeroad Middle School 6002-072 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Am Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 287 50 38 102 85 6 5 1 0 0 0 08 283 49 42 98 82 9 3 0 0 0 0 09 10 11 J 12 171 ,3~'1 ~ Totals 570 99 80 200 167 15 , 8 1 0 0 0 31.40% 64.39% 4.04% 0.18% 0.00% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 2001 Pupil Enrollment as reported to the State Department of Education October 15, 2001 Rose City Middle School 6002-077 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Am Ind/A/a Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 143 17 11 59 51 2 2 1 0 0 0 08 134 17 12 52 51 1 1 0 0 0 0 09 10 11 12 I~' ,_:)J.~ '/ Totals 277 34 23 111 102 3 3 1 0 0 0 20.58% 76.90% 2.17% 0.36% 0.00% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 2001 Pupil Enrollment as reported to the State Department of Education October 15, 2001 North Little Rock High School East Campus 6002-075 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Am Ind/A/a Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 586 142 125 169 137 7 4 1 0 0 1 10 673 158 177 157 158 5 10 3 5 0 0 11 12 (r:,~ (~/ ..aG,, Totals 1259 300 302 326 295 12 14 4 5 0 1 47.82% 49.32% 2.07% 0.71% 0.08% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 2001 Pupil Enrollment as reported to the State Department of Education October 15, 2001 North Little Rock High School West Campus 6002-076 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Am Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 01 02 03 04 05 06 6 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 07 22 2 1 16 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 08 22 4 0 11 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 09 74 13 3 41 15 2 0 0 0 0 0 10 204 36 17 85 60 1 3 0 0 0 2 11 668 158 156 154 187 9 3 0 1 0 0 ?o.:3.. ?J'l / --'r/ ,1_2_ 625 156 157 123 165 5 10 1 6 1 1 Totals 1621 369 334 434 437 18 16 1 7 2 3 43.37% 53.73% 2.10% 0.49% 0.31% Nov 30 01 10:13a NLR SCHOOLS 5017718058 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATI01'1 OFFICE 2700 POPLA STREFT NORTH LITTLE ROCK AR 72114 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO, FROM. MellisaG uldin BobbyJ .A cklin COMPANY DATE, ODM 11/30/01 FAX NUMBER, TOTAL NO OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER, 501 371-0100 2 . OTES/COMMENTS, [Cl !C. HERE AND TYPE RETIJR 'ADDRCSSl p. 1 Nov 30 01 10: 13a NLR SCHOOLS Building Capacities 2001-2002 5017718056 I Locat10n West ---- _ I Building Capacity 11321 L East I 1261 I Lakewood Middle 598 Ridgeroad Mi_ddle 666 Rose City Middle j 457 Poplar Street Middle 814 I Argenta Academy 192 1 Amboy Elementary - - 419 Belwood Elementary 191 13oone Park Elementary 468 Crestwood Elementary 320 Glenview Elementary 209 Indian Hills Elementary 426 Lakewood Elementary 254 tJ,ynch Drive Elem~!).tary 1506 I Meadow Park Elementary 203 North Heights Elementary 509 Park Hill Elementary 295 Pike View Elementary 370 Seventh Street Elementary 434 -- - - p.2 j i 7 I I I I I l - \"\"' .... Of.ice of Student Affairs North Little Rock 5 choolD istrict 2700 PoplaSr treet North Little Rock, AR 7 2115-0687 (501) 771-8010 Francical J. Jackson, Director DATE: if-30 -D I TO: =-fbo~ RE: Dek I e'Ll, I( FAX 31/ - o IOO FAX: 'J 7 I - ':il?O PHONE: ______ _ PHONE: :J\"l I-go 14 COMENT _______________ _ This fax is __ page (s) induding the cover page. If you do not rec-eive all the pages, please call our ollice at (501) 771-8010_ PAGE 01/02 ..JU~ I f.l.l.\u0026gt;JU.l. NLRSD To: Francical J .Jackson/NLRSD@NLRSD cc: 1 ~ Greg Danlslr. ~ 11/30/01 09:31 AM Sub1ect: Oct 1 Pre-K Pre-K as of Oct 1 17 /t pl? Greg Daniels Director-Computer Services Greg.D1miels@mai1.nJrsd.k12.ar.us 501 771-8025 1 1 PAGE 02/0'.:: otaJ 7 124 NOV-29-T01H U1 1:47A M FAXN O. P. 01 Pulaski County Speci~I School Distric.t FAX COVER Time: // :yo I Number of Pages: (including cover sheet) --- Message: _______________ _ P.O. Box 8601  little Rock, A,.kansas 72216-8601 925 East Dixon Rd. (501) 490-2000  http://pessdweb.k12.ar.us HOV-29-T01H U1 1:47A M FAXN O. C ~\u0026lt;t, + ~ SCHOOL CAPACITY INFORMATION PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEPTEMBER 181 2001 HIGH SCHOOL Jacksonville Mills North Pulaski Oak Grove Jr./Sr. Robinson Sylvan Hills JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Fuller Middle Jacksonville Middle Jacksonville Junior High Northwood Middle Robinson Middle (2-rooms devided) Alpha Academy Sylvan Hills Middle ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Adkins Arnold Drive Baker Bates Bayou Meto Cato Clinton College Station Crystal Hill Dupree Harris Jacksonville Landmark Lawson Oak Grove Oakbrooke Pine Forest Pinewood  Robinson Scott Sherwood Sylvan Hills Murrell Taylor Tolleson SCHOOL CAPACITY 1025 780 900 935 506 998 SCHOOL CAPACITY 945 800 800 964 486 300 925 SCHOOL CAPACITY 370 420 330 800 660 576 833 340 820 465 525 785 568 325 476 500 556 523 450 280 460 456 450 570 P. 02 NOV-29-0T1H U1 1:4 7 AM FAXN O. P. 02 SCHOOL CAPACITY INFORMATION PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 HIGH SCHOOL Jacksonville Mills North Pulaski Oak Grove Jr./Sr. Robinson Sylvan Hills JUNIOR H1GH SCHOOLS Fuller Middle Jacksonville Middle Jacksonville Junior High Northwood Middle Robinson Middle (2-rooms devided) Alpha Academy Sylvan Hills Middle ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Adkins Arnold Drive Baker Bates Bayou Meto Cato Clinton College Station Crystal Hill Dupree Harris Jacksonville Landmark Lawson Oak Grove Oakbrooke Pine Forest Pinewood Robinson Scott Sherwood Sylvan Hills Murrell Taylor Tolleson SCHOOL CAPACITY 1025 780 900 935 506 998 SCHOOL CAPACITY 945 800 800 964 486 300 925 SCHOOL CAPACITY 370 420 330 800 660 576 833 340 820 465 525 785 568 325 476 500 556 523 450 280 460 456 450 570 10/31/2001 16:04 501-490-1352 EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE Date: To: Fax: Re: Sender: Pulaski County Special School District Equity and-Pupil Services 925 E. Dixon Rd/P.O. Box 8601\" Littlr: Rock, A.rkansas 7221 6 (501) 490-6215 (501) 490-1352 Fax FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET 31 \\- 0\\0 o PAGE 01/13  YOU SHOULD RECEIVE \\ 3 PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL (501) 490-6215. MESSAGE: 10/31/:001 16:04 501-490-135'.: EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE PAGE 0'.:/13 ,,  ' .'Pulaski c_ountyS pecial .School District {?ctober 31, 2001 Mrs: Ann Marshall  . Office of .Desegi:egatioMno ni~ring On.eU nion ~atiqnal Plaza ... . .  -124 Westcapitol, Suite 1895 Little Roe~, AR 72201  Dear Mrs. Brown,: . . . . . . Attached is theoctober 1, 2001 enrollment counts for Pulaski County Special  School Distrjct:  The following schools are out side the racial balance guidelines: Ad.k i.n s Elementary- _59% ,. . . Baker Elementary - 16% Bates Elementary -\" 52% .College Station Elementary- 50% _   Folier Middle-'-50% Harris Elementary - 65% Jacksonville Elementary - 51 % . Land.mark Elementary ..:.4. 8% Lawson Elementary - 18% Sincerely, . w~ - Kart Brown . Assistant Superi~tendent Equity and. Pupil Services ch. c Houston Yuille Sam Jones John Walker . P.O. Box 8601  .J,ittle Rock, Arkansas 72216-8 1 92S East Dixon Road .  (501) 490-2000- http://pcssdweb.kl2.ar.us . ..... - 10/31/2001 15:04 501-490-1352 EQUITYP UPIL SERVICE PAGE 03/13 - 0 Pulaski County Special School District Enrollltnent Counts for 1 October 2001 WHITE Bl.ACK OTHER GRADE SCHOOL/GRADE MALE FEMALE MAL.E FEMALE MALE FEMAL.E TOTAL 01 ~dkins Elementcry 6003090 PK* 2 (1 5 4 (J'\nJ..) 8 1 '1) 0 t cf 20 K 6 6 21 14 0 0 47 1 IO 7 12 13 0 1 43 2 7 9 12 11 1 0 40 3 10 5 12 11 0 0 38 4 9 9 12 6 0 0 36 5 13 12 12 10 Q Q 47 SCHOOL TOTAL 57 I () 53 85 ,t' 73 z ~ 1 271 ~~ 03 {aker Interdistrict 6003092 I( 21 23 2 2 0 1 49 1 23 19 4 4 0 0 50 2 23 13 5 5 0 0 46 3 17 17 4 4 0 0 42 4 24 21 3 2 0 0 50 5 17 1 9 ~ \u0026gt;19 1 Q 0 36 SCHOOL TOTAL 125\n/J. 102 24 21 Q I 1 273 /tb\nJI. 02 {rystaf Hill Magnt 6003093 PK* 19 (\n. ~ 9 13 (\nt,.) 13 0 ()) 0 \u0026gt;Pl~ 54 I( 36 25 20 30 3 115 1 27 25 21 24 1 0 98 2 25 22 31 20 0 0 98 3 24 17 29 23 1 2 96 4 22 22 23 32 0 0 99 5 31 26 22 28 0 0 107 6 18 13 23 20 } Q 77 SCHOOL TOT AL 202 J~I 159 182 1'~190 l JI i 744 ~0J1 Pagel of 11 Date: 10/31/2001 10/31/2001 15:04 501-490-1352 EQUITYP UPIL SERVICE PAGE 04/13 Pulaski County Special School District Enrolllment Counts for 1 October 2001 WHITE Bl.ACK OTHER GRAJ:)E SC~OI../GRA()E MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE TOTAL. 05 Bayou Meto Elementary 6003094 K 36 31 2 1 2 2 74 1 47 31 2 1 2 2 85 2 31 38 2 1 2 1 75 3 32 44 2 1 0 1 80 4 34 49 l 2 1 l 88 5 ~ 28 .f. ! '- .f. 70 SCHOOL TOT AL 215 ~\n/.f2 21 ll 18 z 2 ,g ~ 472 -Yl 42 f linton Mo.gnet School 6003095 PK* 11 14 20 (1~ 22 0 2 (,,7/  69 IC 20 27 24 23 1 2 97 1 23 18 22 17 2 1 83 2 22 22 18 22 4 2 90 3 24 31 29 33 1 0 118 4 16 21 17 23 2 3 82 5 22 24 27 31 l 1 106 SCHOOL TOT AL 138 /'1~ 157 157 j\n,~ 171 11\n-\nyll 645 cJJ- 11 Jbupree Elementary 6003099 \" 14 14 14 7 1 0 50 1 16 16 5 5 0 0 42 2 10 19 12 6 2 0 49 3 13 15 8 7 3 3 49 4 26 12 11 15 l 2 67 5 9 21 ~ ,~4~ f. ,4 0 46 SCHOOL TOT AL 88 ~ 97 56 48 2 ~ 303 ~-IT Page 2 of 11 Dote: 10/31/2001 10/31/:001 16:04 501-490-135: EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE PAGE 05/13 Pulaski County Special School District Enrolllment Counts for 1 October 2001 WHITE Bl.ACK OTHER GRADE SC~L/GRADE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE TOTAL 15 Harris Elementary 6003102 IC 7 4 11 5 0 0 27 1 7 l 6 7 0 0 21 2 9 3 9 16 0 0 37 3 6 3 12 5 0 0 26 4 5 3 7 12 0 0 27 5 2 ~ 12 ~ ! Q 33 SCHOOL TOT AL 40 ti\u0026gt; 20 57 ,,o 53 l 0 171 G-1, ~ 8 J ccksonville Elementary 6003103 K 26 12 31 22 1 1 93 l 28 27 23 22 l 2 103 2 24 23 21 ?2 1 92 3 23 15 31 26 1 2 98 4 22 25 32 19 2 1 101 5 20 19 29 19 0 2 89 6 2 0 1 0 Q Q 3 SCHOOL TOTAL 145 ?~ 12\n16\n.ef! 13~ ~ 11:\u0026gt;~ 579 17- 21-t.ondmarkE le~ntary 6003104 PK- 3 f? 10 9 _\n,\n)) 13 0 9 0 t.Jl 35 IC 11 11 11 19 0 0 58 1 15 8 8 14 0 0 45 2 17 15 10 14 1 0 57 3 12 18 9 11 0 0 50 4 19 21 8 16 1 1 66 5 12 fl~ 15 15 16 Q\n.j l 59 SCHOOL TOTAL 95 98 70 11? 103 2 f 370 -17T-Page 3 of 11 Dote. 10/31/2001 lf)/31/:001 16:04 501-490-135: EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE PAGE 06/13 Pulaski County Special School District Enrolllment Counts for l October 2001 WHITE BLACK OTHER GRADE SCHOOUGRAt\u0026gt;E MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE TOTAL 22{cwson Elementary 6003105 K 16 11 4 4 0 0 35 1 22 18 5 2 0 1 48 2 18 13 1 3 0 1 36 3 17 11 5 4 0 0 37 4 21 12 5 2 0 0 40 5 15 1'6i{ 12 2. -4~ 1 1 0 37 SCHOOL TOT AL 109 17 26 18 1 p ~ 233 11'- 234-olleson Elernentcry 6003106 K 23 22 5 6 3 1 60 1 31 19 4 12 1 l 68 2 27 20 6 7 2 2 64 3 20 16 10 10 4 2 62 4 12 24 6 lO 1 1 54 5 19 15 10 2 1  55 SCHOOL TOT AL .ill~ 116 41 \"\"' 51 14 i?. 9 363 ~~l 28 \"6ak Grove Elein ntary 6003108 Pk* 27 26 11\n\u0026gt;.~ 12 0 0 0 ,?-07  76 I( 18 21 6 2 1 0 48 1 18 16 5 4 0 0 43 2 12 18 5 6 2 1 44 3 11 19 5 5 1 0 41 4 10 22 4 5 1 0 42 5 21 17 4 7 0 0 49 6 12 rtJ\" 21 I ~ 1 Q 46 SCHOOL TOTAL m ~ 160 47 ~~ 46 ~ 1 1 ~ ,,)./?. Page 4 of 11 Date. 10/31/2001 HJ/31/:001 16:04 501-436-135: EQUITYP UPIL SERVICE PAGE 07/13 Pulaski County Special School District Enrolllment Counts for 1 October 2001 WHITE BLACK OTHER GRADE SCl.OUGRADE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE TOTAL 31 Robinson Elementary 6003110 K 20 14 5 5 1 1 46 1 17 20 4 5 0 2 48 2 23 22 6 3 0 0 54 3 31 15 12 6 l 1 66 4 28 19 5 14 0 0 66 5 28 25 10 7 Q 1 71 SCHOOL TOT AL 147 ,\"~115 42 i~40 i 1 ~ 351 -2~7. 34 lott Elementa.ry School 6003111 IC 7 4 2 0 0 0 13 1 14 7 1 3 0 0 25 2 13 11 1 8 0 0 33 3 4 3 3 6 0 0 16 4 6 7 5 3 0 0 Zl 5 z z i 2 Q Q 21 SC~OOL TOTAL _ Cfe\u0026gt; 39 14 ii 25 Q D Q m ~t\u0026gt;?. i 37 Sherwood Elememtary 6003112 K 16 19 5 5 0 0 45 l 28 16 9 10 1 l 65 2 17 19 6 11 0 0 ~3 3 14 18 7 4 1 0 44 4 27 17 10 5 1 0 60 5 16 16 ~ 13 l Q 5-4 SCHOOL TOT AL 118 -\n\"J'?1 05 5 1~ 48 1 ~ 1 321 ~ \u0026lt;r1. Page 5 of 11 Date: 10/31/2001 10/31/:001 16:04 501-490-135: EOUITV PUPIL SERVICE PAGE 08/13 Pulaski County Special School District Enrolllment Counts for 1 October 2001 WHITE SCHOOUGRADE MALE FEMALE 39-.{ylvan Hills Elementary 6003113 K 25 20 1 20 13 2 3 4 5 SCHOOL TOT AL ---9 Jacksonville Middle School 6 7 SCHOOL TOT Al. - ~8 Jacksonville Jr High 8 9 SCHOOL TOT AL {3 Fuller Middl School 6 7 8 SCHOOL TOTAL j40 .Sylvan Hills Middl School 6 7 8 SCHOOL TOT AL Page 6 of 11 12 11 23 6003116 13 14 15 94 93 87 100 181 ~ 193 6003117 91 104 106 89 197 ~ 193 6003120 59 64 61 55 43 59 163 ~I 17s 6003122 104 72 95 68 102 77 301 :\n1\u0026lt;\"6 ill BLACK MALE FEMALE 7 7 9 11 5 8 10 13 9 16 13 J 6 53 ,,\u0026gt;t ~ 76 64 73 J 11 149\n/tlf 135 65 64 88 gl 1~3\ni11 125 65 56 62 55 56 46 183 y 157 57 62 69 60 61 ~ 187 51-Y1e5 OTHER GRADE MALE FEMAlE TOTAL 2 0 3 0 1 0 3 1 3 0 2 1 1 2 2 l 2 Q  1 'I ~ 61 ~6 42 51 64 62 336 ~~,_ 334 338 672 _/\n.?- 327 345 672 -/17, 248 236 206 690 --j\"t.J1,, 301 299 310 910 Date\n10/31/2001 Hl/31/2001 15:04 501-490-1352 EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE PAGE 09/13 Pulaski County Special School District Enrolllment Counts for 1 October 2001 WHITE BLACI{ OTHER GRADE SC~OOL/GRADE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE TOTAL 20 Jacksonville Sr High 6003123 10 94 95 64 71 0 1 325 11 98 94 49 52 2 4 299 12 83 78 42 62 ! z 273 SCHOOL TOTAL 275 ~1\ny267 155 ,9\u0026gt;1185 1 rf\n, ll 897 ~rfk / 47 Mills University High 600312!5 9 91 68 83 68 2 4 316 10 78 58 55 59 6 3 259 11 49 52 56 49 4 3 213 12 67 36 30 37 5 3 178 SCHOOL TOT At. 285 ~~~ 214 224 \u0026gt;/?12 13 1\nJ6 1i 966 -15'0 29/0ak Grove Jr/Sr High 6003126 7 47 40 20 17 3 1 128 8 42 50 14 25 0 0 131 9 60 50 28 20 3 0 161 10 63 54 25 19 3 0 164 11 60 50 17 22 1 3 153 12 45 45 15 0 11 1 0 117 SCHOOL TOT AL 317 l 0 /.f 289 119 ~~ 114 .li ,~ 1 854 ~71 3l~obinson Sr. High 6003127 9 56 52 24 34 1 0 167 10 50 59 28 21 0 0 158 11 70 57 24 14 1 0 166 12 48 38 23 19 Q _Q 128 SCHOOL TOT AL 224 ~?I 206 99 1z1 88 ~ ~Q 619 ~o7 Page 7 of 11 Date: 10/31/2001 10/31/2001 16:04 501-490-1352 EQUITYP UPIL SERVICE PAGE 10/13 Pulaski County Special Sc:hool Distl'ict E\"rolllment Counts for 1 October 2001 WHITE BLACK OTHER GRAC\u0026gt;E SCHOOUGRADE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE TOTAL 41..fsylvan Hills Sr High 6003128 9 112 79 47 58 3 3 302 10 76 87 45 36 0 1 2-45 11 108 91 34 36 0 0 269 12 92 i 83 30 34 0 0 239 0- 1 ~\u0026lt;\u0026gt;,.. SCHOOL. TOT AL 388 1J- 340 156 J'\n)- 1M 1 4 1.055 45JCcto Elementary 6003129 \" 25 24 6 4 0 0 61 l 27 15 5 7 2 0 56 2 27 29 5 8 1 3 73 3 17 23 9 8 3 0 60 4 34 23 9 10 1 78 5 30 23 ~ ~ 1 I~ Q 73 SCHOOL TOT AL 160\n.'113 7 45 qo 4~ 10 ~ 401 ~-\n,-7- 461inewood Elementary 6003130 K 26 18 13 15 2 75 1 21 17 15 14 1 2 70 2 20 19 13 11 3 0 66 3 22 16 10 14 2 0 64 4 19 25 12 15 0 2 73 5 14 -\ny15 ~ ,(p) 17 1 1 65 SCHOOLT OT AL 122 ~?\n110 78 86 ll I( 2 413 \u0026gt;/D 7. oe{o llege Station Elementory 600313~ '{'d PK* 2\n1 5 /J 7 0 0 0 15 \" 1 5 4 6 0 1 17 1 4 3 1 5 0 0 13 z 2 l 5 4 0 0 12 3 6 9 13 11 3 1 43 4 19 16 9 19 0 2 65 5 .il L ll 10 ~ l 5Z SCHOOLT. OTAL 55 o,1 42 48 ,,o ~ ~ ,o ~ 217 ~,7. Page 8 of 11 Date. 10/31/2001 10/31/~001 15:04 501-490-135~ EOUIT .' PUPIL SERVICE PAGE 11/13 Pulaski County Special School District Enrolllment Counts for 1 Odobe.r 2001 WHITE BLACK OTHER GRADE SCHOOL/GRADE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE TOTAL 49jNorth Pulaski High 6003136 9 99 73 43 44 5 3 267 10 125 75 31 36 5 7 279 11 86 66 35 40 4 5 236 12 68 ~ 63 20 '!) 26 2. 1 186 SCHOOL TOT AL 378 ~? 2,.77 129 ~'1 146 20 ?J'D18 968 ~'81- 27~rnold Dri\\le Elementary 6003137 \" 25 27 6 10 6 3 77 1 23 23 3 12 3 2 66 z 30 18 5 5 6 4 68 3 21 21 7 7 1 2 59 4 21 14 6 10 4 1 56 5 24 13 l 2 l 1 54 -- 0 - SCHOOL TOT AL 144\nI, lli 34 ~~ 49 2\n~1 16 380 ~'\n),,7- 11 loakbrooke Elementary 6003139 \" 17 16 5 6 0 1 45 1 14 17 8 8 0 0 47 2 13 16 7 12 0 0 48 3 21 10 12 9 0 3 !5!5 4 15 24 12 10 1 1 63 5 19 13 z 2 Q Q 48 SCHOOL TOt AL 99 ,Cl~ 96 51 10~ 54 ! Cr ~ 306 ~,. \"16 Northwood Middle School 6003140 6 93 85 44 31 7 3 263 7 102 75 40 30 2 4 253 8 87 67 37 \\ 39 i 2 236 SCHOOL TOTAL 282 ~o'\\ 227 121 ~~ 100 13 i~ 2 752\nXtl Page. 9 of 11 Date: 10/31/2001 10/31/2001 16:04 501-490-1352 EQUITYP UPIL SERVICE PAGE 12/13 Pulaski Coui,ty Special School District Enrolllment Counts for- l October 2001 WHITE BLACK OTHER GRADE SCt'OUGRADE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE TOTAL 51 Murrell Taylor Elementary 6003141 I( 13 15 11 15 0 0 54 1 14 14 8 10 l l 48 2 14 15 11 11 0 0 51 3 18 10 16 14 1 0 59 4 17 17 17 7 0 0 58 5 27 ~ 18 13 ,~l 8 Q Q 66 -1~1. SCHOOL TOT AL 103 { 11 89 76 65 i ?\u0026gt; ! 336  52 Pine Forest Elementary 6003142 k 33 28 9 2 0 0 72 1 22 20 12 9 1 1 65 2 28 28 3 6 1 l 67 3 25 13 11 4 0 0 53 4 44 26 6 ll 0 3 90 5 25 22 5 5 1 3 61 6 27 ~ i ~ .f ,j 1 69 SCHOOL TOTAL 204 ?' 163 55 q~ 41 ~ 2 477\n.\" 7 - ~O R.obinson Middle School 6003143 6 60 47 26 29 I 1 164 7 62 58 31 24 1 1 177 8 62 52 30 ,~4 19 1 0 164 SCHOOL TOT AL 184 J~ I 157 87 72 1 ~ 2 505 ,\n17- 53 ~ates Elementary 6003146 PK\" 13 J 11 17 (31) 14 0 u 0 G 55 IC 31 21 21 15 1 l 90 1 26 18 17 23 2 0 86 2 23 15 32 19 0 0 89 3 20 13 29 21 1 3 87 4 25 15 23 21 3 2 89 5 20 J.Q B. ~ Q ,,} ! 121 SCHOOL TOTAL 158 7 123 171 , !fil. z z 617 7o Page 10 of 11 Dote: 10/31/2001 10/31/2001 16:04 501-490-1352 EQUITYP UPIL SERVICE PAGE 13/13 Pulaski County Special School District Enrolllment Counts for 1 October 2001 WHITE BLACK OTHER GRADE SCHOOL/GRAOE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE TOTAL TOT AL OISTIUCT ENROLLMENT t~~ 76 1 Pl(* 77 79 1 (, 89 ', 1 :, i P 324 K 479 418 247 225 24 16 1,409 1 497 388 209 242 18 zo 1,374 2 447 421 231 239 29 17 1,384 3 419 376 295 257 24 23 1,394 4 498 459 252 285 20 21 1,535 5 474 410 ZBJ 272 22 21 1,482 6 469 '\\ 421 308 ~J 271 24 \"~ 12 1,505 3.2s3l? z.s93 1 825 -,,'l - ELEMENTA RY TOTALS 1,791 ill~ UQ ~ ~lo 1 7 8 9 10 11 12 SECONDARY TOTALS DISTIUCT TOTALS AS REPORTEbT O THE STATE (WITHOUT \"PRE IC\" STUDENTS) 454 396 427 409 5Z4 4/1 486 428 471 410 403 I,~ J4J 2,765 ' 2,397 295 257 263 256 313 ,?85 248 242 215 213 160 4'J'1\u0026lt;8 9 1,494 ~ 1,442 3,319 3,233 -=== 0 17 12 1,-431 9 JO 1,374 1-4 I.I 1,558 14 12 1,430 12 15 1,336 13 '1.J l ,121 79 ,~ 73 8,250 e9tl 240 -203 [ DISTRICT TOTALS ----------- ... --- ~q-------------(-7, -1--lf----- : !,WITH \"PRE-K\" \u0026amp;,.!25111 ~ ~ 3,323 '241 205 ~ 1 ~(, ?.. :.STUDENTS - - == _, -\nL ---------------------------------- ----------------- .. ------------------ .. ---- _, ---J ,-----------------MOR~NrNOrES~----------------, : (1) PK* - ''l'RF-K\" CHIU\u0026gt;RtN AR NOT INal/l\u0026gt;ED IN TH STATE'S OCTO8tR J I I 0/ROllMENr ?'Ol/NT FOR Pt/LASKI COVNTY SPCIAl SCHOOi,, l\u0026gt;I$TRICT I : (.2) THE ALPHA ACADEMY WAS NOr REPOR11:DB, CAVS THE 5TVl\u0026gt;NTS WFREC OUNTtl\u0026gt; : I~ ------A-S -PA-RT- O-F- TH-t -.S-CH-OO-i. -WH-IC-H- T-HE-Y N-O-RM-A-/.J.-Y A-TT-EN-D-. --------I ---- Page 11 of 11 Date: 10/31/2001\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":"hbcula_becu_44","title":"Voice of the Wildcats Newsletter, October 2001","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":["2001-10"],"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 2001"],"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/44"],"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_bcmss0837_1552","title":"\"Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001''","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":["2001-10"],"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","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational innovations","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","School management and organization","Student assistance programs","Education, Elementary"],"dcterms_title":["\"Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001''"],"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/1552"],"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":["101 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1084","title":"\"Extended Year Education (EYE) Report: SY 2000-2001\" Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Little Rock School District","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":null,"dc_date":["2001-09-28"],"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","Educational statistics","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["\"Extended Year Education (EYE) Report: SY 2000-2001\" Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Little Rock School District"],"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/1084"],"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\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nEC IVE DEC 13 2001 Extended Year Education (EYE) Report SY2000-2001 Planning, Research, and Evaluation September 28, 2001 Abstract National research on Extended Year Education (EYE) programs has indicated a number of key variables.  Achievement is similar to or better than traditional calendar year schools.  Students and teachers have a positive perception of their school.  Most parents are satisfied with the EYE program.  EYE schools cost more to operate than traditional calendar year schools. Demographically the three EYE schools (i.e., Mabelvale, Stephens, and Woodruff) are more different than similar.  They share similar ethnic and SES ratios.  The schools are of different size, their instructional programs are different, and they are allocated varying levels of resources.  Stephens is a new school that opened in January 2001. Achievement data is mixed.  4th grade Benchmark scores improved at Mabel vale.  On some subjects measured by the Achievement Level Test (ALT), schools are growing faster than the national comparison sample.  The three schools also performed well in comparison to other schools in the District on the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) readiness to read percent. Other variables indicate mixed results.  Discipline sanctions, compared to Woodruff, appear high at Mabelvale and Stephens.  Surveys of EYE parents, students, and teachers indicated a positive perception of the EYE program and in particular, parents are satisfied with the EYE program.  The cost of implementing the EYE program adds $23,993 to each school's operating budget.  Teacher behavior (i.e., sick and personal leave, professional development, and inservice days) has not measurably changed. The new District reporting system indicates mixed results, with Woodruff performing above the District average in the percent of teachers with 30+ professional development hours It is uncertain whether the aforementioned results were due to calendar change or to the continuity of instruction (e.g., intersessions). Continued annual reports will help to validate EYE program success or lack thereof. Concluding remarks indicate a need for the District and schools to review their allocation of resources and intervene where possible, to work on improving the amount of professional development, and to incorporate not only achievement goals and data, but also EYE survey goals and data into each school's improvement plan. 2 Introduction and Method Description of the EYE Program In August of 2000, Little Rock School District opened the school year with three of its elementary schools (i.e., Mabelvale, Stephens, and Woodruff) operating on an extended year calendar. Below is the calendar for the upcoming SY2001-2002. August 8 - School begins October 15-18 - 1st intersession October 22-26 - Vacation Dec. 2-January 1 - Winter break February 4-8 - 2nd intersession February 11-13 - Vacation March 25-29- Spring break April 17-19 - 3rd intersession June 19 - Last day June 24-29 - 4th intersession EYE is a concept, which reorganizes the school year so that the standard instructional period is distributed throughout the year with regularly scheduled breaks or vacations interspersed. Educational instruction and vacations are organized into smaller segments and spaced throughout the year for more continuous learning and more frequent breaks. EYE has emerged nationally as a way to offer all students a better education, regardless of their ethnic background, social status or academic performance. This is just another avenue that the Little Rock School District is employing to offer all students an opportunity for outstanding achievement. Little Rock's design is a single track 45-10 calendar where all students and teachers in the school are in class or on vacation at the same time. The 45-10 refers to 45 days in a quarter then 10 days of intersession/vacation. Intersession is a five-day program and attendance is voluntary. Comparison of EYE and Traditional Calendars EXTENDED YEAR CALENDAR 178 STUDENT DAYS 30 STUDENT INTERSESSION DAYS ONE MONTH SUMMER VACATION (JULY) 4 NINE WEEK QUARTERS 3 TRADITIONAL CALENDAR 178 STUDENT DAYS SUMMER SCHOOL 2  MONTHS BREAK 4 NINE WEEK QUARTERS Expected Outcomes from Implementing EYE Section 2. 