{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1726","title":"Court filings concerning LRSD motion for protective order and for preliminary hearing, and PCSDD Baker recruitment plan","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":["2001-08-15/2001-08-31"],"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","Pulaski County Special School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Parents' and teachers' associations","School management and organization","School discipline","School administrators","School employees","Baker Interdistrict School (Little Rock, Ark.)","School enrollment"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning LRSD motion for protective order and for preliminary hearing, and PCSDD Baker recruitment plan"],"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/1726"],"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":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["83 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, plaintiff's motion for protective order and for preliminary hearing; District Court, memorandum brief in support of plaintiff's motion for protective order and for emergency hearing; District Court, order; District Court, consolidated response to motion for preliminary injunction and corrected motion for relief from orders entered on April 27, 2000, and May 9, 2001; District Court, plaintiff's motion for comtempt; District Court, memorandum brief in support of plaintiff's motion for contempt; District Court, order; District Court, supplement to the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSDD) Baker recruitment plan; District Court, plaintiff's motion for contempt; District Court, motion for extension of time; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, response to Joshua's motion for extension of time; District Court, three orders; District Court, motion for enlargement of time  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    RECEIVED AUG 1 7 2001 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL PLAINTIFF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL ,.. .. ._!!\\THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTNE ORDER AND FOR EMERGENCY HEARING Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Motion for Protective Order and for Emergency Hearing states: 1. LRSD seeks a protective order to prevent unduly burdensome and harassing - discovery being conducted by the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") via the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (\"FOIA\"), Ark. Code Ann.  25-19-101 through 25-19-110. 2. On August 13, 2001, Joshua submitted the FOIA request attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Items one and two of the request seek all correspondence and e-mail between each LRSD principal and other District personnel for over three years. LRSD seeks a protective order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) requiring Joshua to more narrowly tailor the request and/or .. granting LRSD 60 days to respond to the request and requiring Joshua to conduct future discovery pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 3. Joshua's use of the FOIA to conduct discovery is intended to annoy, oppress and unduly burden LRSD. First, the request is over broad. Joshua made no effort to limit its request to the issues currently before this Court. Second, the request is unreasonably cumulative. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(i). This request is one in a long-line ofFOIA requests by Joshua. In response to a prior request, LRSD provided Joshua access to all of the e-mails of each associate superintendent. These would have included any e-mails with principals. Finally, the burden and expense of complying with Joshua's request outweighs any likely benefit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. i6(b )(2)(iii). The documents sought by Joshua may contain personal information about students. The FOIA requires LRSD to redact this information. See 2001 Ark. Acts 1653. It will take a substantial amount oftime and resources to review over three years worth of correspondence and e-mails and make the necessary redactions. Principals need to be preparing for the start of school on August 20, 2001. It will be impossible for them to comply with Joshua's FOIA request and also adequately prepare for the start of school. 4. LRSD has attempted to confer with Joshua, but Joshua refused to narrow the ~  -.r-eqnest or allow LRSD the time needed to respond. 5. LRSD's memorandum brief in support of this Motion is hereby incorporated by reference. As discussed therein, this Court has discretion to enjoin Joshua's use of the FOIA to conduct discovery. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for a protective order requiring Joshua to more narrowly tailor its August 13, 2001, FOIA request and/or granting LRSD 60 days to respond to the request; for an order requiring Joshua to conduct future discovery pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; for an emergency hearing on this Motion; 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) 37. 1 B: John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE   I certify ~ copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by fax and mail on August~ 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 72222-73 88 - Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sammye Taylor Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 ~ John C. Fendley, Jr. 3 08/ 13/2001 15:59 501-324-2213 SQ-IDOL SERVICES PAGE 03   - JOHll W. W.Al.XU SH.AWN OJIILl)S JoHN W. WALJaR, P.A. moJQmArL4w l72S~AT Lrrn-l Rocm, A8JwGAs 722()6 TILZ:fflon (SOl) \u00267+8758 FAX (!501) 874-4l87 August 13, 2001 r  Dur Principal: -- Please provide punu~t to the Arkansas Freedom oflnfurmation A.a:  i. I 1) ali errcspond~ that yo-1.1 have .na~ in \\\\'if.ti other Little Rock S~l ~ strict P6onn.l fot 0\\4 ~riC)d baitfflll'la Math l. 1~8 ano en(!in~ J,.m\" 30, 2\u003cj(l1 ; , t I fol' th pen~ bta,nnin; M~c:h 1, 1998 .na .adina Jw,o )0, :2001; f 2) Qll ._~, that yo~ ha.Vt .r,;agci in wiih ocbr Li\"W llock Sclaool Di~J- '10,mel. 3) copies of all plAni that your \u0026chool dC!Veloped reaarding the following r.~bj i: a) discipline ;- b) gradea e) transportation d) flXtneurricular acti\"vjtie., j e) remediation of achievemanl activities ;: 1 f) participation in gifted and talented~ honors and advanced placc:inent i g} participation in spoc:ial education : , .  . I 4) ail wrltina, which rdlect the followin\u0026: . ! ) evaluario,u of pro,rama. policie, and proccdur11 that you imp .. ~ ! duriA\u0026 each of the last tbr\" yoan ,. b) appraiaaJa ofpro,rama, policies and.procedures that you impl~t. duri.q *b  of the last three years = .. c) assessments of pr~. policies ap4.:p;OGedures that you im.r,jem. j d during each oftbe last three years; and   . ::_ . i .  5) al.I rcporta resardina the success or fiilure : ~ propm. policy aodf ir  . ire that you nave under1aken in your ;school during eaeh of the past three rear whij e you h\u0026ve rec;ommsodod changes (regarding the proaram. Policy or prooedllf to !bl admi.Disu1tion io writin1, ' : .. I ~ l  ~ PLAINTIFF'S t axrmn 08/13/2001 15:59 501-324-221:3 SCHOOL SERVICES rt !i r-   y 011 may gpw witJl M~. ~Pfl!10!f HI my offica f'lRA!'dmJ tt\\A 4AM W tiftt  review and inspect the requested information. JWW:j\u0026 I I I I ! ; . j ' PAGE 04 11/17/95 14:52 WRIGHT, LINDSEY, \u0026 JENN I NGS  NO. 1.54 Hal6~/l:l1Qb ALio-:30-84 TUE 15:45 US DISTRICT CLERK FAX NO, 15019724812 P. 02 IN THB tiam A'l'BS DISTRICT cou.:'dr.JJrlC~~ DSTDN STRICT 01 AJlKAN .RNDlffllCf AAIWIIU JONISBOI.O DIVISION AUG 3 O 1994 ~~ DR  .JOHN KANGIDI, PLAIMTI1? ARKANSAS ITA'l'B UNlVIRSITY, B'l' AL, , DIJ'DDANTS MIM9BAttRPI MP 9BPIB In this action bro~9ht puruant to ,3 u.s.c. I 1913, th Defendant have aouqht a protactivo order (docket entry 3) which would _prohibit discovery ot attorney-clian~ communicationa batvean the Defendant and their lavyera and would protect attorney worlc product from dJ.acloure. Th latter would include lawyer to lawyer co1111unioat1ona aad tor th pupoae of preparin9 and detendinq the 1ntant l1t19ation. Plaintiff taadtaetly re1ita th entry ot ucb a protect! va order, pointing to th Arkanaa Freedom ot Intonation Aot, Ark. Code Ann. S as-19-101 at sag. (Supp. 1993), th Defendant' tatu aa ~c of  public 1ftat1tution, and the tact that th Detanclanta have baan auecl in their official aa well  individual capaoitiaa, and a body of Arkansas c law addra11inq the POIA and the aubjeot ot Defendant' propoaed order. 1 = PLAINTIFF'S l 9i'Bl1 t l/l?/95 14:52 WRIGHT, LINDSEY, \u0026 JENN I NGS I N0.134 P003/006 AUG-30-94 TUE 15:46 us TSTRJCT CLERK I FAX NO, 15019724612 P.03 e Initially, it auat be detarttlna4 which rul of law the court ahould apply. Thi caae, brol.!4ht in Federal Ditriot Co~ by a former State univer itr ~reaident over his treatment by the Board of Truateea ot ,.id intitution, i  tor rdr ot righta protected ~Y the law and eontitution ot th united stat In a auit ~roupt in federal court purauant to 42 u.s.c. I 1913, federal law control CZUNtion ,,--- ot priv1le9e. 1SglHn1 Ye Powtll, 773 ,.2c1 191, 1.1, (8th C:iJ:. 1911), cart. denied, 475 u.s. 1119 (1ta6); Youn!Jblood y. Qataa. 112 7.R.D. 342 (C.D. c.1. 1915). 'l'hia 1  true even where a pendnt or auppl ... ntal jurisdiction claim 11 joined with a federal claia. BIDIID Ye Alln IMPEial Hpapi\\al. 141 P.R..D. 115 (S.D. Iowa 1193). Work product protection - cautiona are detanined by looking to federal law, even in d1vrity ca Attbert; v, Cbis1aA i u,w, Tranap, Ce,, 121 P.R.D. 569 (D.s.o. 1989); Harpar Ye Auto oVDVI +DI, Co,, 138 r.R.D. ,ss (S.D. Ind. 1991), Tli attorney-oUent privilaqa i an indipnble tool of juatioa, and i 919011nded in th tederal 00111110n law. It ori9in8 ;o baclc_well before .th 1700' 8t4ient aurnr, Inc. Y, yarican A A11eei1tisn, 320 r.ad 314 (1th cir. 11,l). '?he benefit ot the privila,e, l:)otb to t.ha aainiat.rat1on o.t juatic and to the attorner.;client relationahip, are o \u0026oW\\da-nt a to need no recitation hare. It 1 tharatora held that tha aotion 1 GRAN'l'ID  ~ tho 001111\\Ulioationa between attorney and gliant that oomo under tho attornerclient  a l ,l / lt::35 14:~ Wl-\u003c:lrl, LlNu:x.T, ll. Jt::NN!~ fG-30-94 TUE 15:48  US DISTRICT CLERK . FAX J\"'IU ,, .L~ 15019724612 wv11e9e, See ,a\u002611,.-i.._..-._..,_,_....,.~.....,.,...._..._......_,.......,'-llilll,-\" r.~.D. ,st (D,C, Ill, 1975), Th motion 1 aleo GaAMTID  to into;-ation, letter, o~anda, and th lika .ganez-ated  lt.or~Y work product. HiglQaln y. Taylor, l2t U,S, 495, '7 +ct. 385 (1147) I bG E1atn1u1ar Tit;l c;e, v, 2111.. 101cb ~otxi 132 P,R.D. 301 (S,D. Pl\u0026, 1990), Th real ditticulty, ot course, co in determining whether a 9iven item tall within or without on ot th ~vo protected ~te9or1 Counl are called upon to u their sound jud;mant, and to conault the ColU't when and if bQno tide diput arbe in th cour ot cUsoovery abo~t 1tea that ara po ai~ly protected. A wo~d ut be qivn to th Arkansas authorit.ie that have touched on the iaeuea of privilege and work product in the context ot FOL\\ requeta. In Mc;C:ombJ:idga Yr Cit A( Little Jgck, 298 Ark. 21,, 766 s.w.ad 109 (1989), the Arkan suprue court hald that the Arkan rule of the attorneyclient privilet did not create an exemption to the Arkan rreedoa ot In(~raation Act. 'rhe ca heavily rlied on by Plaintiff, city q( f111ttayillt Yr Nmark, 304 A~k. 179, 801 s.w.ad 275 (ltta), held, ipt9r alia, that legal aemoranda prepared for tbe City tor li ti9ation purpo war not axeapt from tbe Arkan rraedoa ot Intomation Act. ~ttornay work product va thu dbcloaed .. 3 P. 04 : l 11/17/95 14:53 WRI(JiT, LlNU~~Y, ~ Jt::.NN!Nl\"l~ AUG-30-94 TUE 15:47 1u S D[STRICT CLERK NU  .L~ FAX NO, 15019724612 P.05 e Th court tinda 1aarJc and Mgcambri0;1 \" not bindin9 on thi Court and even 1~ the court aawnaa that they ara, the daoiaiona ~o not foracloaa thia _Court troa 1uinJ an order protecting attorney-oliant coDllllunicationa or attorney wor\u003ec product. (See Ark. Coda AM. I 25-ltlOS(b)(I), Which xempte tro th FOll dOOWNftta . which ar protaotecl fro dialoaure by order or rule ot court.) It i intueatinq to note that . ,.- Louiaiana' Public Raoorda Law apeai.riaally expt attorney work product rroa it tena, but not aaterial protected by the attorney-client privilege. sea 'tlllQP y. Lgui1iana Land 1 1Xpl;ratign. aos ,.supp. Ja5 cx.o. 1,a. ie9a). In axaminin; tha Arkan autboriti it i readily apparent that the tocu and concern of the Arkana Stata 9 oourt11 1a with the whole body or Arkan law, ancl the function of Arkan law in the attair ot Arkan oitiaen Thi Padaral cour~, while aituated within Arkan, must navarthel have  1 t prilaary concern th atf 1c1ent adaini tration ot juatio and the tair resolution ot federal olaiaa radreaaable by the parties liti;ant in federal oourt. Thu , taderal law and prooedura auat ba applied. I'l' IS, 'lHD.ll'OU, ORDDID that all papera, 111atarial, and other thing colleotad or praparact by th parti or their raprntativea in anticipation for trial, or otharwi1 within the cope ot the taderal work product: doctrine, and all private couunicationa of any kind between th defendant an4 their counl v1thin the 1 rec09ni1ad boundaries ot the 4 11/17/95 14:54 WRl.GHTf LlNJ.kit.Y; \u0026 . Jl:NNl~t:o NU  .1.~ . , -~.!JG-30-94 TUE 15:48 u~DISTRICT CLERK . FAX HO, 15018724812  . P. 06 91:ornayoliant privilege, an hereby ~rot,~tcad t~oa dicovery . . by tb oppoainq party or ralaa to any third pa~y, except by order ot thi court. 5 i : I e IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY, ARKANSAS STATE OF ARKANSAS PLAINTIFF vs. CIVIL NO. 92-100 HABILITATION CENTER, INC. an Arkansas Corporation d/b/a MILLCREEK OF ARKANSAS; MILLCREEK MANAGEMENT, INC., a Mississippi Corporation; DR. JAMES O. STEPHENS, M.D., {in his individual capacity, and in his official capacities as President and Chairman of the Board of Habilitation Center, Inc., and Rehabilitation Centers, Inc. , and as Chairman of the Board of Millcreek Management, Inc.); JOSEPH L. STEPHENS, ( in his individual capacity, and in his official cap~6ities as Vice President of Habilitation Center, Inc., Rehabilitation Centers, Inc., and Millcreek Management, Inc.); BILL SIMMONS, (in his individual capacity, and in his official capacity as President of Millcreek Management, Inc.); and  WANDA MILES-BELL, (in her individual capacity and in her official capacities as Executive Director and General Manager of Millcreek of Arkansas and Vice President of Millcreek Management, Inc.); DEFENDANTS ORDER On this 31st day of January, 1995, there is presented to the Court the Motions for Protective Order filed on behalf of defendant Habilitation, Millcreek Schools of Arkansas, Inc. and William Sutton. The Attorney General ht:lving f;;lly :responded and the Court being sufficiently -advised, having heard arguments of counsel and having fully considered this matter IT IS NOW, THEREFORE, CONSIDERED ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: The office of the Attorney General served a request for records under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act, Ark. Code Ann 25-19-101, et seq., (hereinafter FOIA) upon Mr. William Sutton, custodian of records at the law firm of Friday, Eldredge \u0026 hob'l.onl PLAINTIFPS EXHIBIT 3  Clark, attorneys for the defendant Habilitation Center, Inc. d/b/a Millcreek of Arkansas, seeking the law firm's files relating to Millcreek Schools of Arkansas, Inc. (hereinafter Millcreek Schools) and Habili tation Center, Inc. (hereinafter Habili tat ion) . The requests specifically seek \"documents, notes, pleadings, memorandum [sic] _, work papers, attorney work papers including work product ,p_~epared, genarat~d or relai:ed -to any '.lark done by your finn for Habilitation centers, Inc. (sic] or Millcreek Schools of Arkansas, . ~- ;,. .. -=_:Inc. in State of Arkansas v. Habilitation Centers, Inc., [sic] CIV- 92-100 in Dallas County, Arkansas.\" The Attorney General served similar FOIA requests on Habilitation and Millcreek Schools of Arkansas, Inc. Jurisdiction and Venue The threshold issue for this Court's determination is whether the Court has jurisdiction to enter the protective orders sought. The plaintiff selected the Dallas County Circuit Court in which to bring the pending case pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-13-201 and venue was established in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. 16-106- . !.01 (d) . Juri.::;dicticn-in .this Court was t~en proper, ,and this CoU::r:t retains that jurisdiction and control over the case pursuant to the aforesaid statutes. Although the Freedom of Information Act establishes a separate authority under which information may be obtained under certain circumstances, there is no question but that a FOIA request to a law firm representing a defendant in a pending case within the jurisdiction of this Court is so intertwined with that pending case as to fall within the jurisdiction of the Court. 2   If the Attorney General makes a FOIA request of a totally separate ~ntity, that .separate entity would not be subject to the jurisdiction of this Court, and the Attorney General would be free to pursue its FOIA request in whatever jurisdiction may be permitted by law. The Attorney General has not named Millcreek Schools of Arkansas, Inc. as a party defendant. The Attorney General has made reference to  \"Millcreek School of Fordyce, Arkansas, a -'separate entity owned by defendant, Habilitation\" in .,_its first amended  complaint. The Court is convinced that Millcreek Schools of Arkansas and Millcreek School of Fordyce, Arkansas, both allegedly owned by Habilitation, should be considered to be the same entity as Habilitation d/b/a Millcreek of Arkansas, and accordingly Millcreek Schools of Arkansas is not truly a separate entity but rather it is an integral part of Habilitation. Therefore it, too, comes within the jurisdiction of this Court. In holding that this Court has jurisdiction and is the proper venue to resolve the issues relating to the FOIA, the Court acknowledges -that i-c is iriappr0pric:1.te for -che threat of pot:.ential enforcement in another forum to hang over the defendants as they prepare for trial, and it is in the interest of judicial economy to have this Court handle all issues relating to the matters at hand. Venue is proper only in the circuit court of the judicial district in which the entity is located when the defendant is an entity which is a private organization even though supported by public funds. Here, all the FOIA targets are such private --- 3 organizations resisting the turn over of information pursuant to the FOIA. The mere fact that the Attorney General itself is located in Pulaski County and is a state agency does not create venue in that county in these circumstances. Standing The defendants' attorneys seek a protective order in order to protect the attorney/client privilege being asserted on behalf of their clients which include the defendant Habilitation. . J ;. \"'  ..  =_.Habili tat ion has standing by virtue of being a party litigant in the case brought by the Attorney General . The law firm of Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark has standing to seek a protective order since it represents Habilitation. Habilitation is Not Subject to the FOIA. The major issue is whether Habilitation Center, Inc. is an entity subject to the FOIA. If it is, its attorney's files may be discoverable under FOIA. It is settled under Arkansas law that attorney work product and records are not per se exempt from FOIA disclosure under Ark. Code Ann. 25-19-105. See Scott v. Smith, 2-92 Ark. 174, 728 s. W. 2d 515 (1.987), Arkansas. Highway Department v. Hope Brick Works~ Inc., 294 Ark. 490, 744 S.W.2d 711 (1988) and City of Fayetteville v. Edmark, 304 Ark. 179, 801 S.W.2d 275 (1990). Although a court hearing a FOIA enforcement action may not issue a protective order under that section to protect information otherwise subject to disclosure, 1 nevertheless, the trial court is 1Ark. Newspaper, Inc. v. Patterson, 281 Ark. 213, 262 S.W.2d 826 (1994), City of Fayetteville v. Edmark, supra, at page 193. 4 able to create an exemption from the FOIA as authorized by Ark . . code Ann. 25-19-105 (b) (8) since the limitations on protective orders do not apply to trial courts. The threshold issue, however, is whether FOIA even applies in the situation before the Court. In order to make that determination, the Court must decide whether the materials sought by the Attorney General are public records within the meaning of the FOIA. 2 Habilitation is a privately owned for-profit entity receiving Medicaid funds; it is ;..  ___ not a government agency. Given the facts of this situation, it may be an \"other agency\" subject to the FOIA. because it is \"wholly or partially supported by public funds or expending public funds.\" Courts have enforced FOIA requests to particular private entities when they are wholly or partially supported by public funds or expending public funds. 3 This Court has also considered a number 2Ark. Code Ann. 25-19-103 (1) provides in pertinent part, \"Public records means writings, recorded sounds, films, tapes or data, compilations in any form required by law to be kept or otherwise kept and which constitute a record of the performance or lack of performance of official functions which are or should be carried out by a \"public official or an employee or government QJ;: any other agency wholly or partially supported by public funds or expending . public funds . . n  [emphasis supplied] 3See North Central Association of Colleges and Schools v. Trout Brothers, Inc., 261 Ark. 378, 548 S.W.2d 285 (1977); Arkansas Gazette Company v. Southern State College, 273 Ark. 248, 620 S.W.2d 258 (1981}, app. dismissed 455 U.S. 931 (1982}; and Rehab Hospital Services Corp. v. Delta Hills Health Systems Agency, Inc., 285 Ark. 397 687 S.W.2d 840 {1985). The first two of the cited cases indicate the factors that must be present before a private entity will be subject to the FOIA. First, there must be direct public funding. Secondly, there must be indirect public support. Third, there must be public concern with respect to the organization's activities. The primary source of funding being governmental and the serving of a public purpose may subject the private organization to the FOIA. Rehab Hospital Services Corp. supra. Recently the Arkansas Supreme Court has declared that public funds bohl- 5 ! . I i I ' I of Attorney General's opinions which are not binding as precedent,  ,- but which are instructive. The Attorney General has opined that \"when the activities of a private organization and the government become so intertwined, the private organization may well render itself part of the state for [FOIA] purposes.\" Ark. Op. No. 83- 163. In that opinion, the AG opined that the mere receipt of Medicare and Medicaid funds by a private nonprofit hospital or a for-profit investor owned facility would not trigger the FOIA. , -.-_More recently, the Attorney General has opined that the mere receipt of public funds is not in itself sufficient to bring a private organization within the FOIA; rather, the question is whether the private entity carries on public business or is otherwise intertwined with the activities of the government . Ark. Op. AG No. 94-131 (May 13, 1994), citing City of Fayetteville v. Edmark, supra, (1990) and Op. AG Nos. 91-131, 94-154 and 83-163. Here both Habilitation and Millcreek Schools do not conduct their activities with or for the benefit of or in the place of any public agency. Neither is established by law. Neither is any more . regulated -0r supervised than hospitals or nursing homes or schools. No governmenta1 authority is ~t Habili tat ion nor is any Habili tat ion employee located in any government office. Habilitation determines the programs for the children, not the State . include only direct public funding, not indirect support. Sebastian city Chapter of the A11lerican Red Cross v. Weatherford, 311 Ark. 656 (845) S.W.2d 641 (1993). 6 Habilitation and Millcreek are engaged in the private r endering of Medicaid and other Medicaid eligible services to private individuals. People performing these services are not public officials. Habilitation is providing Medicaid and other services pursuant to a standard form contract, not making public policy. Even though all or a substantial part of its income is derived from the government, it is being paid only for services and is not being subsidized as an extension of government. These facts do not lead to the conclusion that Habiliation and Millcreek are so connected or intertwined as to bring them within the purview of FOIA disclosure. After evaluating the facts and in light of precedent, the Court finds that Habilitation and Millcreek are not private entities subject to the FOIA. While the line limiting the reach of FOIA is not bright and while the FOIA is to be liberally construed for disclosure of records in the public domain, Ragland v. Yeargen, 288 Ark. 81, 702 S.W.2d 23 (1986), the facts in this case cannot justify a conclusion that \"public business\" was or is being conducted by Habili tation. The intent of the legislature was to expose the performance of public officials and of the decis1ons that are reached in public activity and in making public policy. While the public at large as electors do have an interest in how the Medicaid program is being conducted and should have access to all agency records relating thereto, including those supplied by Habilitation under its contract, they have no overriding interest in how a private service provider renders its services to private 7 individuals. There simply is no legal precedent or suggestion that  it was the intent of the legislature to subject the private activities and all licensed entities and individuals to public scrutiny under the FOIA. Thus it is the decision of this Court that Habilitation is not subject to the FOIA. Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark is Not Subject to the FOIA Additionally, the Court also finds that Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark is not' subject to FOIA. It is an obviously private entity .--Eeceiving no obvious public funds, and its clients are not a public entity. The Court believes that the Attorney General's FOIA request to Habilitation and Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark is discovery abuse. Defendants and their counsel are entitled to protection to maintain the integrity of the discovery process set out in the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. Unauthorized access to attorney/client or attorney/work product privileged material can deprive defendants of due process. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Motion for Protective Order to protect the FOIA requested material from Habili tat ion .should be and  hereby is granted. Additionally~ the protective order is extended to Millcreek of Arkansas, to Millcreek Schools of Arkansas, Inc., to Millcreek School of Fordyce, Arkansas, and to Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark as attorney to the extent of any mater~als in any way related to this litigation. The Attorney General may, if it so chooses, amend its complaint with respect to Millcreek Schools of Arkansas, Inc. if it determines that amendment of the name of the defendant is appropriate. 8 Ark. Code Ann. 25-19-l0S(b) (8) Exemption The Court further finds that even were the defendant subject to the FOIA, the exemption provided in Ark. Code Ann. 25-19- 105 (b) (8) which expressly exempts \"documents which are protected from disclosure by orders or rules of court\" would apply in this case. As the Supreme Court stated in . City of Fayetteville v. Edmark, supra at 191: A triar' court has the inherent authority to protect the integrity of _the Court in actions pending before it and . ...- may issue appropriate protective orders that would provide FOIA exemption under 25-19-l0S(b) (8). This Court having underlying jurisdiction over the underlying litigation finds that a protective order should be issued to restrict disclosure of documents being sought pursuant to FOIA. If there is any subsequent review by any other circuit court considering related FOIA requests, this protective order is issued specifically within the provisions of Ark. Code Ann. 25-19- 105 (b) (8) to protect from the FOIA materials which otherwise might be disclosable. Id. Other Motions The defendants' Motion to Quash Notice of Depositions is governed by the Written Agreement of the Parties provided to the Court in their  joint Motion for Continuance. Accordingly, depositions of parties may begin again only as set out in the Agreement. The Attorney General's Motion to Strike Affidavits will be considered by the Court when it receives the plaintiff's Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment. The defendants' Reply to the 9  - Attorney General's Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment, if  .any, will be due within ten business days thereafter. The Attorney General has filed a Motion for Default on Attorney General's Motion to Strike. That Motion is denied. Conclusion IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the defendants' Motion be and it hereby is granted. It is further ordered that a protective order be and hereby is issued over all materials sought by the Attorney ~--General under the FOIA unless they are otherwise discoverable or admissible into evidence. The Motion to Quash Notice of Depositions is hereby granted until otherwise provided in the agreement of the parties. The Motion for Default on the Attorney General's Motion to Strike is hereby denied. IT IS SO ORDERED this 1995. hobJ- ~ day of deJn ~ CAROL C Circuit/ DATE: ,)/t4/ f (\" 10 IN Tiffi UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURJ.4 IN TIIB EASTERN DISTRICT OF AR.KANs~M PINE BLUFF DIVISION ROGER HEATHSCOTT vs. NO. 5:00-CV-00333-WRW UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. ORDER DEFENDANT For the reasons stated in a telephone conference yesterday, the plaintiff's motion (Doc.5) for a protective order is GRANTED. Accordingly, defendant must not compel the plaintiff to attend the physical examination scheduled for February 14, 2001 , with Dr. Baskin, M.D., and it must not compel the attendance of the plaintiff at the functional capacity examination scheduled for February I 9, 2001. Further, plaintiff must not be disciplined for failing to attend these examinations. I rely primarily upon Smith v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 878 F.Supp. 171 (D.Co. 1995) and Vicary v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 942 F.Supp. 1146 (N.D. Ohio 1996) which seem to be well reasoned. Unlike the plaintiffs in Calvert v. Trans World Airlines, 959 F.2d 698 (8th Cir. 1992), the plaintiff here unquestionably has a separate, independent cause of action under the Federal Employers Liability Act (\"FELA'') 45 U.S.C.  51 et seq. I believe discovery in the FELA action should proceed under the standard Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that these rules are not trumped by the defendant's medical examination rules (via the Railway Labor Act 45 U. S.C.  151 et seq.) In fact, under the theory urged by defendant, a railroad could severally hamstring a FELA plaintiff with company regulations. Defendant contends that this order is in the nature of an order \"granting, continuing, modifying or dissolving [an] injunction\" which would be subject to an interlocutory appeal under l... PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT. I it ' . i 287 U.S.C.  1992. I do not know what authority I have to enhance defendant's right to an interlocutory appeal, but to the extent that I have such authority, I grant it in full. IT IS SO ORDERED this l!:!!4 of February, 2001 . UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THIS OOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCK!T SHEET IN .COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 ANO/OR 79(1) FACP oN 11/a, lo I av \u0026.bN I   RECEIVED AUG 1 7 2001  \"_ -- OFFICE OF DESEGREG.4TION MOMTORIN\u0026 IN TIIE 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 ,,,..p~ PLAINTIFF ,,. . . KA-THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND FOR EMERGENCY HEARING LRSD s.eeks a protective order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) to prevent unduly burdensome and harassing discovery being conducted by the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") via - the Arkansas Freedom oflnformation Act (\"FOIA\"), Ark. Code Ann.  25-19-101 through 25- 19-110. Rule 26(c) provides: Upon motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is sought, accompanied by a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action, and for good cause shown, the court in which the action is pending or "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1678","title":"Court filings: Court of Appeals, brief of appellee Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and appendix","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 Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit","Pulaski County Special School District"],"dc_date":["1997-09-11"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Pulaski County Special School District","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Education and state","School management and organization","School employees","Teachers--Salaries, etc.","Retirement","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: Court of Appeals, brief of appellee Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and appendix"],"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/1678"],"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":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["38 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"This transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  EOWARO L WRIGHT ( 19031977) ROBERTS LINDSEY 1191 3-1991 I ISAAC A SCOTT JR JOHN G LILE WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS ATTORNEYS AT LAW GORDON S RATHER .JR TERRY L MATr-lEWS DAVID M POWELL ROGER A GLASGOW C DOUGLAS BUFORD . ..;R PATRICK J . GOSS ALSTON .JENNINGS. JR .JOHN R TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M . SAMUEL .JONES Ill .JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J . MULDROW N M NORTON EDGAR .J . TYLER CHARLES C PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J . GLOVER EDWIN L LOWTHER .R CHARLES L SCHLUMBEq;GER SAMMYE L . TAYLOR WALTER E . MAY ANNA HIRAI GIBS0'.\"11 GREGORY T. JONES H KEITH MORRISON Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building Suite 510 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371 -0808 FAX t501) 376-9442 OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A MAY M TODD WOOD September 11, 1997 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas RE: LRSD v. PCSSD (State Funding) Dear Ms. Brown: 72201 SETTINA E BROWNSTEIN WALTER MCSP4.0DEN ~OGER O ROWE \"IIANCY BELLHCUSE \"\"'~y JOHN O DAVIS .UOY SIMMONS HE\"IIRY ... IMBERLY WOOC n,;c~EQ ~AY F CO'\u003c JR \"'IARRY S HURST .R TROY A PRICE PA.TRICIA A SIEVERS .. AMES M MOOCY ..;R \"'(ATHRYN A PRYOR .J_ '-1ARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCCC -.... \"EVIN W KENNEDY .:EARY J SALL,NGS C-RED M PERKINS Ill W ILLIAM STUART JAC~SC'.\"11 \\.tlCHAEL O BARNES STEPHEN R :..ANCAS7ER .. UOY \\1 ROBINSON 9E:'SY MEACHAM .\\ INSLEY H :..ANG i\u003cYLE R W ILSOS ::ON S McKINNEY \\.tlCHELE SIMMONS AL-G::.::: -\u003cR IS TI M \\.tOOOY .J CH ARLES OOU GHEE=l:Tv \\.t SEAN HATC!-i We enclose a copy of the brief and appendix we sent to the 8th Circuit on Monday, September 8, 1997. ALJ:MM Enclosures Very truly yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS (-'- C I --- Angell Jones Legal Assistant   -   IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT NO. 97-1794EALR NO. 97-1855EALR NO. 97-2394EALR NO. 97-2406EALR (Consolidated) ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION vs . LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. ALMA SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. vs. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. SEP 1 2 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING APPELLANT APPELLEES APPELLANTS APPELLEES Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright BRIEF OF APPELLEE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT M. Samuel Jones, III (76060) WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT NO. 97-1794EALR NO. 97-185SEALR NO. 97-2394EALR NO. 97-2406EALR (Consolidated) ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION vs. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. ALMA SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. vs. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. Appeals from the United States District Court APPELLANT APPELLEES APPELLANTS APPELLEES for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright BRIEF OF APPELLEE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT M. Samuel Jones, III (76060) WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SUMMARY AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT The State and Intervenors maintain that summary judgment was inappropriate both as a matter of law and because there were contested factual matters among the parties. For there to be a legally disputed fact, the disputed fact must be both material and the dispute genuine. The State disputed the fact that sums previously appropriated by the legislature as line items for teacher retirement and health insurance are now part of the overall appropriation for equalization funding. Because the proof left no room for reasonable minds to differ, the so called dispute cannot be characterized as \"genuine\". The State also contended there was a disputed issue of fact concerning the mechanism for distribution of equalization funding claiming that it interpreted the distribution in one fashion and the districts another. Because the District Court accepted the State's explanation, this dispute, if it was ever legally cognizable, played no role in the District Courts' decision. Further, in the final analysis the District Court's interpretation of these two matters amounts to an interpretation of new state law and is therefore a legal conclusion properly reached by the District Court. As this is a matter of significant financial impact upon the PCSSD, and implicates the continued proper functioning and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement, it respectfully requests fifteen minutes for oral argument. i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Summary judgment was appropriate because the \"facts\" alleged by the State and the Intervenors could not be genuinely disputed. In addition, the analysis conducted by the district court, and the essential conclusion she made, amount to conclusions of law since she was required to interpret new state legislation. The PCSSD was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the change from the old to the new funding system cost it over $5.5 million this past school year. The State's decision to change its manner of funding for health insurance premiums and teacher retirement matching was not a fair and rational change in the funding system because, as was the case in the workers' compensation appeal, the State changed from a cost-based system of distribution to one in which a district's student population drives the distribution. Just as in the case of workers' compensation, a change to a system in which student populations largely dictate the distribution of State funding ignores costs, is not fair and rational and is not in accord with the Settlement Agreement. ii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT TABLE OF AUTHORITIES COUNTERSTATEMENT OF THE CASE ARGUMENT I. II. III. IV. CONCLUSION STANDARD OF REVIEW THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ERR IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE DISTRICTS BECAUSE THERE WERE NO GENUINELY DISPUTED ISSUES OF FACT MATERIAL TO THE DISTRICTS' CLAIMS AND BECAUSE THE ISSUES WERE, IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, QUESTIONS OF LAW. THE DISTRICT COURT'S GRANT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED BECAUSE THE DISTRICTS DEMONSTRATED THAT THEY WERE ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW .............. . THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT THE PCSSD IS A WINNER UNDER THE NEW SCHEME IS PLAINLY WRONG CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE iii Page i ii iv 1 5 5 5 12 20 29 30 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES: LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996) LRSD v. PCSSD, 778 F.2d 404 (1985) STATUTES AND RULES: 14 12 Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)2 ............... 6 OTHER AUTHORITY: U.S. CONST. Art. VI., cl. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 iv I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I COUNTERSTATEMENT OP THB CASE Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) does not quarrel with the State's and Intervenors' history of the case and their description of the outcomes. A couple of minor clarifications are in order, and will be set forth below. There is, however, a major matter set forth in both Statements which is wrong and this will be addressed first. In the concluding paragraphs of the State's brief, as well as elsewhere throughout, the State contends that: .... [t]he fact that these three Districts in the aggregate and individually are \"winners\" under the new formula should preclude any finding or even any inference that the new funding scheme was enacted with intent to discriminate against them. 1 State Br. at p. 24, [Emphasis supplied.] Contrary to the State's assertion that the PCSSD was a \"winner\", and as it will demonstrate in Section IV, the PCSSD lost over $5,500,000 this past school year because of the new funding system. The State also argues: ADE submits that in this context it was particularly inappropriate to isolate and rule on the changes in teacher retirement and health insurance funding without giving any legal weight or effect to the undisputed beneficial effect the new funding system had on the Districts. Nothing in the Settlement Agreement authorizes or even suggests that such a piecemeal dissection and comparison of certain discrete aspects of the old and new funding systems is appropriate, and nothing in the Settlement Agreement requires or permits the Districts to be insulated from having to make the 1It should be noted that the Settlement Agreement speaks in terms of \"impact\" and requires no showing of \"intent\". State App. at p.98. 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I sometimes difficult choices and deal with changes in the law that all other school districts in the State must grapple with. Nothing in the Settlement Agreement or in any notion or [sic] equity or common sense permits the Districts to be relieved of aspects of a new funding system that they do not like without taking into account those aspects of the new funding system that operate to their benefit. The Intervenors contend that: The Districts received more State aid under the new formula than under the old formula. Int. Br. at p. 10. The PCSSD has now examined the effects of the new funding system as a whole upon the PCSSD and will demonstrate, relying upon data obtained from the State, that the new funding system as a whole cost the PCSSD at least $5,500,000 this past school year. At this rate of loss, the State will recoup within approximately five years all of the desegregation case settlement money it ever paid the PCSSD. Other Matters The three Pulaski Districts did not move to intervene as plaintiffs in the Lake View case. They simply intervened as parties to protect and represent, in state court, the rights, protections and safeguards they possessed pursuant to the Settlement Agreement over which the District Court has I jurisdiction. PC App. at p. 58. I I I I Also, the State paid the districts $130,000,000 to settle the state's legal liability to these three Districts and secured 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I a Release and Dismissal. They did not pay these sums simply to help the Districts pay for some of their desegregation costs. The sums specified by the State that would result in increased M-to-M payments to the Districts are not supported by any citation to the record. However, even if these amounts are accurate, the increases are accounted for by annual increases in overall State appropriations and by the fact that instead of being paid directly by the State, teacher retirement and health insurance are now paid through the new formula and, as the district court explained in her orders, this method of payment short-changes the three Pulaski Districts as compared to most other districts in the state. State Ad. p. 5. Thus, while this manner of payment does operate to increase M-to-M payments, it comes at the expense of reduced State aid overall to the PCSSD. The Intervenors contend that the declaration of Winston Simpson, Superintendent of the Bryant School District, is uncontradicted on the issue of employee costs. In fact, an examination of this declaration reveals that Mr. Simpson examined only certified salary costs (such as teacher salaries) and not the overall employee costs for the PCSSD which includes non certified staff. However, the record developed in this case from previous hearings is uncontradicted that employee costs in the PCSSD consume more than 80% of its annual budget, PC App. at p. 87 1 4, and that its average teacher salary ranks as the 5th or 6th highest in the State. PC App. at p.2-3. What Mr. Simpson's analysis really shows is that the PCSSD spends 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I substantial money on items other than certified salaries, such as desegregation. The Intervenors contend that the Districts are seeking to take funds from the public school fund that would otherwise go, they claim, to the students of other school districts in Arkansas. Int. Br. at p. 17. The three Districts neither contend for nor do they expect such a result. Rather, they presume, and indeed recommend, continuation of that which has pertained in the past. In the past, the State has transferred the amounts necessary to make desegregation payments from the state general revenue fund and placed those sums in the public school fund for distribution to these three Districts. Thus, monies appropriated for education are not simply taken from the public school fund. State App. at p. 360 1 B. 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ARGUMENT I. STANDARD OP' REVIEW. The PCSSD addresses the Appellant's points here only as necessary, in Point II below. II. THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ERR IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN P'AVOR OF THE DISTRICTS BECAUSE THERE WERE NO GENUINELY DISPUTED ISSUES OF FACT MATERIAL TO THE DISTRICTS' CLAIMS AND BECAUSE THE ISSUES WERE, IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, QUESTIONS OF LAW. The Intervenors correctly point out that the standard in the Eighth Circuit is that a genuine issue of material fact must exist and if there is a disputed fact, the disputed fact must be material and the dispute genuine. Int. Br. at p. 7. [emphasis supplied] It is the latter point upon which the District focuses, i.e, the purported dispute is not, at bottom, genuine. The State contends there were two \"core factual matters\" disputed by the State, and that because they were disputed summary judgment should have been denied. State Br. at p. 17. The first \"dispute\" was whether or not the money the state previously paid outside the formula as teacher retirement and health insurance matching is now being distributed within the new formula. Because it was so obvious that this is the case, it was unreasonable for the State to dispute this fact. First, simple mathematics prove the point. As the district court observed, the public school fund was forecast to rise by more than $200,000,000 in fiscal year 1997 above the levels which existed at the time of the Lake View decision. State Ad. at p. 7. When the 1995-96 appropriations for teacher retirement 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ($130,000,000) and health insurance ($42,815,000) are combined, the sum equals $172,815,000. Subtracting this sum from the $200,000,000 increase still leaves $27,185,000. Combining this with the forecasted increase leaves $227,185,000 over and above the last appropriation that included teacher retirement and health insurance as line item appropriations. Thus, clearly the money represented by the prior line item appropriations is still being appropriated, just in a different fashion. If simple mathematics do not suffice, then the admission of Dr. Bobbie Davis, Assistant Director for Finance and Administration at the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) should. She testified that dollars that were previously part of identified funds were consolidated into the new equalization funding scheme. State Ad. at p. 8. This admission by the top financial official at the State Department of Education is binding upon the State pursuant to Fed. Rules of Evidence 80l(d)2. Further, as noted by the District Court, the State's own budget documents demonstrate the same treatment. (\"Transportation Aid ... eliminated as a separate line item and incorporated into the new school funding formula\"; \"[e]liminated at-risk funding as a separate line item and combined approximately $30,000,000 into State equalization formula\"; [e]liminated all at-risk funding ... and shifted approximately $30,000,000 into State equalization aid\"). State Ad. at p. 8. 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I In addition, the District Court correctly credited the uncontradicted testimony of Dr. Benny Gooden for the same proposition. Dr. Gooden heads the Fort Smith School District, a lead intervenor in this appeal. State Ad. at p. 8. The district court also properly relied upon the testimony of Dr. Charles Dyer, Superintendent of the Alma School District, the lead school district in the original State funding formula litigation, Alma v. Dupree. Finally, the State's funding expert in the Lake View case, Dr. Robert Rossmiller, likewise stated his belief that the money previously appropriated for teacher retirement and health insurance was put into the pool of money that would flow through the new equalization formula. State Ad. at p. 9. In the face of this, it is readily apparent that the money that previously was paid outside the formula by the State for teacher retirement matching and health insurance simply became part of the new overall appropriation to be distributed on an equalized per student basis under the new formula. For the State to claim otherwise in the face of such evidence is to simply elevate form over substance. In the final analysis, the issue of whether these sums continued to be appropriated or not is really not a \"factual\" matter at all. One of the tasks of the District Court was to interpret Act 917 and the accompanying appropriation legislation, Act 1194. She did so and her interpretation, that the appropriation continues, is a legal conclusion. 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I This is consistent with the position the State took during the Workers Compensation hearing. In the midst of continuing questioning of Dr. Shaver concerning his opinion as to whether or not Worker's Compensation was a program under the Settlement Agreement, the State finally objected as follows: MR. HUMPHRIES: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this continued line of questioning. The -- the argument is a legal one that the Settlement Agreement says that the State share that the State shall continue to pay its share of any programs which -- for -- for which the districts now receive state funding. And that's a legal argument. THE COURT: Well, I will certainly sustain that objection ... PC App. p. 16. Clearly, the phrasing of the objection was not limited to Worker's Compensation but to \"any programs\". Distribution Per ADM The other core \"fact\" identified by the State concerns the manner of distribution of funds under the new act. The State contends now that the Districts contended below that the new formula distributes funds on a pure per student basis. State Br. at p. 17. The State argues that because funds are distributed pursuant to an equalizing formula, the amount of equalization funding each district will receive depends in part, among other things, upon the district's local wealth. 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I While the State may misapprehend the argument of the Districts below, suffice it to say that the district court did not. Indeed, in her February 18, 1997 order, the district court quoted from Arkansas budget documents for the proposition that: Act 917 now requires State Equalization Funding to be distributed to districts based on the number of students, Average Daily Membership (ADM), equalized by the wealth of the district. The purpose of this funding is to equalize the disparities of property wealth throughout Arkansas. State Ad. at p. 8. [emphasis supplied] that: Later in the same order, the district court plainly stated The Court thus finds that there is no genuine factual dispute that instead of directly funding each district based upon the number of employees, the State has included funds for teacher retirement in the new funding scheme which distributes funds on a per ADM basis equalized by the wealth of the district. State Ad. at p. 9. [emphasis supplied] The Districts do not contend that the distribution is a pure per student distribution as contended by the State. Rather, it is the contention of the Districts that distributing such funds through a formula which is driven by ADM (Average Daily Membership) discriminates against them because it ignores actual costs for teacher retirement and health insurance. Further, the State is correct when it states at page 18 of its brief that: Because it is distributed pursuant to an equalizing formula, the amount of equalization funding each district will receive depends, among other things, upon the district's local wealth. State Br. at p. 18. 