7 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan. Less time needed to reteach. In order to start a new year effectively, teachers tend to devote four or more weeks on reviewing and reteaching. Time is recognized as a major factor that leads to loss of learning. Increased reading skills. Reading is the biggest hurdle for disadvantaged children in the primary grades. The gap between disadvantaged and average children widens between September and June as well as over the span of several calendar years. Studies show that low socioeconomic students lose as much as 1 to 2 months during the summer without the benefit of compensatory programs. It is true that all students regardless of ability or background forget, but for the disadvantaged the problem is greater. Disadvantaged children acquire new skills and knowledge during the school year only to have their gains dissipate over the months when schools are not in session. Intersession. For students working below grade level, extended year schedules offer an opportunity to gain individual help. The traditional calendar makes these students wait until the end of the year for summer school. It does not provide the opportunity for additional help close to the times of the learning problem. Balanced holidays. Most people in a working community are not limited only to summer vacation. Scheduling vacations during times other than when most people travel is attractive to many\nthe cost of travel, lodging and admission costs are often reduced. Large crowds can be avoided. Vacations can be scheduled at times that are better for the working parent and the employer. Families whose children attend extended year schools can easily plan for a wider variety of family vacation experiences. Children in schools on the traditional calendar and the extended calendar will find that all of the major holiday periods are the same. Less burnout. Frequent breaks result in less stress and burnout. The intersession/vacation periods refresh teachers and students, resulting in improved teachers' and students' attitudes and decreasing teacher burnout. Teachers and students return from breaks refreshed and motivated. Results of National Research National research has indicated that EYE type schools have outcomes similar to or better than traditional calendar schools. This national research has reached the following conclusions.  Achievement is similar to or better than traditional calendar year schools.  Students and teachers have a positive perception of their school.  Most parents are satisfied with the EYE program.  EYE schools cost more to operate than traditional calendar year schools. 4 National research is uncertain as to the reasons that certain EYE type schools have demonstrated an increase in achievement schools versus traditional calendar year schools. Researchers have speculated that the remediation and enrichment activities provided during intersession have an effect and also, the reduction of the summer vacation may contribute to a lessening of the traditional summer fall off (Kirk, 2000). Methodology This report will examine a number of variables to determine the impact of EYE on student achievement, teacher behavior, parent, teacher, and student attitudes toward the EYE program, and the cost of the EYE program. The variables to be reported and discussed in this report are: 1. Demographic and equitable allocation data. 2. Observation Survey (OS) and Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) scores for grades K-2. 3. Achievement Test Level (ALT) growth scores in reading, language usage, mathematics, and science for grades 2-5. 4. SAT-9 for grade 5 and Benchmark scores for grade 4. 5. Teacher use of sick, personal, professional development, and inservice days. 6. Survey data of EYE program parents, students, and teachers. 7. Additional EYE program costs. Data will be reported in aggregate and disagregate form. However, given the high percentage of Black students at the three EYE schools and the importance of improving the achievement scores of Black students, concluding remarks will focus on Black student performance. 5 Results Demographic Data 10/1/00 Enrollment by Grade level and Ethnicity PreK Kindergarten 1st 2nd 3rd 4tn 5'n Black/Non-Black Black/Non-Black Black/Non-Black Black/Non-Black Black/Non-Black Black/Non-Black Black/Non-Black Mabel vale 919 35 / 14 35 / 15 46 / 5 40 I 13 46 I 20 47 I 12 Stephens 32 / 3 54 / 3 45 / 3 36 / 4 45 / l 49 / 4 46 / 2 Woodruff 42 /l 1 35 / 4 37 / 3 35 / 4 34/7 27 /7 30 I 5 Ethnicity, SES, and Instructional Program School N Ethnicity %SES Instructional (PreK) Black/ Non-Black Strategies Mabel vale 346 75%/25% 83% (18) ELLA Stephens 327 94%/6% 90% ELLA (35) Woodruff 281 85% / 15% 85% SFA (53) 6 Equitable Allocation Worksheet Data Scores are based on a 1-8 scale, with the higher score indicating more resources allocated to that school. Scores were calculated in December 2000 and derived from the 10/1 /00 enrollment report. Caution is advised in comparing Stephens to Garland. The mid-year changeover from Garland affected several of the variables ( e.g .. % of new teachers, computer/pupil ratio, and sq. ft. per pupil). Except for these three variables, scores tend to reflect the status of Garland at 10/1/00 rather than Stephens. Given that most data is based on 10/1/00 enrollment, it will be at least another two years before a reliable comparison is available for Stephens. Mabel vale Stephens Woodruff 98-99 99-00 00-01 98-99 99-00 00-01 98-99 99-00 Teacher/Pupil Ratio 4 3 4 6 6 6 5 6 Staff/Pupil Ratio 4 5 6 7 8 8 6 6 Sq. Feet per Pupil 5 7 8 5 6 3 5 5 % of Staff with MA, +9 1 1 I I I 2 3 I years Experience % of new Teachers 6 4 7 3 .., ., 1 2 4 School Size 4 3 4 6 7 5 6 7 Computer/Pupil Ratio 6 5 7 4 3 8 3 1 Per Pupil Expenditure 5 3 3 6 7 6 5 6 Volunteer hours per Pupil 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 4 Donations per pupil 5 4 6 4 5 4 2 2 Total Score 41 36 44 46 50 47 41 42 Conclusions  Woodruff is the smallest school but has the largest Pre-K program and is due to the temporary placement of some Pre-K students from Stephens until Stephens opened in January 2001.  There is some variability in ethnicity with a range of 75% Black students at Mabelvale to 94% Black students at Stephens. However, all three schools are above the District average of 68% Black.  With a range of 83% to 90%, there appears to be less variability for the SES variable.  Woodruff is the only SF A school, with Stephens and Mabelvale using ELLA instructional strategies.  Mabel vale has a lower enrollment in Kindergarten and 1st grade than other grade levels at Mabelvale. Woodruff has consistent grade level enrollments. Stephens has a comparatively large Kindergarten class.  Equitable allocation worksheet scores for Mabelvale and Woodruff have increased over time.  For SY2000-200 I, Mabelvale had an increase in the computer to pupil ratio, and donations per pupil. 7 00-01 7 7 5 5 5 7 2 5 2 7 52  There was less teacher turnover at Mabelvale.  Mabelvale has remained consistently low on the volunteer hours per pupil variable and % of staff with MA +9 years experience, with a score of 1 for all three years.  Woodruff had an increased number of staff with MA +9 years experience and per pupil donations. However, Woodruff has remained consistently low in the ratio of computers per pupil. With some minor variation, the three EYE schools are similar on the other allocation variables. There appears to be more differences than similarities in the demographic make-up of the three EYE schools. The three schools share similar SES and ethnic makeup, teacher and staff per pupil ratio, and per pupil expenditure. Differences between the schools are  Enrollment and grade level size.  The instructional programs, with two schools using ELLA and one a SF A school.  The ratio of computers, volunteer hours, donations, and % of staff with MA +9 years experience. Observation Survey (OS) and Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) scores for grades K-2 The OS and ORA are observational measures used to guide student work on tasks related to reading and writing. The OS consists of five measurable tasks:  Letter Identification (Letter) records the letters a student knows.  Word Test (Word) records the number of words a students knows.  Concepts in Print (Cap) records what a student is attending to on the printed page.  Writing Vocabulary (Voe) records all the words a student can write in ten minutes.  Writing Records (Diet) identifies a student's writing behavior. The ORA is considered a pivotal task in which student reading behavior is recorded as text is read aloud. During this observation students read materials that are typically used within the classroom and the observer (i.e., the classroom teacher) records the directional movements that are made and errors or miscues. The student is assessed on deriving meaning, structure and information from the material. The OS and DRA were administered in the fall and spring to Kindergarten through 2nd grade students. The OS and DRA is written for classroom teachers who want to become careful observers of young children as these students learn to read and write. The OS and DRA are useful to teachers who work one-on-one with students who are having difficulty in learning to read and write. Where appropriate, the OS and DRA are administered to all students. A student is considered to be ready to read at the next grade level with a DRA score of 2 in kindergarten, 16 in 1st grade, and 24 in 2nd grade. Growth scores on the OS and DRA by District and the three EYE schools are reported in Appendix A. The table below reports the percent of students by ethnicity and grade level who are considered to be ready to read at the next grade level. SY2000-2001 scores are derived from 8 the DRA assessment completed during April 2001. Data for schools in which there were less than five non-black students will not be reported. Percent of students at the readiness level Kindere:arten 1st Grade 20 Grade Black Non-Black Black Non-Black Black Non-Black 99-00 00-01 99-00 00-01 99-00 00-01 99-00 00-01 99-00 00-01 99-00 Mabel vale 61.5 86.4 75 100 51.1 87.5 66.7 87.9 32.4 60 68.8 Stephens 40.4 87.5 24.1 36.6 39.3 58.5 ,, Woodruff 68.6 48.6 - 84.4 65.7 . 82.9 84.8 District 69.3 77 84.7 88.8 48.3 57.4 71.2 77.3 63.8 69.8 81.6 Conclusions For Black students, at the kindergarten level, Mabelvale and Stephens exceeded the District cohort improvement scores. At the kindergarten level, Mabelvale and Stephens exceeded the District average in percent of students at the readiness level. At the I st grade level Mabel vale and Woodruff exceeded the District cohort improvement scores and the District average in percent of students at the readiness level. At the 2nd grade level Mabelvale and Stephens exceeded the District cohort improvement scores, with only Woodruff exceeding the District average in percent of students at the readiness level. Except for Mabelvale the number of Non-Black students is small. Actual Black student growth performance from Fall to Spring is mixed (See appendix A). In Kindergarten:  Mabelvale performed above the District in hearing and recording sounds and the DRA.  Stephens performed above the District average in letter identification, word test, writing vocabulary, and hearing and recording sounds.  Woodruff performed better in letter identification and word test. In I st grade:  Mabelvale preformed better than the District in word test, writing vocabulary, and DRA.  Stephens performed better in concepts in print and hearing and recording word sounds.  Woodruff performed better in letter identification. In 2nd grade:  Mabelvale performed better than the District in letter identification and hearing and recording word sounds. 9 00-01 83.3 ' 86.8  Stephens performed better in writing vocabulary, hearing and recording word sounds, and DRA.  Woodruff performed better in hearing and recording word sounds. Achievement Level Test (ALT) Growth Scores The AL Ts include a series of mathematics, reading, language usage, and science achievement measures that increase in difficulty across levels. The tests are designed to document growth by assessing students at the \"cutting edge\" of their individual achievement level. Spring administration across grades 2 - 9 permit measurement of growth within and across school years expressed in two kinds of scores: percentile scores and scale or RIT (Rasch Interval Scale) scores. Percentile scores can be used to compare students to the large group of test takers using the ALT developed by the Northwest Evaluation Association. This is a \"comparative group\" currently involving 104 schools districts and 500,000 students and growing 4 to 13 points annually. This is not a norm group configured to represent public school populations. Demonstration of growth within and across an individual's matriculation, spring to spring, in grades 2 - 9 is documented using the RIT score designed to make direct comparisons to a criterion performance level along a scale from 160 to 250. Students typically start at a RIT score of about 160-190 in the spring of the 2nd grade and progress to the 230-260 range by high school. Along the scale, scores have the same meaning regardless of the individual student's grade level. This type of measurement allows some students to start at a higher RIT level and some low-achieving students to never reach the top level. The design provides an accurate measure of each student's achievement where the typical standardized test, by its nature, provides inadequate measures for many students, especially those at the high and low ends of the scale. The AL Ts are aligned with The Arkansas Mathematics, Reading, and English/Language Arts, and Science Curriculum Frameworks, thus enabling the District to determine impact and effectiveness of its instructional programs. The pool of test questions, developed by the Northwest Evaluation Association, has been extensively field tested to insure items of the highest quality and fairness. Teachers and curriculum specialists balanced by race, gender, and grade level matched the pool of questions to the standards and their attending benchmarks included in the aforementioned Frameworks. During test development activities, questions were calibrated for difficulty and assigned to a level ( e.g., Math levels 1-8). For example: An appropriate expectation of a Level 1 student is to multiply whole numbers, while a Level 6 student should be able to multiply fractions. This calibration makes it possible to calculate the RIT score which is tied directly to the curriculum. ALT median and median growth scores by District and the three EYE schools are reported in Appendix B. A median score represents data in which 50% of the students scored above the median score and 50% of the students scored below the median score. The outcome scores for this report are the Spring 2001 results. EYE Spring 2001 results for Black students will be compared to District Black students. The target scores listed in appendix B were derived from a nationwide comparison group of 500,000 students that have taken the AL Ts. ALT data will be reported in two ways. First, Black student scores will be reported by school, grade level, and subject in which these students performed equal to or better than the District median scores. None of the EYE schools met or exceed the comparison group median target scores. Secondly, Black student scores will be reported by school, grade level, and subject is which these students performed equal to or better than the District and comparison group growth scores (i.e., target scores). Below are the Black student median outcome results for Spring 2001 that were equal to or greater than the Black student District median. Mabel vale Reading 2nd grade 4th grade Garland/Stephens Reading none Woodruff Reading 2nd grade 3rd grade 4th grade 5th grade Language none Language none Language 2nd grade Math 2nd grade 4th grade Math none Math 2nd grade 5th grade Science 3rd grade Science none Science 3rd grade 5th grade Below are the Black student one-year growth results or EYE schools that were equal to or greater than the Black student District median. An * means than the students grew at or above the target score. Mabel vale Reading 3rd grade* 4th grade* 5th grade* Garland/Stephens Reading 4th grade* Language 3rd grade 4th grade Language 3rd grade 4th grade* 5th grade* 11 Math 4th grade* Math 3rd grade* 4th grade 5th grade* Science 5th grade Science 4th grade Woodruff Conclusions Reading 3rd grade* 4th grade* 5th grade* Language 4th grade* Math 3rd grade Science 4th grade While median outcome results for Black students at Mabelvale and Woodruff had mixed results, reading appears to be a strong subject primarily at Woodruff. Growth scores appear optimistic. In all three schools a number of grades are growing not only faster than the District median, but also faster than the target score. SA T-9 for grade 5 and Benchmark scores for grade 4 SAT-9 and Benchmark data report a cohort of students in time. The SA T-9 is given in the fall to 5th grade students and the Benchmark is given in the spring to 4th grade students. SA T-9 for the District and three EYE schools are reported in Appendix C. Black student percentile scores for SAT-9: Complete battery 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 Mabel vale 29 28 24 19 17 Garland/ 18 17 23 24 24 Stephens Woodruff 30 32 22 14 34 District 26 25 30 26 29 Percent of Black students at or above the proficient level on Benchmark exam Mathematics Literacv 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 1998-1999 1999-2000 Mabel vale 0% 16% 18% 15% 21% Stephens 0% 0% 0% 13% 13% Woodruff 4% 20% 19% 4% 34% District 8% 15% 16% 20% 29% Conclusions The SAT-9 data for 2000-2001 was collected at the beginning of the EYE program and will be useful in future EYE reports. The Benchmark data was collected in the spring 200 I and is somewhat a reflection of the change to EYE. Obviously what a student has incurred in the years prior to the EYE program will have as equal or greater affect than the one year in EYE. Mabel vale had an increase in the number of Black students at or above the proficient level, while Stephens and Woodruff had no change or a decrease 12 2000 2 4 1 2 4th Grade Benchmark Exam - -~ Grade 4 Benchmark Examination Mathematics School Summary Report: General Population Mabelvale Elementary Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 All Students 42 81% 34 67% 33 66% 10 19% 6 12% 7 14% 0 0% 7 14% 8 16% 0 0% 4 8% 2 4% Asian/Pacific Islander 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% African/American 22 76% 30 75% 26 76% 7 24% 4 10% 2 6% 0 0% 5 13% 4 12% 0 0% 1 3% 2 6% Hispanic 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Native American 5 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% White 12 80% 4 40% 6 43% 3 20% 2 20% 4 29% 0 0% 1 10% 4 29% 0 0% 3 30% 0 0% Grade 4 Benchmark Examination Literacy School Summary Report: General Population Mabelvale Elementary Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 All Students 29 60% 27 53% 22 44% 14 29% 13 25% 17 34% 5 10% 10 20% 11 22% 0 0% 1 2% 0 0% Asian/Pacific Islander 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% African/American 15 58% 25 63% 17 50% 7 27% 7 18% 11 32% 4 15% 7 18% 6 18% 0 0% 1 3% 0 0% Hispanic 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Native American 3 60% 0 0% 0 0% 1 20% 0 0% 0 0% 1 20% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% White 10 71% 2 20% 4 29% 4 29% 5 50% 6 43% 0 0% 3 30% 4 29% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 13 - - Grade 4 Benchmark Examination Mathematics School Summary Report: General Population Stephens Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 All Students 24 89% 28 88% 43 91% 2 7% 4 13% 4 9% 1 4% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Asian/Pacific Islander 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% African/American 22 92% 28 88% 42 93% 2 8% 4 13% 3 7% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Hispanic 2 67% 0 0% 1 50% 0 0% 0 0% 1 50% 1 33% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Native American 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% White 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Grade 4 Benchmark Examination Literacy School Summary Report: General Population Stephens Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 All Students 16 62% 17 53% 35 74% 6 23% 11 34% 9 19% 4 15% 4 13% 3 6% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Asian/Pacific Islander 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% African/American 14 61% 17 53% 35 78% 6 26% 11 34% 8 18% 3 13% 4 13% 2 4% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Hispanic 2 67% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 50% 1 33% 0 0% 1 50% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Native American 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% White 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 14 - Grade 4 Benchmark Examination Mathematics School Summary Report: General Population Woodruff Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 All Students 25 76% 23 68% 19 66% 4 12% 3 9% 4 14% 2 6% 6 18% 2 7% 2 6% 2 6% 4 14% Asian/Pacific Islander 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% African/American 22 81% 20 69% 17 77% 4 15% 3 10% 1 5% 1 4% 5 17% 1 5% 0 0% 1 3% 3 14% Hispanic 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Native American 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% White 3 50% 3 60% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 67% 1 17% 1 20% 0 0% 2 33% 1 20% 1 33% Grade 4 Benchmark Examination Literacy School Summary Report: General Population Woodruff Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 All Students 20 59% 11 32% 11 38% 12 35% 11 32% 10 34% 2 6% 12 35% 8 28% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Asian/Pacific Islander 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% African/American 18 64% 10 34% 10 45% 9 32% 9 31% 8 36% 1 4% 10 34% 4 18% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Hispanic 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Native American 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% White 2 33% 1 20% 0 0% 3 50% 2 40% 0 0% 1 17% 2 40% 3 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 15 Discipline Sanctions Number and Percent to student population . Sanctions minus repeat offenses School of Sanctions (Grades 1-3) Mabel vale 30 (19.5%) 23 (15%) Stephens 55 (41%) 32 (23.9%) Woodruff 2 (1.7%) 2 (1.7%) Conclusions Both Mabel vale and Stephens had a number of repeat offenses. However, Stephens had almost 25% of their 1st through 3rd grade students sanctioned. In addition, the 15% single sanctions at Mabelvale is also high. Teacher use of sick, personal, professional development, and inservice days Data from Garland is used for SY's 1998-1999 and 1999-2000. There appears considerable variability in the tables for professional development and inservice days. Since this appears to be so, the last table combines both these data. The first set of tables are data received from the Financial Services Department and reflect the number of days a teacher was out of the school. The last table are data received from the Staff Development Department and reflect staff development hours teachers received either during or after school hours. Average Sick Days School 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 Mabel vale 12.45 9.69 11.1 Stephens 7.21 * 8.11 * 7.99 Woodruff 12.8 9.13 7.12 District 8.84 8.74 8.99 Average Personal Days School 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 Mabel vale .76 .87 .94 Stephens .89* 1.12* .86 Woodruff 1.06 1.29 1.16 District 1.01 1.05 1.13 16 Average Professional Development Days School 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 Mabel vale 1.61 3.00 .17 Stephens 1.62* 1.80* .37 Woodruff 1.13 1.03 .49 District 1.61 1.68 2.42 Average Inservice Days School 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 Mabel vale 0 0 2.34 Stephens .13* .14* 1.67 Woodruff .35 1.5 1.61 District .33 .57 .32 Average Combined Professional Development and Inservice Days School 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 Mabel vale 1.61 3.00 2.51 Stephens 1.75 1.93 2.04 Woodruff 1.48 2.53 2.09 District 1.94 2.25 2.74 Average Staff Development Hours, using the District's new reporting system, provided by the Staff Development Department. Data is not available for years prior to 2000- 2001. School 2000-2001 Mabel vale 33.4 Stephens 40.3 Woodruff 50.1 % below 30 hours % 30 to 60 hours % above 60 hours Mabel vale 35% 35% 31% Stephens 27% 33% 40% Woodruff 4% 39% 57% District 32% 38% 31% 17 Conclusions Average sick days. The District trend is mixed, but appears to be on the increase. Woodruff s use of sick days shows a decreasing trend, while Mabel vale and Stephens are mixed. Stephens and Woodruff are below the District average, with Mabel vale above the average. Average personnel days. The District trend is on the increase and also at Mabel vale. Stephen's data may indicate a downward trend, with Woodruff data mixed. Mabelvale and Stephens are below the District average, with Woodruff above. Combined professional development and inservice days. While both the District and Stephens have an increase trend in these days, all three schools are below the District average. Staff Development. The minimum required yearly hours for teacher certification is 30. Woodruff by far has the highest average staff development hours and the most teachers with 30+ hours of professional development. Survey data of EYE program parents, students, and teachers The survey results by the combined three schools and the individual schools are reported in Appendix D (parents), E (students), and F (teachers). Typically school results do not vary greatly from the combined report. Thus, concluding remarks will be directed towards the combined data. The purpose of the EYE program survey was to determine parent, student and teacher perception of their school. Several key survey questions, asked across all groups, are reported below by combined results. Interest in educational program. Parents, students, and teachers perceive a greater interest by students in the educational program this year as opposed to last year. Short vacation periods. Most parents and teachers feel that their children/students like the shorter periods. A little over half (56%) of the students liked the shorter periods. Students achieve higher than at their traditional school year. Many parents (57%) felt their children performed better during the EYE calendar year rather than during a traditional calendar. Less than half ( 46%) of the teachers felt that their students did better during the EYE calendar. However, 68% of the students felt they performed better during the EYE calendar. Continuation of the EYE program. Most parents (76%) want the EYE program to continue. Students (63%) as well as teachers (83%) felt the same way as parents. Value of intersessions. The perceptions of intersessions are mixed. Parents have ambivalent feelings towards intersession, with 52% of parents feeling that an intersession has more value than a summer vacation. Students (65%) enjoyed the intersessions. Teachers (63%) felt that students benefited more the intersession than other typical summer programs. Expansion of the EYE program. Parents, students and teachers agree than the program should be expanded to other District schools. 18 Teachers felt the EYE program reduced the need to reteach, the program reduced stress levels, and provided for continuity in instruction. However, teachers felt that parents are not any more involved than before with their children's education. Students reported they had more time to learn and get extra help. However, these same students (50%) were ambivalent as to the benefit of Voyager lessons. Parents felt there were more programs available to help their children, that the EYE calendar did not effect the family life, and that their children had attended at least one intersession. Most reporting parents had sent their child to at least one intersession. Conclusions By and large parents, students, and teachers have a positive perception of the EYE program. These groups feel that there is more interest in school because of the EYE program, they like the shorter vacation periods, and would like not only to continue the EYE program at these three schools, but to also see the program expanded to other District schools. However, parents and teachers are not yet convinced that the EYE program is improving student achievement. Also, there are mixed feelings towards the benefits of intersession. Additional EYE program costs Intersession Payroll Cost #1 Mabelvale $11,403.45 Stephens $31,649.76 Woodruff $20,461.13 Total by intersession $63,514.34 #2 $8,382.45 $6,192.51 $7,590.38 $22,165.34 #3 Total by school $14,930.76 $34,716.66 $9,884.26 $47,726.53 $11,012.59 $39,064.10 $35,827.62 $121,507.30 Each school used $10,000 each from their summer school budget. The only additional cost was transportation with an average cost per school of $23,993. Total additional transportation costs were $71,979. Special education transportation costs were not billed to the EYE schools, but rather were paid by the transportation department. Budget 2000-2001 Mabel vale $1,663,685.09 Stephens $1, 770.258.07 Woodruff $1,313,414.06 Conclusions The only additional cost incurred by the schools that was not in their yearly budget was the cost of intersession transportation. 19 Concluding Remarks Other than similarities in ethnicity and SES, the three EYE schools are more different than similar. The fact that Stephens is a new school makes comparison analysis very difficult. In terms of the allocation ofresources, Mabel vale continues to rank low in% of teachers with an MA and experience, and volunteer hours. Woodruff has remained low in the ratio of computers to pupils. Achievement data is mixed. While the schools generally outperform the District in the percent of students ready to read at the next grade level, as measured by the DRA, these schools do not necessarily outperform the District average in actual growth on the OS and DRA. Median ALT scores for Spring 2001 are not that impressive. However, the bright spot is the ALT growth from Spring 2000 to Spring 2001. All of the schools, on a number of subjects and grade levels, not only outperformed the District median scores, but also the target median scores. Benchmark and SAT-9 data indicate mixed improvement in scores. Teacher behavior data is mixed. While the District is experiencing an increasing trend in the use of sick, personnel days there is also an increase in professional development and inservice days. EYE schools' use of sick and personal days is mixed. There is no downward trend. Also, these schools are below the District average in combined professional development and days. The new District reporting system indicates mixed results, with Woodruff above the District average in the percent of teachers with 30+ hours in professional development. Overall, the data tends to indicate that while staff may like the concept of EYE, it in of itself is not sufficient enough to change teacher behavior. The surveys of parents, teachers, and students indicated a positive perception of the EYE program. However, teachers continue to perceive a lack of parental involvement and they also feel that their students may not be performing as well as during the traditional year. Parents are not sure that the intersessions are that beneficial. However, they feel that the EYE program is not disruptive to their lives. The cost of the EYE program adds approximately 1.5 percent (1.5%)  to the budgets of each school. While achievement data is mixed, there is a phenomenon occurring that has affected the ALT growth median scores and percent readiness scores on the DRA. These results could be the product of calendar change itself, or it could be the continuity of instruction time via intersessions. The phenomenon has not produced measurable change in teacher behavior. Staff development hours should be a priority for these three schools. Also, at this point in time, parents, students, and teachers have a positive perception of the EYE. The EYE program has gotten off to an optimistic start. The District and schools need to review their allocation of resources and work towards improvement ( e.g., volunteer hours at school level and targeting Woodruff for computers). In addition to achievement goals and data, each school 's improvement plan needs to incorporate the EYE survey goals and data. The District's EYE program results are very similar to national research results and as thus, the EYE program should continue. Annual reports such as this one will help establish whether the results are due to the phenomenon of change itself or to the continuity of instruction time. 20 References Kirk, Phillip J. Jr. (2000, February). Year-round schools and achievement in North Carolina. Evaluation Brief, 2 (2). Retrieved March 27, 2001 from the World Wide Web :http:/ /ncpublicschoo ls .org/ accountability I evaluation/ eval brief s/vo 12n2-yr. html. 21\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   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\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_1732","title":"Court filings concerning Joshua intervenors' interrogatories and requests for production of documents by Supt. Les Carnine regarding Joshua's objections to unitary status, requests for admissions to Superintendant James, and status report regarding Baker Elementary School","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":["2001-09-26/2001-09-28"],"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","Joshua Intervenors","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Baker Interdistrict School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School superintendents","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning Joshua intervenors' interrogatories and requests for production of documents by Supt. Les Carnine regarding Joshua's objections to unitary status, requests for admissions to Superintendant James, and status report regarding Baker Elementary School"],"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/1732"],"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":["46 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, Joshua intervenors' requests for admissions propounded to Supt. Les Carnine; District Court, Joshua intervenors' interrogatories and requests for production of documents propounded to Supt. Les Carnine; District Court, order; District Court, motion for withdrawal as counsel; District Court, plaintiff's second set of interrogatories and requests for production to the Joshua intervenors regarding Joshua's objections to unitary status; District Court, order; District Court, entry of appearance; District Court, Joshua intervenors' revised requests for admissions propounded to Supt. Les Carnine; District Court, Joshua intervenors' requests for admissions to Superintendant James; District Court, status report regarding Baker Elementary School; District Court, Joshua intervenors' motion for definition and clarification of the issues and for other relief; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, order  This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. 4: 82CV00866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNJGHT, ET AL. !,,.t ~ '\\ ) RECEIVED SEP 2 8 2001 lJfflCE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORJNQ PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS PROPOUNDED TO SUPT. LES CARNINE Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, for their Request for Admissions Propounded to Superintendent Les Carnine, as Chief Compliance Officer regarding Little Rock School District's compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, state as follows: REQUEST FOR ADNfISSION NO. 1: You did not establish a committee of staff members to regularly meet with the Joshua Intervenors in order to discuss compliance issues. REQUEST FOR ADNfISSION NO. 2: You represented to the public meeting Little Rock School District Board of Directors and the Joshua\"Intervenors that the commitments of Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR ADNfISSION NO. 3: You did not ask the Arkansas Department of Education to assist the Little Rock School District in meeting its obligations under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan between March, 1998 and March, 2001. 1 REQUEST FOR ADl\\lllSSION NO. 4: There is no writing from you which reflects that you requested the Arkansas Department of Education to monitor the Little Rock School District's compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR ADl\\lllSSION NO. 5: You and District counsel, Christopher Helle.c requested the Arkansas Department of Education to forgive the Little Rock School District's indebtedness to the Arkansas Department of Education of the 20 million dollar loan. REQUEST FOR ADl\\lllSSION NO. 6:  You and District counsel, Christopher Heller represented to the Department of Education Director, Ray Simon, that the Joshua Intervenors approved the District's efforts to obtain loan forgiveness. REQUEST FOR ADl\\lllSSION NO. 7: You and District counsel, Christopher Heller represented during the negotiations with Arkansas Department of Education on loan forgiveness that you and counsel Heller were authorized to represent the interest of the Joshua Intervenors. REQUEST FOR ADl\\lllSSION NO. 8: The subject ofloan forgiveness was inappropriate for the Little Rock School District Board of Direc!?rs to address in an executive session under the Arkansas Freedom oflnformation Act. REQUEST FOR ADl\\lllSSION NO. 9: The Little Rock School District Board of Directors never passed a motion or resolution regarding the District 's requested loan forgiveness to Arkansas Department of Education. REQUEST FOR ADl\\lllSSION NO. 10: Neither you nor the the Little Rock School District Board of Directors ever determined in a public meeting of the Board that the remediation . of achievement disparitiys as contemplated by the original Settlement Decree and the rulings of the Court of Appeals was impossible to achieve. 2 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11 : The Ombudsperson did not have any role in the development of policies, programs or procedures with respect to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (fax) By~nf-~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the following counsel of record, p~th is ~ day of September, 2001 . Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III \"~ Mr. Christopher Heller Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 200 West Capitol Avenue 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 Ms. Ann S. Marshall ODM . One Union National Plaza  124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock; Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-73 88 3 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jones; Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeiemr Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 4 J IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 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 SEP 2 8 2001 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORINQ JOSHUA INTERVENORS INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PROPOUNDED TO SUPT. LES CARNINE ~t41.Ul.. RECEi E. SEP 2 8 200\\ OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORIN~ PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VENO RS INTERVENORS Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, for their Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents Propounded to Superintendent Les Carnine, as Chief Compliance Officer regarding Little Rock School District's compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, state as follows: INTERROGATORY NO. 1: State the contemplated involvement of the Joshua Intervenors in the development of policies, programs and procedures with respect to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Was the contemplated involvement referred to in_ Interrogatory No. 1 reduced to writing? If so, attach a copy of such writing and proof that such writing was delivered to Joshua Intervenors' counsel. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: If you contend that the identified writing, if any, is included 1 within the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, please specify the pages and paragraphs thereof which reflect the contemplated involvement of the Joshua Intervenors. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: What was the contemplated involvement of Dr. Terrence Roberts and Dr. Steve Ross with respect to the development of policies, programs and procedures as contemplated by the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Was that contemplated involvement reduced to writing and shared with Joshua counsel or anyone else? INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Specify by number or letter, or both, each policy, program or procedure that was developed in fulfillment of the commitments of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Please attach copies of each such policy, program or procedure in response to this interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Please state whether the Joshua Intervenors' counsel sought to be involved in the compliance committee activities. Do you have any writings which reflect such effort and your responses to same? Please attach copies of both. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Did you create a written de_~egregation compliance program which included standards identified on pages 19 and 20 of the revised plan. If so, please state how the compliance program was implemented identifying the person or persons responsible for its implementation, the date they were appointed to the position and whether these persons were members of the District staff Also please identify all compliance standards that were adopted for student achievement, discipline, and evaluation of programs identified in the revised plan. Also identify the person or persons responsible for monitoring implementation of the compliance standards, the date he/she (or they) were appointed to the position and whether these persons were members of the District staff. 2 INTERROGATORY NO. 8: In your opinion, does the Compliance Plan contemplate periodic monitoring reports to be developed by LRSD staff regarding the implementation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. If so, please state whether you and/or members of your staff produced any monitoring reports regarding the District's implementation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Were you made aware by Joshua Intervenors' counsel that Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Assistant Superintendent for Instruction, was constructing a plan which upon implementation would result in a set of in-school racially segregated class assignment programs? Please state the date you were so informed and what actions you took in response to those suggestions. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Were you aware of the professional conflicts regarding - implementation of the revised plan, remediation of achievement disparities and program evaluation which existed between Dr. Bonnie Lesley and other staff members, notably, Dr. Kathy Lease, Ms. Sadie Mitchell, Mr. Junious Babbs and Dr. Marion I:.acy? If so, please describe in detail each of those conflicts and duration of each and what steps you took to remedy them. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Was the District, in your opinion, obliged to maintain lower teacher pupil ratios in the former Incentive schools than in the more racially mixed schools. If so, please set forth any policies, programs and procedures which reflect that obligation. Also state whether the District was obliged to maintain greater resources of staff, materials, and programs in the former Incentive schools than in the other schools. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: In your opinion was the District obliged to develop policies, programs and procedures by which to remediate the academic achievement as that 3 existed between African American children in a class and other children. If so, please provide writings of each policy, program and procedure that was specifically developed to address remediation of African American students. INTERROGATORY NO. 13 : Were you aware of any racial disparities that existed in the LRSD during your tenure n the LRSD during your tenure? Please identify each disparity and what actions you specifically took to address each disparity by date, action taken, activities involved and any meetings which reflect that action. 1) INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Did you ever inform the ADE of any actions of the District which had a disparate impact upon African American students? Were you aware that the State of Arkansas was obliged to monitor the disparities referenced to above and to comply with the terms of what is known as the \"Allen\" letter. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: With respect to the loan forgiveness discussions with the ADE, please state in full detail who was involved in the negotiations, the dates, the positions that were taken by each participant. State whether Joshua counsel ~as involved with State counsel where negotiations took place with respect to loan forgiveness. Identify the Arkansas State Senators by name and residence and officials of the ADE who were involved in the loan forgiveness. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Please state the involvement of Dr. Steven Ross and Dr. Terrence Roberts with respect to the subject ofloan forgiveness. Also state Drs. Ross and Robert's positions regarding loan forgiveness and how you obtained that knowledge. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Did any LRSD board member request for you to seek loan forgiveness in a public meeting? If so, state the name of the board member and state the date of 4 such request. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Did you have private meetings with board members in order to obtain authority for your negotiations with the ADE regarding the loan forgiveness. If so, identify the Board members, date of the private meetings, places where the meetings were held and attach any notes you made regarding those private meetings. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Did you ever inform the Joshua Intervenors that you and the Board were going to address the subject of loan forgiveness with the ADE. If so, please j identify each writing that was exchanged between you and/or Mr. Chris Heller and each of the other parties to the private meetings which were held about the subject of the AD E's loan forgiveness regarding the LRSD. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Please attach a copy of each identified writing in response to each of the preceding interrogatories, numbered -I through 19. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: State how the District informed students of the Ombudsperson, his availability and role with respect to student ~iscipline and parent and student complaints of race based mistreatment. INTERROGATORY NO. 21 : Please explain whether the Ombudsperson was to have an ongoing relationship with the Joshua Intervenors with respect to investigating parent and student race based complaints in all areas of school operations? If the Ombudsperson was not the individual to investigate and address parent and student complaints of race based mistreatment, please identify the person or persons to whom these complaints were to be referred. INTERROGATORY NO. 22: State the amount-of the District's budget that was used for implementation of Sections 2.5 through 2.5.4 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan 5 identifying the amount for each section INTERROGATORY NO. 23 : Did you or some other person or persons designated by you specifically implement compliance standards in order to comply with Sections 2.5 through 2.5.4 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. If so, what are those standards and where can they be found. INTERROGATORY NO. 24: State the amount of the District's budget that was used for implementation of Sections 2.7, 2.7.1 and Sections 5.1 through 5.5 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan identifying the amount for each section. INTERROGATORY NO. 25: Did you some other person or persons designated by you specifically implement compliance standards in order to substantially comply with Sections 2.7, 2. 7 .1 and Sections 5. I through 5. 5 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. If so, what are those standards and where can they be found. INTERROGATORY NO. 26: Did you, any member of your compliance committee or any other person designated by you determine any area of noncompl~ance at any time during the term of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. If so, state the area of noncompliance, the date it was detected and all reasonable steps taken you, members of the compliance committee or any other person designated by you to correct the noncompliance and to prevent further noncompliance. Finally, jf you indicate that a compliance program was developed and implemented, please also advise whether modifications were ever made to the program. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Please attach a copy of each identified writing in response to each of the preceding interrogatories, numbered 20 through 26. Respectfully submitted, 6 ' I  I~ .e John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (fax) By:~'~-~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the following counsel of record, ~ t~ay of September, 2001. Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III  ~ Mr. Christopher Heller Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings ..., l Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 200 West Capitol Avenue 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 Ms. Ann S. Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 7 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jones, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Mark IJagemeiemr Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 u.frJJRl~QR EASTERN DISTRICT ARKA~SAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEP 2 6 2001 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ~A_MES{/ ~RMACK, '7rERI y. l \\ l [\\ /\\A A DEPCLERJ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. 4:82CV00866 SWW NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL MRS. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED SEP 2 8 2001 UFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 0 RD ER DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court is Little Rock School District's motion for contempt against John Walker . A hearing  on this issue is hereby scheduled for Tuesday, October 16, 2001, at 9:00 a.m. The deadline for the mutual exchange of witness and exhibit lists shall be no 1ater than October 5, 2001. If the parties desire the Court to examine any documents pertaining to this hearing, those documents shall be submitted to the Court no 1ater than noon on October 12, 2001. The Court advises counsel that it will not be available to conduct this hearing beyond October 16, 2001. IT IS SO ORDERED this o4(;~day of September, 2001. SUSAN WE~GHT Chief United States District Judge :3 5 0 7 , . RECEIVED - SEP 2 7 2001  OFFICE OF \\lESEGREGATION MONITORING STATE OF ARKANSAS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Mark Pryor Attorney General M. SamuelJones, IIl Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 September 26, 2001 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 124 W. Capitol, suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Sammye I. Taylor Assistant Attorney General Direct dial: (501) 682 -1320 Direct Facsimile: (501) 682-2591 E-mail: SarnmyeT@ag.state.ar.us Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD; USDC; 4:82CV866SWW Dear Counsel: I have transferred from the Civil Department to the Medicaid Fraud Unit of the Office of Attorney General, and am therefore filing a motion to withdraw as counsel ofrecord in the captioned case. The file remains with Assistant Attorney General Mark Hagemeier for further handling. Thank you. SLT/ale Enclosure Cordially yours, Chief Barrister 323 Center Street Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-2591 Internet Website http ://www.ag.state.ar.us/ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MOTION FOR WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL RECEIVED SEP 2 7 2001 OFFICE Of DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS I, Sammye L. Taylor, hereby move to withdraw my appearance as counsel on behalf of separate defendant Arkansas Department of Education in the above-captioned matter. Please allow Assistant Attorney General Mark A. Hagemeier of the Office of the Attorney General to serve a counsel ofrecord. WHEREFORE, I, -Sammye L. Taylor, respectfully request that this motion be granted and that the Court direct the clerk of the court to remove me as counsel for separate defendant Arkansas Department of Education. Respectfully Submitted, / BMys.ia:mm\u0026yeLay1.cr~#831~ Chief Barrister 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 (501) 682-1320 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Sammye L. Taylor, certify that on ~of September, 2001 , I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address( es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 ~-~ sammyeL.Tay 2 IN THE UNJTED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED OCT 1 2001 OFflCr: Or DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS PLAINTIFF'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS REGARDING JOSHUA'S OBJECTIONS TO UNITARY STATUS  \u003e Comes the Plaintiff, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), and submits the following Interrogatories and Requests for Production to be answered within thirty days in accord with Rules 33 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. GENERAL DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS (A) \"you\" or \"your\" Shall mean the Joshua Intervenors' LRSD class representative and counsel for the Joshua Intervenors and any person (as defined below) acting on their behalf; (B) \"person\" Shall mean any individual, corporation, partnership, joint venture, firm, association, proprietorship, agency, board, authority, commission, and other such entities; (C) \"communicate\" or \"communication\" Shall mean every manner or means of disclosure, transfer or exchange, and every disclosure, transfer or exchange of information whether orally or by document or whether face to face, by telephone, mail, personal delivery, or otherwise; (D) \"document\" Shall mean any original written, typewritten, handwritten, printed or recorded - material, as well as all tapes, disks, non-duplicate copies and transcripts thereof, now or at any time in your possession, custody or control; and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing definition, but for the purposes of illustration only, \"document\" includes notes, correspondence, memoranda, business records, diaries, calendars, address and telephone records, photographs, tape recordings, videotapes and financial statements. Without limitation of the term \"control\" as used in the preceding sentence, a document is deemed to be in your control if you have the right to secure the document or a copy thereof from another person or a public or private entity having actual possession thereof. If a document that is responsive to a request for identification or production is in your control, but is not in your possession or custody, identify the person with possession or custody. If any document that is responsive to a request for identification or production was, but is no longer, in your possession or subject to your control, state what disposition was made of it, by whom, and the date or dates or approximate date or dates on which disposition was made, and why; (E) \"identify\" (i) As to a person (as defined), shall mean the person's name, business and residence address( es), occupation, job title; and, if not an individual, state the type of entity and the address of its principal place of business; (ii) As to a document, shall mean the type of document (letter, memo, etc.) the identity of the author or originator, the date authored or originated, the identity of each person to whom the original or copy was addressed or delivered, the identity of such person known or reasonably believed by you to have present possession, custody, or control thereof, 2 and a brief description of the subject matter thereof, all with sufficient particularity to request - its production under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (iii) As to a communication, shall mean the date of the communication, the type of communication (telephone conversation, meeting, etc.), the place where the communication took place, the identity of the person who made the communication, the identity of each person who received the communication, and of each person present when it was made and the subject matter discussed; (F) \"Pertaining to\" Shall mean constituting, embodying, ansmg out of, incident to, referring to, mentioned, bearing upon, reflecting, evidencing, affecting, concerning, providing evidence for, or relating to the transaction, individual, entity, act, object, conference, contention, communication, allegation or activity identified; (G) To \"describe in detail\" Shall mean to provide with respect to any act, occurrence, transaction, event, statement, communication or conduct (hereinafter collectively, \"act\") all facts concerning any such act known to Plaintiffs after due inquiry, including but not limited to a description of each act, the date, the location, and the identify of each person involved; (H) \"or\" shall be construed either conjunctively or disjunctively to bring within the scope of these Interrogatories any information which might otherwise be construed to be outside their scope; The singular includes the plural number, and vice versa. The masculine includes the feminine and neuter genders. The past tense includes the present tense where the clear meaning is not distorted by change of tense. 3 If you do not answer any Interrogatory or Request for Production because of a claim -  of privilege, set forth the privilege claimed, the facts upon which you rely to support the claim of privilege, and identify all documents for which such privilege is claimed. INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please identify all persons who participated in the preparation of the responses hereto. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please identify all persons you intend to call as a witness at the hearing set for November 19 and 20, 2001. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please identify all documents you intend to introduce as an exhibit at the hearing set for November 19 and 20, 2001. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Please identify and describe in detail all communications between you and persons in any way cC\u003ennected to the National Science Foundation pertaining to LRSD's National Science Foundation Grant. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Please produce all documents pertaining to communications between you and persons in any way connected to the National Science Foundation pertaining to LRSD's National Science Foundation Grant. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Please identify and describe m detail all communications between you and Dr. Terrence Roberts pertaining to LRSD's compliance with its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Please produce all documents pertaining to communications between you and Dr. Terrence Roberts pertaining to LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 4 INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Please identify and describe in detail all 9 communications between you and Dr. Steven Ross pertaining to LRSD's compliance with its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Please produce all documents pertaining to communications between you and Dr. Steven Ross pertaining to LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: For each expert witness that you may call as a witness at the hearing set for November 19 and 20, 2001, please provide a complete statement of all opinions and the basis and reasons therefor; identify and describe in detail the documents, communications, data or other information considered by the witness in forming the opinions; provide the qualifications of the witness, including a list of all publications authored by the witness withing the preceding ten (10) years; provide the compensation to be paid for investigation and testimony; and provide a listing of all other cases in which the witness has testified as an expert at trial or by deposition within the preceding four ( 4) years. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding interrogatory. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Please produce all contemporaneous time records maintained by you pertaining to your monitoring ofLRSD's implementation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Please identify and describe in detail all information provided to you by LRSD employees either anonymously or without the knowledge or 5 consent of counsel for LRSD pertaining to LRSD's compliance with the Revised 9 Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Please produce all documents provided to you by LRSD employees either anonymously or without the knowledge or consent of counsel for LRSD pertaining to LRSD's compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Please identify all LRSD employees who have provided you information or documents without the knowledge or consent of counsel for LRSD pertaining to LRSD's compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Please identify and describe in detail all oral communications between you and LRSD employees since August 17, 2001 , pertaining to LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan which took place outside the presence of counsel for LRSD. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: For each Joshua monitor identified in response to Interrogatory No. 3 of Plaintiffs First Set oflnterrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, please: (a) describe in detail all education, training and experience that you believe qualifies them to serve as monitors; (b) describe in detail all monitoring activities undertaken by them, including the dates, times and locations where monitoring occurred and the subject matter of the monitoring; and ( c) describe in detail each and every instance where the monitoring revealed what you contend was noncompliance or bad faith implementation of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 6 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Please produce all documents pertaining to 9 your monitoring of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, including but not limited to any notes or summaries of monitoring activities. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: You allege in your response to Request for Production No. 1 of Plaintiffs First Set oflnterrogatories and Requests for Production ofDocuments that Dr. Les Carnine and Chris Heller requested that you not publish any monitoring reports. Please identify and describe in detail all communications between you and Dr. Carnine and/or Mr. Heller pertaining to your monitoring reports. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Please produce all documents pertaining to communications between you and Dr. Carnine and/or Mr. Heller pertaining to your monitoring reports. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: In your response to Interrogatory No. 8 of Plaintiffs First Set oflnterrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, you allege that the Compliance Committee refused to share quarterly reports produced by the School Services Division, please identify and describe in detail all communications between you and any Compliance Committee member pertaining to these quarterly reports. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Please produce all documents pertaining to communications between you and any Compliance Committee member pertaining to these quarterly reports. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: In your response to Interrogatory No. 8 of Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, you allege that \"Joshua's counsel was continually misled and misinformed by LRSD school officials including Carnine and Hellerregarding desegregation accomplishments.\" Please identify and describe in detail all communications between you and any LRSD official in which you were 7 misled or misinformed about LRSD's implementation of the Revised Desegregation and 9 Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Please produce all documents pertaining to communications between you and any LRSD official in which you were misled or misinformed about LRSD's implementation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Please produce all documents pertaining to communications between you and any LRSD employee pertaining to the semester by semester discipline statistics referred to in your response to Interrogatory No. 8 of Plaintiffs First Set oflnterrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: In your response to Interrogatory No. 8 of Plaintiffs First Set oflnterrogatori "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1095","title":"\"Joshua's Answers to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production Regarding Joshua's Objections to Unitary Status\"\"","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":null,"dc_date":["2001-09-21"],"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","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","School integration","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["\"Joshua's Answers to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production Regarding Joshua's Objections to Unitary Status\"\""],"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/1095"],"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\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nlN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED er SEP 2 4 2001 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAJNTIFF V. CASE NO.4:82CV00866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS JNTER VENO RS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL JOSHUA'S ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION REGARDING JOSHUA'S OBJECTIONS TO UNITARY STATUS INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please identify all persons who participated in the preparation of the responses hereto. ANSWER NO. 1: John W. Walker as counsel for the Joshua Intervenors and Joy C. Springer, Monitor. JNTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please identify the Joshua Intervenors' LRSD representative and the date on which that person became Joshua's class representative. ANSWER NO. 2: The Defendant LRSD is a.ware of the class representatives. There have been no new or additional persons identified as class representatives. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please identify all persons who performed monitoring for you during the tenn of LRSD' s Revised Desegregation and Educational Plan. ANSWER NO. 3: The following persons pe1formed monitoring: John W. Walker, -1- Joy C. Springer, Kirke Herman, Carolyn Cooley, Margaret Freeman, Lorene Joshua, Delois Sykes and Frances Caldwell. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Please produce all of your monitoring reports that were shared with LRSD dming the term of LRSD 's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. RESPONSE NO. 1: The Joshua Intervenors' counsel, in response to and at the request of Supe1intendent Les Carnine and District counsel Chiis Heller, in an eff01t to be cooperative with them did not publish any monit01ing rep01ts of the concerns which he had with respect to LRSD Plan implementation between 1998 and 2001. See the written communications from Heller, Carnine and Walker - Comt Exhibits 558 and 566. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Please identify and desc1ibe in detail all areas of noncompliance and bad faith implementation communicated by you to LRSD \u0026amp; term of LRSD 's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 4: Please see Joshua's Opposition to LRSD's Motion for Unitary Status filed herein. The Agreement entered between Little Rock School District and the State of Arkansas regarding the 20 million dollar loan forgiveness. Also see the notes and files of Superintendent Les Carnine, District counsel Chris Heller, Junious Babbs, James Washington, Sadie Mitchell, Marion Lacey, Linda Watson, Brady Gadberry, Victor Anderson, Bonnie Lesley and Gene Paiker that contain correspondence and other documentation from Joshua. There is a partial list of items in the Maich 15, 2001 Compliance Rep01t. In addition, undersigned counsel had numerous conversations with -2- Superintendent Carnine and District Attorney Heller regarding noncompliance issues at Rightsell Elementaiy School involving discipline, lack of academic achievement, segregation of boys from girls as a punitive measure\ndouble funding, maintenance and proper staffing, equipment and materials at the Incentive Schools\nthe proposed closing of Mitchell Elementaiy school\nthe closing of Ish School under the guise of it not being a repairable facility and later being refurbished to house the new Ish Instructional Resource Center\nPulaski Heights Middle School involving disparate treatment of African American students and staff, dispaiate discipline, lack of academic achievement, use of racial slurs and racial epitaphs by staff, assault of students by staff and disc1irninatory learning environment\nHall High School involving discriminat01y leaining environment, dispaiate discipline, lack of recognition of academic honors and lack of academic achievement\nCloverdale Middle School involving discriminato1y learning environment, dispaiate discipline and lack of academic achievement\nthe creation and implementation of Office of Ombudsperson\ndiscriminat01y practices involving the removal of the principal at J.A. Fair High School\nthe promotion of Gayle Bradford to School Services and of other principals who engaged in discriminatmy conduct towaid African American students and/or staff (Faith Donovan, Nancy Rosseaum etc.)\nMabelvale Middle School involving discrirninato1y leaining environment, dispaiate discipline and lack academic achievement\nDunbai Middle School involving dispaiate discipline of students including the use of resource officer in investigation and determination of discipline decisions, assault of student by staff member, use of racial slurs by staff and lack of academic - 3- achievement\nForest Heights Middle School involving disparate discipline, discriminatory discipline practices\nWakefield Elementaty involving the quality of education being delivered and discriminato1y learning environment\nForest Park Elementary involving discriminato1y learning environment, discriminato1y practices regarding the participation in field nip activities, racial comments by members of the PT A\nMeadowcliff Elementary involving disparate discipline\nWestern Hills Elementaiy involving retaliatmy treatment of staff member who complained about lack of and poor implementation of IEPs and education of Afiican American students\nRockefeller Elementaiy involving dispaiate discipline of students and staff\nHorace Mann involving disc1iminat01y grading practices, discriminatmy discipline rnles established at the school level, dispaiate discipline practices, assault of student by staff member\nCentral High School involving discriminato1y practices in student patticipation in extIacmTicular activities- cheerleader tryouts, homecoming queens, mock comi, student council, disparate discipline practices, one race AP classes and favoring white students in these classes, lack of academic achievement and favo1ing white students in awaids and activities\nParkview involving discriminato1y practices in counseling services, dispaiate discipline, discriminato1y practices in student paiticipation in extracurricular activities (band and choir), discriminato1y teaching assignments, lack of academic achievement\nMcClellan involving unequal facilities, staff, leaining evironment, resomces, and staff use of racial epitaphs\nseveral incidents of discriminatory assignment practices\nnumerous incidents of the District's failure to properly implement IEPs of Afiican American students\nand Safety -4- and Security Director Bobby Jones' staff use. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIO NO. 2: Please produce all documents to areas of noncompliance and bad faith implementation communicated by you to LRSD during the term of LRSD 's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. RESPONSE NO. 2: Refer to response given in Interrogatory Answer o. 4. Documents are located in files entitled \"John W. Walker\" in the offices of Junious Babbs, Superintendent Carnine, Sadie Mitchell, and other central office administrators including the offices of Ombudsperson, James Washington. Copies of these files have been previously provided to counsel for the District. Also refer to Court Exhibits 556, 557, 558 and 566. Also see attached documents. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Please state whether you received a copy ofLRSD's Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999, on July, 1, 1999, and if not, please state when you received copy of LRSD's Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999. - ANSWER NO. 5: I obtained with difficulty and only after repeated requests of the plan from District officials. Superintendent Carnine and Junious Babbs acknowledge that the compliance plan was not provided to counsel for Joshua Intervenors until after a request was made for it along with the compliance handbook.. See Court Exhibits 559 and 562. (Plan was received shortly after the date indicated in Babbs's letter of August 31, 2001, CoUit Exhibit 562.) INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Please identify and desc1ibe in detail all communications between you and LRSD pe1taining to the format or content of LRSD 's -5- Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999. ANSWER NO. 6: There were no communications between the pruties regarding the fonnat or content of the Compliance Plan. District officials and other compliance committee members developed the plan without input from Joshua. Disti-ict officials did not request any input from Joshua although Joshua sought on many occasions to be involved in the process. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIO NO. 3: Please produce all documents pertaining to communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the fo1mat or content of LRSD's Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999. RESPO SE 0. 3: Refer to response given in Intenogat:01y Answer o. 6. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Please identify and describe in detail all communications between you and LRSD pe1taining to the fo1mat or content of LRSD's Interim Compliance Repo11 filed Mruch 15, 2000. ANSWER 0. 7: There were no communications between the pruties. District officials and other compliance committee members developed the content and format of LRSD's Inte1im Compliance Repo1t filed on March 15, 2000 without input from Joshua. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIO 0.4: Please produce all documents pe1taining to all communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the content and format LRSD's Interim Compliance Rep01t filed Mruch 15, 2000. RESPONSE 0. 4: Refer to response given in Interrogato1y Answer o. 7. TERROGA TORY~: Please identify and describe in detail all racial -6- I disparities revealed by your monitoring during the te1m of LRSD 's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\nand for each area of racial disparity state: (a) When you became aware of the disparity\n(b) When you communicated your knowledge of the disparity to LRSD ( c) Whether LRSD 's response to the racial dispaiity complied with the Desegregation and Education Plan\nand if not, why you did not invoke the process raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. A SWER 0. 8: Please refer to the Joshua's Response in Opposition to LRSD's Motion for Unitary Status filed herein. Also see Intenogato1y Response No. 4. District officials and members of the compliance committee withheld and refused to share the quaiterly rep01ts which were produced by the School Services division of the District. These repo1ts were indicative of the racial disparities that remained present in the District. Also see the notes and files of Superintendent Les Carnine, District counsel Chris Heller, Junious Babbs, James Washington, Sadie Mitchell, Marion Lacey, Linda Watson, Brady Gadbeny, Victor Anderson, Bonnie Lesley and Gene Parker that indicate dates of communications. Joshua's counsel was continually misled and misinformed by LRSD school officials including Carnine and Heller regaiding desegregation accomplishments. In addition, the District did not regularly provide the semester by semester discipline statistics. The Joshua Intervenors' counsel did invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to the revised plan which he had with respect to LRSD - 7 - Plan implementation between 1998 and 2001 involving several issues, however, in response to and at the request of and from Superintendent Carnine and District counsel Chris Heller and upon promised of fair and adequate remedy thereof, he did not follow through on the compliance issues that were raised. Joshua's 1ight to contest in a vigorous manner the District's release from court jurisdiction after the District's report of March 15, 2001 is independent of the number oftimes Joshua invoked the process described in Section 8 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding Intenogatory regarding racial disparities. RESPONSE NO. 5: Refer to response given in Intenogatmy Answer No. 8. Also see Comi Exhibits 556, 557, 558, 566 and 582. Also see attached documents. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Please identify and desc1ibe in detail all incidents of racial disc1imination in the imp_osition of discipline which occmTed dUiing the term of LR.SD' s Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, and separately with regard to each such incident, please state: (a) When you became aware of the incident\n(b) When you communicated your knowledge of the incident to LRSD ( c) Whether LR.SD' s response to the incident complied with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\nand if not, why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. -8- I  ANSWER NO. 9: Joshua received notice of numerous incidents involving racial discrimination over the three year period. See Response in Interrogatory o. 4. Also see the files of Ombudsman, James Washington. Also see letter addressed to Supe1intendent Carnine with copies to James Washington and Dr. Linda Watson dated November 8, 2000, Court Exhibit 567. There were numerous racial incidents during this pe1iod including, but not limited to the following schools: Hall High School, McClellan, Central, Parkview and Fair High Schools, Pulaski Heights, Mann, Cloverdale, Southwest Dunbar and Forest Heights Middle Schools, Brady, Western Hills, Carver, Forest Park, Dodd, Rightsell, Gibbs and Pulaski Heights Elementaiy schools. Many of these cases were refened to the office of the Ombudsman. Also see Answer to Intenogat01y Nos. 8 and 11. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding Intenogato1y regarding incidents of racial discrimination in the imposition of discipline. RESPONSE NO. 6: See the files of Dr. Linda Watson, Student Hearing Officer and those of the Ombudsperson, James Washington. Also see Court Exhibits 567, 568 and attached documents. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: On average, about 85% of LRSD's suspensions are of Afiican-American students (See Compliance Report, March 15, 2001, p. 2 Please explain how much of that 85%, if any, you contend results from racial disc1imination by LRSD and identify all facts and documents with support that contention? -9- ANSWER NO. 10: LRSD did not adopt specific compliance standards for the area of student discipline, or monitor such standard at particular schools exhibiting problems of racial disparity in discipline. LRSD has this obligation under Section 6 of the revised plan. LRSD's failure in this regard diminishes Joshua's ability to segregate instances of racial dispa:iity in discipline. Not all black children who are disciplined are not included in the discipline repo1ts. Fmthermore, it is our opinion that when African American students engage in the same conduct as white students, the white students are not disciplined. In addition, the quaiterly reports which confirm the continued dispaiity were withheld by Districts officials. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Please produce all documents pertaining to yom response to the preceding intenogato1y. RESPONSE NO. 7: See response in Intenogat01y o. 10. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Please identify and desc1ibe all incidents involving student discipline which you refened to the LRSD Ombudsman\nand separately for each such incident, please state: (a) When you became aware of the incident\n(b) When you communicated your knowledge of the incident to the ombudsman\n( c) Whether LRSD' s response to the incident complied with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\nand if not, why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation a Education Plan. -10- ANSWER NO. 11: Joshua handled a number of the cases involving student discipline during this pe1iod for several reasons: 1) the Ombudsman was not allowed to do so initially and 2) the Ombudsman was often working on other matters and was not available. The Ombudsman., James Washington, has reported to Joshua that he has an ongoing investigation of race based mistreatment at Pulaski Heights Middle School. The following cases were refened to the District's Ombudsman: 1) Millard Russey at For est Heights Middle School\n2) Alex O'Neal at Forest Heights Middle School\n3) Peter Robinson at Hall High School\n4) East End Students attending Pulaski Heights Middle School\n5) Earnest Rump at Southwest Middle School\n6) Antonio Jackson at Pulaski Heights Elementary 7) Rodiiquez Roy at Pulaski Heights Middle School\n8) Marcus Walker at Horace Mann Middle School\n9) Mann Middle School's rnles regarding participation in extracunicular activities which are diiven by citizenship grades\n10) Cloverdale Middle School regarding its failure to apply appropriate discipline to a white female student, Miracle Null, for use of profanity towards to black teacher\n11) Christopher Munay at Cloverdale Middle School\n12) Calvin Leonard at Gibbs Elementary\n13) Elwin Parchmann at Meadowcliff Elementary\n-11- 14) Justin Simmons at Horace Mann\n15) Marcus Henry at Pulaski Heights Middle\n16) Quention Bellows at Hall High School\n17) Cedric Beasley 18) Antonio Jackson at Hall High School\n19) Antione Bernard at Brady Elementary\n20) Tommy Bozemann at ALP - Philander Smith\n21) Felicia Duhart at Wes tern Hills Elementary\n22) Brian Gray at Horace Mann\n23) April Hayes at Par-.l\u0026lt;View\n24) LeeAngelo Jones at Rockefeller Elementary\n25) Ronald Payne at Pulaski Heights Middle\n26) Steven Taylor at Hall High School\n27) ---Peel at Forest Heights\n28) Clevonne Dixon at Hall High School\n29) Marcus Walker at Horace Mann\n30) CIC program implementation (suspensions expunged for wl:te students but not for black students who paiticipated in this program)\nand 31) Letter dated October 9, 2000 regarding disparate treatment of black students bused into Pulaski Heights Middle School. This list may not exhaustive of all incidents of racial discrimination with respect to -12- discipline. Joshua reserves the 1ight to supplement this list. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIO ~: Please produce all documents pertaining to your communications with the LRSD Ombudsman. RESPONSE NO. 8: Please refer to the files of the Ombudsman including the attached documents. The attached documents, however, are not inclusive of all communications with the Ombudsman. The majority of our communication with the Ombudsman was through telephone conferences, visits to his office and his visits to this office. Refenals were made dming these communications. INTERROGATORY 0. 12: Please identify all facts and documents which supp01t your objection to LRSD's compliance with Section 2.5 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER 0. 12: The program, policies and procedures identified in the Compliance Plan and the March 2000 and 2001 repo1ts ar~in terms of such a level of generality as to not be meaningful with regard to achieving compliance with respect to the obligation. Intenogatories Numbers 9 and 11 and Requests for Production related thereto. Also refer to Joshua's Response in Opposition. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding intenogat01y. RESPONSE NO. 9: See Intenogatory No. 11 and 12. See also LRSD Compliance Plan, Court Exhibit 544. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Please identify all facts and documents which -13- support your objection to LRSD 's compliance with Section 2.5 .1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 13: Refer to responses in Interrogatories umbers 9 and 11 and Requests for Production related thereto. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding inte1TOgatoiy. RESPONSE NO. 10: Same as Interrogato1yNo. 13. See also LRSD Compliance Plan, Court Exhibit 544. INTERROGATORY 0. 14: Please identify all facts and documents which support your objection to LRSD's compliance with Section 2.5.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER 0. 14: Compliance with Section 6 of the revised plan with respct to compliance standards and the Compliance Plan should hav~ yielded data on particpular schools by way of example allowing Joshua, ODM and the CoU1t to assess compliance. The LRSD 's March 200 and 2001 rep01ts do not provide any data with respect to this obligation. They report that policies adopted and cases are reviewed by the Assistant Superintendent for Discipline. LRSD has not substantially demonstrated that this provision has been complied with. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIO NO. 11: Please produce all documents in the preceding intenogatoiy. RESPONSE NO. 11: Same as Interrogatory o. 14. -14- INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Please identify all facts and documents which suppo1t your objection to LRSD's compliance with Section 2.5.3 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER 0. 15: Refer to Comt Exhibits 561, 564, and 565. See also documents attached hereto. Please refer to the testimony of James Washington dated August 2, 2001.(Testimony regarding his lack of sufficient resources and authority). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIO 0. 12: Please produce all documents in the preceding inteITogato1y. RESPONSE NO. 12: Refer to Answer to Inte1Togat01y o. 15. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Please identify all facts and documents which suppo1t your objection to LRSD's compliance with Section 2.5.4 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 16: Compliance with Section 6 of t.he revised plan with respct to compliance standards and the Compliance Plan should have yielded data on paiticpular schools by way of example allowing Joshua, ODM and the Comt to assess compliance. The LRSD 's March 200 and 2001 reports do not provide any data with respect to this obligation. They repo1t that these cases are refeITed to the Pupil Services Team. Joshua contends that the LRSD has not substantially complied with this provisions. See attached documents. (Joshua requested data and counsel for the District replied indicating that no data existed). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Please produce all documents in the -15- preceding interrogatory. RESPONSE NO. 13: Refer to Answer in Intenogatmy o. 16. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Please state whether you contend that the \"Program Evaluation Agenda\" and/or the \"Assessment Plan\" set forth on pages 53-57 in the Interim Compliance Repo1i filed March 15, 2000, complied with LRSD's obligation under Section 2. 7 .1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. If not, please: (a) identify and desc1ibe in detail all facts and documents supporting your contention\n(b) state when you detennined that they did not comply\n( c) when you communicated to LRSD your belief that they did not comply\nand, ( d) why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Educational Plan. ANSWER NO. 17: Evaluation under 2. 7.1 was to r~ach all academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7. Also those listed in Section 5 of the plan, as well as others implemented by LRSD to fulfil its obligation under 2.7. Joshua's ability to respond to this intenogat01y is hindered by the District's failure to set forth one clear list of all of the programs implemented to comply with Section 2. 7. In reviewing pages 53- 57, we do not find mention of the full extent of the revised cuniculum at grades 4 and above. There is no mention of evaluation of the use os SAIPs, or of the programs listed in Section 5 of the plan. Joshua contends that the LRSD has not substantially complied with this provision. Please refer to the testimony of Junious Babbs, Sadie 1itchell, -16- Bonnie Lesley and Supe1i.ntendent Carnine. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIO 0. 14: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding intenogatory. RESPONSE NO. 14: See transc1ipt of the July and August, 2001 hearings. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Please identify and describe in detail all programs, policies and procedures proposed by you pertaining to LRSD's obligations under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 18: District officials and compliance committee members chose not to involve counsel for Joshua in the development of programs, policies and procedures. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: Please produce all documents pertaining to programs, policies and procedures proposed by you pe1iaining to LRSD's obligations under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. RESPONSE NO. 15: Refer to Court Exhibits 552, 554, 560, 563 and attached documents regarding undersigned counsel's complaints regarding non involvement in the development of programs, policies and procedures. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Please produce all documents received by you in the ordinary course of business (as opposed to in response to an FOIA request) during the term ofLRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan pertaining to your paiiicipation on LRSD committees or in LRSD activities. RESPONSE NO. 16: The following documents and notices were sent by the -17- District without request: District officials provided Board policies to these offices after they sent to the Board for approval. Quarterly notices were received regarding NSF grant and its agenda for the meeting. Notices of the Biracial Committee meetings. Notices regarding Cha:r.ter School Committee and agenda. Joshua counsel and Monitor Springer had to request many of the documents regarding LRSD committees and activities as a pa.it of our ongoing monit01ing activities. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Please produce all documents pe1taining to your invoking the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to 8.2 of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. RESPONSE NO. 17: See attached documents. Also see CoUit Exhibits 565,567,568 and 569. Joshua further reserves the 1ight to supplement the answers provided herein. Respectfully submi!ted, JOHN W WALKER, P .A 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (Tel.) (501) ~71-4187 ) .~ i / By:____,~s--f.,,_,.,,_.~,...:i..r__.... . ---++'\"-=--\"--=----\"- J\n/ -18- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed,,.postage prepaid to the following counsel or record, postage prepaid on this __2L_ day of~( 2001. Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol A venue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-73 88 -19 - Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jones, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 . Walker \"-\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   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\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":"mwr_32_13345","title":"Digitized transcription of VHS tape of \"Early Years of the Movement\" (Part II).","collection_id":"mwr_32","collection_title":"Lecture Series on Civil Rights in Alabama, 1954-1965","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Alabama, Dallas County, Selma, 32.40736, -87.0211"],"dcterms_creator":["Alabama A \u0026 M University","University of Alabama in Huntsville"],"dc_date":["2001-09-20"],"dcterms_description":["J.L. Chestnut, Jr. is the speaker in this lecture given at Alabama A\u0026M."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Huntsville, Ala. : University of Alabama in Huntsville Archives and Special Collections"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Early Years of the Movement (Part II) - Speaker: J.L. Chestnut, Jr. - Transcription of Tape 3, 2003 University of Alabama in Huntsville Archives and Special Collections, Huntsville, Alabama","Lecture Series on Civil Rights in Alabama, 1954-1965, VHS tape of \"Early Years of the Movement\" (Part II). Box 2, Tape 3.  University of Alabama in Huntsville Archives and Special Collections, Huntsville, Alabama"],"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Southern states--History--20th century","Selma (Ala.)","Macon County (Ala.)","African Americans--Legal status, laws, etc.","Voter registration"],"dcterms_title":["Digitized transcription of VHS tape of \"Early Years of the Movement\" (Part II)."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Alabama Huntsville"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://libarchstor2.uah.edu/digitalcollections/items/show/13345"],"dcterms_temporal":["2000/2009"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["This material may be protected under U. S. Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S. Code) which governs the making of photocopies or reproductions of copyrighted materials. You may use the digitized material for private study, scholarship, or research. Though the University of Alabama in Huntsville Archives and Special Collections has physical ownership of the material in its collections, in some cases we may not own the copyright to the material. It is the patron's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright restrictions when publishing or otherwise distributing materials found in our collections."],"dcterms_medium":["lectures","transcripts"],"dcterms_extent":["28 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Chestnut, J. L., 1930-2008"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1719","title":"Court filings: District Court, the Joshua intervenors' response to the plaintiff's motion to cite Joshua counsel for contempt of Court; District Court, two orders; District Court, motion for further enlargement of time; District Court, order; District Court, plaintiff's motion to compel and request for expedited hearing; District Court, memorandum brief in support of plaintiff's motion to compel and request for expedited hearing; District Court, Joshua's answers to plaintiff's first set of interrogatories and requests for production regarding Joshua's objections to unitary status; District Court, order","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":["2001-09-04/2001-09-25"],"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","Joshua Intervenors","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Education and state","School management and organization","School integration","School districts"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, the Joshua intervenors' response to the plaintiff's motion to cite Joshua counsel for contempt of Court; District Court, two orders; District Court, motion for further enlargement of time; District Court, order; District Court, plaintiff's motion to compel and request for expedited hearing; District Court, memorandum brief in support of plaintiff's motion to compel and request for expedited hearing; District Court, Joshua's answers to plaintiff's first set of interrogatories and requests for production regarding Joshua's objections to unitary status; District Court, order"],"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/1719"],"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":["46 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS CASE NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. RECEIVED DEFENDANTS INTER VENO RS INTER VEN ORS Jl Iv.lRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. SEP ---6 2001 OffiCE Of DESEGREGATION MONffORIMG KATHERINE KNIGHT WRIGHT, ET AL. THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO THE PLAINTIFFS~ MOTION TO CITE JOSHUA COUNSEL FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT The Little Rock School District, through their counsel, Christopher John Heller and John Clay Fendley, Jr. , filed a motion on August 23, 2001. Therein, they renewed by reference an earlier motion which had been dismissed by the Court on August 17, 2001 without prejudice. The crux of the LRSD's motion is that Joshua counsel, John W. Walker, .violated the following ruling of the Court: My ruling is that he is entitled to FOI requests and he is entitled to that information. If he needs to talk to one of your clients, he ought to go through you, that's true, he needs to go through you, so you will know what your client is saying to Mr. Walker. And I would favor you in that Regard, even though you are a public institution. The present motion certifies the District's belief that \"Attorney Walker violated the courts ' orders ... by appearing at the office of Dr. Bonnie Lesley on the morning of August 23, 1  - - - - - ________ .:___ ___ _______________ _ 2001 .\" There is no other contention in the renewed motion for contempt. The respondents, therefore, respectfully submit that the court has not entered an order prohibiting Joshua counsel or his associates from \"appearing at the office\" of any school district official in either of the three school districts. The District submitted the affidavits of Dr. Bonnie Lesley and Ms Anita Gilliam, Dr. Lesley's secretary, to support its motion. Neither addresses the issue of whether Mr. Walker violated a court order by appearing in the building. There is no question that Mr. Walker )) \"appeared\" at the building. It again submitted no affidavits in support of its earlier, now renewed motion. Accordingly, the Court is called upon to address the issue of whether 'tvfr. Walker is in contempt of court because he appeared at the Ish IRC on August 23, 2001. The issue for the future is whether he is in contempt whenever he enters upon a Little Rock School District property without the prior approval of either or both Messrs. Heller and Fendley. The Court has not entered such an Order. Accordingly, there can be no contempt upon which to base a show case order because there is no antecedent Order denying entry upon LRSD property to the representatives of the Joshua Intervenors. The relief that is being sought is inconsistent with the claimed violation, i.e. appearing at the office of a school official. The relief sought, in addition to sanctions, is that Mr. Walker be refrained from any communication with District personnel and that he be ordered to submit all requests for LRSD documents to counsel for LRSD. There is no authority for such broad relief Nor is there a brief in support of the motion. The Court is asked to treat the other brief in the dismissed motion for contempt as its brief for this new action. That is, of course, inapposite. But however it is viewed, there is no basis in law argued for denying class counsel entry upon the very 2 school premises that he is directed by the Court of Appeals, and expected by this Court, to monitor. As Judge Wollman noted in his concurring opinion in the November 14, 1991 Eighth Circuit decision vacating her honor's opinion: \"I view the continuing presence of the Joshua Intervenors as a powerful force to insure that the several school districts adhere to their commitments 'to desegregation.\" Little Rock School District v. Pulaski Countv Special School District, et al., 949 F2d 253, 259 (8tl' Cir., 1991). We submit that our presence is required both to fulfill our class representative obligations and to assure that class concerns regarding implementation of the court orders will be effectively addressed. Messrs. Heller \u0026 Fendley would, and by their motion seek to, effectively limit, if not end, Joshua monitoring of the parties agreement. That is another way by which they advise the LRSD - that it may be brought into compliance. In other words, 'keep Walker out of the schools and the case will end.' They are badly mistaken. The rule of law governs rather than the identity of the litigators. Joshua counsel submit their own affidavits in order to demonstrate their actions and their respect of the Court and its Order, mindful at the same time, of what appears to be the never ending defiance of law by Little Rock School District officials. Joshua requests that the Court schedule an evidentiary hearing upon the motion and thereafter dismiss it. ctfully submitted, W- Walker, P.A. Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 3 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax)  By{}JLi-~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do. hereby state the foregoing response has been sent to all counsel of record on this 4th day of Septeniber, 2001 via United States mfili pasta e prepfild. (_ alker - Bar No. 64046 4 uFILED EASTE:kt g:if~:g COURT ARKANSAS . I  SEP O 4 2001 '-\u003c MEsw f:.. ,.  McCoRM m THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT -~ C( :-  EASTERN DISTRJCT OF ARKANSAS L :  ,..,.__ WESTERN DMSION - --=-\",:, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF No. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOO - ~ i\\'lmeft DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL.  *~ ,1'11:U )l MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERrnE KNIGHT, ET AL. SEP - \u0026 2.m Off\\CEOF: DESEGREGAilON. MOtmOW,\\\\I AFFIDAVIT OF JOY C. SPRINGER ST ATE OF ARKANSAS ) - COUNTY OF ~0YLO {ce, jss. DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS Comes the affi.ant, Joy C. Springer, under oath, and states the following: 1. I am employed by the law firm, John W. Walker, P.A. I direct and engage in that offices school desegregation monitoring activities regarding the three Pulaski county public school districts. 2. I have regularly visited the !sh Instructional Resource Center (\"IRC\") at its present location since it was established as a part of the ongoing monitoring responsibility of the Joshua Intervenors. At times, I have attended meetings at the IRC both at LRSD officials and at my own initiative. My meetings with IRC staff have usually been professional. 