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I Indeed, this aspect of the new funding formula exacerbates the problem even more for these Districts since they vote high millage which further reduces their State aid under the new scheme. PC App. p. 52. What really matters, however, is that the District Court understood the state's point. However the State may now mischaracterize the position of the Districts below, the fact remains that the District Court understood and articulated the distribution distinctions now being made by the State. Stated another way, that which the State contends was a matter of fact in dispute between it and the Districts below was not a factor in the District Courts' decision. The record made in the Worker Compensation's hearing is instructive here. The state's witness in that proceeding, Dr. Robert Shaver2 , testified that prior to the change in the law requiring school districts to fund their own Worker's Compensation program, the state simply received a bill from the Worker's Compensation Commission and paid it on behalf of the school districts by withdrawing money from the public school fund. PC App. p. 11. He further testified that in 1993-94, the last year the state paid these costs directly, the claims I experience was $5,200,000. PC App. p. 12. The previous year the experience was $8,200,000. PC App. p. 13. While the record for I that proceeding contains only \"rounded off\" numbers, the average I I I I of those two years is still $6,700,000. Thus, it would 2Dr. Shaver was the top financial official at the Arkansas Department of Education. PC App. p. 17 and 18. 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I reasonably appear that the State's appropriation of 6.6 million dollars that has been characterized by the State as \"seed money\" in its brief (State Br. p. 19) was in actuality an average of the two years immediately preceding the change in the law. Thus it would appear the appropriation that the State made several years ago, and continues to make, for Worker's compensation assistance is virtually identical to how it has handled Teacher Retirement and Health Insurance. It is still distributing the same respective sums of money but because the distribution is now driven primarily by ADM's rather than cost, the three districts in Pulaski County are shortchanged. The State's persistence in seeking to shift from a cost basis, which was fair and rational as respects these three districts, to an essentially ADM driven basis, makes the legal analysis for the present appeal not logically different from the analysis that pertained in the Worker's Compensation appeal. This new manner of distribution results in these three districts receiving proportionally less money for these state mandated costs than most other districts in the state of Arkansas. Once again, the District Court's ruling on this matter necessarily represented her interpretation of the distribution mechanism outlined in Act 917 resulting in her legal conclusion concerning the operation of State law. Thus, in the final analysis, the State cannot in reality present a case of disputed facts since the District Court was essentially making reasoned interpretations of State statutes. 11 I I I I I I I III. THE DISTRICT COURT'S GRANT OP SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AP'PIRMED BECAUSE THE DISTRICTS DEMONSTRATED THAT THEY WERE ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW. At page 10 of their brief, the Intervenors assert that: By petitioning the District Court for orders directing the state to divert millions of dollars from students outside of Pulaski County for the use of the Pulaski County Districts, they would have the Court ignore the clear Arkansas Constitutional mandate of \"equal treatment\" to which all students are entitled. (Citing Dupree v. Alma, 651 S.W.2d 90, 279 Ark. 340 (1983). Continuing, they contend that: However, equal treatment to all students must be the concern of the Court, because it is right, it is fair and rational and it is the rule of general applicability in Arkansas. (Citing Dupree and Lake View.) Int. Br. at p. 10. I I This argument was advanced in this case by the State in the I Court of Appeals years ago. The en bane court in 1985 disposed I I I I I I I I I of that argument in the following language: [Fn.l] The State argues that we cannot require it to spend more money in one school district than another, because to do so would conflict with a recent opinion of the Supreme Court of Arkansas requiring, under the State Constitution, substantially equal per-pupil funding throughout the State, DuPree v. Alma School Dist. No. 30, 279 Ark. 340, 651 S.W.2d 90 (1983), and with a statute implementing this opinion, Ark. Stat. Ann.  80-850.10 - 80-850.22. This argument is insubstantial. Under the Supremacy Clause, U.S. CONST. Art. VI., cl. 2, the Fourteenth Amendment overrides any inconsistent state statute or constitutional provision. (Arnold, J. concurring.) 778 F.2d at 437. What also appears to be lost upon the intervenors is the fact that the PCSSD is not on a par with the intervening school districts. The Intervenors have not been required to 12 I I I I I I I I I I 1- 1 I I I I I I I desegregate. The PCSSD desegregation budget alone is $12,500,000, representing 11.07% of its total budget. PC App. p. 88. It no longer receives the stream of payments from the State that the Settlement Agreement provided. That has ended. What the State should not be permitted to end is it's commitment to continue to make the payments for programs as promised in the Settlement Agreement. While the State pretends that its funding for Teacher Retirement and Health Insurance has ended, the programs most surely have not. All that has changed is that the PCSSD must now pay the bills and that the State no longer provides a method of distribution for those monies that comports with the Settlement Agreement. The distribution of what used to be funds paid directly for teacher retirement and health insurance is, in operation, identical to the seed money analysis previously made by this Court and the district court as regards workers' compensation. In the latter instance, the distribution was simply made to the school districts based on enrollment. Here, the distribution, while made through the new formula, is still done in a way in which students (ADM) drive the distribution rather than cost. While it is true that certain features of the formula operate to raise or lower the amounts districts now receive for teacher retirement or health insurance, the fact remains that the distribution is student driven. The legal infirmities and violations of the settlement argument are further addressed beginning at page 21. 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Intervenors' Employee Cost Argument The intervenors, in particular, persist in challenging what has become the law of the case. They continue to attack the previous findings of the District Court, as accepted by this Court (Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 83 F.3d 1013 at 1018 (8th Cir. 1996)) that the three Pulaski Districts are employee heavy and have high employee cost. While the Intervenors rely only upon an affidavit that the PCSSD has had no opportunity to contest or explore, (as we discuss further beginning at page 15) the fact remains that the District Court had direct testimony from the State's witness in the Worker's Compensation hearing to this effect. In an exchange that is part of the record on appeal from the Worker's Compensation appeal, the District Court heard the following from Dr. Shaver: Q. And you would agree that of the districts in the state, Pulaski and Little Rock are singled out, if you will, by operation of this statute and this premium structure to pay the two highest premiums? A. I -- by by virtue of its number of employees and salaries that would seem to be the case. THE COURT: Yes. By virtue of the number of employees and the salary, but you're giving them money based on the number of students. THE WITNESS: That's true. THE COURT: Yes, that's their problem. 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PC App. p. 14. At the same hearing, the State acknowledged that the record in this case is a continuing one. PC App. p. 15. Dr. Simpson need not have gone to the trouble of going to the Arkansas Department of Education for his information since it was already a part of this case by October 1, 1993. At a hearing held on the PCSSD budget that date, counsel for the teacher's union tried the same tact attempted by Dr. Simpson in his affidavit. After first positing to Dr. Stewart3 the percentage of the total budget committed to teacher compensation, which percentages ranged from 54% to 56%, the following exchange occurred in open court between counsel and Dr. Stewart of the PCSSD: Q. Now, those figures pretty dramatically illustrate that the teachers in this district are not getting these big pay increases as far as a percentage of the total budget of Pulaski County, are they? A. I don't think that's what those figures represent at all, Mr. Roachell. Q. What do you -- what do you think they represent? A. Well, they represent exactly what you said they represent. Those numbers that you just read represent the total amount of the district budget, the total percentage amount of the district budget that has been spent on teacher salaries, and to turn that into what 3Dr. Stewart is the chief financial officer of the PCSSD. 15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I you said it meant is totally ridiculous because that's not what it meant at all. PC App. at pp. 4 and 5. In the same hearing, it was established that the PCSSD then ranked #6 in the State out of 311 districts in average teacher's salaries as determined by the Arkansas Department of Education. PC App. at p. 2. Accordingly, all that can be divined from Dr. Simpson's analysis is that because the PCSSD has one of the highest average teacher salary payments in the State, it must be spending an extraordinary amount of money on other things, such as desegregation. The point was driven home by Dr. Stewart at the same hearing: Q. For instance, in looking at this -- and I'm just going to do a couple of these, your Honor -- the Rogers School District in the what some people refer to as the growing -- located in the growing affluence of northwest Arkansas ranks behind the Pulaski District at position No. 8? A. You got the list. Q. All right. To the best of your knowledge, is there any desegregation going on in Rogers, Arkansas? A. No. In fact, having worked in that county for seven years, definitely no. 16 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Q. We rank just -- we rank just behind Springdale, although perhaps with these recent adjustment, we're ahead of them. To the best of your knowledge, is there any desegregation going on in Springdale? A. No. Q. Perhaps to state the obvious, would that translate into meaning they're not spending any money on desegregation? A. Yes. PC App. p. 3. It is clear that the District Court understood the significance of all this. When the District Court was questioning the Union's witness at the October, 1993 hearing, the following exchange occurred: THE COURT: The cost of living and the comparable wage patterns. Do you ascribe any weight at all to the fact that PACT is a signatory to this very expensive Settlement Agreement? THE WITNESS: I don't disagree with that. Help me out. I'm -- I'm not sure -- THE COURT: Should that be -- I mean, should I consider that or should the district consider that? When you say you consider three things in determining the pay raise, one is ability to pay, two are comparable wage patterns, and three is cost of living. THE WITNESS: Uh-huh. 17 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I THE COURT: And I imagine that these comparable wage patterns in many districts are -- the districts aren't facing what this district is facing. THE WITNESS: I -- I -- THE COURT: They don't have to come to Susan Webber Wright's court -- THE WITNESS: Yeah. You -- THE COURT: -- and be dressed down -' THE WITNESS: Yeah. THE COURT: and they don't have to go along with this burdensome Desegregation Plan. THE WITNESS: I understand. THE COURT: And PACT was part of this. THE WITNESS: I understand that. THE COURT: Well, should I consider that? I think I should -- THE WITNESS: Well -- THE COURT: -- quite frankly. PC App. pp. 6 and 7. The Intervenors' Lake View Argument The Intervenors spend much of their brief analyzing the State court decision in Lake View apparently under the assumption that the Districts contended in federal court in the present proc "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1660","title":"Court filings: Court of Appeals, brief of appellee Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)","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 Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit"],"dc_date":["1997-07-03"],"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--20th century","Pulaski County Special School District","Little Rock School District","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","Education--Standards","School discipline"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: Court of Appeals, brief of appellee Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)"],"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/1660"],"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":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["56 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT NO. 97-1689EALR NO. 97-1700EALR MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. vs. APPELLANTS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright, District Judge BRIEF OF APPELLEE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT M. Samuel Jones III (76060) Claire Shows Hancock (95013) WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol A venue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 APPELLEES APPELLEES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SUMMARY AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT The Joshua Intervenors complain on appeal of the district court's approval of the ODM budget in the face of their objections, and its refusal to appoint additional ODM monitors. But the bases for the Joshua Intervenors' objections to the budget were unsound. There is no evidence in this case that any perceived racial \"achievement gap\" or statistical racial disparity in disciplinary treatment is caused by current discrimination. Rather, the testimony in this case, and in others across the nation (and accepted by other federal courts), is that such disparities are the result of various socioeconomic factors. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in approving the ODM budget. This appeal also arises, in part, from an unsuccessful attempt by the Joshua Intervenors to force the district court's intervention -- in the name of monitoring the Pulaski County school districts' Desegregation Plans -- into matters which are purely internal to the PCSSD and which are not, indeed should not be, affected or governed by the Desegregation Plans. The district court properly declined to grant the Joshua Intervenors' motion for ODM monitoring at the PCSSD's Robinson High School when the motion raised only individual personnel matters. Further, notwithstanding the Joshua lntervenors' motion, and in accordance with the district court's urging that the parties continue to work with the ODM, an ODM assessment of Robinson was carried out without necessity of court order and the personnel matter was resolved by proper utilization of the PCSSD's policies and procedures. The district court did not err in denying the Joshua Intervenors' motion which, in any event, is now moot. The PCSSD respectfully requests oral argument in this appeal. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT .. .. .......... . ... . TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .... . ........... . ...... . ........... . .. iii COUNTERSTATEMENT OF ISSUES ON APPEAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv STATEMENT OF THE CASE SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 1 9 ARGUMENT .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 I. THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY APPROVED THE ODM II. BUDGET NOTWITHSTANDING THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' OBJECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 A. The Joshua Intervenors Complaints Regarding Racial Disparities in Discipline Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 B. The Joshua Intervenors' Complaints Concerning the Achievement Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY DENIED THE \"ROBINSON\" MOTION .. . . . ... .. .... .... ... . . ..... ....... . ... 21 CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 ii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES: Coalition to Save Our Children v. State Board of Education, 901 F. Supp. 784 (D. Del. 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14, 18, 20 Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467 (1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, 609 F. Supp. 1491, 1515 and 1498 (D. Colo. 1985) .......................... 12-14, 19 Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 LRSD vs. PCSSD, 971 F.2d 160 (8th Cir. 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education, 111 F.3d 528, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 7143 ............... 13, 15, 19, 20 Tasby v. Woolery, 869 F. Supp. 454 (N.D. Tex. 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 iii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I COUNTERSTATEMENT OF ISSUES ON APPEAL I. Appellants' Issue No. 1 relates solely to the LRSD's incentive schools, and is not addressed by the PCS SD. II. WHETlIER THE DISTRICT COURT'S HANDLING OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' REQUEST THAT THE ODM STAFF BE EXPANDED TO ALLOW INCREASED MONITORING WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE EARLIER MANDATES OF THIS COURT? LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) LRSD v. PCSSD, 971 F.2d 160 (8th Cir. 1992) III. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT'S DENIAL OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS REQUEST THAT THE ODM STAFF BE EXPANDED SHOULD BE SET ASIDE AS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION? Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, 902 F. Supp. 1274 (D. Colo. 1995) Coalition to Save Our Children v. State Board of Education, (D. Del. 1995) Tasby v. Woolery. 869 F. Supp. 454 (N.D. Tex. 1994) 901 F. Supp. 784, IV. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT'S DENIAL OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' MOTION SEEKING ODM MONITORING AT ROBINSON HIGH SCHOOL SHOULD BE AFFIRMED? LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) lV I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The ODM Budget On December 13, 1996, the Josh,1a Intervenors filed their objections to the ODM budget and requested additional ODM monitors based, primarily, upon a perceived need due to a racial \"achievement gap\" and purported racial disparity in discipline throughout the districts. J. App. 252. The district court, however, approved the ODM budget as submitted. J. Add. 17. This appeal followed notwithstanding testimony by court appointed experts, Dr. David Armor and Dr. Herbert Walberg, that the achievement gap is the result of socioeconomic factors rather than current discrimination, and that these same socioeconomic factors play a deciding role in disciplinary actions across the nation. LRSD App. 264, 451-52, 543-45. 1 2. The Robinson High School Motion Prior to the filing of the budget objections, the Joshua Intervenors, on November 1, 1996, filed their motion to request ODM monitoring of Robinson High School or, in the alternative, for PCSSD to show cause. J.App. 225. Paragraph 2 of the motion states: \"Most of the complaints relate to the administration of the principal, Ralph Hoffman, and the apparent support he has been given by the Superintendent of Schools, Bobby Lester, and the Board of Education of the Pulaski County Special School District.\" J.App. 225. Mr. 1 PCSSD's appendix, submitted herewith, is cited as \"PC App. 11 Some of the materials included therein were filed with the district court on July 2, 1997. See PC App. 107-09. The Joshua Intervenors' appendix is cited as \"J.App. 11 , and the Little Rock School District's appendix as 11LRSD App. 11 I I Hoffman had previously been a principal in the Little Rock School District before becoming I principal at Robinson. Id. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The PCSSD responded on November 26, 1996 stating that th~ Joshua lntervenors' motion was improper because: \"It is, at bottom, primarily a complaint about one employee and therefore a personnel matter. By bringing its motion, Joshua has compromised the traditional steps to be taken in investigating and evaluating complaints concerning a single employee and they have effectively compromised the PCSSD's ability to appropriately and fairly respond to the allegations.\" J.App. 241-242. The PCSSD response continued at paragraph 8. Id. at 242. Indeed, it is Joshua who has compromised a personnel matter and which has precipitously and prematurely aired allegations which have not been fully investigated and for which it apparently has no documentary support, all as indicated in paragraph 11 of its motion. Thereafter, the District Court denied the Joshua Intervenors' motion (J. Add. 5-6) and stated in part that: \"The Court considers the allegations against the principal at Robinson High School an individual personnel matter which should be dealt with by the PCSSD according to its own processes. However, the Court encourages the parties to continue using the resources of the ODM to assist in resolving this issue .\" J.Add. 6. This appeal followed. During the pendency of the appeal, the ODM interceded at Robinson and ultimately issued its own report. PC App. 1-8. The PCSSD conducted its own investigation and followed its own written personnel policies. Mr. Hoffman resigned effective June 6, 1997 and is no longer employed by the PCSSD. PC App. 9. On June 10, 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1997, the PCSSD appointed Mr. Herb Brooks, an African-American and long time principal at Fuller Junior High School, as the new Robinson principal. 3. The PCSSD Desegregation Plan Most of the issues alleged in the Joshua Intervenors' motion concern complaints about discipline and discipline related issues. (See generally, Joshua Motion beginning at J.App. 225.) The Joshua Appendix includes portions of the PCSSD Desegregation Plan. The Plan includes provisions, among others, that dictate the resolution of issues such as discipline. For instance, with regard to the Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation, the Court approved plan states: J.App. 322. J.App. 323. J.App. 325. The Assistant will work with all departments to establish procedural guidelines which provide that desegregation issues will be raised and resolved as appropriate both in system-wide planning and in each school building. With advice from legal counsel, and working through the Office of Desegregation, the Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation provides for the District's compliance with civil rights laws and court orders, and will see that the Office of Desegregation recommends corrective action as needed. The Office of Desegregation has worked, and will continue work, directly with principals to insure equity at the building level. It is further a function of the District's Office of Desegregation to include: Receiving, processing and preparing responses to civil rights inquiries, regardless of source, and preparing internal evaluations of operations or activities where discriminatory practices are alleged, which includes 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I J.App. 325 reporting the results of the investigations to the supervisor of the operation or activity involved and to the Superintendent of Schools. The PCSSD Desegregation Plan further provides that: J.App. 380 Id. at 380. Disciplinary records are kept on each student concerning suspensions and expulsions that note the reasons for punishment, the teacher or staff member involved, and the school, race, and sex of the student disciplined. Collection and assessment of this information allows the school principal, parents, and others to analyze the reasons for suspension by race and sex, and to determine if particular teachers or staff members are experiencing problems that require attention. The Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel Services shall submit a discipline report to the Superintendent, School Board and the Office of Desegregation at the end of each semester along with specific recommendations or suggestions for reducing the disproportionality. 4. The PCSSD Discipline Management System Among the goals set forth in the PCSSD Plan are the development of a \"district-wide school-based discipline management system\" . Id. at 312. This school based management system was to be developed with input from teachers, parents, and administrators. Id. On January 24, 1995, counsel for the District submitted to counsel for all of the other parties copies of the \"Pulaski County Special School District Discipline Management System Manual\" . PCSSD App. 10. Thereafter, the court having received no objections or comments, the Discipline Management Manual was filed with the District Court on February 15, 1995 pursuant to the Desegregation Plan. PC App. 11. 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page one of the Discipline Management System sets forth information concerning the procedure that students and parents should utilize for the filing of grievances, which information could be obtained either from the principal or from the pupil personnel office. PC App. 13. Included in the introduction to the Discipline Management System are the following comments: PC App. 16. Few would argue that maintaining good discipline is a necessary precondition to establishing a school or classroom climate that is conducive to learning. That is a given. The real question is how to establish that discipline in such a way as to support learning and encourage growth in all the students. This presents no challenge to the teacher for 90 % of the students. The remaining ten percent of the students require more, not because they are bad or unteachable, but because they are growing up in a society that is more challenging than the socialization they receive. Also, they appear not to have the usual supports available to them (i.e., parental concern or support). As the society for which the children are being prepared becomes more complex, the percentage of children coming to school less than prepared for learning is bound to increase. It is a challenge that must be addressed. The major role of the school principal has changed from that of providing a place for teachers to teach to that of providing a climate for learning and an enthusiasm for the learning process. This includes creative attention to issues of discipline and a safe and orderly environment in the school and classroom. The manual goes on to state that: Despite all efforts at prevention, discipline problems inevitably occur. When a discipline problem does occur, the teacher needs to address the problem as quickly as possible. The first step is to implement the consequence associated with the rule violation as agreed to in the social contract. Being careful of nonverbal 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PC App. 21 . gestures and indicators, the consequence should be implemented quickly and without a great deal of fuss. When violations occur with great regularity, the class ought to be asked to assess the rule and see if something could be adjusted to reduce the number of occurrences. The manual is direct regarding the issue of suspension and expulsions: PC App. 22. Teachers are asked to explore and develop consequences that minimize the loss of school time for the student. Suspensions and expulsions should be considered only when every other avenue of correction has been exhausted, in keeping with the regulations established in the student handbook. This concept is reinforced elsewhere in the manual. PC App. 23. The campus administrators are asked to utilize the various levels of referrals to keep the student in school or to minimize the out-of-school time of the student short of expulsion. 5. PCSSD School-Based Discipline Management Program While the manual is a broad conceptual consensus outline developed by a biracial committee, the development of a discipline management program is individual for each campus: Each individual campus is encouraged to express its individual character in the development of the DMP. This manual expresses how the DMP should be organized. This version is offered as a model that seems to meet most of the goals set out for a discipline management plan. Under the leadership of the principal, each school community is expected to devise a plan that is uniquely theirs and that they can implement. It is expected to have a consensus of those involved in the planning process. It is also expected to address the mission of that school in regard to the discipline 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PC App. 27. management and how that school intends to carry out that mission with fairness and justice for all the students in its care. * * * The expectation of the campus DMP is that each year will bring about a decrease in the disparity between the white and black student populations in terms of disciplinary actions in that school. The data from school year 1994-1995 will be used as the benchmark in the evaluation of the impact of each campus DMP. Discipline-related data from the 1992-1993 school year is included in appendix 2. This data was used by the Discipline Management Committee to develop this document. The manual contains a procedure for assisting individual campuses whose progress lags behind those of other District campuses: PC App. 28. At the discretion of the Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel Services and the Division of Instruction, a special team will be recruited from the staff of another school with similar problems which is making good progress. This team, under the supervision of the Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel Services, will assist that staff in identifying the causes for the lack of progress and the ways these causes can be addressed. Toward the end of the manual, it is observed that: PC App. 32. The diversity of the school populations that the schools now serve requires the schools to rethink the issue of appropriate school behavior and to create a climate in which academic achievement can become a reality for all students. School appropriate behavior must be examined in light of the various cultural and racial groups comprising the school. Equity is an issue that must be considered in the conceptualization of alternative strategies. 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6. The PCSSD Handbook for Student Conduct and Discipline The Joshua Intervenors, by their Robinson motion as well as their motion objecting to the ODM budget (and requesting additional OCM monitors), bypassed the procedures for challenging disciplinary action set forth in the PCSSD Handbook for Student Conduct and Discipline (the \"Handbook\"). PC App. 67-74. The Handbook, the reading of which must be acknowledged in writing by each student and his or her parent or guardian, (PC App. 68), provides two distinct grievance procedures: (1) those related to a student or parent filing a grievance under the desegregation policy set forth in the Handbook (PC App. 71); and (2) a complaint procedure for students or parents when a student is involved in a disciplinary ruling. PC App. 72. The Joshua Intervenors, however, did not utilize these procedures and filed their motion directly with the district court requesting relief. Joshua never employed the PCSSD's policy and procedures as set forth in the Handbook. 7. The \"Suspension Index\" for Assessing Discipline Outcomes A general \"suspension index\" has been developed by Dr. Charles Achilles, who served as an expert witness in the Wilmington, Delaware case and whose methodology was endorsed by Dr. Walberg in this case. (LRSD App. 373-375, 381-384). The index allows comparison of one district's suspension rate for minorities to other districts and to the national average. The PCSSD's index and Robinson's are both lower than the nationwide index of 2.0. The suspension indices for the past five years for the PCSSD system-wide have decreased from 1. 77 to 1.45 and for Robinson alone, have ranged from 1.88 to 1.35 for 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I the same years.2 These indices are lower than those of school districts which have achieved unitary status. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The Joshua Intervenors have appealed a number of rulings of the district court, to wit, the court's approval of the ODM budget and denial of their motion relating to Robinson High School. The Joshua Intervenors complain that their objections to the ODM budget were not properly considered, and that their request for additional ODM monitors should have been granted. The purported bases for their objections and requests are the \"achievement gap\" between white and minority students, and the alleged racial disparity in disciplinary treatment of minority students. Neither bases, however, withstands scrutiny. The testimony of experts appointed by the court in this case, and similar testimony in other cases where school districts have achieved unitary status, show that socioeconomic factors rather than current discrimination are the real reason why school children achieve at different rates and why some children are disciplined. In accepting this testimony, federal courts have found that, notwithstanding racial disparities, a school district may be in good faith compliance with its desegregation plan. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in approving the ODM budget over the objections of the Joshua Intervenors. The Joshua Intervenors also challenge the district court's denial of their motion for ODM monitoring of Robinson High School. The court's denial, however, was soundly based 2 See nn. 6 \u0026 9, infra. 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I upon a finding that Joshua was complaining about an individual personnel matter which should be left to the district to deal with according to its policies and procedures. The principal al:lout whom the Joshua Intervenors complained, in fact, resigned after the PCSSD was allowed to carry out its own business. Additionally, ODM did monitor Robinson High School and made recommendations to the administration and the school community. In essence, the Joshua lntervenors' motion and appeal are moot but, in any event, the district court did not err in denying their motion. ARGUMENT The focus of a District Court charged with monitoring implementation of a comprehensive remedial desegregation decree must be, as explained more fully infra, on the proper system-wide implementation of the components of the decree. Particularly when the decree, or in this instance the agreed Plans, contain discrete due process provisions for resolution of individual complaints or concerns, the District Court should have no reason to involve itself in individual student or patron complaints, or individual personnel matters, when the institutional process already exists to deal with those. Indeed, in any large institutional setting, there will always be some concern or outcome disagreement even if a remedial device, such as the Desegregation Plans agreed upon here, are implemented not only in good faith but even with near precision. For these and other reasons set forth below, the District Court's orders were correct and should be sustained. By their appeal, the Joshua lntervenors take issue with a number of the district court's orders, including (i) treatment of their requests for additional ODM monitors and objections 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I to the ODM Budget and (ii) denial of the Robinson motion. In support of their argument that the orders should be reversed, tbey point this Court to a number of \"facts\" which the district court either allegedly ignorrc or misinterpreted.3 Included are allegations of discriminatory treatment of black students in certain areas, primarily discipline, both systemwide and at PCSSD's Robinson High School, allegations which Joshua lays predominantly at the feet of the now resigned principal, Mr. Hoffman. J. App. 225. I. THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY APPROVED THE ODM BUDGET NOTWITHSTANDING THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' OBJECTIONS This Court, in approving the Desegregation Plan in 1990, noted that it was the \"duty of the court, when fashioning a comprehensive remedy, to prescribe a level of relief . . . that will achieve integration to the maximum practicable extent. \" Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371, 1384 (8th Cir. 1990). That is what has been done here, and the PCSSD has implemented the remedy, the Desegregation Plan, as well as the Discipline Management System required by the Desegregation Plan. The problem, however, is that the Joshua Intervenors do not look to whether the plan has been implemented, achieving integration to the maximum practicable extent; rather, they focus not on implementation but outcomes which are not legally required. The Joshua lntervenors must recognize, as have courts in other jurisdictions when faced with 3 Some of these \"facts\" bear little or no relationship to the Joshua Intervenors' requests or objections. For present purposes, and given the nature of the record submitted by Joshua with this appeal, it is impossible for the PCSSD to refute the discrete individual allegations made concerning individual students. However, as we explain infra, under the law it is unnecessary for the PCSSD to do this. 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I unreasonable expectations, that a desegregation plan cannot cure all of societies' ills, nor is it designed to do so: [T]here is nothing in the law which does or couk require equality in the results of educational services. . . . No school policy and no court order can assure any particular level of success in public schools any more than in any other aspect of life. Individual students will flunk, become disciplinary problems, drop out or otherwise fail to meet expectations for reasons wholly unrelated to race, ethnicity, and environment. Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, 609 F. Supp. 1491, 1515 and 1498 (D. Colo. 1985)(\"Keyes XIV\")4. Thus, the Joshua Intervenors' objections to the ODM budget and the concomitant request for additional ODM monitors -- based upon their complaints concerning achievement gaps and allegedly racially disparate disciplinary actions -- were properly considered; the district court, however, did not err in approving the budget over the objections. As discussed below, a number of school districts nationwide have been granted unitary status in the face of less achievement under a desegregation plan than that exhibited by the PCSSD. Indeed, they were granted unitary status where there was an adjudication of liability, but where any disparities were found to be, not the vestiges of dual systems but, rather, of outside factors. Here, the PCSSD was released in 1989, pursuant to the PCSSD Settlement Agreement, from all liability for issues which had been raised, or which could have been raised. The Joshua Intervenors specifically agreed that there would be no further litigation other than proceedings to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement or of the Desegregation Plans. PC App. 75-79. Thus, the PCSSD's obligations were only forward 4 For a complete procedural history of the Keyes litigation, see Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, 902 F. Supp. 1274, n.1 (D. Colo. 1995). 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I looking, and it has fully complied with its obligations to the Joshua Intervenors and to the children it educates -- both minority and white -- to desegregate its school district according to Plan. A. The Joshua Intervenors Complaints Regarding Racial Disparities in Discipline Rates While there may, indeed, be statistical racial disparities in discipline rates, such disparities do not mean that the PCSSD has not properly implemented the Desegregation Plan. Indeed, other school districts across the country have achieved unitary status in the face of greater statistical disparities. 5 For example, in Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, 902 F. Supp. 1274 (D. Colo. 1995), the court granted the Denver school district's motion to terminate jurisdiction in a longstanding desegregation case. It did so notwithstanding statistical racial disparities in discipline rates, noting that these differences -- among others -- are longstanding and seemingly intractable, but the mere existence of such differences does not identify them as 5 As noted by Judge Posner in People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education, 111 F.3d 528, _, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 7143 at *18 (7th Cir. 1996), \"[a]ffirmative decrees are a formula for protraction.\" Recent Supreme Court decisions, however, have provided new guidance for the district courts in bringing school desegregation cases to a close. See, ~. Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467 (1992)(the district court's duties in the final phases of a desegregation case are to determine whether there has been compliance with the desegregation decree since it was entered and whether the vestiges of past discrimination were eliminated to the extent practicable). The constitutional authority of the federal courts does not include the power to posit any particular affirmative achievements. While the PCSSD relies upon the consistent outcomes of other significant desegregation cases across the nation, this Court should not interpret such reliance as any lack of resolve or commitment of the PCSSD to continue implementation of its Plan and to realize the best desegregation outcomes attainable, whether or not legally required. 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I vestiges of the prior dual system. \"There are too many variables, including societal and socio-economic facts, to infer causation from prior unconstitutional conduct.\" Id. at 1300. Similarly, in Coaliti.on to Save Our Children v. State Board of Education, 901 F. Supp. 784, 817 and n.38 (D. Del. 1995), the Delaware district court, granting unitary status to the Wilmington, Delaware school districts, found that the disciplinary codes were not applied in a discriminatory manner and expressly rejected as \"skewed\" any statistics \"which do not account for the fact that a small core of students account for a large percentage of the disciplinary instances, i.e., the fact that black students may account for a greater proportion of suspensions than their proportion in the general student population is essentially meaningless if only a handful of black students is responsible for multiple suspensions.\" In Coalition, Dr. Charles Achilles, an expert, employed \"suspension indices\" accepted by the district court to test whether discipline was disproportionately applied to black students. He compared those numbers with the suspension data from the 1993 Office for Civil Rights data, and determined that the national suspension index for black students is 2.0, whereas the Wilmington black suspension index was 1.81.6 901 F. Supp. at 817. Applying Dr. Achilles' methodology, and using the 1995-96 suspension data for the PCSSD, the PCSSD has a suspension index of 1.45, well below either the Wilmington schools or the 6 The \"suspension index\" for black students is derived by dividing the percentage of black students suspended by the percentage of black enrollment. Dr. Achilles also looked at external data sets (i.e., the behavior of black students outside the districts, independent of the school districts). He also checked \"consistency\" to determine if the behaviors and the suspensions seemed to be consistent and, finally, he tested the \"discretion of the person in charge of the discipline\" to see whether discretion influenced the suspension indices. 901 F. Supp. at 817. 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I national norm. Indeed, its index has been well below the national norm for the past five years. 7 Most recently, the Seventh Circuit, in ruling !U response to nine consolidated appeals, found racial disciplinary quotas to violate equity \"in its root sense.\" Commenting in the quota context, but fully applicable to the statistical complaints of the Joshua Intervenors here, the court stated: They entail either systematically overpunishing the innocent or systematically underpunishing the guilty. They place race at war with justice. People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education, 111 F.3d 528, _, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 7143 at *33. The incidents touted by the Joshua Intervenors are selective with respect to certain schools and certain individual students, and do not reflect the PCSSD's systemwide good faith compliance with the disciplinary provision of the Desegregation Plan. Indeed, the Pupil Personnel Annual Report Summaries indicate that for the past few years, disciplinary actions 7 Using Dr. Achille's formula of dividing the percentage of minority suspensions by the percentage of minority enrollment, the PCSSD has calculated the following system-wide suspension indices: 1995-96: 1994-95: 1993-94: 1992-93: 1991-92: 48 % minority suspensions + 33 % minority enrollment = 1.45 48% minority suspensions + 31 % minority enrollment = 1.55 51 % minority suspensions + 30 % minority enrollment = 1. 70 49 % minority suspensions + 29 % minority enrollment = 1. 69 48 % minority suspensions + 27 % minority enrollment = 1. 77 Utilizing PC App. 80-99. 15 I I I I "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1635","title":"Court filings: District Court, the districts' reply to Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to their motion for summary judgment on the issue of teacher retirement matching","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":["1996-12-23"],"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--20th century","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","North Little Rock School District","School management and organization","School employees","Teachers","Employee rights","Retirement"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, the districts' reply to Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) response to their motion for summary judgment on the issue of teacher retirement matching"],"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/1635"],"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":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["70 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRIC'): COUR'r EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. LR-C-82-86 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL r..: (' ~ 0 1996 L, I  J ... DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INT ERVEN ORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office 01 Deseg:ag:rc.on M.:in,iCfiilJ THE DISTRICTS' REPLY TO ADE'S RESPONSE TO THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE OF TEACHER RETIREMENT MATCHING INTRODUCTION INTERVENORS As one of the cornerstones to its defense, the State continues to pervert the literal language of the Settlement Agreement just as it previously did when the worker compensation and loss funding issues were on appeal. At page 1 of its brief served December 13, 1996 the State maintains that: [T]he language of the settlement agreement ... expressly permits the State to make fair and rational changes of general applicability to its school funding scheme. The Settlement Agreement authorizes such changes only as respects funds distributed through the \"funding formula\". As Robert Shaver clearly explained in his recent deposition attached as Exhibit \"A\": Q Back when we were operating under Act 34, if someone would mention the funding formula to you, what did that mean to you? A The distribution of minimum foundation program aid. 1 Q okay. And that did not include workers' compensation, for instance, did it? A No. Q Did not include teacher retirement matching? A No. Q Did not include health insurance? A No. Q They were never part of the funding formula? A Well, now, I think the funding formula is the way -- they were part of the total funding system. Q But they weren't part of the minimum foundation program aid distributed by the formula? A That's right. Thus, the teacher retirement issue clearly falls within the category of a \"program\" for which the State provided funding at the time of the- Settlement Agreement. Thus, the State should continue to fund these programs for these three districts so as to comply with the Settlement Agreement. THE SALARY ISSUE For the State to contend that the salary levels which prevail in these three districts are simply a matter of \"local choice\" is at best a naive assertion. The history of teacher strikes in all three districts, strikes bottomed on salary demands, is enough to belie this notion. Further, the very state standards mandated by the Arkansas state Board of Education in large measure dictate the 2 student teacher ratios that must be met by these and other districts. Further, and a factor unique to these three districts, is the presence of staffing requirements and ratios contained in the Desegregation Plan which further, and sometimes dramatically, dictate the level and intensity of staffing in these districts. With the exception of the Fort Smith School District, these three districts are the only districts in the State which must contend with powerful and aggressive teacher unions. Thus, the rationale which initially impressed this Court concerning workers' compensation becoming a responsibility of the school districts does not exist here. It was not contested that the shift of workers' compensation claim paying responsibility to the districts would prompt them to take measures to reduce their - workers' compensation costs. This rationale, under these unique facts, however, does not transfer to the issue of teacher retirement. The factors outlined above by and large dictate the necessary number of employees and the State law prohibition on reduction in teacher salaries creates a perpetual floor resulting in a level of employer matching that will never be reduced. Further, in the same session in which the State decided to shift teacher retirement costs to the districts, it further mandated a minimum salary law which will raise the perpetual floor even higher. Accordingly, it is disingenuous at best for the State to contend under the circumstances which prevail here, that these districts are in any position to significantly control either the number of their employees or their compensation. The State's argument loses all force and persuasion when one examines what the State did as regards ADE employees, Educational Cooperative employees, employees of the Department of Corrections School, employees of the Math \u0026 Science School in Hot Springs, Vocational Center employees, and the employees in Adult Education. It is undisputed that the State continues to pay 100% of the teacher retirement costs generated by those employees {See, ADE's response to Item #23 of the Districts' Statement of Undisputed Facts dated December 13, 1996). Not only does the State pay 100% of those costs, but it has requested, as a matter of \"priority\" additional sums for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 to provide: \"For a six percent increase to provide for growth in staff and salaries.