3. On some of my monitoring visits, I have been accompanied by other office staff of John 1 W. Walker, P.A. , including lVIr. Walker himself We have all been generally welcomed, upon our meetings and visits, by LRSD officials. 4. I have personal knowledge of the following facts which occurred on August 23, 2001. On the morning of August 23 , 2001, Mr. Walker and I went to the IRC office for a monitoring visit. Prior to our arrival, we discussed visiting with Ms. Joanna Harris, who is in the Little Rock Comprehensive Science and Math Achievement offices (LRCSMA), to obtain a schedule of their activities for the year and to obtain Dr. Bonnie Lesley's vitae which we had requested on August '}J 20'h and August 22nd . 5. Mr. Walker and I rode to the IRC together. Upon arrival to the building, Mr. Walker received a telephone call and he was on the telephone when I exited the vehicle. 6. I entered the building and signed in shortly after 8:00 a.m. There was no one at the reception area. First, I decided to go into Ms. Harris' offices to say hello and obtain the information that Mr. Walker and I had.discussed obtaining. Ms. Harris had not come into her offices. There was no one in her offices. 7. I returned to the hall area, sat down and made some notes. I noticed Ms. Anita Gilliam exit from the offices of Dr. Bonnie Lesley and we (Ms. Gilliam and I) exchanged greetings. 8. After approximately five minutes, Mr. Walker came into the building. We went into the reception area of Dr. Bonnie Lesley's offices and were greeted by Ms. Anita Gilliam. I heard Mr. Walker inform Ms. Gilliam that we were there to pick up a copy of Dr. Lesley's vitae. I heard her indicate that she placed it in the mail the previous day. Mr. Walker then said, \"it should be no problem for you to give us another copy of it\" . Ms. Gilliam, then, after a pause, gave us a copy of the vitae. 2 8. After a quick review of the document, N.fr. Walker then asked, \"Is this all of it.\" And he further stated \"I am sure her vitae is more extensive than this.\" Ms. Gilliam left the reception room, went into Dr. Lesley's office and closed the door. While we waited for Ms. Gilliam to return, I observed Iv.fr. Walker take copies available to the public of the \"standards and benchmarks\" for grades one through eight. 9. Ms: Gillian1 came out of Dr. Lesley's office and informed us that Dr. Lesley was talking to district counsel and that she, Ms. Gilliam, would get back with us shortly. 10. As N.fr. Walker was leaving the office and I remained in the office, N.fr. Walker then asked Ms. Gilliam if there was any information to supplement the instructional division's agenda items that were on the school board's agenda for that night. She did not answer. Mr. Walker then left the office. 11. Ms. Gilliam went into Dr. Lesley's office again and closed the door. I sat down and waited for a few minutes for Ms. Gilliam to come out of Dr. Lesley's office. Ms. Gilliam did not return. 12. I left the reception area of Dr. Lesley's offices and joined N.fr. Walker who was in the hallway. We took our usual course for monitoring and circled the building. 13 . While we were on the math and science hallway, I saw Ms. Gilliam come over to the hall as if she was watching what we were doing. It appeared that she had come over to follow us around the building. I have not previously observed her follow us around the building during previous visits to the IRC. 14. I returned to reception area ofDr. Lesley's offices about ten minutes later at which time Ms. Gilliam told me that the agenda was all the information that was available. I did not 3 ask to speak with Dr. Lesley. However, Dr. Lesley came out of her office and volunteered that she may have copies of the grant proposals and that I may already have them too. She looked at a piece of paper and said they are not on the list of documents that we have provided you and I will get them for you later. I then asked her to let me understand what she was saying. She repeated it and I wrote it down. No other information was requested of Dr. Lesley by me. 15. Mr. Walker was not in the reception area of Dr. Lesley's offices at the time that Dr. Lesley volunteered the information regarding the grant proposals. He was still in the hallways of ) 1 the building. 16. When I left the reception area of Dr. Lesley's offices, I met Mr. Walker in the hallway and we went into the LRCPMSA offices again to see if Ms. Harris had arrived. Upon learning that Ms. Harris was not there, we began to leave the office. As were leaving the office, Ms. Gilliam came into the office and asked if she could help us. Mr. Walker said \"no\", and that ifhe needed help \"he would ask for it.\" He then offered to show her the items which he had in his hands which he obtained from the district's display tables and the reception area of Dr. Lesley's offices. 17. Except for speaking to people, Mr. Walker initiated no further conversation with anyone in Dr. Lesley's offices or the IRC. As we exited the building, Mr. Walker asked me who the lady was corning into the building. I told him I thought it was Ms. Dillingham. He spoke to her and asked if she was Ms. Dillingham and she said \"no.\" We then left the premises of the IRC. 18. With respect to the events which occurred on August 16, 2001 at the offices ofMs. Jo Evelyn Elston, I am also familiar with the facts surrounding that encounter. 19. When we arrived at Ms. Elston's offices on August 16, 2001 , there was no secretary 4 -  in her reception area. In early June, 200 1, when I visited Ms. Elston's offices, there was no secretary present in her outer offices. 20. I was the first person to walk into Ms. Elston's office and as I did so, I said \"hello\" in order to gain the attention of Ms. Elston and Dr. Terrence Roberts. 21 . As I entered the office of Ms. Elston, Ms. Elston and Dr. Terrence Roberts were seated at a table at the back of her office. As I entered the office, both Ms. Elston and Dr. Terrence got up from the table and greeted me and they subsequently greeted :tv.fr. Walker and JJ Ms. Caldwell who came into Ms. Elston's office behind me. Mr. Walker, Ms. Frances Caldwell and I were invited into the offices of Ms. Elston after I got Ms. Elston's attention with my \"hello.\" 22. After exchanging greetings, Ms. Elston exited the room and returned with several chairs in order for Mr. Walker, Ms. Caldwell and myself to be seated. 23 . Mr. Walker immediately indicated to Dr. Roberts that he was required to go through District attorneys in order to ask questions of District administrators. Mr. Walker indicated to Dr. Roberts his concerns regarding African American student enrollment in Advanced Placement (\"AP\") courses and that he (Dr. Roberts) should inquire of District officials including Ms. Elston regarding American African enrollment, recmitment, success and failure in AP courses. Mr. Walker asked Dr. Roberts to specifically inquire regarding the African American student failure rates in AP courses as a result of current district initiatives. Mr. Walker did not tell Dr. Roberts that \"all African American students in AP courses were flunking.\" 24. Mr. Walker did not ask Ms. Elston any questions. She volunteered information as Mr. Walker told Dr. Roberts what his concerns were regarding African American student 5 participation in AP courses. 2!. On Saturday, June 3 0, 2001, while on my way to lunch with 1vir. Walker, I phoned Mr. James Washington on my cellular telephone, as I have routinely telephoned him on numerous occasions at home, to advise him that it looks like we would not be having a cook-out at my house anytime soon because I would be working weekends as a result of Mr. Walker having filed objections to the District's motion for declaration of unitary status. Mr. Washington had previously suggested that I invite him over for a cook-out at my house one weekend. I also told ,, him that we wuld not discuss the case with him without going through district counsel. Mr. Walker asked me to allow him to say \"hello\" to Mr. Washington, I handed him the telephone and he did so. I heard him tell Mr. Washington that he was not to discuss matters involving the case without going through district attorneys. I did not hear what was being said by Mr. Washington. In addition, I did not hear Mr. Walker suggest to Mr. Washington that he testify that he feared for his job, if called to testify. 26. I have no personal knowledge regarding the allegations involving Dr. Don Stewart. I have prepared and read the foregoing statements and they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me SSI N EXPIRES: 17 Zo0 I 6  SEP O 4 2001 IN TIIB UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSiABIES W. McCORMACK, CL~- :-: WESTERN DIVISION E;':--------;L.:::- - -\"''' '' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL RIEciE~ve n DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. g;. ~~ ~L# DEFENDAl~TS INTER VEN ORS INTER VENO RS N.IRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. SEP -6 2001 Offilfl l3t= IDGREG .m . ~~~ AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN W. WALKER STATE OFARKANSAS ) ~OUNTY OF (,J}lAJ)/( e ~ss. Comes affiant, John W. Walker, under oath, and states the following: 1. On August 23 , 2001 at approximately 5:55 p.m., I received a copy of \"Plainti.ff's Motion for Contempt\" wherein the LRSD sought to have me cited for contempt and renewed its earlier motion to have me cited for contempt. It did not, however, seek a show cause order. Despite there being no show cause order entered by the Court or sought by plaintiff, I respectfully request the Court to set this matter for evidentiary hearing and I submit the following statements as ifthere is an Order er;i.tered by the Court to show cause why I should not be cited for contempt. 2. The August 23, 2001 motion relates to events of that day and is supported by two -1- affidavits, one from 1'Is. Anita Gilliam and the other from her supervisor, Dr. Bonnie Lesley. The first motion, though renewed, is still without affidavit or evidentiary support. I wish to reply, however, under oath and do so as follows: 3. On August 20, 2001, I wrote Mr. Clay Fendley, Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark and the co-counsel, Mr. Chris Heller, also of that firm, at least three letters and I spoke with    iV.fr. Fendley at least on one occasion for approximately twenty minutes. I attempted to call him a second time but was informed that he was unavailable for my call. 4.  The first letter, Exhibit A, addressed the issue of our request for information from school principals and I note that we offered twenty additional days to respond to that FOIA. I also riote that I wrote in that letter with respect to district officials whom we sought information from that \"ifwe seek opinions from your primary administrative staff members, we will get them either in that form [ without depositions] or . . . by interrogatories.\" I received no response to this letter from Mr. Fendley. I then wrote Mr. Fendley requesting, \"a copy of Dr. [Bonnie] Lesley's vitae\" noting that I was addressing \"this request to her as well.\" See Exhibit B. At approximately 2:25 p.m., I informed Mr. Fendley that I would seek to obtain a copy of the 2001 budget document from the district, for possible use at the school bo~d meeting on August 23, 200 l, and I noted \"if you determine that I am not entitled to this information, would you kindly inform me ... \"Mr.Fendley did not respond to this letter either. See Exhibit C. 5. Not having heard from Mr. Fendley or Dr. Lesley on August 22, 2001, I wrote Dr. Lesley a two sentence letter. Exhibit D. I asked \"would you please provide me a -2- copy of your vitae by return fax. Thank you for your cooperation.\" 1fr. Fendley was copied with the letter. I did not receive the requested fax response on August 22, 2001 from either N.fr. Fendley or Dr. Bonnie Lesley. Neither of them interposed an objection to my obtaining the information. 6. On the morning of August 23, 2001, shortly after 8:00 a.m., I and Joshua Intervenor  Monitor, Ms. Joy Springer, went to the Instructional Resource Center \"IRC\" located at 30th and Pulaski Streets in Little Rock. We discussed obtaining information from Ms. Vanessa Cleaver's office and obtaining a copy of the vitae ofDr. Bonnie Lesley. I followed Ms. Springer into the IRC building by approximately five minutes. When I entered the building, Ms. Springer was seated in the hallway in front of Dr. Bonnie Lesley's office. We both went into the outer office of Dr. Bonnie Lesley and I spoke with Ms. Anita Gilliam, Dr. Lesley's secretary. The only conversation that took place in that office at that time concerned my request for a copy of the requested vitae. I did not see (\"lay eyes on\") nor talk (\"exchange words with\"), Dr. Bonnie Lesley that morning. Ms. Gilliam informed me that Ms. Gilliam had mailed Dr. Lesley's resume to me the day before. Her two page resume is attached as Exhibit E. Upon seeing that it was only two pages and that it only cited her educational background and work experience, I asked Ms. Gilliam if she had another one that was more comprehensive. My request for Dr. Lesley's vitae was made in order for me to be able to review some of her writings. I had no other way of being informed of her ideas regarding remediation which were being reflected in the policies she was submitting to the LRSD Board for approval. Her resume appeared to be different from those of other ,.., -.J- ) ') professional employees. Her e-mails reflected that she has written extensively and has had other experiences which equip her to be Director of Instruction. The resume that I was given did not appear to meet the District standards. Ms. Gilliam did not engage in any substantive conversation with me at that time or at any time. 7. I did not seek any information from Ms. Gilliam other than the resume ofDr. Lesley 8. -and a,ny documentation that Dr. Lesley intended to present to the school board later that evening. Ms. Gilliam did not respond to me or in my presence to this request. I received on August 22, 2001 an agenda from the LRSD for the next day's board meeting. On the agenda there were several policy proposals from Dr. Lesley: IV A with five pages of an administrative regulation IVA-R; proposed revision to administrative regulation IKEC-R3 ; Credit by Examination with five additional pages; program evaluation agenda for 2001-2002, three pages; weighted credit foruniversity studies courses at Hall High School, two pages; proposed revision to administrative regulation IKC-R: Grade Point Average and Rank in Class, six pages; and, a grant proposal - Teaching United States History, one page. 9. While I was in the office, I asked Ms. Gilliam ifthere was any additional information which was available which supported the enumerated items being submitted by the Instructional Division which were on the 6:00 p.m. agenda that day. I never received a response from Ms. Gilliam to my question. 10. Before I left Ms. Gilliam 's office, I picked up copies addressed to parents and guardians of\"standard's benchmarks\" for grades 1-8. I left Ms. Gilliam's office and walked down the hallways of the IR.C. There were public \"pass outs\" on the tables -4- ------ - - - ---------------------- - ~ which involved the district's schedule, the LRSD's Comprehensive Partnership for Mathematics and Science Achievement, the PRAXIS Series Tests at a Glance for approximately fourteen different programs, and several communications to parents. 11. Dr. Lesley has given an affidavit in support of the district's motion to cite me for contempt. Dr. Lesley indicates that she spoke with me personally. I make this 12.  determination because she speaks in terms of a \"they\" said which includes me. In paragraph four of her affidavit, she appears to indicate that I had a conversation with her. It is clear, however, from a full reading of her affidavit, that she neither spoke with me nor laid eyes upon me on the morning of August 23, 2001. I state that I never saw or spoke with Dr. Lesley on August 23, 2001. The most that can be said of my activity in Dr. Lesley's office was that upon being informed that the requested vitae had been mailed the day before, I asked Anita for another copy of what had allegedly been mailed; that upon being provided the copy, I asked if it was a complete copy; and I asked if there any other writings that supported the department's agenda items on the school board agenda of 6:00 p.m. that day I could have. 13 . When I returned to my office I wrote Ms. Ann Marshall, ODM Monitor, a letter complaining about the district's response and asking her help: \"I am writing this letter to enlist your office's assistance in helping to ensure that the LRSD is fully responsive to citizens' requests for information. If the district will not provide full information on something as simple as a resume, I believe that speaks _to the district's general inclination.\" Exhibit F. A copy of this letter went to Dr. Lesley and to Mr. Chris Heller. 14. After the school board meeting on the evening of August 23, 2001, it appears that Dr. -5- J .!) 15. Lesley updated her vitae. Her letter dated August 23, 2001, Exhibit G, begins as follows: \"You came to the !SH IRC OD August 23, 2001, and requested immediately of my assistant a copy of the resume that we had mailed to you OD Wednesday.\" It appears that the letter dated August 23, 2001, was written after that date. Today, August 27, 2001, I received Exhibit Fin original form from Dr. Lesley. She now  indicates that she has updated her curriculum vitae to a point where it is now 27 pages long and that in order for me to get it, I will have to pay the district $6.75. With respect to the proposals that were for discussion on the board agenda for August 23ni, she has informed me that to review the document and get a copy of it would cost $11 .00; for the Technology Challenged Grant Proposal, $4.50. I may then obtain the documents, apparently without going through l\\lJ.r. Heller and l\\lJ.r. Fendley by bringing a check for $22.25 to Ms. Gilliam. In Dr. Lesley's letter of August 23 rd , as well as in her affidavit, Dr. Lesley does not indicate that I spoke, or sought to speak, with her personally. She acknowledges that I only sought to obtain a document that was or could have been readily available on request to anyone, of which prior notice that I was seeking it was given to her counsel. 16. On August 17, 2001, the Court denied LRSD' s motion without prejudice to cite me for contempt. During the telephone conference, the Court indicated that it would be \"prudent\" to, and in fact, ordered me \"to go through, or at least tell the attorneys what [I was] doing.\" This would prevent misconstruction of my conduct. The Court's Order which was received by me in the morning mail on August 23rd is -6- slightly different from what was spoken during the telephone conference. The Court's Order which was intended to.clarify her previous Order \" . .. directs counsel for Joshua Intervenors to go through counsel for the LRSD when seeking information from the district or district officials and personnel that is pertinent to the case and to inform consel for the LRSD prior to contacting district officials and personnel about matters that are not currently before the Court.\" 17. Exhibit A reflects that if we sought opinions from the district administrators we would do that by interviews or by interrogatories. 18. Exhibit B indicates that I informed and went through Mr. Fendley in order to obtain information from Dr. Lesley, i.e., her vitae. 19. Exhibit C reflects that I went through Mr. Fendley on August 20, 2001, in order to 20. obtain a budget document which was on the August 23 , 2001 agenda. Exhibit D reflects that, after informing and upon not receiving a response from !vfr. Fendley on the third day, I requested from Dr. Lesley a copy of her vitae by return fax. Mr. Fendley interposed no objection to this request. She did not reply. When it was not received by return fax as requested on August 22, 2001, I simply stopped by the IRC to pick it up. Nothing else happened other than that I requested from Anita Gilliam any information that her office had to support the policies to be presented in the public forum later that night and that Ms. Springer and I made a routine monitoring visit of the IRC. 21. For years, the school district has taken the position that it has provided us, in advance of school board meetings, the proposed policies or regulations and back-up information before they were presented to the school board. Dr. Lesley and Dr. -7- Carnine have previously indicated that it was their belief and purpose that I should have, and that the district would provide such information to me at least several weeks, before the proposals were presented to the school board for action. 22. The district's counsel were aware of this commitment. Moreover, the district's counsel were aware that I intended to appear at the school board meeting on the  evening on August 23rd . See Exhibit H. I wrote :tvir. Heller that day, August 23, 2001 , asking ifhe perceived the Court's Order as restricting any discussion between me and the board members later that day. See Exhibit H. 23. The LRSD filed a motion on August 16, 2001 seeking to cite me for contempt. It now renews that motion. In doing so, the district has failed to provide either affidavit of other evidentiary support of the allegations in the motion. The renewal of the motion does not make it legally sufficient to put me on notice of what it is that I am specifically charged with having done. I proceed, however, to respond by this affidavit to those allegations under penalty of perjury. There are three allegations stated in the first motion. I address them seriatim: a) To the allegation that I confronted Ms. Jo Evelyn Elston with allegations that \"all African American students in advanced placement (AP) courses were flunking,\" I deny that allegation. Dr. Terrence Roberts, a consultant recommended by the Joshua Intervenors, was in a meeting Ms. Jo Evelyn Elston at approximately 11 :30 a.m., August 16, 2001 . I was scheduled to meet with him during the day. I had previously written him and informed him that I \"would like to be involved in your meetings with Dr. Washington and Dr. Lesley.\" See Exhibit I. I was unable to meet with him -8- 'j lj during his meetings with either of those persons. When I caught up with him he was at Ms. Elston's office. Ms. Elston invited me and Ms. Springer into the office. A law clerk named Francis Caldwell, who accompanied us to the meeting, was also invited in. During the meeting, I informed Dr. Roberts that I was not to elicit information from any district officials and then I proceeded to tell him some of the concerns that  we had regarding the treatment of African American students that I wished for him to address with Ms. Elston and the other administrators as he sought to work with the school district. My conversations were primarily expressions of concern to Dr. Roberts regarding his role in relating to school administrators. I did discuss with him the treatment of African American students not only in advanced placement but in the district as well. At no time did Ms. Elston indicated that I interrupted any meeting and she appeared to welcome my discussions with Dr. Roberts. Ms. Elston and I have been personal friends since college, and we are neighbors. Dr. Roberts has provided a written statement regarding the alleged events. See Exhibit J. (The signed copy from Dr. Roberts is being submitted to the Court). b) To the allegation that I called Mr. James Washington, LRSD Ombudsman on\\ June 30, 2001, and suggested that \"Washington testify that he feared for his job ifhe told the truth,\" I deny having done that. Mr. Washington did not testify at the Court hearing that he feared for his job ifhe told the truth. Mr. Washington, however, has visited my office on scores of occasions in response to complaints that we have directed to him in his role as Ombudsperson. During several of those meetings he complained about his treatment by the district and that he did not feel that he had the -9- full support of Mr. Junious Babbs in the execution of his job duties. At court, as I recall his testimony, he confirmed that lack of full support. He indicated shortcomings with respect to his office space, staff and limitations upon his investigations, especially about complaints that emanated from Pulaski Heights :Middle School. Mr. Washington, I believe, says different things to different people at different times  depending upon his view of the advantage to be obtained by such expressions. c) To the allegation that on July 19, 2001 I attempted to intimidate Dr. Don Stewart by walking into a closed door meeting in his office, I deny that. I am not certain of where Dr. Don Stewart's office is located. I went into a room where he and Mr. Junious Babbs were present, which may have been his office, exchanged a few pleasantries and left. I do not recall either ofus being seated. Absolutely nothing took place where I sought to obtain information, verbal or written, from a school district official. I further suggest that any intimidation or intended intimidation ofDr. Don Stewart is impossible due, if for no other reason, to Dr. Stewart's high degree of self-confidence to say the least. I do not believe that he will testify, under oath, by recitation of any factual scenario, that I have ever sought to intimidate him. 24. With respect to both motions for contempt, I deny that I either have contempt for the Court or have acted in a manner contemptuous of any Court Order, Court Directive or Code of Professional Conduct. The contrary is true. 25 . The district acknowledges that as counsel for Joshua, I have a duty to engage in monitoring activity regarding class activity. The motion for contempt, I believe, is an -10- attempt to frustrate our monitoring. I have read the foregoing statements and they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me ~ay of~ , 2001. / ~)}1 {2 IJ-\u0026u MY CO,SSION EXPIRES: 17 /zc7,.13 I NefT YPUBLIC ........ ~ ,, l_. j . . \\ ~ , . .._..'.I.:..~.. .  ' ; -11- J JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. JOHNW. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS  "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_102","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool","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":["2001-09","2001-10","2001-11","2001-12"],"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","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"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/102"],"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\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant.\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION REC IVcD OCT l 2001 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of ADE's Project Management Tool for September, 2001 . Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Attorney Genera 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-3643 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, certify that on September 28, 2001, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 ~~~ ' Marl\u0026lt;Aagemeier ~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KA THERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS AD~SPROJECTMANAGEMENTTOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 Based 2n the information a\"'.ailabl~ atAugust,,31,,r2001Jlie Ap~~lcuiatetj th~ Equalization Funding for FY 01/02, subje~ o penoaic ac.1Justmffl1fs. 8. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 Based on the information available at August 31, 2001, the ADE calculated for FY 01/02, subject to periodic adjustments. C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 On August 31, 2001, distributions of State Equalization Funding for FY 01/02 were as follows: LRSD - $4,955,848 NLRSD - $2,634,491 PCSSD - $5,093,139 The allotments of State Equalization Funding calculated for FY 01/02 at August 31, 2001, subject to periodic adjustments, were as follows: LRSD - $54,514,335 NLRSD - $28,979,401 PCSSD - $56,024,532 D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at August 31 , 2001 for FY 01/02, subject to periodic adjustments. E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 Base'c:\"r\"o n the information available, the ADE calculated at August 31, 2001 for . FY 01/02, subject to periodic adjustments. It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 Based_ on the information available, the ADE calculated at August 31, 2001 for FY 01/02, subject to periodic adjustments.  G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 Distributions for FY 01/02 at August 31, 2001, totaled $974,807. Allotment calculated for FY 01/02 was $10,722,873 subject to periodic adjustments. H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 Calculated for FY 01/02, subject to periodic adjustments. I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 oYsfr-il?lffF\u0026amp;-.~rofE'0/01~at A(igt.Tgf3-f, 2001 ~ta: LRSD - $3,839,341 NLRSD - $1,950,805 PCSSD - $8,065,184 The a~ tments calcu lated for FY 00/01 at August 31 , 2001, subject to perio~ic adjustments, were: LRSD - $3,839,341 NLRSD - $1 ,950,805 PCSSD- $8,065,184 J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, December of each year. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 In September 2000, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 00/01 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 In January 2001 , General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 00/01 to the Districts. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 In January 2001 , General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 00/01 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At February 28, 2001, the following had been paid for FY 00/01 : LRSD - $2,197,201 .00 NLRSD - $437,233.34 PCSSD - $1,184,784.28 M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In July 1999, each district submitted an estimated budget for the 99/00 school year. In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1 ,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD- 14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD-12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD-6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. The ADE accepted a bid on 16 buses for the Magnet and M/M transportation program. The buses will be delivered after July 1, 1999 and before August 1, 1999. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nPCSSD - 6. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724,165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001. The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two type C 47 passenger buses and fourteen type C 65 passenger buses. Prices on these units are $43,426.00 each on the 47 passenger buses, and $44,289.00 each on the 65 passenger buses. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001, the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. 0 . Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) Q. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. S. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to N LRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) U. V. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97 /98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01 . Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 01/02. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. 9 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education, and the Districts and filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 10 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sentto the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97/98. 11 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 12 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCS SD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21, 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. 13 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001 . The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. On July 26, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. 14 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 15 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV. E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. C. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV. E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 16 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81 st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 17 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. 18 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation.  In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11 , 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 19 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11, in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. TjlE\nADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Gommittee is reviewing all relevant laws or reg ulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski ounty school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-8 at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. 20 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its com.mitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 Ongoing C. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 Ongoing D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project ManagementTool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 21 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 At each regular monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, the Board is provided copies of the most recent Project Management Tool (PMT) and an executive summary of the PMT for their review and approval. Only activities that are in addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data collection process. Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT. In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 22 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the ADE's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 23 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regularoversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the ADE's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 24 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 25 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 26 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21, 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 27 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11 , 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11 , 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) On July 9, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. 2 9 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31 , 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCA/COE peer team visits. 30 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined..for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 31 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Leaming Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97/98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted. 32 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Leaming, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement'' at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 33 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. D. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI. F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 34 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on a project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa, the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Dawson Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys. Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review. In December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31 , 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children. Participants received training from national experts who outlined specific steps that promote and improve the education of black children. On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the ADE's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. 3 5 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NCA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservicetraining. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. In November 1997, the field service representatives attended the Governor's Partnership Workshop to discuss how to tie the committee's activities with the ECOE process. 36 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) In March 1998, the field service representatives attended a school improvement conference and conducted workshops on team building and ECOE team visits. Staff development seminars on Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement are scheduled for March 23, 1998 and March 27, 1998 for the Districts. In April 1998, the Districts participated in an ADE seminar to aid them in evaluating and improving student achievement. In August 1998, the Field Service Staff attended inservice to provide further assistance to schools, i.e., Title I Summer Planning Session, ADE session on Smart Start, and the School Improvement Workshops. All schools and districts in Pulaski County were invited to attend the \"Smart Start\" Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Start\" is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. Representatives from all three districts attended. On January 21, 1998, the ADE provided staff development for the staff at Oak Grove Elementary School designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement. Using achievement data from Oak Grove, educators reviewed trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. On February 24, 1999, the ADE provided staff development for the administrative staff at Clinton Elementary School regarding analysis of achievement data. On February 15, 1999, staff development was rescheduled for Lawson Elementary School. The staff development program was designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement using achievement data from Lawson, educators reviewed the components of the Arkansas Smart Initiative, trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. Student Achievement Workshops were rescheduled for Southwest Jr. High in the Little Rock School District, and the Oak Grove Elementary School in the Pulaski County School District. 37 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Leaming Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. 38 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action ,\" and \"Creating Leaming Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding , \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. 3 9 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training, Dr. Reynolds addressed the following: 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming, 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, (i.e., parents, teachers, students), 6) how to correctly interpret scores. This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACTAAP Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark Professionai Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following training has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. On March 8, 2000, training was conducted for the Southwest Middle School in Little Rock, on ADD. Six people attended the training. There was follow-up training on Learning and Reading Styles on March 26. This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. 40 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) On September 7, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Chicot Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Karen Sabo, Kindergarten Teacher\nMelissa Gleason, Paraprofessional\nCurtis Mayfield, P.E. Teacher\nLisa Poteet, Speech Language Pathologist\nJane Harkey, Principal\nKathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Coordinator\nAlice Phillips, Occupational Therapist. On September 15, 2000, the Governor's Developmental Disability Coalition Conference presented Assistive Technology Devices \u0026amp; Services. This was held at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On September 19, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Jefferson Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Melissa Chaney, Special Education Teacher\nBarbara Barnes, Special Education Coordinator\na Principal, a Counselor, a Librarian, and a Paraprofessional.  On October 6, 2000, Integrating Assistive Technology Into Curriculum was presented at a conference in the Hot Springs Convention Center. Presenters were: Bryan Ayers and Aleecia Starkey. Speech Language Pathologists from LRSD and NLRSD attended. On October 24, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On October 25 and 26, 2000, Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities for the LRSD at J. A. Fair High School was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. The participants were: Susan Chapman, Special Education Coordinator\nMary Steele, Special Education Teacher\nDenise Nesbit, Speech Language Pathologist\nand three Paraprofessionals. On November 14, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On November 17, 2000, training was conducted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Special Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. 41 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) On January 9, 2001 , Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001 , Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell, Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurig, Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001 . Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield, ASERC\nMary Steele, J. A. Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres, Easter Seals Outreach. This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning, and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios. The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and reading. On February 12-23, 2001 , the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel trained Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 10 regional sites. Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided training for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session. The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 42 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) On March 15, 2001 , there was a meeting at the ADE to plan professional development for staff who work with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students. A $30,000 grant has been created to provide LEP training at Chicot Elementary for a year, starting in April 2001 . A $40,000 grant was created to provide a Summer English as Second Language (ESL) Academy for the LRSD from June 18 through 29, 2001 . Andre Guerrero from the ADE Accountability section met with Karen Broadnax, ESL Coordinator at LRSD, Pat Price, Early Childhood Curriculum Supervisor at LRSD, and Jane Harkey, Principal of Chicot Elementary. On March 1-2 and 8-29, 2001 , ADE staff performed the following activities: processed registration for April 2 and 3 Alternate Portfolio Assessment video conference quarterly meeting\nanswered questions about Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) and LEP Alternate Portfolio Assessment by phone from schools and Education Service Cooperatives\nand signed up students for alternate portfolio assessment from school districts. On March 6, 2001 , ADE staff attended a Smart Step Technology Leadership Conference at the State House Convention Center. On March 7, 2001 , ADE staff attended a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Regional Math Framework Meeting about the Consensus Project 2004. On March 8, 2001 , there was a one-on-one conference with Carole Villarreal from Pulaski County at the ADE about the LEP students with portfolios. She was given pertinent data, including all the materials that have been given out at the video conferences. The conference lasted for at least an hour. On March 14, 2001 , a Test Administrator's Train ing Session was presented specifically to LRSD Test Coordinators and Principals. About 60 LRSD personnel attended. The following meetings have been conducted with educators in the three districts in Pulaski County since July 2000. On July 10-13, 2000 the ADE provided Smart Step training. The sessions covered Standards-based classroom practices. 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) On July 19-21 , 2000 the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were 200 teachers from across the state in attendance. On August 14-31 , 2000 the ADE presented Science Smart Start Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This will provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. On September 5, 2000 the ADE held an Eisenhower Informational meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators. The purpose of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is to prepare teachers, school staff, and administrators to help all students meet challenging standards in the core academic subjects. A summary of the program was presented at the meeting. On November 2-3, 2000 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching. This presented curriculum and activity workshops. More than 1200 attended the conference. On November 6, 2000 there was a review of Science Benchmarks and sample model curriculum. A committee of 6 reviewed and revised a drafted document. The committee was made up of ADE and K-8 teachers. On November 7-10, 2000 the ADE held a meeting of the Benchmark and End of Course Mathematics Content Area Committee. Classroom teachers reviewed items for grades 4, 6, 8 and EOC mathematics assessment. There were 60 participants. On December 4-8, 2000 the ADE conducted grades 4 and 8 Benchmark Scoring for Writing Assessment. This professional development was attended by approximately 750 teachers. On December 8, 2000 the ADE conducted Rubric development for Special Education Portfolio scoring. This was a meeting with special education supervisors to revise rubric and plan for scoring in June. On December 8, 2000 the ADE presented the Transition Mathematics Pilot Training Workshop. This provided follow-up training and activities for fourth-year mathematics professional development. On December 12, 2000 the ADE presented test administrators training for midyear End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcasts on April 2-3, 2001 . Administration of the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy took place on April 23-27, 2001 . Administration of the End of Course Algebra and Geometry Exams took place on May 2-3, 2001 . Over 1,100 Arkansas educators attended the Smart Step Growing Smarter Conference on July 10 and 11, 2001 , at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The Smart Step effort seeks to provide intense professional development for teachers and administrators at the middle school level, as well as additional materials and assistance to the state's middle school teachers. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the first keynote address on \"The Character-Centered Teacher''. Debra Pickering, an education consultant from Denver, Colorado, presented the second keynote address on \"Characteristics of Middle Level Education\". Throughout the Smart Step conference, educators attended breakout sessions that were grade-specific and curriculum area-specific. Pat Davenport, an education consultant from Houston, Texas, delivered two addresses. She spoke on \"A Blueprint for Raising Student Achievement\". Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. Over 1,200 Arkansas teachers and administrators attended the Smart Start Conference on July 12, 2001 , at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Start is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the keynote address. The day featured a series of 15 breakout sessions on best classroom practices. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. On July 18-20, 2001, the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were approximately 300 teachers from across the state in attendance. 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) The ADE and Harcourt Educational Measurement conducted Stanford 9 test administrator training from August 1-9, 2001 . The trarning was held at Little Rock, Jonesboro, Fort Smith, ForrestCity,Springdale, Mountain Home, Prescott, and Monticello. Another session was held at the ADE on August 30, for those who were unable to attend August 1-9. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by video conference at the Education Service Cooperatives and at the ADE from 9:00 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on September 5, 2001 . The ADE released the performance of all schools on the Primary and Middle Level Benchmark Exams on September 5, 2001. 46 VII. TEST VALIDATION A. Using a collaborative approach, the ADE will select and contract with an independent bias review service or expert to evaluate the Stanford 8, or other monitoring instruments used to measure disparities in academic achievement between black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date March, 1995 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 On March 29, 1995, letters were sent to four national experts about conducting a test bias validation of the Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition, Form K (SAT-8). Dr. Paul Williams, Deputy Director of Educational Testing Service (ETS), contacted the ADE in April of 1995 concerning the proposal for validating the SAT-8 test. The ADE requested that Dr. Williams conduct a validity study of test items used in the SAT-8. Dr. Williams submitted a final proposal for his services. The ADE Bias Review Test Committee met Friday, July 7, 1995, and approved Dr. William's contract proposal. The final contract was forwarded to Dr. Williams for his signature. The contract was signed in August 1995, thereby, completing this goal. B. By April 1994, establish a bias review committee to oversee the bias review process, and invite representatives of the Districts and parties to meet with the bias review committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 Complete. ADE established a Bias Review Committee in April 1994. In accordance with the Implementation Plan, representatives from the Districts and the parties were invited to attend and participate in this and all meetings of the Bias Review Committee. C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. 