\" - See, Arkansas Budget System at pp. 14 and 31 attached as Exhibit B (hereafter \"ABS\") Thus, for the State to argue that the districts could eliminate unnecessary employees or reduce excessive salaries {State Brief at page 11) seems hypocritical when the State itself is seeking increases in its own appropriations to cover increases in the number of its employees and increases in their salaries. THE APPROPRIATION ISSUE There are at least two ways to discredit the State's current contention that no funds are contained in Act 1194 that were \"specifically earmarked or intended to satisfy school districts' teacher retirement contributions\" {State Brief at p. 15), and, by extension, for other matters such as health insurance, special 4 education, transportation aid, and certain former grants. One is to present testimony from knowledgeable witnesses such as Dr. Benny Gooden and the other is to simply look at what the State has in fact done or proposes to do. For fiscal year 1994-95, $1,233,546,155 was spent from the public school fund (See Imber, Finding of Fact No. 23). During that year, $123,000,000 was budgeted by ADE for teacher retirement matching, (Imber, Finding of Fact No. 24), a matter undisputed by the state. For fiscal year 1997, the public school fund appropriation is $1,456,697,089. (See Act 1194 at Sec. 1, p. 5625). As a matter of pure logic, and with the increases in the fund described above, the only conclusion that can be reached is that for obligations which continue today that were extant in 1994-95, the sums that were previously either paid directly by the state or appropriated as line items for distribution to the districts must be components of a fund that is forecast to be over $200,000,000 more than it was at the time of the Lake View decision. This logical outcome is amply supported by the State's own witnesses and documents. The most telling testimony comes from Dr. Bobbie Davis, Assistant Director for Finance and Administration, who testified: Q Under Act 34, there was set-aside funds for transportation costs. I believe districts received the funds based on the linear mileage rate or something to that effect; is that correct? A There was a formula you went by, yes. Q Is there such a formula for administration of 5 transportation funds now? A No, sir. Q How are those funds administered? A There are no identifiable transportation funds in Act 917. Q And why not? A Those dollars, or the total dollars, that were part of the previous funds, that went to public schools, were all consolidated into equalization funding. Q So that means all of the add-ons and weighted average factors that were distributed to districts, such as Brinkley, were, then, consolidated for approximately $300 million? A Into equalization, so they were no longer identifiable as those weighted things, yes. (Emphasis supplied.] (Davis deposition, pp. 6-7, attached as Exhibit \"B\") While the Arkansas Budget System attached as Exhibit \"C\" has - been reasonably well sanitized on this issue, certain significant concessions remain. ADE tells us at page 32 of the ABS that: Transportation Aid was eliminated under Act 1194 as a separate line item and incorporated into the new school funding formula. (Emphasis supplied.) 1 The ABS at page 23 informs us that: Act 917 of 1995 (the Equitable School Finance Act of 1995) and Act 1194 of 1995 (Appropriation Act for the Public School Fund) eliminated at-risk funding as a separate line item and combined approximately $30,000,000 into the State Equalization Funding Formula. 1Tellingly, for the next biennium, ADE has requested a line item appropriation of $10,000,000 each fiscal year \"to assist districts with high cost transportation.\" This is a \"priority request\" of ADE. See, Arkansas Budget System at p. 14. Apparently ADE is willing to consider \"needs\" issues when it suits it. 6 Similarly, at p. 11, the ABS states: \"Act 917 and 1194 for 1995 eliminated all at-risk tunding from the Department of Education's budget and shifted approximately $30.0 million into state Equalization Aid. [Emphasis added.] Act 1194, appended to the State's brief as an exhibit, at Item 28, reflects a $30,000,000 appropriation for at-risk grants and training for 1995-96, the last year that Act 34 operated. Accordingly, it is clear that in this category, the State recognizes that what used to be funded as a line item was folded into the 1996-97 appropriation for state equalization funding, the new near equivalency of MFPA under Act 34. The ABS also informs us at p. 34 as respect to grants to school districts: These payments are made to Missouri for educating students in North Arkansas who cannot get to their assigned district because Bull Shoals Lake separates them from their district and it would require a round trip of more than 35 miles. This program was incorporated into the school funding formula, but the Department is requesting a separate line item of $27,000 for the 1997- 99 biennium. [Emphasis added.] Again, in examining Act 1194 at Item 11, \"grants to school districts\", the identical figure, $27,000, was appropriated for 1995-96, the last year of operation of Act 34. In addition to this, the districts' assertion is supported by the deposition testimony of Dr. Charles Dyer, Superintendent of the Alma School District, the district that was the lead plaintiff in Alma v. Dupree, the original funding case. When asked what became of these items previously paid directly by the state, including teacher retirement and health insurance, Dr. Dyer explained his 7 understanding that: Q I always say that wrong. A billion, three hundred million, I'm sorry. A Okay, that's somewhere in the neighborhood, yes. Q All right. Do you know how that figure was built or gotten at, where it came from? A Only in general terms. Q Okay. I'll take that. A I can't remember exactly what the MFPA was. We had a substantial amount of money that was already targeted for MFPA, had about fifty billion [million) in transportation funds that was put over there. I say put over there. It was put together with the MFPA. Around a hundred and thirty-one, two or three million dollars of teacher retirement payments that was also put in. Somewhere in the mid-forty millions, forty-three, four or five million of payment for health insurance. Q Sure. A It was my thoughts that they were taking X number of dollars from the Department of Education that they had originally put out in all these other categories and put into one large pool. Q Yeah. A I think that's the same thing that you're saying. And then, in addition to that, they were putting in somewhere around $60,000,000.00 of additional money to come up to this 1.3 billion or one billion, two hundred and eighty-eight million or whatever that figure, somewhere in that neighborhood. These deposition pages are attached as Exhibit \"D\". Additionally, the expert witness engaged by the state in the Lake View case, Dr. Robert Rossmiller was asked these same questions and testified that: Q Can we agree, though, that by transferring that obligation to the school districts, both for paying teacher retirement and paying health insurance, that if the state put that money in the appropriation, it freed 8 up more money to flow through the equalization formula? A Yes. Q But do you know whether or not that happened? A Whether what happened? Q Do you know what became of the money that the state used to use to pay the teacher retirement and the health insurance? A I can only assume that it was put into this pool. I don't know specifically. I believe I heard yesterday that there is no appropriation for it. Q Yes. A So in that regard, it has disappeared. Now, where did it go? I assume it went into the equalization pool, but I don't know for sure. (Rossmiller Deposition, p. 115) These testimony abstracts are attached as Exhibit \"E\". The ABS explains the aid distribution changes as follows: Act 917 of 1995 changed the method the State uses to distribute aid to school districts. Prior to 1996-97 the Department of Education distributed the majority of state aid as Minimum Foundation Program Aid (MFPA) . In addition, the state funded other programs such as Transportation Aid and At-Risk Grants by formulas or based on need. The State also paid Teacher Retirement Matching and Health Insurance Matching on behalf of school districts. The calculation for MFPA included addon weights for various categories such as Special Education, Isolated School Districts, Consolidation Incentives, Vocational Education and Centers, Gifted and Talented Students, and growth and loss funding. Act 917 now requires State Equalization Funding to be distributed to districts based on the number of students, Average Daily Membership (ADM), equalized by the wealth of the district. The purpose of this funding is to equalize the disparities of property wealth throughout Arkansas. (ABS at p. 29). The structure of this explanation by ADE strongly suggests the recognition that the sums previously paid through MFPA, as teacher 9 retirement matching and health insurance matching, and as transportation aid and at-risk grants are simply now distributed as state equalization funds. Finally, the State complains that the districts are isolating certain funding programs and not considering the new formula outcomes as a whole. First, the Settlement Agreement specifically provides for the districts' approach when it sets forth the State's obligation to continue funding \"programs\" for these three districts when it has historically funded them. Second, the calculations of Mr. Green offered for the proposition that the PCSSD does better under the new formula than the old are unadjusted for the increases in teacher retirement and health insurance costs that the PCSSD is experiencing this year and instead rely upon data from the previous school year. Exhibit \"F\" demonstrates that even in utilizing Mr. Green's analysis, the district loses over $100,000 as compared to last year. When that same analysis is further adjusted for the current effects of M-to-M transfers, the PCSSD is shown to be losing almost $1,000,000 as compared to last year. Further, the state makes no response whatever to PCSSD's analysis which accompanied this motion initially in which it compared Act 34 funding outcomes as if Act 34 were still in place and funded at current funding levels. That comparison demonstrates that the PCSSD is losing millions of dollars under the current scheme as compared to the previous 10 program. 2 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the districts' pray that their motion respecting teacher retirement be granted, for their costs, attorneys' fees, and all proper relief. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT M. Samuel Jones WRIGHT LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 2000 Boatmen's Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 371-0808} NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Stephen Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES 3400 TCBY Tower Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 375-1122 Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501} 376-2011) By: II 2Given the holiday seasons, counsel for the PCSSD was not able to obtain similar analyses for the NLRSD and the LRSD but on their behalf would request permission to present those analyses as soon as reasonably possible. 11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE on December 2.:i_, 1996, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following persons. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson \u0026 Llewellyn 412 South 18th Street P. o. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 J:jhsl050.030 12 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Turner Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 ___,.\u003e 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 IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF - PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS SIXTH DIVISION * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * LAKEVIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT * NO. 25 OF PHILLIPS COUNTY, * ARKANSAS, ET AL, Plaintiffs * 1 VERSUS * NO: 9 2 - 5 318 MIKE HUCKABEE, GOVERNOR OF * THE STATE OF ARKANSAS, ET AL, * Defendants * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * VOLUME II DEPOSITION OF ROBERT E. SHAVER TAKEN BEFORE Vanessa C. Aucoin, Certified Court Reporter, LS Certificate No. 503, Bushman Court Reporting, 620 West Third Street, Suite 101, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 on Thursday, October 10, 1996 at the offices of the Attorney General, 200 Tower Building, 323 Center Street, Little Rock, Arkansas, commencing at 9:30 a.m. VANESSA C. AUCOIN, RPR, CCR BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 372-5115 I EXHIBIT A 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 13 l. . Q. Back when we were operating under Act 34, if someone would mention the funding formula to you, what did that mean to you? A. The distribution of minimum foundation program aid. Q. Okay. And that did not include workers' compensation, for instance, did it? A. No. Q. Did not include teacher retirement matching? A. No. Q. Did not include health insurance? A. No. ... .. -- ~ Q. They were never part of any funding formula? A. Well, now, I think the funding formula is the way -- they were part of the total funding system. Q. But they weren't part of the minimum foundation program aid distributed by the formula? A. That's right. Q. Bob, I'm trying to -- I wrote this down. What did you have to say about the treatment of carry-over balances? Was that in the context of that's not necessarily tied to a particular appropriation? A. With respect to the comments a few minutes ago about whether or not there was a 60-million or VANESSA C. AUCOIN, RPR, CCR BUSHMAN COURT REPORTING (501) 372-5115  IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS SIXTH DIVISION LAKEVIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 25 OF PHILLIPS COUNTY, ARKANSAS,; MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION, IRMA MOREHOUSE, PRESIDENT, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF THE SCHOOL BOARD; GENORA FRAZIER, INDIVIDUALLY, IN HER CAPACITY AS VICE PRESIDENT OF THE SCHOOL BOARD AND THE ON BEHALF OF HER CUSTODIAL GRANDCHILDREN, LOUIS LONG, JR. AND CHRISTOPHER FRAZIER; HENRIETTA J. WILSON AND IN HER CAPACITY AS SECRETARY; SIDNEY FITZHUGH, SR., INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS A MEMBER; VELMA LARKIN, AND ON BEHALF OF HER CHILDREN, TAWANNA LARKIN SUPERINTENDENT, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS SUPERINTENDENT OF THE LAKE VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 25. PLAINTIFFS vs. No. 92-5318 MIKE HUCKABEE, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; JIMMIE LOU FISHER LUMPKIN, TRASURER OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; REP. BOBBY HOGUE, SPEAKER OF THE ARKANSAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; STANLEY RUSS, PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE ARKANSAS SENATE; ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; GENE WILHOIT, DIRECTOR OF THE ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; JAMES McCLARTY, CHAIRMAN; EDWIN B. ALDERSON, JR., MEMBER; CARLE. BAGGETT, MEMBER; GARY BEASLEY, MEMBER; MARTHA DIXON, MEMBER; WILLIAM B. FISHER, MEMBER; JAMES WHITMORE, MEMBER; LUKE GORDY, MEMBER; BETTY PICKETT, MEMBER; ELAINE SCOTT, MEMBER; RICHARD SMITH, MEMBER; SHERRY WALKER, MEMBER DEFENDANTS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * DISCOVERY DEPOSITION of Dr. Bobbie A. Davis Friday, October 11, 1996 2:45p.m. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * REPORTED BY: GRIGGS REPORTING SERVICE Alvah M. Griggs, CCR 1-501-633-2124 I EXHIBIT (3  6 1 Q We would meet, periodically, throughout the session, durin 2 days, you know, while our other jobs were going on. Sometimes 3 those meetings would go over into the evenings. We were asked to 4 respond to legislative proposals . We were asked to respond to 5 proposals by the Governor's Office. We were asked to, I guess, 6 be a \"think tank\" more than anything else. 7 Q Are you currently, fairly, familiar with t he 8 Administration's Act 917? 9 A I am familiar with it in kind of a general sense. I am not 10 the technician that Dr. Shaver or Tristan are -- certainly not. 11 Q 12 A Were you familiar with Act 34, in any way? Not in any -- when that was in place, I was an administrator 13 at school, certainly not at the day to day work that we are 14 now. 15 Q But, you as Superintendent of Brinkley Schools, you were 16 somewhat familiar with the plan -- 17 A 18 Q 19 A 20 Q Somewhat. Is that correct? Yes. Under Act 34, there was set-aside funds for transportation 21 costs. I believe districts received the funds based on the 22 linear millage rate or something to that effect; is that correct? 23 A There was a formula that you went by, yes. 24 Q Is there such a formula for administration of transportation 25 funds now? ALVAH M. GRIGGS, CCR 1-501-633-2124  1 A 2 Q 3 A 4 Q 5 A 7 No, sir. How are those funds administered? There are no identifiable transportation funds in Act 9-17. And why not? Those dollars, or the total dollars, that were part of the 6 previous funds, that went to public schools, were all 7 consolidated into equalization funding. 8 Q So that means all of the add-ons and weighted average 9 factors that were distributed to districts, such as Brinkley, 10 were, then, consolidated for approxomately $300 million? 11 A Into equalization, so they were no longer identifiabie as 12 those weighted things, yes. 13 Q '-14 A 15 Q Are there any weighted factors under 9-17? No. Under equalization the money is distributed by ADM. And, I believe, that you heard Mr. Green's testimony, I 16 believe that basically said that all of those funds were 17 considered under Category One for the purposes of meeting the 18 19 20 Federal Range Ratio; is that correct? A Right. Q Do you agree with that assessment? 21 A 22 Q I agree with that assessment, yes, sir. Now, in teacher -- under Act 34, Teacher Retirement was 23 distributed or paid by the State their portion. 24 25 Q MS. TURNER: Object to the form of the question. (Mr. Lewellen continuing) : Do you agree with Teacher ALVAH M. GRIGGS, CCR 1-501-633-2124 - -------- - ---------- l - . ,iilKANSAS BUDGET SYSTEM - AGENCI' l'ROGRAIH COMMENTARI' -- ---------------- _ _ __ 1_9_9_7_-_1_99_9 ________________ _ runuc SCIIOOL FllNll PRIORITY BlillllliSIS /\\l-lUSK GRANTS - Acl 917 and 1194 for 1995 diminalcd all al-risk funding fr11111 Ilic I h:par1n1cn1 of hl11ca1io11. s b11Jgcl anJ shiflcd approximalely $30.0 million inlo Slale Eq11aliza1ion t\\id. The fkparlmcnl is reqm:slillf! 1hat 1he follo\\\\ ing at-risk programs he conlinucd in 1he biennium. The priorily requesls lotaling S 17.1 million each liscal year can he sepa1 alcd inlo two parls. 1-'irsl. is a request for $7. 1 \u003e million to continue programs the agency plans to li111d in FY1\u003e7 with 1'11hlic School Fund balances. Second. is n rcq11csl fiir $9.2 million each fiscal year to conlinue funding for K-5 summer s1.:hool prog1ams. The re411est for $7 .9 million each fiscal year lo conlinue e:--.isling programs rnusis1i11g 111 l 'ollcge l'rcparalory Emichmcnl l'rngram ll 'l'l:1') (SI ,800,000). Early Childhood Training ($3,000.000). Limited English l'rolicicnc~ I I I I')($::!. I 00.000) and Training. Monitoring and Technical Assistance for Academic and Fiscal Dis1rcss ($1.000.000). CPL:1'-Dming the 191)5-96 school year lhe depa11111enl lumlcd -D scho11I disll ids and 1\u003e cooperali\\es 111 provide ACT training lo 3.41111 students. EARi. Y Cl IILDI 1000 lRAININ(i- In 1he I 1l1JS -% school year Al )I: dis11 ihu1cd $IA 111illiu11 to pro\\'iJe slilff ,.kvclopmenl 1rai11i111! for 5,555 K-5 teachers anJ ad111i11istrah1rs. t\\ddi1i1111ally. Al\u003eE pwvi1bl $1 .h 111illi1111 1'11r 1he K-4 crusade 10 1rain 2,319 leachcrs 1 he deparlment anticipates similar pnrticipatio11 in FY1J7 I l:P-Du1i11g the 1995-96 school year. the /\\UL dis11ihu1cJ $3,972.8 Ill dirc1.:ll) 1t1 schnul Jistiids In provide runJing for 1.1-:1' s1ude11ls for a two-year period. 1 his money sci vcd I . 'iK s111de11l in I 31 districls. /\\ I \u003eI : also p1 ovides $1110.0110 in 1.-ai11ing lo schoul dist, icls for these progrnms. The $2 .1 million priorily n:t111est each fiscal year ,..,ill rn111i1111e 10 liind the program at previous k\\'cls I RAININ(i, MONITORING AND IH.:I INH.'AI . ASSIS f/\\NCE- I his is a new rcq11ire111e111 i11 FY%. Act 915 of 1995. requires the department to identify school districls in academic and fiscal dis1ress. As a pail of 1hc process. 1he dcparlmenl is 1eq11i1ed tn provide !raining, 1111111i1oring. and technical assistann: 1111h11se school dislricts \\\\'ho a,e ide111ilicd as dis1resscd. 'I he p1iority runding is 1eq11i1c\u003cl l111.:nntinue 1his process -------------------- unrncron AGENCY PAGE A\u003c;ENCY PROGRAM AHKANSAS DEl'ARUIENI' OF Ellt.lCATIOO EXHIBIT GENE \\.lllJKHT C:OMMENTARV , 11 ~lt21 '---______ . __ __.___., C - - --------------------- AGENCY PROGRAM COMMENTARY L - 1\\RKANSAS BUDGET SYS1'EM _- ------------- ____19_ 9_7_-_1_99_9_ ________________ _J The n:quesl for $9.2 million each liscal year for s111nn1e1 sdlllol will allow 1he Alli: 111 rnntinue lo fund K-5 di1ec1 services for approximately 1S.000 sludents. This priority will provide runding 10 school disll ids 111 pay sun11ner sd1nol teacher salaries .-ind purchase instructional materials. ISOI.All:D FUNDING - The priority request of $272 .1100 in FY98 and $283 ,1100 in I Y11 \"ill provide $80.000 euch Ii seal year liir additional districts that may qualify for isolated status and $1 ')2 .0110 in FY9H and $111 , . 'i '.:! 11 in FYI)) li,r M:, grmvth in 11ase l.ocal lkve 1111 e Per Student. S Ill DEN r liROWTII - The priority request of $1110.lltltl em:h liscal year is neelkd In p11,, ide for 6'1~ growth in the Base l.ocal Re,ernie l'er Student and a growlh of approximately 7.400 students in growing di sll icts l\"hc lkp;11 t11ll.:111 Base I eve! li1r Student \u003c irnwth is $21 .\u003c, million. AODITIONAL BASE FlJNDINCi - The appropriation 1e4uest for Additional Base lu11di11g f11r the hiennium emling June 30, 1999, is based upon worst case sccmuio projections. The main concern of the flcpa,1mcnt is the \"I''\"\"' Inca! rc,wuc iucocascs in the Polaski ('unnly school dislricts of 1en pci-cenl. If that is in fact the situation beginning in FYl)H_ and all 111her c1111ditions rem;1in the same (1111mbcr of sludenls, assessment. and stale funding), then increases in Additional Base lullllill~ 111 $ I (1 -I million in FY98 and $20.4 million in FY 1 J') ,.,,ill he necessary for lhe state 10 meet the court test and abide by thc intent of The Fquitahlc School Finance S) stem Acl of I 995 . l\u003eEI' AIU MEN I\" OF COIWEC I ION - I he Al\u003eI: p1 i11rily rel1uesl uf $128..11111 i11 I Y1'8 and $16-l.Stl-l prm i1ks liir a \u003ci% inc1ease in the l\\asc I .ocal Revenue l'er Student. After the hudgct suh111issi11n, the Department uf ( 11rrecti1111 Sch11ol District (I)( 'SI\u003e) requested the A ni: suh111i1 .i request for additional funding for new schools they plan to open in the hiennirnn . The I\u003e( 'SD plans to establish schools al two (2) new prisons in FY97-98 . They anticipate an ADM gnm th or 400 students in l-'Y98 a111I I Oil in I Y99. The I)( 'SI) has requested the Department of Correction to fund the FY98 growth of $447.S0II and therealier thc ADI: 111 continue funding for FYIJ\u003c\u003e . n,c $447.S00 for FY99 nectls he considered as a priority rcquesl of the ADE. AGENCY DIRECTOR AHKANSAS DEl'AR'ltlENl' Of EllUCATIOO GENE \\.l[IJk)IT AGENCY PROGRAM COMMENTARY Hlt21 PAGE 12 ----------- ,ill KANSAS BUDGET S1'S1'EM AGENCY PROGRAM COMMENTARY 1997 - 1999 Pl JUI.IC SCIIOOI. EMPLOYEE INSlmANCI: - prll\\ ides for health insurance c11n11 ib111i11ns li,r emph\u003e) ees or 1he l'ouperalive b.l11ca1i1111 Service Areas. Vocational Centers and the school opcralcd hy the l)cpa1t111cnt of('tirreclilln 1'11e prioi-ity request of $36.030 in FY 1 18 a11d $74,222 in FY99 allows for a 6% t;rowlh in rates or employees. SPEClAl. EDUCATION SERVICES - The priority request of $747,630 each r1scal ) c,11 \"ill provide apprnpriatinn anJ hmJing ahove Base Level for the anticipated program needs of $3,747.630. The program ind mks $2.725 .llllll Ill n.:imbmscment to school districts for Special hlucation Supcrvisms. $402,630 for extended school year services. $50.0011 li,r ~L'I, i1:cs 111 foster children. $270.000 lor Regional Transitional Specialists. and $300.000 for consultants rm students \"\"i1h se,c1e disahili1ics COOl'ERATIVE 1:l\u003el lCA l'IONAL SERVICl~S Alff AS - I he priority request 111' $1.5211.IIIHI in FY98 and $116.000 i11 l-'Y9 1 \u003e will p10\\'i1k a Jistance learning classroom in each educational cooperative and one to he lncatcd in l'ulas~i ( ounty. The cost of each dassrnnm is '\\; 1 \u003e5 .0110 Continuing lim: charges arc projected at $7,250 per focility each year. rhe dis1a11cc ka111ing dassroon1s will he useJ li1r staff dcvdllpmcnl. student instruction, and to provide a statewide conununication netwrn k. DEBT SERVICE FUNDING SUPPLEMENT - 1 he Base l.evd appropriation or $21111 million is for olJ Jeht\", which is Jdincd as Jehl voted prior to fcbruary 22. J9()5. The priority request of$l0 0 million each r1sc.1l ~ca1 \\\\1111ld limd new clcht voted alier 1hat date. DIS'l RICT FISCAL CRISIS RELi L:.F - I he p1 iorit} 1eq11est ol a uegati\\'e $ I ll.11111illiu11 ..:ach year is tu eliminate the base kvcl appropriation. It is the understanding that the appropriation was l'nr one fiscal year lo p1m ide transition 1'11nJs hcca11sc of the changes in the method school fumling is distrihutetl. SI All: 1:QlJAI.IZA rlON AIIJ - the priority reL111csl or $71).255 .2 18 in i:'1'98 and $15 7. 7511 .338 in l Y 1\u003e1 \u003e prnvides ror a (1'1/o, increase each fiscal year and for the continuation of $5.203,218 h11dgc1cd from FY1)7 fund balances tin potential tleseg1egation cost. A(;J~NCY l\u003etnECTOlt AGENCY PAGE AHl\u003cANSAS DEl'AHUIENI' OF EJXJCATIOO GF.NE WllJK\u003eIT PROGRAM COMMENTARY Billi 13 I I [ 1\\RKANSAS BUDGE1' S1'S1'EM AGENCY PROGRAM COMMENTARI' ... ------------ 1997 - 1999 TEACIIER RETIREMENT MAlCI IINU - provides 1cad1cr rc1i1c111cn1 111a1chi11g 1111 e111pl11) ccs lllTllnpcralive l:duca1io11 Service 1\\reas, Vocalional Centers, and the school operated by the Ocpa11mc11t of Corn.:clion. 111 lhi!\u003e line i1c111. 1hc deparlmcnl has a base level budget of $2.1 million. The dcparlment was-required 10 increase 1hc FY97 hudgcl from lhc app111p1 i.1lill11 level of $1 .5 million Ill 1hc $2 .1 111 fully fund 1his program. The priority request of $126,000 in fYC)K anti $2S9.S60 in FY()\u003c) p1m idc!\u003e li11 a 6'!1, increase 111 provide for growth in stall and salaries. 11lANSPORTATION AID-The priority request of $10.8 million each liscal consist 111 ll\\11 prngra111s. First. is $8011.000 each liscal year Ill cunlinue 10 fund safely training for school hus drivers and mechanics. In FY1 Jl1 lhc .\\1)1 : 11.1i11cd 7.:wo d1ivcrs and 2411111ccha11ics. I he department plans to utilize Public School Fund balances 111 rnn1in11e lhc p1ogra111 in FY1J7 111 addililln. $10.11 is req11es1ctl each tiscal year 111 assist dislricts with high cost transportation. RESIDENTIAL CENTERS - 1 he priorily re4uest of $85b.22 I in FY98 and $9111Ul(1::! 1111 I Y1J 1 J is to provide adtli1ional funding for anticipated growth in student placeme.nt at approved rcsidcnlial treat1nent fadli1ics a11d 1 111 j11n:nik dclention facililics. D111ing the 199S-IJ6 school year there was an increase of approximately I Oil new heds in lhe rcsi1lc111ial farililics. Sludenls a1e lhc responsih "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1651","title":"Court filings: Court of Appeals, brief of appellee/appellant Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al.","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 Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit"],"dc_date":["1996-09-05"],"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--20th century","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: Court of Appeals, brief of appellee/appellant Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al."],"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/1651"],"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":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["84 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Joshua, Lorene"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  SEP 5 1996 Office of Desegregation Monlicnn~ Michael E. Gans, Clerk U.S. court Of Appeals, 1114 Market Street st. Louis, MO 63101 of Court Eighth Circuit 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02173 September 3, 1996 Re: Little Rock School Dist. v. Servicemaster Management Services, No. 96-2047EALR Dear Mr. Gans, Enclosed for filing are the original and 9 copies of the brief o~ the Joshua Intervenors (appellees\\appellants). Sincerely, cc: all counsel I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT NO. 96-2047EALR LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT APPELLANT v. SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES L.P. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. APPELLEE Ilic APPELLEE~ _ .. APPELLANT Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright, District Judge BRIEF OF APPELLEE\\APPELLANT MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 Bob Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02173 617-862-1955 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1, Summary and Reguest for Oral Argument Long after this court in 1990 directed the entry of a fresh order providing for the dismissal of the State (but not the local systems) from this litigation, the LRSD's appeal calls for this court to consider the meaning\\implications of the robust version of continuing jurisdiction provided for by this court in 1990. This court must also consider, with regard to the LRSD motion denied below, the implications of the district court's finding of poor implementation by LRSD, a finding amply supported by the record. The contract issues presented by LRSD involve the application of basic principles of contract interpretation. Such principles call for a different result than the one reached below. Oral argument is warranted, given LRSD's request for a directive that the litigation be dismissed with prejudice. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Appeal of Little Rock Sch. District, 949 F.2d 253 (8th Cir. 1991) 6, 15-16 Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294 (1955) 1, 13, 15 Continental Bank and Trust Co. v. American Bonding Co., 630 F.2d 606 (8th Cir. 1980) 17 Klein v. Arkoma Production Co., 73 F.3d 779 (8th Cir. 1996) 17 Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) passim Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special School Dist., 971 F.2d 160 (8th Cir. 1992) 14, 15-16 Press Machinery Corp. v. Smith R.P.M. Corp., 727 F.2d 781 (8th Cir. 1984) 18 Raney v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 443 (1968) 13 st. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 113 s.ct. 2742 (1993) 14 Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Educ., 402 U.S. 1 (1971) 15 Tasby v. Estes, 643 F.2d 1103 (5th Cir. 1981) 12 Union National Bank v. Federal Nat. Mort. Assoc., 860 F.2d 847 (8th Cir. 1988) 19 United States v. Montgomery County Board of Education, 395 U.S. 225 (1969) 15 Wright v. City Council of Emporia, 407 U.S. 451 (1972) Other Authorities Restatement of Contracts, Second, Sections 202(1), 203(a) 15 1, 18-19 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS summary and Request for Oral Argment Table of Contents Table of Authorities Issues Presented on Appeal Statement of the Case A. LRSD's Motion for Dismissal B. The Servicemaster Contract Argument A. The District Court's Denial of LRSD's Motion Dismissal with Prejudice Should be Affirmed for 1. It is Plausible to Construe This Court's 1990 Decision as Not Applying the Provision for Dismissal of the Case as to the Local Districts i ii iii 1 1 1 11 12 12 12 2. If the District Court, in Substance, Rejected a Belated Effort to Implement a Portion of the Settlement Agreement, That Action Was Not an Abuse of Discretion in View of the Evolution of the Case Since 1990 15 B. The Court Erred in Applying Principles of Contract Conclusion Addendum Release as to State Order of Dismissal, Dec. 15, 1989 Order, Jan. 18, 1991 Statement of Judge Wright to LRSD Counsel and Board, March l9, 1993 Transcript Excerpts, March 29, 1993 Transcript Excerpts, June 7, 1994 Transcript Excerpts, June 29, 1994 Excerpts from ODM report, May 17, 1995 Law 17 19 1 5 6 8 16 22 30 40 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Issues Presented on Appeal (1.) Whether, in 1990, this court in fact approved, as to LRSD, a provision for dismissal with prejudice of this civil action and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors. * Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) (2.) Whether, alternatively, the district court's denial in 1996 of the motion for dismissal with prejudice was, in view of the evolution of the case since 1990, an appropriate exercise of the court's broad discretion. * Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, supra, 921 F.2d at 1386, 1394 * Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 299-301 (1955) (3.) Whether the district court erred in interpreting the contract between the LRSD and Servicemaster Management Services and in declaring the interpretation urged by the LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors to be inconsistent with public policy. * Restatement of Contracts, Second, Sections 202(1), 203(a) Statement of the Case A. LRSD's Motion for Dismissal In 1988 and 1989 the parties agreed to settle this desegregation case concerning three school districts in Pulaski County, Arkansas. They presented to the district court separate, detailed, desegregation plans for the three systems, a lengthy interdistrict plan, and a 36-page \"settlement agreement\" 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I resolving the financial liability of the State of Arkansas. 1 Four releases were attached to the settlement agreement, one pertaining to each of the three local school systems and one regarding the State and its agents. A difference in the text of the two categories of releases is noteworthy. The releases pertaining to the LRSD, the NLRSD, and the PCSSD contained the following identical provision (emphasis by use of capitalization and parenthetical explanations added). 2 It is further understood and agreed that the litigation now pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, entitled Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 et al., No. LR-C-82-866 and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors (including but not limited to, [identification of other cases applicable to the system] (the 'Litigation') is to be dismissed with prejudice as to the [name of local system] and the former and current members of its board named in the Litigation. THIS DISMISSAL IS FINAL FOR ALL PURPOSES EXCEPT THAT THE COURT MAY RETAIN JURISDICTION TO ADDRESS ISSUES REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLANS. The release regarding the State and its agents did not include the language regarding the retention of jurisdiction. It read as follows: It is further understood and agreed thast the litigation now pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, entitled Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1. et al., No. LR-C-82-866 and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors (the 'Litigation') is to be dismissed with prejudice as to the Arkansas State Board of Education and the former and current 1 See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371, 1376 (8th Cir. 1990). 2 See LRSD Addendum, at 13, 17, 21. 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I members of that Board named in the Litigation. 3 Thereafter, the parties appealed to this court the district court's rejection of the five agreements. At the outset of its opinion, this court characterized its resolution of the parties' challenge to the district court's action, as follows. We now reverse the judgment of the District Court. In general, we direct that Court, on remand, to approve the settlement plans and settlement agreement as submitted by the parties. We also make certain other directions for the future of the case. This court discussed the standards governing its review of the parties' settlement. See 921 F.2d at 1383-85, 1388-89. On the one hand, the court emphasized the importance of the parties' agreement and the public policy in favor of settlements. Id., at 1383, 1388. The court also recognized, however, its responsibility to insure that the agreements were not \"unfair to class members ... ,\" or ones inconsistent with the \"[court's] strong interest in not involving itself, along with the prestige of the law, in an ongoing equitable decree which is either manifestly unworkable or plainly unconstitutional on its face.\" Id., at 1383. This court's 1990 opinion emphasized the district court's important responsibilities and its considerable authority and discretion. This language, quoted below, casts doubt on whether this court in fact approved the \"dismiss[al] with prejudice\" of 3 See Joshua Add., at 2.  See Little Rock School District, supra, 921 F.2d at 1376. 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I this and the related civil actions as to the LRSD (and NLRSD and PCSSD). This text is as follows: 921 F.2d at 1383 This does not mean that a court must automatically approve anything the parties set before it. In the present case, for example, any remedy will necessarily require some judicial supervision -- monitoring, at least -- for a long time. A court has a strong interest in not involving itself, along with the prestige of the law, in an ongoing equitable decree which is either manifestly unworkable or plainly unconstitutional on its face. In addition, this is a class action, and courts are not obliged (indeed they are not permitted) to approve settlements that are unfair to class members, or negotiated by inadequate class representatives. 921 F.2d at 1386 The district court was concerned about the lack of sufficient detail in the plans to guarantee successful implementation. The answer to this concern lies, we think, in the fact, upon which we place a great deal of weight, that the parties have all agreed to continued monitoring. Indeed, such monitoring by the District Court and its agents is essential. It is important for the settlement plans to be scrupulously adhered to -- and here we have in mind especially the kind of programs that the plan contemplates for the incentive schools -- and it will be the job of the District Court to see that this monitoring is done effectively, and that appropriate action is taken if the parties do not live up to their commitments. 921 F.2d at 1388 As indicated above, this does not mean that the parties will be free of supervision or monitoring. Quite the contrary: a necessary condition of our holding that the plans are not facially unconstitutional is that the parties' compliance with them will be carefully monitored. As we shall make clear at the conclusion of the opinion, when we set out the directions to be followed by the District Court on remand, the office previously known as the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor will be reconstituted as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, to be headed by a Monitor appointed by the District Court, with such additional personnel as the District Court shall deem appropriate. 921 F.2d at 1390 .. We accept these undertakings [of the districts], 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I again with the reminder that compliance with them will be closely monitored. If the District Court becomes convinced in the future that money is being wasted, and that desegregation obligations contained in the settlement plans are being flouted, it will be fully authorized to take appropriate remedial action. As the parties agree, the settlement agreement implicitly authorizes the District Court to retain jurisdiction to oversee its implementation. See 14 App. 3466. 921 F.2d at 1394. para. (8.) The District Court is instructed to monitor closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, to take whatever action is appropriate, in its discretion, to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement, and otherwise to proceed as the law and the facts require. 921 F.2d at 1394. para. (9.) .. The parties should be able to agree as to whether any such adjustments [for purposes of transition to the new plans] are necessary, and, if so, what they should be. Absent such agreement, the District Court is authorized to take such action as may be just. [explanation added] This court's \"actions\" (921 F.2d at 1394) also addressed explicitly the \"settlement plans,\" the \"settlement agreement,\" and the provision, set forth without qualification, for dismissal of the State and its agents from the litigation. The court directed the district court, on remand, \"to approve\" \"the settlement plans submitted by the parties\" and \"the parties' settlement agreement as written by them.\" See 921 F.2d at 1394. This court also specified [921 F.2d at 1394, para. (5.), emphasis added] that [i]n Nos. 90-1165, 90-1166, and 90-1167, the District Court's order of December 11, 1989, is reversed, and the order of December 15, 1989, is vacated, with instructions to enter a fresh order dismissing the State as a party pursuant 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I to the terms of the parties' settlement agreement. 5 There was no comparable provision regarding LRSD, NLRSD, or PCSSD. In an order of January 18, 1991, the district court (the Honorable Susan Webber Wright) addressed certain of this court's directives. Judge Wright, inter alia, ordered that \"[t]he state of Arkansas is dismissed as a party to this action pursuant to the terms of the parties' settlement agreement.\" Joshua Add., at 7. She added that \"[t]he parties' settlement agreement is hereby approved as written by them\" (id.) and paraphrased this court's description of her responsibilities and authority as the case unfolded on remand. Id. In Appeal of Little Rock School District, 949 F.2d 253 (8th Cir. 1991), this court addressed the contention that the district court had employed erroneous legal standards in considering the parties' agreed upon modifications of the settlement. This court concluded that the district court had erred, articulated standards to be used in considering the requested modifications, and remanded for proceedings consistent with the decision. This court added: \"We ask the District Court, to the extent practicable, to give this matter priority on its docket\" (949 F.2d at 258) phraseology seemingly inconsistent with the notion that this case had been or should have dismissed as to the 5 This court referred to the entry of \"a fresh order\" because on December 15, 1989, Judge Henry Woods had, by order, \"dismissed [the State defendants] with prejudice from this case, the cases consolidated herein and their predecessors .... 11 Joshua Addendum, at 5. 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I local defendants and the Joshua Intervenors. On November 30, 1995 -- 4 years and 10 months after Judge Wright had provided for the dismissal of the State defendants, the LRSD, alone, filed a \"Motion for Order of Dismissal\" seeking an order dismissing this case with prejudice with respect to LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD as of January 18, 1991, except to the extent the court retains jurisdiction to address issues regarding implementation of the plans and to conduct proceedings to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement or the desegregation plans. [LRSD App., at 35-36) LRSD did not in its motion or supporting memorandum explain to the court and the parties how, if at all, the conduct of the litigation would change if the motion were granted, whether effective January 18. 1991 as requested, or upon the date of the district court's order. See LRSD App., at 34-43. 6 On March 11, 1996, the district court denied LRSD's motion, reasoning as follows (LRSD Add., at 8-9, emphasis added): Let there be no mistake that, with the entry of the settlement agreement, the claims involved in this ongoing litigation were dismissed, at least as a technical matter. The Court finds, however, that no useful purpose would be served by entering an order of disnmissal at this time. The Court of Appeals has instructed this Court 'to monitor closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, to take whatever action is appropriate, in its discretion, to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement, and otherwise to proceed as the law and the facts require.' Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (8th Cir. 1990). The LRSD has frequently exhibited indifference or outright recalcitrance towards its commitments and has been slow to implement many aspects of its agreements (although some improvements have been made). Therefore. the Court finds that an order of dismissal should be deferred in order to ensure compliance with the plans and 6 No such explanation is offered here, despite the fact that the Joshua Intervenors' Opposition to LRSD's motion below noted LRSD's silence about its perceived effects. LRSD App., at 56-57. 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I the agreement. Even had the LRSD acted in good faith throughout the years. the logistics and complexity of this case are such that this court's monitoring function would be impaired by entering an order of dismissal at this time. The court's earlier statements and reports of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM), created by order of this court, provide ample support for the court's finding about LRSD'~ poor implementation of the settlement. We next provide examples from the record supportive of the court's finding. Judge Wright directed that LRSD's school board members appear in court on March 19, 1993, at which point she \"read the riot act\" to them, beginning as follows (Joshua Add., at 8): .... The Court does not believe that you understand those orders, or if you do understand them, you do not seek to comply. Hopefully, after this morning, you will have an understanding; but whether you do or do not, you must comply. This court has been too lenient with you. The Court has given you ample leeway and opportunity to move toward a unitary school system. Those days of Court leniency and the assumption by the Court of good faith on your part are over. The court's March 19, 1993 statement, encompassing eight pages (Joshua Add., at 8 - 15), provided considerable evidence of failings in the LRSD. The court, for example, noted that it would \"appoint a budget officer to be paid by the [LRSD], who [would] be a part of the [ODM] and who [would] operate under the direction of Ann Brown [ODM Director].\" lg., at 11. This would be done because \"it became increasingly apparent that the [LRSD] could not or would not develop a budget sufficient to identify 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I expenditure of desegregation funds.\" Id., at 10. 7 The district court also provided \"a reminder of some of the provisions of the Plan or Court orders that [LRSD had] yet to fulfill,\" citing 21 examples. Id., at 13 - 15. On March 29, 1993, Judge Wright made the following comments to the lawyers for the parties (Joshua Add., at 18, 20-21): And just letting you as the lawyer for the district work this out with Joshua and the ODM will not help me instill in your Board the importance of starting a process whereby they consider the ramifications of their own actions and whereby they focus on the plan. They must be driven by this plan. The plan has to drive their actions and that has not been happening, clearly. * * * I feel that in dealing with the district that the Court has had to to ask the district at every turn where is this, where is that. You promised this under the plan, where is it? And the district kind of says, oh, yeah, we do need to do this, un-huh. But they drag their feet, and they don't have a plan in place to focus and they don't have a process in place to focus on what needs to be done to fulfill their obligations. And I have waited long enough and I'm tired of waiting .. On June 7, 1994, the district judge alluded to the need to depend upon action by many LRSD employees, in the context of again criticizing the quality of the system's implementation efforts (Joshua Add., at 22, 23-24, 27). THE COURT: I want to inject something right now. I hope that you are right, that people are there ready to, as you 7 The court further explained (id., at 13): \"A budget officer to assist the School District is just a 'make work' situation.\" No, it is not; that is patently false. The Court cannot determine how you are spending your money to achieve desegregation. Your administrators do not know. Your lawyers do not know. And you do not know. If the LRSD were a corporation, I would put it in receivership. By the way, do not think that I have not considered that with regard to LRSD.\" 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I put it, collaborate with the LRSD. I'm willing to assume that that's correct. What I cannot assume is that the LRSD will put in motion the efforts to, in fact, collaborate. The district talks a good game, but a lot of times, doesn't have anyone accountable for putting its promises into action, and we have seen this repeatedly in this case and it's an inherent defect of the Desegregation Plan. The Plan made a lot of promises, but didn't make any one department or person or officer officially accountable, and that's the reason people like you have to be here because nothing was being done. And we are getting things a little more in motion .... * * * THE COURT: Well, that sounds good, but I need to know with some specificity who will do it, when they'll do it, where they'll do it, who the targets are, what the means will be, because so far in this case, it has been difficult to get an organization as big and cumbersome as you school district to coordinate itself to meet these visions you have. I think they're great visions. I mean, no one can say that's a poor idea. I think it's a wonderful idea .... * * * THE COURT: Well, saying that you can do this and saying that that you will do it is not going to be enough in this courtroom any more. You're going to have to say specifically in some detail what you will do, when you'll do it, whom you'll contact and what have you .... 8 This court provided for the creation of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to gather and report facts, therby facilitating and strengthening the district court's monitoring efforts. LRSD's incentive schools, identified by this court as a pivotal part of the settlement (921 F.2d at 1386 ), have been a focus of ODM's monitoring. In its report of May 17, 1995, concerning the incentive schools, ODM concluded (Joshua Add., at 8 See also Joshua Add., at 30-39 (deficiencies in LRSD's performance described by the court at a hearing on June 29, 1994). 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 40-44): This year, we found none of the programs that we monitored being fully implemented at all five schools. Beginning with the first ODM incentive schools report in 1991-92, we have pointed to the glaring inconsistencies among the schools. As the number of incentive schools has dwindled from seven to five, the inconsistencies have grown rather than diminished. With four of the five principals being newly assigned this year, and two of them being brandnew principals, it is no wonder that some programmatic offerings have been slighted as the new principals tried to deal with the challenges posed by incentive schools, while adjusting to new jobs as well. In many areas, we were disheartened to see a retreat from the prior level of program implementation .... [details re particular programs omitted] [At 34) In many ways our fourth annual visit to the incentive schools was the most discouraging review we have conducted. While we saw many positive and commendable aspects, we also saw problems and deficiencies that were entirely avoidable and correctable. The LRSD has had a sufficient amount of time to successfully implement the promised programs. These schools were designed to serve as models of instructional excellence, but that level of quality has not been realized throughout. Instead, too many aspects of these schools serve as an object lesson that promises made, but not kept, are meaningless. Successfully implementing the incentive schools programs is not an impossible task by any means. With solid leadership. competent staff, consistent support, and the will and determination to 'be the best,' all these schools can be the high-guality centers of learning they were pledged to be. [At 36; emphasis added] In summary, as of the time of the LRSD's motion, the district court had an ample basis for concluding that LRSD had not \":scrupulously and diligently carr[ied] out the [relevant portions of] the settlement plans ... \" (921 F.2d at 1394), including the provisions regarding the incentive schools. B. The Servicemaster Contract With the exception of expressing the view that the LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors agreed to a settlement of intervenors' 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I motion concerning the Servicemaster contract, the intervenors accept LRSD's factual statement regarding this contract. See LRSD Brief, at 4-5. Argument A. The District Court's Denial of LRSD's Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice Should Be Affirmed 1. It Is Plausible to Construe This Court's 1990 Decision as Not Applying the Provision for Dismissal of this Case as to the Local Districts This court is, of course, the best judge of the meaning of its 1990 decision and the specific directives to the district court. 9 It is plausible, we respectfully submit, to construe this court's 1990 decision as not applying the provision for \"dismiss[al] [of this litigation] with prejudice as to the LRSD .\" and its agents. Several factors support this alternative argument. First. This court did not simply state that it approved the settlements. Rather, it cited the responsibility to insure their consistency, facially, with minimum constitutional standards (921 F.2d at 1383) and approved the agrements \"[i)n general\" and subject to \"certain other directions for the future of the case.