1. Projected Ending Date March 1995 and ongoing 47 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 Dr. Paul Williams met with the staff of the Psychological Corporation to review their methods and procedures. In August 1995, he met with the staff at Georgia State University to review the statistical methods that would be used in the analysis. Dr. Williams reported difficulty with the bias-review study in receiving the names of the bias panel and the complete SAT-8 data set from the Psychological Corporation. Dr. Williams submitted an invoice totaling $8,961 for Task I activities of the SAT-8 validity study for partial fulfillment of the test validation study. On December 6, 1995, a contract extension for Dr. Williams was reviewed by the Legislative Council. In January 1996, he indicated that he was in the final stages of the test validation, and the ADE was presented a draft report in March 1996. In May 1996, Dr. Williams stated that the wrong data sets were sent to him by the Psychological Corporation resulting in Task 3 having to be redone. A new draft of the final report was received by the ADE in July 1996. In August 1996, copies of the test validation report were provided to the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team for their review. On September 10, 1996, the LRSD notified the ADE that they had reviewed the test validation report and would like to meet with the ADE to discuss the report. The ADE Director indicated that he would schedule a meeting with the LRSD to discuss the report. In October 1996, historical files and data were provided to the ADE Director, the ADE Assistant Director for Technical Services, and the ADE Assistant Director for Planning and Curriculum for their review in preparation for a meeting with the LRSD regarding the validity study. Test validation procedures by the expert have been completed. A recommendation was drafted proposing the use of the SAT-8 by the ADE as the validated test for monitoring. The ADE is presently working to arrange a meeting with the Administration of the LRSD to discuss the test validation study. Effective September 22, 1997, the State Board of Education hired a new Director of the General Education Division, which should allow the ADE to move forward in this matter. 48 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) In October 1997, the GED Director was updated on the history of the test validation process to provide the Director with background information in preparation for a meeting with the LRSD. In February 1998, ADE staff met with senior staff members to discuss the test validation and appropriate test scores for consideration by the LRSD. The ADE Director met with the Superintendent of the LRSD to discuss test validation issues. In June 1998, the ADE Director directed the Assistant Director for Accountability to recommend staff to discuss how the ADE would measure LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness thresholds of the Settlement Agreement. Plans were made to meet with the staff Tuesday, June 30, 1998. The Test Validation Committee met on June 30, 1998, and discussed the following: 1. The appropriateness of the use of scaled scores on the SAT-8 test as the metric for assessing LRSD compliance with the loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement\nand 2. The need for an independent analysis of LRSD students' test scores to determine compliance or noncompliance with loan forgiveness standard, and who would bear the cost of such an independent analysis. The Test Validation Committee met on September 10, 1998, to review recent correspondence from LRSD and to further discuss issues related to the loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement. A follow-up administrative meeting was held on October 13, 1998, to discuss issues related to the test validation process. Participants included Tim Gauger, Assistant Attorney General, Dr. Charity Smith, Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Frank Anthony, Assistant Director for Accountability. A meeting was scheduled with Dr. Les Carnine, LRSD Superintendent and Mr. Ray Simon, ADE Director, regarding Test Validation and loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement on May 12, 1999. 49 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) On June 14, 1999, the State Board of Education was briefed on the status of LRSD's refusal to make principal and interest payments into escrow as required by the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement and related documents. The Board requested that a draft motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement be prepared and submitted to the Board for review and discussion at the Board's next regularly scheduled meeting. On July 12, 1999, the State Board of Education authorized the filing of a motion to compel LRSD to make interest and principal payments into escrow pursuant to the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The State Board of Education instructed the Attorney General's Office to file a motion by March 1, 2000 if a determination is made that the LRSD is not in compliance with Section 6 B of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement regarding the establishment and funding of the escrow account in the loan provision section. On May 8, 2000, the Assistant Director of Accountability was directed by the Director of Education to contact Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement Company about the possibility of conducting a research study on the standardized test composite scores from 1990 through 1999 of LRSD (excluding special education students). The Test Selection Committee met on May 23, 2000, at the ADE and discussed ways to measure LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness threshold of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. An update on the progress with Harcourt Brace was made at that time. Harcourt Brace has been contacted about conducting an initial research report on LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness threshold of the settlement agreement. This report will review all composite scores since 1990 of LRSD's black and white students (excluding special education students). The purpose of the report is to determine if at any time from Spring 1990 to Fall 1999 did the composite scores of LRSD's black students ( excluding special education students) reach 90% or greater of the composite scores of LRSD's white students (excluding special education students) on the State mandated norm-referenced test. Company representatives will advise the ADE of the cost and feasibility of producing the report by May 31 , 2000. If the report indicates that LRSD has not meet the loan forgiveness requirements of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement, an additional analysis of the Fall 2000 standardized tests results will be made. 50 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) Harcourt Brace indicated that they would be able to provide the data, but indicated that analysis of the data should be done by an independent consultant. The search for an independent consultant has been undertaken. On February 12, 2001, the ADE Director provided the State Board of Education with a special update on desegregation activities. 51 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING A. Through an interactive process with representatives of desegregating districts, identify in-service training needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. B. Develop in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. C. Implement in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 In April 1995, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee were provided an overview of the Scott Alternative Learning Center's operation and met with students and staff. In May 1995, the Districts were in the process of self-assessment and planning for fall staff development. 52 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) The Districts worked on staff development to be incorporated into their fall 95/96 preschool calendars. The uniqueness of each district's needs and their schools was considered in the planning by utilizing the results of needs assessment instruments. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 13, 1995 to plan for an ADE administered Classroom Management grant. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 19, 1995 to finalize the Classroom Management grant proposal. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on October 24, 1995 to discuss program and staff development evaluation models that might be available to the Districts. On November 15, 1995, the ADE met with an ODM representative to discuss the progress the ADE had made in attaining the objectives outlined in the Implementation Plan with regard to inservice training. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on November 21, 1995 to discuss upcoming training events and various NLR programs that focus on non-academic needs. A new program consisting of placing a graduate student of social work, a field supervisor, and a DHS worker in the district at no cost to the district was discussed. Additionally, NLR provided an overview of their program for credit deficient students. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on December 19, 1995 to discuss information dealing with ways to broaden the perspective of multicultural education. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on January 17, 1996 to discuss proposed changes in the standards regarding media centers and NLRSD's staff development strategic planning committee. The committee reviewed a video on diversity produced by the Arkansas Elementary Principals Association. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 21 , 1996 to discuss the implications of budget cuts on staff development programs and PCSSD's request for unitary status for their staff development program. They also discussed the need for computer literacy, technology training, and acquisition of hardware and software by the Districts. 53 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 27, 1996 to discuss available resources concerning sexual harassment. ADE regulations in relation to staff members attending professional association conferences as well as the district staff development and potential sites for training seminars were also discussed. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on April 30, 1996 to discuss the reconfiguring of Jacksonville Junior High, PCSSD professional development schedules, and APSCN on-line time lines. A tour of the Washington Magnet school was also conducted. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee received a demonstration of UALR's Baum Decision Support Center's capabilities regarding consensus and planning on May 29, 1996. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee did not meet during September, October, and November 1996 because of scheduling conflicts and the extended medical leave of the ADE liaison. On December 18, 1996, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met to discuss the linkage between the Implementation Plan, staff development, and student achievement. On January 21 , 1997, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met and discussed sharing middle school strategies and the Districts' training catalogs. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 25, 1997 to discuss their current staff development programs and an overview of the relationship of their current programs with their desegregation plans. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 26, 1997 to observe the Great Expectations Program. The principal and mentor teachers provided information on the components and philosophy of the program, and students demonstrated selected components. The PCSSD may adopt the program for selected schools in their district. The committee was provided with an update of pertinent information on resources available to the Districts. The committee decided that the ADE liaison to the committee would gather documentation of completed staff development directly from the Districts, instead of the Districts providing this information at the committee meetings. 54 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) New information on teacher licensure and rules and regulations was shared with the Tri-District Staff Development Committee at their April 1997 meeting. A report was presented to the committee on information from the Arkansas Council for Social Studies about an October 1997 meeting on integrated curriculum. The Districts will provide principal retreats this summer as a part of their staff development. The PCSSD will sponsor a renowned speaker on strategies to serve at risk youth in August 1997 in which the committee is invited to attend. The LRSD shared survey results from a pilot administration to four teachers in each district. The survey found the sample to be strong in content but lacking in context and process. Plans to address these needs will be developed. In another survey to certified and non-certified LRSD staff, stress management was the major concern. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on May 14, 1997 to participate in a teleconference with the five 1996 awardees of the National Awards Program for Model for Professional Development. The PCSSD shared their summer and fall staff development catalog with the members. The committee will reconvene in the fall of the 97/98 school year. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee is scheduled to meet on September 30, 1997 to discuss collaborative actions for FY 97/98. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 30, 1997 to discuss their staff development for the 1997/1998 school year. The PCSSD had a pre-school in-service for the faculty, and the LRSD conducted a Principals Academy with an expert on the math and science initiative which lasted several days. The NLRSD is providing staff development by satellite. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on October 28, 1997. The LRSD and NLRSD shared some of their staff development course offerings with the committee, and the PCSSD discussed ways of optimizing opportunities for staff development with specific emphasis on the junior high school conflict resolution training. In November 1997, the Lead Planner provided technical assistance to Central High School staff regarding data disaggregation, test score analysis and ways to improve student achievement. 55 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on November 25, 1997 to discuss the Standards for Staff Development. The LRSD will begin providing technology training to their employees in January by utilizing business teachers. Additionally, they discussed a collaborative venture of the Districts involving a workshop from Chicago on a program called \"Great Expectations.\" The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on December 16, 1997 to discuss technology plans, strategies for obtaining information currently being provided to the education cooperatives, scheduling of Arkansas history, and the development of a comprehensive list of locations available for staff development. Members agreed to bring information on available locations to the January meeting and have set a tentative completion date for the project of May 1998. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on January 27, 1998 to share information for developing a comprehensive list of locations available for staff development. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 24, 1998 to work on the development of the list of locations available for staff development. The committee also discussed the meeting on student achievement sponsored by the ADE for the Districts, principals' staff development in the Districts and emphasis on improving achievement as reflected on the SA T-9. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 19, 1998 to discuss the math and science grant received by the LRSD, the Districts' inservice calendars for August, TESA and Student-Team Learning trainers, and team building for staff. The ADE Deputy Director is scheduled to discuss ways the committee can strengthen their relationship with the regional cooperatives at their May meeting. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on April 27, 1998 to discuss their proposal for involvement with the regional cooperatives. The ADE Deputy Director is scheduled to discuss committee's concerns regarding their relationship with the regional cooperatives at their next meeting. 56 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Thursday, May 21 , 1998, in the Instructional Resources Center at Little Rock School District. Dr. Woodrow Cummins, ADE Deputy Director, joined the group to discuss ways to develop a closer connection with the Education Service Cooperatives. He also discussed other issues concerning Tri-District Staff Development. Tentative plans were made to meet with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their next regular meeting. The next Central Office meeting will be at 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 29, 1998, in the PCSSD. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee will attend the Educational Cooperative Teacher Center Coordinators' meeting September 1, 1998, in the ADE auditorium. The next regular meeting of the committee is tentatively set for 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 29, 1998, in the PCSSD Central Office. The Tri-County Staff Development Committee met Monday, August 24, 1998, at PCSSD central office with four members present: Marion Woods, LRSD\nDoug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nand Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Topics of discussion included the September 1 meeting scheduled with the regional cooperatives' teacher center coordinators\nthe staff development task force on which Marion Woods is serving\nthe property tax issue\nand various mathematics and reading programs being used in the districts. The committee met Tuesday, September 1, 1998, with the Teacher Center Coordinators, at which time Dr. Woody Cummins presented. Six Tri-District Staff Development Committee members were present: Marion Woods, LRSD\nDoug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nDana Chadwick and Estelle Crawford, NLRSD\nBetty Gale Davis, ADE. The next committee meeting will be 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 24, 1998, at the Little Rock District Instructional Resources Center. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Thursday, September 24, 1998, at the Instructional Resources Center, Little Rock, with five present: Marion Woods and Dr. Bonnie Lesley, LRSD\nDoug Ask, PCSSD\nDana Chadwick, NLRSD\nand Dr. Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Topics of discussion included the meeting with the regional cooperatives' teacher center coordinators\nthe staff development task force on which Marion Woods is serving and the NSCI training\ntraining provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)\ntraining provided by Casio\nand the proposal of a Principals Academy. 57 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) Doug Ask will serve as representative to the October 6, 1998 meeting of the Teacher Center Coordinators. He will submit to Donna Harris, president of the group, a request for one other member of the Tri-County Committee (Dana Chadwick) to attend the meeting. Representatives for future meetings (second Tuesday of each month) will be: Marion Woods, November\nMary Mcclendon, December\nDana Chadwick, January. The next committee meeting will be 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, October 13, 1998, at the North Little Rock School District Central Office. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on Tuesday, October 13, 1998, in the NLRSD Administration Building. Doug Ask represented the committee at the Teacher Center Coordinators' meeting in Fayetteville, October 6. He shared with the Tri-District Committee information regarding the upcoming NSCI/Smart Start Training. James Smith spoke with the group about Amendment 4. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee also met with the Teacher Center Coordinators, Wednesday, October 28. Doug Ask, Marion Woods, and Esther Crawford were trained as facilitators, October 29, for the initial Smart Start Summit to be held November 9-12, 1998. Marion Woods will represent the committee at the next regular Teacher Center Coordinators' meeting, Tuesday, November 3, 10:00 a.m. at the ADE. The next Tri-District Committee meeting will be at 9:00 a.m., November 10, in the PCSSD Administration Building. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met several times with the Teacher Center Coordinators in preparation for the Smart Start Summit. During the Smart Start Summit, they served as facilitators. The meeting planned for November 10 was postponed due to the conflict with the Summit. Doug Ask, Marion Woods, and Esther Crawford met with the Teacher Center Coordinators on Tuesday, December 1, 1998, for the regular monthly meeting. Principal topics discussed were the Smart Start Initiative and Principals' Institute. The next meeting of the Teacher Center Coordinators is scheduled for January 6, 1999, 9:00 a.m., in the ADE Auditorium. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee will meet at 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, December 8, 1998, at the Little Rock School District Instructional Resources Center. 5 8 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) Doug Ask, PCSSD\nMarion Woods, LRSD\nand Esther Crawford, NLRSD, met with the Teacher Center Coordinators on Tuesday, December 1, 1998, for the regular monthly meeting. Principal topics discussed were the Smart Start Initiative and Principals' Institute. The Teacher Center Coordinators held their monthly meeting on January 6, 1999, 9:00 a.m., in the ADE Auditorium, with Doug Ask, Marion Woods, and Esther Crawford in attendance. At the January meeting, the primary focus was on the Smart Start Initiative. Dates for the future committee meetings have been tentatively scheduled to coincide with meetings with the Teacher Center Coordinators. Due to the Tri-District Committee's involvement with the Smart Start Initiative, no formal meeting of the committee was held in January. Members of the TriDistrict Staff Development Committee met with Teacher Center Coordinators, January 6 and 25, 1999, preparing for and facilitating Smart Start activities. Dates for future meetings have been tentatively scheduled to coincide with meetings of Teach er Center Coordinators. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Wednesday, February 17, 1999, at the Best Western lnntowne with four members in attendance. Most of the discussion centered on Smart Start and Character Centered Teaching. A March meeting date was not determined. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting, April 6, 1999, at the ADE. Much of the meeting centered on the Smart Start Initiative and the Getting Smarter Summer Conference to be held in Hot Springs, July 28- 31, 1999. The next meeting of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee will be May 11 , 1999, at the Northeast Arkansas Educational Cooperative, Walnut Ridge. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting, Tuesday, May 11 , 1999, at the Northeast Arkansas Educational Cooperative, Walnut Ridge, with Mary McClendon, PCSSD, Marion Woods, LRSD, Esther Crawford, NLRSD, and Janinne Riggs, ADE, attending. Much of the meeting centered on the Smart Start Initiative. The next meeting was scheduled as a retreat, June 7-9, 1999, at Hot Springs. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators for their annual retreat, June 7-9, 1999, at Hot Springs. The next regular meeting will be in September, the date and place to be announced later. Summer activities will include the Getting Smarter Conference. 59 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met during the Getting Smarter Conference, July 28-31, 1999, at Hot Springs. In collaboration with the Teacher Center Coordinators, those participating in the conference as facilitators were: Doug Ask, PCSSD\nEsther Crawford, NLRSD\nand Marion Woods, LRSD. The next regular meeting will be in September, the date and place to be announced later. Target, Teach, and Test for Student Success, a workshop aimed at improving interpretation of test data and applying that knowledge toward more effective lesson planning, was adapted for presentation in conjunction with the Multicultural Institute. Members of the Standards Assurance Unit (Dee Cox, Betty Gale Davis, Bob Maddox, and Lonzo Gatlin) presented an all-day workshop (Target, Teach, and Test for Student Success) for Pulaski County Special School District in connection with the Multicultural Institute, July 27, 1999. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, September 7, 1999, at the ADE, with five members in attendance: Doug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nEsther Crawford, NLRSD\nMaron Woods, LRSD\nand Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Discussion included Smart Start activities and performance assessment. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. The next meeting will be Tuesday, October 5, 1999, at the ADE. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, October 5, 1999 at the ADE. Discussion included middle level training (LRSD), inservice for administrators in retreat (PCSSD), and Smart Start activities. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. The next meeting will be November 2, 1999 at the ADE. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, November 2, 1999 at the ADE. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. The next meeting will be December 7, at the ADE. The December meeting was canceled due to conflicts in scheduling. The TriDistrict Staff Development Committee will hold its next meeting January 3, 2000 at the ADE. The Committee continues to work in cooperation with the Teacher Center Coordina\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\n\n\n "},{"id":"hbcula_becu_21","title":"Voice of the Wildcats Newsletter, September 2001","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":["2001-09"],"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, September 2001"],"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/21"],"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}],"pages":{"current_page":361,"next_page":362,"prev_page":360,"total_pages":6797,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":4320,"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}}]}}