\" See 921 F.2d at 1376. Second. This court directed the entry of an order dismissing the action agaiamst the State and its agents (921 F.2d at 1394); no similar action was required as to the local systems. 9 See Tasby v. Estes, 643 F.2d 1103, 1106 (5th Cir. 1981) (deference to district court on the standard of compliance established by its own order); Little Rock School District, supra, 921 F.2d at 1391-92 (construing earlier decision in this case). 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Third. This court's description (quoted above) of the district court's future role is hardly consistent with a dismissed case. In the light of five, detailed settlement documents, this court obviously foresaw an active role for the district court -- and, indeed, even required the creation of ODM to facilitate that effort. Fourth. This court may have viewed the key paragraph of the releases quoted above as containing contradictory concepts10 and opted for continuing jurisdiction as necessary to meet the minimum constitutionaal standards to which it alluded. 11 Fifth. This court may have construed the key paragraph of the releases - - by use of the words \"may retain jurisdiction ... \" -- to allow the courts to choose the retention of jurisdiction (i.e., a continued open status), if deemed necessary for the court to conclude that the settlement was lawful. See 921 F.2d at 1390.12 Lastly, we reiterate our point about this court's descrip~ion of the status of this case during a later appeal. See supra at 6. To be sure, our suggested approach may involve some tension with the directive that on remand the district court should \"approve the parties' settlement agreement as written by them.\" 10 That is, this case shall be dismissed, this case shall not be dismissed. 11 E.g., Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 299-301 (1955); Raney v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 443, 449 (1968). ~ \"As the parties agree, the settlement agreement implicitly authorizes the District Court to retain jurisdiction to oversee its implementation. See 14 App. 3466.\" 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 921 F.2d at 1394, para. (6.). 13 It sometimes happens that all of the content of an opinion resolving a complex matter does not fit neatly together. See St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 113 s.ct. 2742, 2752-53 (1993). If there is tension, or inconsistency, we respectfully suggest that ours is the best reading of the totality of the 1990 opinion. 14 Intervenors' alternative approach does not leave LRSD without the benefit of its bargain. Rather, the case continues to be deemed open, as realistically it is; 15 and LRSD and the other districts are free to argue that any particular matter (or claim) raised by the Joshua Intervenors is ouside the ambit of the ongoing litigation. That is, the case remains open; its nature is somewhat changed.\" 13 There is no such issue, if the agreement \"as written by [the parties]\" is construed by reason of the phrase \"may retain jurisdiction\" to allow the courts to choose a continuing open status rather than dismissal. 14 The decision in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 971 F.2d 160 (8th Cir. 1992), regarding the provision about millages (see LRSD Brief, at 7-9), is factually distinguishable. That issue did not involve an instance of either differing strands in this court's 1990 opinion approving the settlement, or a provision of the settlement open to multiple interpretations. 15 The docket excerpts included in the LRSD Appendix (at i to xv) include, for example, 155 entries from August 31, 1995 through April 30, 1996. 16 It is unclear to intervenors what the district judge meant by stating that \"the claims involved in this ongoing litigation were dismissed, at least as a technical matter.\" LRSD Add., at 8. The court, there, did not refer to dismissal of the litigation with prejudice. 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2. If the District Court, in Substance, Rejected A Belated Effort to Implement a Portion of the Settlement Agreement, That Action Was Not an Abuse of Discretion in View of the Evolution of the Case Since 1990 It may be, depending upon this court's interpretation of its 1990 ruling, that the district court's denial of the motion is accurately characterized as rejecting a part of the \"settlement agreement\" -- at least temporarily.n If so, that action was not an abuse of discretion given the facts of which the district court was aware when it ruled in 1996, and the non-final nature of its ruling. The Supreme Courts's emphasis on the role of district courts in desegregation cases began with Brown v. Board of Education. supra, 349 U.S. at 299-301. This theme was often repeated thereafter by the high court, which emphasized the need to rely upon the informed discretion of the district courts, the judicial bodies most familiar with the facts of each case.~. United States v. Montgomery County Board of Education, 395 U.S. 225, 227, 235-36 (1969) (noting that on at least one occasion the district court had \"on its own motion, amended his outstanding order ... \"); Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Educ., 402 u. S. 1, 28 (1971); Wright v. City Council of Emporia, 407 U.S. 451, 470-71 (1972). 18 n The district court wrote that dismissal \"should be deferred\"; the court declined to approve dismissal \"at this time.\" LRSD Add., at 9, 10. 18 In this case, this court has followed the Supreme Court's lead, emphasizing the need for reliance on the district court, as well as that court's discretion. See Little Rock School District. supra, 921 F.2d at 1394, para. (8.); Appeal of Little Rock School 15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Turning to the action giving rise to this segment of the appeal, the district court faced a motion seeking dismissal of this litigation in 1995 and 1996, at a point when it had been confronted with and commented upon LRSD's inadequate implementation of the settlement, also evidenced by the work of ODM. The situation, then, was different in a very significant sense from 1989-1990 when this court had considered the facial validity of the settlement. See 921 F.2d at 1383-84. The district court's ruling was based upon \"the facts\"; the court took \"appropriate [action] . to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement .. \"See "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1626","title":"Court filings: Court of Appeals, rulings on African American voters appeal the District Court' s order dismissing their claim under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, against LRSD, and the Joshua Intervenors appeal the District Court's August 10, 1994, order granting LRSD's motion to close Ish Incentive 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 Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit"],"dc_date":["1995-06-05"],"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--20th century","Little Rock School District","Pulaski County Special School District","Ish Elementary School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Education, Elementary","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School board members","School boards","School management and organization","School integration","School facilities"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: Court of Appeals, rulings on African American voters appeal the District Court' s order dismissing their claim under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, against LRSD, and the Joshua Intervenors appeal the District Court's August 10, 1994, order granting LRSD's motion to close Ish Incentive 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/1626"],"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":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["27 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT CONFIDENTIAL -- NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Nos. 93-3469EA, 93-3594EA No. 93-3469EA Little Rock School District, Plaintiff/Appellee, * * * * ** * * * ** Anne Mitchell; Bob Moore; Pat * Gee; Pat Rayburn; Mary J. * Gage; North Little Rock * Classroom Teachers Association; * Pulaski Association of * Classroom Teachers; Little Rock* Classroom Teachers Association; * Alexa Armstrong; Karlos * Armstrong; Ed Bullington; * Khayyam Davis; Janice Dent; * John Harrison; Alvin Hudson; * Tatia Hudson; and Milton * Jackson, * Appellants, * * * * Lorene Joshua; Leslie Joshua; * Stacy Joshua; and Wayne Joshua, * * Intervenors/Appellants, * * * Katherine Knight; Sara * Matthews; Becky McKinney; * Derrick Miles; Janice Miles; * John M. Miles; NAACP; Joyce * Person; Brian Taylor; Hilton * Taylor; Parsha Taylor; Robert * Willingham; and Tonya * Willingham, * * Intervenors, * JUN 1 5 1995 Office of Desegreg;,.tion Monitoring On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. * v. * * Pulaski County Special School * District, #1; North Little Rock* School District; Leon Barnes; * Sheryl Dunn; Mac Faulkner; * Richard A. Giddings; Marianne * Gosser; Don Hindman; Shirley * Lowery; Bob Lyon; George A. * Mccrary; Bob Moore; Steve * Morley; Buddy Raines; David * Sain; Dale Ward; John Ward; * Judy Wear; and Grainger * Williams, * Defendants, * * * * * Philip E. Kaplan; Janet * Pulliam; and John Bilheimer, * Movants, Office of Desegregation Monitor; Claimant, * * * * * * * * * * Parent's Plan; Horace A. * Walker; P.A. Hollingsworth; and* Kenneth G. Torrence, * Movants, * * * * Dale Charles; Robert L. * Brown, Sr.; Gwen Hevey Jackson; * Diane Davis; and Raymond * Frazier; * * Plaintiffs/Appellants, * Pulaski County Board of Education; Defendant/Appellee, * * * * * * * -2- O.G. Jacovelli, Individually * and as President of the Board * of Education of the Little * Rock School District; Patricia * Gee, Individually and in her * Official Capacity as a Member * of the Board of Education of * the Little Rock School * District, a Public Body; * Dr. George Cannon, Individually* and in his Official Capacity as* a Member of the Board of * Education of the Little Rock * School District, a Public Body; * John Moore, Individually and in* his Official Capacity as a * Member of the Board of * Education of the Little Rock * School District, a Public Body; * Dorsey Jackson, Individually * and in his Official Capacity as* a Member of the Board of * Education of the Little Rock * School District, a Public Body; * Dr. Katherine Mitchell, * Individually and in her * Official Capacity as a * Member of the Board of * Education of the Little Rock * School District, a Public Body; * W.D. Hamilton, Individually and* in his Official Capacity as a * Member of the Board of * Education of the Little Rock * School District, a Public Body; * Cecil Bailey, Individually and * in his Official Capacity as a * Member of the Pulaski County * Board of Education, a * Public Corporate; Thomas * Broughton, Individually and in * his Official Capacity as a * Member of the Pulaski County * Board of Education, a Public * Corporate; and Dr. Martin * Zoldessy, Individually and in * his Official Capacity as a * Member of the Pulaski County * Board of Education, a Public * Corporate, * Defendants. * * -3- No. 93-3594EA * * * * * * Little Rock School District, * Plaintiff/Appellee, * * * * Anne Mitchell; Bob Moore; Pat * Gee; Pat Rayburn; Mary J. Gage; * North Little Rock Classroom * Teachers Association; Pulaski * Association of Classroom * Teachers; Little Rock Classroom* Teachers Association; Alexa * Armstrong; Karlos Armstrong; * Ed Bullington; Khayyam Davis; * Janice Dent; John Harrison; * Alvin Hudson; Tatia Hudson; * and Milton Jackson, * * On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District Intervenors, * of Arkansas. * * Lorene Joshua; Leslie Joshua; * Stacy Joshua; and Wayne Joshua, * * Intervenors/Appellants, * * * Katherine Knight; Sara * Matthews; Becky McKinney; * Derrick Miles; Janice Miles; * John M. Miles; NAACP; Joyce * Person; Brian Taylor; Hilton * Taylor; Parsha Hilton; Robert * Willingham; and Tonya * Willingham, * Intervenors, v. * * * * * * Pulaski County Special School * District, #1; and North Little * Rock School District, * Defendants/Appellees, * * -4- * * Leon Barnes; Sheryl Dunn; Mac * Faulkner; Richard A. Giddings; * Marianne Gosser; Don Hindman; * Shirley Lowery; Bob Lyon; * George A. Mccrary; Bob Moore; * Steve Morley; Buddy Raines; * David Sain; Dale Ward; John * Ward; Judy Wear; and Grainger * Williams, * Defendants, * * * * * * Philip E. Kaplan; Janet * Pulliam; and John Bilheimer, * Movants, Office of Desegregation Monitor, Claimant, * * * * * * * * * * Parent's Plan; Horace A. * Walker; P.A. Hollingsworth; and* Kenneth G. Torrence, * Movants, * * * * Dale Charles; Robert L. * Brown, Sr.; Gwen Hevey Jackson; * Diane Davis; and Raymond * Frazier, * Plaintiffs, Pulaski County Board of Education, Defendant, * * * * * * * * * * O.G. Jacovelli, Individually * and as President of the Board * -5- of Education of the Little Rock* School District; Patricia Gee, * Individually and in her * Official Capacity as a Member * of the Board of Education of * the Little Rock School * District, a Public Body; * Dr. George Cannon, Individually* and in his Official Capacity * as a Member of the Board of * Education of the Little Rock * School District, a Public Body; * John Moore, Individually and * in his Official Capacity as * a Member of the Board of * Education of the Little Rock * School District, a Public Body; * Dorsey Jackson, Individually * and in his Official Capacity as* a Member of the Board of * Education of the Little Rock * School District, a Public Body; * Dr. Katherine Mitchell, * Individually and in her * Official Capacity as a Member * of the Board of Education of * the Little Rock School * District, a Public Body; * W.D. Hamilton, Individually and* in his Official Capacity as a * Member of the Board of * Education of the Little Rock * School District, a Public Body; * Cecil Bailey, Individually and * in his Official Capacity as a * Member of the Pulaski County * Board of Education, a Public * Corporate; Thomas Broughton, * Individually and in his * Official Capacity as a Member * of the Pulaski County Board of * Education, a Public Corporate; * and Dr. Martin Zoldessy, * Individually and in his * Official Capacity as a Member * of the Pulaski County Board of * Education, a Public Corporate, * * Defendants. * -6- Submitted: January 10, 1995 Filed: June 5, 1995 Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, HEANEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge. RICHARDS. ARNOLD, Chief Judge. Two appeals' involving the Little Rock School District (LRSD) are consolidated for our review. In the first case, AfricanAmerican voters2 appeal the District Court' s 3 order dismissing their claim under the Voting Rights Act of 1965,  2, as amended, 42 U.S.C.  1973, against LRSD. In the second case, the Joshua Intervenors appeal the District Court's August 10, 1994, order granting LRSD's motion to close Ish Incentive School. We affirm in both cases. I. We review first Charles's claim that the LRSD's election-zone plan adopted by the Pulaski County Board of Education (PCBE) and 1Initially, three appeals were consolidated. In the third case, the Joshua Intervenors appealed the District Court's order of September 27, 1994, rejecting the present site of Stephens School as a possible location of the new Stephens Interdistrict School. That appeal has been dismissed by agreement of the parties. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1., No. 93-3592 (8th Cir. Jan. 19, 1995) (per curiam). 2Plaintiffs Dale Charles, Robert L. Brown, Sr., Gwen Hervey Jackson, Diane Davis, and Raymond Frazier, are African-American residents of Little Rock who live within the Little Rock School District. We shall refer to these parties as \"Charles.\" 3The Hon. Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas. -7- - approved by the District Court violates the Voting Rights Act. He alleges that the approved plan denies African-American voters within the LRSD equal opportunity to participate in the electoral process and to elect representatives of their choice. More specifically, he insists that the plan dilutes the vote of AfricanAmerican residents of the LRSD because those residents are numerous and compact enough to justify the creation of three single-member zones in which they would be in the majority, 4 instead of the two zones provided for in the adopted plan. 5 In 1986, a plan was adopted containing seven single-member zones for election of members of the LRSD school board. Two of the zones were majority-minority zones. 6 In July of 1992, Charles filed this complaint alleging that the 1986 plan should be revised on the basis of the 1990 census. Four rezoning plans were prepared 4Charles proposes the following plan: Total Pop. Per cent. Minority Zone 1 23,704 64.70% African-American Zone 2 24,870 64.00% African-American Zone 3 24,230 5.30% African-American Zone 4 25,380 5.10% African-American Zone 5 23,839 8.70% African-American Zone 6 25,635 61. 70% African-American Zone 7 26,016 25.80% African-American 5Maps of the parties' plans are contained in an appendix to this opinion. 6The following plan was approved in 1986: Total Pop. Per cent. Minority Zone 1 25,399 81. 50% African-American Zone 2 25,295 68.90% African-American Zone 3 25,210 7.83% African-American Zone 4 24,844 2.96% African-American Zone 5 25,016 18.30% African-American Zone 6 25,107 17.30% African-American Zone 7 25,043 14.10% African-American -8- - and presented at a public meeting. The Pulaski County Board of Education (PCBE), the responsible body under Arkansas law, selected alternative four. 7 Under alternative four, Zone Two is a majorityminority zone, and Zone One is a supermajority zone (65% or more minority population). On February 16, 1993, PCBE submitted the plan to the District Court for approval. Charles filed objections alleging that the plan violated 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Following a trial, the District Court approved the plan adopted by the PCBE and dismissed Charles's complaint. The Charles plaintiffs bring this appeal. On several occasions we have reviewed challenges brought under the Voting Rights Act to Arkansas's electoral practices. On each of these occasions we have set forth the requirements for establishing a violation of  2 of the Voting Rights Act, and proceeded mindful of the fact that \"equal political opportunity [is] the focus of the enquiry.\" Johnson v. De Grandy, 114 S. Ct. 2647, 2658 (1994). We do so once again in this case. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended in 1982, provides: by (a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision 7The following plan the District Court: Total Pop. Zone 1 25,533 Zone 2 25,764 Zone 3 24,578 Zone 4 24,216 Zone 5 24,456 Zone 6 24,663 Zone 7 24,464 was selected by the PCBE and later approved Per cent. 79.82% 59.39% 4.52% 5.12% 19.14% 35.55% 28.45% -9- Minority African-American African-American African-American African-American African-American African-American African-American in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 1973b(f) (2) of this title, as provided in subsection (b) of this section. (b) A violation of subsection (a) of this section is established if, based on the totality of the circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) of this section in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office in the State or political subdivision is one circumstance which may be considered: Provided, That nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population. 42 U.S.C.  1973. The leading case interpreting the statute is Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986). In Gingles, the Supreme Court identified three necessary preconditions which must be established to maintain an action under  2: ( 1) the minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in one or more single-member districts; (2) the minority group is politically cohesive; and (3) the majority votes sufficiently as a block to enable it usually to defeat the minority's preferred candidate. Id. at 50-51. Once the plaintiff has established the three preconditions, a court must look to \"the totality of the circumstances\" to determine whether minority voters have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. Seven additional factors should be considered at this stage of the case: 1. the extent of any history of official discrimination in the state or political subdivision that touched the -10- right of the members of the minority group to register, to vote, or otherwise to participate in the democratic process; 2. the extent to which voting in the elections of the state or political subdivision is racially polarized; 3. the extent to which the state or political subdivision has used unusually large election districts, majority vote requirements, anti-single shot provisions, or other voting practices or procedures that may enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the minority group; 4. if there is a candidate slating process, whether the members of the minority group have been denied access to that process; 5. the extent to which members of the minority group in the state or political subdivision bear the effects of discrimination in such areas as education, employment and health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process; 6. whether political campaigns have been characterized by overt or subtle racial appeals; 7. the extent to which members of the minority group have been elected to public office in the jurisdiction. S. Rep. No. 417, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 30 (1982), reprinted in 1982 U.S. Code Cong. and Admin. News 177, 206-07. Additional factors that in some cases have had probative value as a part of the plaintiffs' evidence are: 1. whether there is a significant lack of responsiveness on the part of elected officials to the particularized needs of the members of the minority group; 2. whether the policy underlying the state or political subdivision's use of such voting qualification, prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice or procedure is tenuous. Ibid. This list is not comprehensive or exclusive. Gingles, 478 -11- U.S. at 45. The District Court began by holding that the relevant comparison is between the plan adopted by the PCBE and the 1986 plan, the one in effect right before the adoption of the challenged plan. With respect, we think this was not the correct standard. The statute asks whether minority voters have less political opportunity than other voters. The inquiry is whether minority opportunity is less under the challenged plan than what it would be under some other arrangement, one that would comply with  2. Under the District Court's approach, plaintiffs could never prevail unless the plan in suit was less favorable to them than whatever plan preceded it. They would have to prove 11 retrogression. 11 A majority of the Supreme Court has rejected that theory. 11Retrogression is not the inquiry in 2 dilution cases. 11 Holder v. Hall, 114 s. Ct. 2581, 2587 (1994) (opinion of Kennedy, J., joined by Rehnquist, C.J.); id. at 2589 (O'Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment) (the comparison must be with 11an objectively reasonable alternative practice as a benchmark  11 ); id. at 2622 (Blackmun, J., dissenting, joined by Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ.) ( 11minority voters' potential 'in the absence of' the allegedly dilutive mechanism must be measured against the benchmark of an alternative structure or practice that is reasonable and workable under the facts of the specific case.\") (footnote omitted); accord, Jeffers v~ Tucker, 847 F. Supp. 655, 658 (E.D. Ark. 1994) (three-judge court). In the present case, the best approach is to treat the plan proposed by the plaintiffs as a prima facie reasonable alternative for purposes of this case. We shall use this approach as a sort of working hypothesis. This is the framework used in Jeffers v. Tucker, supra. It makes sense because the plaintiffs' plan is a way of making concrete their contention that the Gingles preconditions are met. Their plan shows, for example, in their - view at least, that it is possible to create one more reasonably -12- compact and contiguous district in which African-Americans will have a majority. Two more preliminary points are in order. First, Charles claims that 2 requires the LRSD to maximize African-American representation. A similar claim was considered and rejected in Jeffers v. Tucker, supra. In the context of a challenge to state legislative districts in the same county where LRSD is located, the Jeffers v. Tucker Court concluded that 2 did not require maximization of minority-group representation. See Jeffers, 84 7 F. Supp. at 657. 8 After Jeffers v. Tucker was decided, the Supreme Court spoke dispositively to this issue: \"Failure to maximize cannot be the measure of 2. 11 De Grandy, 114 S. Ct. at 2660 (1994). Just as we reject Charles's maximization claim, we must also reject LRSD's claim that proportional representation precludes a finding of vote dilution under  2. In De Grandy, supra, the Supreme Court considered the state of Florida's argument that \"no dilution occurs whenever the percentage of single-member districts in which minority voters form an effective majority mirrors the minority voters' percentage of the relevant population.\" Ibid. In rejecting this argument, the Court stated: \"Proportionality. would thus be a safe harbor for any districting scheme. The safety would be in derogation of the statutory text and its considered 8The Court said: \"The Voting Rights Act does not require, invariably and in every instance, that districts be drawn so as to maximize minority political power. Such a result would be akin to a requirement of proportional representation, which the Voting Rights Act itself rejects.\" Jeffers, 847 F. Supp. at 657, quoting West v. Clinton, 786 F. Supp. 803, 806 (W.D. Ark. 1992) (three-judge court). -13- purpose, however, and of the ideal that the Voting Rights Act attempts to foster.\" Ibid. Consequently, even if the LRSD can show proportional representation, the inquiry must not end there, but must encompass all factors relevant to the plaintiffs' claim. We assume for purposes of this appeal the three Gingles preconditions: that numerous and geographically compact to that plaintiffs have met they are sufficiently form a third majority- African-American district; 9 that voting in LRSD is racially polarized; and that white voters usually vote in sufficient numbers to defeat candidates preferred by African-Americans. See De Grandy, supra, 114 S. Ct. at 2656 (assuming without deciding that first condition has been satisfied). We proceed directly to analyze \"the totality of the circumstances,\" including the three Gingles preconditions, the \"Senate factors,\" and other relevant facts. We turn first to the first two Senate factors, the ones said to be most important in Gingles, supra, 478 U.S. at 48-49 n.15. First, African-American candidates have enjoyed a reasonably good measure of success in Little Rock elections in general. The record contains evidence of two LRSD elections, one at large (conducted before state law was changed to require zone elections in districts of a certain size) and one in a zone. In both elections an African-American candidate defeated a white candidate. 10 The 9In describing the racial makeup of the various actual and proposed election zones, the District Court and the parties have used total population figures. We think voting-age population is a better criterion, but we must deal with the case as the parties present it. Cf. De Grandy, 114 S. Ct. at 2655-56 (accepting arguendo voting-age-population statistics, despite a contention that at least half of the Hispanic voting-age residents of the region are non-citizens ineligible to vote). 10LRSD has moved to supplement the record to show the results of recent school elections. Plaintiffs oppose the motion. Because we are holding for defendants on the basis of the record as it now exists, this motion is denied as moot. -14- - District Court also considered 33 \"exogenous\" elections -- races in Little Rock but not for the school board. African-American candidates won most of these races. Many of these victories can be explained by special circumstances, however (for example, an African-American running as an incumbent, or running in a plurality race against several white candidates). The second Senate factor, racially polarized voting, is without doubt present to a degree, as plaintiffs' statistical proof has shown. There is a .high correlation between the number of voters in a precinct and the number of votes cast for African-American candidates. On the other hand, there has been some decisive cross-over voting of whites for African-American candidates. See, g__,__g_,_, Jeffers v. Clinton, 730 F. Supp. 196, 216 (E.D. Ark. 1989) (three-judge court), aff'd mem., 498 U.S. 1019 (1991) (subsequent history omitted). We discuss briefly the other factors. Certainly there is a history of official discrimination in Arkansas, though its present effects are less pronounced in Pulaski County than in some other parts of the State. There are no discriminatory voting practices now in use in the LRSD. There is a majority-vote requirement, but in elections by zone this practice actually works to the advantage of African-American voters in zones where they have a majority. We do not think that the majority-vote requirement cuts strongly either way in this case. The socioeconomic status of AfricanAmericans is lower than that of whites in the LRSD, and this condition is partly due to the effects of past racial discrimination. This factor cuts in favor of Charles, though, again, not so strongly as it would in the Delta region. The remaining factor - unresponsiveness to the concerns of minority citizens - has not been proved. The evidence on this subject is equivocal at best. On the whole, we think these factors, when considered on the assumption that the three preconditions have been met, do not make - a strong enough case in Charles's favor. The judgment we have to -15- make is necessarily imprecise. It is even, in some sense and to some degree, subjective. But our experience with these cases, especially Jeffers v. Tucker, supra, holding that  2 does not require the creation of an additional majority-African-American State Senate district in Pulaski County, leads us to conclude that a violation of law has not been proved here. We find two aspects of the case especially persuasive. First, although the plaintiffs' proposed zone boundaries are nowhere nearly so bizarre as the ones held presumptively unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Shaw, they are markedly less regular and compact than those in LRSD's adopted plan. And second, African-Americans have consistently achieved proportional representation on the LRSD board. Since 1983, they have continuously held two out of seven seats (28.6%). They make up 29% of LRSD's voting-age population. This fact, while by no means an absolute defense, has recently been given special importance by the Supreme Court. See De Grandy, supra. Nor are we persuaded that this state of affairs is likely to change in the foreseeable future. On balance, we agree with the District Court that plaintiffs have not proved a violation of 2 of the Voting Rights Act. II. Our second case involves the desegregation of Pulaski County schools. The Joshua Intervenors, representatives of the AfricanAmerican students in Pulaski County, challenge the closing of Ish Incentive School. They maintain that it was an abuse of discretion for the District Court to close Ish without a hearing; that the closing of Ish is precluded by the settlement agreement; and that the Little Rock School District (LRSD} should be estopped to close Ish because it has failed to satisfy the settlement agreement's recruitment requirements. below. Each of these arguments is considered -16- A. In 1989, the parties to the desegregation case -- the LRSD, the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) , the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD), and the Joshua Intervenors, along with the McKnight Intervenors -- entered into a settlement agreement. The agreement was approved by this Court in 1990. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) (subsequent history omitted) . This agreement put in place the framework for a concerted effort to end racial segregation in Pulaski County schools. The District Court has the onerous task of exercising jurisdiction over the implementation of the settlement agreement. Under the agreement, four desegregation plans, one for each school district and an Interdistrict Plan, were formed. The LRSD and Interdistrict plans are the focus of this case. Under the LRSD Plan, the district was to establish eight incentive schools. These incentive schools would initially be all or virtually all AfricanAmerican, with future projections of 50 to 62 per cent. AfricanAmerican. The incentive schools would sponsor special compensatory-education programs and receive twice as much money per pupil as other elementary schools. Attendance at an incentive school would be open to African-American students living within the particular school's attendance zone. In the Interdistrict Plan, provisions were made for the establishment of six interdistrict magnet schools in addition to the six interdistrict schools in existence when the plan was approved. These interdistrict schools were to emphasize distinct educational themes. African-American students from the LRSD and white students from the PCSSD were expected to attend the interdistrict schools. Preparations are now under way for the building of King -17- - Interdistrict School. King's future location was designated in the Interdistrict Plan to be \"in downtown Little Rock . in the general area along I-630 between I-JO and University Avenue.\" LRSD Plan, at 139. The District Court approved the specific site for King on March 17, 1992. Leonard Thalmueller was hired to design King's attendance zone. Dr. Thalmueller prepared three plans for review by the Office of Desegregation, which presented the plans to the LRSD. In the plan adopted by LRSD, the King attendance zones included Ish Incentive School's attendance zones. On May 5, 1993, LRSD moved for approval of King's attendance zones. Over the Joshua Intervenors' objections, the District Court gave conditional approval to the King attendance zones on June 11, 1993. The District Court's approval was conditioned on Ish's remaining open unless the LRSD established that fewer than 100 students wanted to attend Ish during the 1993-94 academic year. During the 1992-93 academic year, 229 students lived in Ish's attendance zones. Ish had an enrollment of 183 students. Ninetythree were from within the Ish attendance zone, while the other 90 resided outside its attendance zone. The conditional approval required that LRSD survey students within the Ish attendance zone, including those not attending Ish currently, and all students attending Ish, including students from outside the Ish attendance zone. On June 11, 1993, the District Court entered an order requiring LRSD to submit the proposed survey, along with a plan for executing the survey and implementing the survey results, within ten days. The court gave Joshua five days to file responses and objections to the proposed survey and plan. No objections were filed. In compliance with the District Court's order, LRSD filed its proposed survey and its plan for implementing the survey on June 21, 1993. The district proposed sending form letters, King and Ish fact sheets, and a School Selection Form to parents of potential students. Accordingly, the District Court approved the -18- - survey and implementation plan on June 30, 1993. The survey was then conducted. LRSD mailed 260 survey forms, and 173 of the forms were returned. Of the 173 forms returned, 82 students requested Ish. Based on the survey results, LRSD moved the District Court to close Ish. Joshua filed a response to the motion to close Ish expressing opposition, challenging the survey process, and requesting a hearing. On August 2, 1993, the Court denied Joshua's objections as untimely, and granted LRSD's motion to close Ish. B. First, we address Joshua's claim that remand for a hearing is required. While we recognize the possible validity of some of the objections raised by Joshua, we cannot say that the District Court acted arbitrarily by refusing to hold a hearing. In its order dated June 11, 1993, the Court specifically requested that objections to the survey be submitted within five days after LRSD filed the proposed survey and implementation plan. LRSD's proposed survey and plan were filed on June 21, 1993. Joshua made no objections to the survey format or the implementation plan until the survey was completed, more than a month later. Most of the objections Joshua makes now could have been made prior to the survey. It was important for the matter to be decided quickly. The District Court's decision to expedite its ruling concerning Ish's future by providing a timeline for pleadings was not arbitrary. The Court did not abuse its discretion. C. Turning to the heart of this appeal, we now consider the substance of the decision to modify the settlement agreement and approve the closing of Ish Incentive School. The District Court gave two reasons for its decision. First, the survey results -19- - indicated that fewer than 100 students wanted to attend Ish during the 1993-94 academic year. Second, the District Court cited the opening of King Interdistrict School as a desegregated alternative to Ish. A party seeking modification of a consent decree \"must establish that a significant change in facts or law warrants revision of the decree.\" Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 393 (1992). If the moving party meets this burden, the District Court must then determine \"whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstance.\" Id. at 391. The modification \"must not create or perpetuate a constitutional violation,\" nor \"strive to rewrite a consent decree so that it conforms to the constitutional floor.\" Ibid. In this case, Joshua insists that the settlement agreement requires that the district maintain incentive schools and provide double funding for them. Closing Ish, she maintains, is in direct conflict with the settlement agreement. In addition, she asserts that the reasons espoused by the Court for closing Ish do not provide a proper basis for a major modification of the settlement agreement. But nothing in the settlement agreement requires the district to maintain a particular incentive school for an indefinite period of time. What the agreement requires is that the district maintain a number of .incentive schools \"sufficient to accommodate that number of black students who, by attending those schools, make it possible to achieve a student population in the remaining Little Rock Schools of 55 percent black and 45 percent white with a variance of 5 percent.\" Interdistrict Plan, April 29, 1992, at 4. At the outset the parties contemplated that \"[a]s new Interdistrict Schools are established those seats attributable to LRSD will be available for those students who otherwise would or could have been assigned to an incentive school.\" Ibid. -20- Se "},{"id":"geh_p17222coll18_576","title":"Charles Guptil interview with Warren Kirbo, “Homer Thigpen,” and Randy Walls (part one)","collection_id":"geh_p17222coll18","collection_title":"John Burrison Georgia Folklore Archives Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["Canada, Alberta, 52.28333, -117.469","United States, Connecticut, New Haven County, New Haven, 41.30815, -72.92816","United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","United States, Georgia, Hall County, Gainesville, 34.29788, -83.82407","United States, Georgia, Lumpkin County, Dahlonega, 34.53259, -83.98491","United States, Georgia, Mitchell County, Camilla, 31.23129, -84.21046","United States, South Carolina, Beaufort County, Hilton Head, 32.21632, -80.75261","United States, South Carolina, York County, Rock Hill, 34.92487, -81.02508"],"dcterms_creator":["Guptil, Charles","Kirbo, Warren, 1946-","Anonymous","Walls, Randy, 1949-"],"dc_date":["1974","2023"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["Atlanta, Ga. : Kenan Research Center, Atlanta History Center"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-RUU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["John Burrison Georgia Folklore Archives recordings"],"dcterms_subject":["Discrimination against people with disabilities","Civil rights--Georgia","Police--Georgia","Death","Discrimination--Georgia","Ghost stories, American","Horror tales","African Americans--Violence against--Georgia","Georgia--Race relations","Racism--Georgia","Racism in language--Georgia","Racism in law enforcement--Georgia","Police brutality--Georgia","Stereotypes--Georgia","Storytelling--Georgia","American wit and humor","Sex--Humor","Joking","Humorous stories, American","World War, 1939-1945--Draft resisters","Race relations--Humor"],"dcterms_title":["Charles Guptil interview with Warren Kirbo, “Homer Thigpen,” and Randy Walls (part one)"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["Atlanta History Center"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://album.atlantahistorycenter.com/cdm/ref/collection/p17222coll18/id/576"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["This Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. However, for this Item, either (a) no rights-holder(s) have been identified or (b) one or more rights-holder(s) have been identified but none have been located. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. https://rightsstatements.org/page/InC-RUU/1.0/?language=en"],"dcterms_medium":["audiocassettes"],"dcterms_extent":["1:01:58 hours"],"dlg_subject_personal":["King, Coretta Scott, 1927-2006","Abernathy, Ralph, 1926-1990","Nixon, Richard M. (Richard Milhous), 1913-1994","Maddox, Lester, 1915-2003","King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","Keller, Helen, 1880-1968"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\nThe John Burrison Georgia Folklore Archive recordings contains unedited versions of all interviews. Some material may contain descriptions of violence, offensive language, or negative stereotypes reflecting the culture or language of a particular period or place. There are instances of racist language and description, particularly in regards to African Americans. These items are presented as part of the historical record. This project is a repository for the stories, accounts, and memories of those who chose to share their experiences for educational purposes. The viewpoints expressed in this project do not necessarily represent the viewpoints of the Atlanta History Center or any of its officers, agents, employees, or volunteers. The Atlanta History Center makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of any information contained in the interviews and expressly disclaims any liability therefore. If you believe you are the copyright holder of any of the content published in this collection and do not want it publicly available, please contact the Kenan Research Center at the Atlanta History Center at 404-814-4040 or reference@atlantahistorycenter.com.  Please note that this audio contains explicit content. This is the first of a two part recording; this part begins with Warren Kirbo telling a series of explicit jokes about male birth control and Polish immigrants committing sexual assault. Then he shares a version of a Hook Man story in which a man stalks college students. At 2:40 an unidentified woman (possibly Penelope Guptil) tells another version of the Hook Man story. She then relates a story about a serial killer known as the Grey Man who operated in New Haven, Connecticut, one about a girl who gets a spider stuck in her hair, then two about the murder of female college students in Rock Hill, South Carolina. At 6:04 Kirbo tells stories about how police responded to Civil Rights protests in his hometown of Camillia, Georgia. First he remembers when Reverend Ralph Abernathy (1926-1990) and 200 African Americans were arrested and held in the jail. While they were being held, Coretta King (1927-2006) visited to investigate the jail conditions. At 10:05 he tells stories about Sheriff Leroy Johnson who had a reputation for brutality against African Americans. In one story two Black men caused a disturbance at a barbeque, and in response Johnson shot one of the men in the head. In the second story Sheriff Johnson intimidates State troopers trying to arrest his son. At 16:00, the unidentified woman tells a ghost story about the Blue Lady who haunts Hilton Head Island in South Carolina. Then at 18:27, Kirbo continues telling stories about police officers in South Georgia, followed by reminiscences about his Grandfather Robert Lee Hall Sr. (1866-1933), and how he amassed his fortune. At 28:00 he switches topics and relates incidents of sexual injuries involving couples at the Lake Lanier Drive-in theater Gainesville, Georgia. At 29:51 the unidentified woman describes when a bear attacked a family in Alberta, Canada. At 31:09 Kirbo continues his interview with stories about World War II draft dodgers being apprehended in Dahlonega, Georgia. He then tells a joke about an alcoholic man and the extreme lengths his doctor goes to stop his drinking. Next, he tells a joke about how a man deferred serving in World War II. At 38:00 Homer Thigpen tells jokes, many of which are explicit, racist, or sexual and rely heavily on negative stereotypes. The jokes are about Polish immigrants, President Nixon (1913-1994), aliens eating Black people, and Governor Lester Maddox (1915-2003). Thigpen then tells a series of racist jokes about Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968) being a highway director in Alabama, an African American mans suicide where he was shot forty-five times, and a police officer mistaking a pig for a Black man. At 52:41 the unidentified woman shares a joke about Helen Kellers (1880-1968) disability and then one about a woman who smokes. Then Thigpen tells additional racist jokes involving Polish people.  Homer Thigpen (1946-) is a pseudonym. Warren Lee Kirbo (1946-2010) was born in Camilla, Georgia, and in 1965 his family moved to Dahlonega. He graduated from North Georgia College and then earned a Masters of Science in Physics at Georgia State University. Afterward he completed a tour in the United States Army and worked at Telescan of Southwest Georgia. In 1973, he married Penelope Barbara Guptil (1951- ), then in 1984 moved to Nashville Tennessee. He died in Mount Juliet Tennessee. James Randall Walls (1949-2015) was born in Dadeville, Alabama. In 1967, he moved to Auburn, Alabama where he attended Auburn University. Afterward he worked as an United Parcel Service driver, and in 1986 he moved to Conley, Georgia. He died in McDonough, Georgia.  \\ ' I \\ .'', ,, '' \\ URBAN FOLKIDRE Subndtted by Charles A. Guptil Folk JOl Juno J, 1974 T/\\BLR OF COl-!TLNTS NIXON t S WllrI'gHOUSE LAWN., .. ,  ., o  .,  \" ......  .. ,\" ........  ... \".,  .,  ,.  ,.  .,J THE PENIS THAT GRE,'W.\"  0  \". \" ........... \"  II II  \"'  0 0  0 ....... 4 LESTE.'R MADDOX'S AlLHE'NT .......... ,.  ...............................  ... 4 MARTIN LUTHER KING AS HIGHWAY DlRECTOR, .... , ......... , .... .,., .... ,  5 SUICIDE .... ., ....... .,  \"  ,  ,  , .. \". o o  ,... $., ... \"  ,.\"  ,  ,5 OINK. JA.CKSON O II O\" t, 0 0 0 0 0 {I O O O O f O e O  .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0\" 0 0 0  0 0 0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0 0 \u0026lt;\u0026gt; 0 0 0 0 0  O -~ THR CONTRS1' BETWEJoN THF; BLACK BOY AND 1'HE WIIITE JOY., , , , , , , , ,  , , , , ,   , ,6 WHY POLISH DOGS HAVg FLA.'r FACES  o ............... .,.,.,,.., .. ,,  ~,o\"oo8 '.r\\-JQ POLOCKS DRIVIt{G TO ElAMioe,i,o,aG\u0026lt;1o\u0026amp;toooooeo4110000\u0026amp;\u0026lt;1011tooe\u0026amp;ooo,oe8 THE TlVO PO LOCKS AND THE: Cl1J'.EL,,  ., ,,  \u0026lt;II  ,, ... o  o o \" .. o  ,. t ,,    \"     8 THE TRAGIC LOVE AFFAIR ........ o ............. .,  o .... 11 ...... , .. o ... .,  o . 11  6 .lO I IN'l'RODlJCTION For my i' ,:i.tial attempts to collect folktales, I doci.ded to try Mansfield, a ver,y small town not far from Covington, Georgia, in Newton County. I chose this area mainly because it was the only rural region with which I was familiar, havin\u0026amp; spent, weekends on a farm belonging to a friend down there, My first steps looked very rewarding. I sought out Reverend Drown, pastor of the Firn-t, Methodist Church in Mansfield, rmd asked him if there was anyone i,,. Ljs congregation who was noted in telling old stories, Immediately, he named Wilber Jones and Ulster Smith, his wife drawl.ng out d:lrect:i ons t,o thel.r homes, flt randon, I picked Wilber Jones, first, and drove along dl.rt roads to his :t'a:rm, where I met Wilbers wife, who told me that her husband wns out fi.shing, She gave me d1rections, but as I proceeded through several pasb1res to Wilber' s f'avori te .fishing hole, I met him coming the other way, After mutual introductions, we returned to his house, where he began relating stories about the pre=Ci vil War days. 'l'his was not exactly what 1 had in rnind, and af'ter oonveyto,; t,o him what I needed, he recorded two tall tales. Soon, however, he became inhlbJted by his wife who made several derogatory rnrnarks about his bad habit of telli.ng wild atories. All efforts t,o rnH:ourage him t,o relate more tales were futile, so 1 then departed for Ulster Smith's home, But he flatly stated upon rny arrival that he knew nothing about storytelli.ng, and I returned to Atlanta, l 2' Not yot discouraged, I visited neighborj_ng Walton Count,y the following weektmd, and met oighty-yea.1.,old Mrs, Spinks, who was recommended to me by a real-estate agent wot'ldng ln that vicinUy, After suffering through two hours of lfalton County history and geneology reports, I politel.,y ec:,:i1~,1d myself, and called it another weekend, Time was becondng a facto'r for me, Working in add!Uon to attending school, I just couldn I t afford anymcire fruitless exped:i.tions around the countr,Yside. Finally, it davwr,cl Oil r11e t,o tr,Y nw own bacl,yard, t,he warehouse; of 3ears, Roebuck 18,, Co, whore I work, JoketelUne espf,cially is abundrint there, but many o.f my co-workers were relucta,1t to invite me to 1;hoh homes for a reeordl nr; ne,rnion, l eventually, however, recorded Randy Walls, a United Parcel :Jerv:Lce driver living 1.n l',ableton, Georgia, who ge.ve me some interesting legends concerning his orlglnal, rural hometown :i.n Alabama. Again, 1 t,rrpod \\farren Kirbo, residine on Dellwood Drive :i.n Atlanta, who also had son1\u0026lt;1 f'ino stories about hi:, J,n,,,otown, Camilla, Georgia, but Tom Fulton, who,rn sped.ult,ies include d:1rty und ethni.c jokes, held t,he best repertoire by fr,r-, Torn, who insisted on being referred t,o us Homer 'I'h:tgpen on the tapes, w\\1,hes t.o rcmaJn rmon,ymous. lie, 1:i.vc,s with his wli'e--no children---on rnspected famil;r, who, in pre-Glvll. War days, owned exterwivo lnndhold- Stetson Universit,y whore h0 )111i;jo.rnd .1 n Pol:1.tl cal. Sclence, and holds a l-',ast.er Is Degree in History from Georg:la State Unl versi.ty. lfe is now employed in a real-estate f:i.rm in llenat,ur, and, in addibion, is pm,rning a hau tor s Degree in Business Adt,rlll'l.stration at Georgin. :,tnte \\Jn:i.verslt,y. 'rhrough his business assoolat.r,,, 1n1.marily, Tom has acquired quite a 3J collection of jokes which he never hesit,ates to retell, especially at parties and other various soe:i.al gatheri.ngs, Here are just a few samples. NIXON IS 1'1HITEHOUSE LAWN One o.f my favorite jokes is--ah--our great asshole President,--ah-what 's his name? Oh, yes! 1'Uxass--er--(laught,er, )--Nixon, and--a.h--he looked out--a.h--of the Whitehouse window one day, and--(sniff)--sees all these obsenities on t,he Whitehouse lawn which has just, ps.st through a recent, snowstorm. And all these obsen:ities are written in urine on the snow. So Nbron, being as quick-witted as he is, takes--(laughter )-takes thirty minutes to call the FBI, And he says, 111 want you to find out who--(sniff)--pissed on my Whitehouse lawn out there. Call me baok as soon as possible,--(snl.ff) Well, t,he FBI, as quick as they are, they call back and they say, \"Well, Nr. Nixon, we I ve--ah--detnrrnined--ah--( sniff )--who--a.h--pissed on your Whi.tehouse lawn, an\u0026lt;l--ah--we 've got some good news and some bad news for ya. 11 And he says, \"Well, I don't see how anything could be good news and bad news. I want t,o know who pissed out on my vJhitehouso lawn.\" And he says, \"Well, it wa.s yo'ir right-hand man, }lr, President, Henry Kisslr1r,er. \"' And he says, \"Shit! I c,an 1t stand that,\\11 And so, \"Well, that's t.he good news, Mr. President. We 1ve did a-we did a ha,,dwritlng analysis after we did the urinanaly.sis to d~scover it was Henry Kissinger, and the handwriting analysis turned up to find out that it was your wife, Pat,.11 ' 4 NIXON AND THE MARTIANS Nixon called a press conference--t,hi, another joke about Asshole-and he said he had some good news and some bad news. I guess this will appeal to racial people. But he said, \"The bad news :is the fact that tha Martians are going to take over the world because of our weakened condition from the energy crisis, but the good news is they piss gasoline and eat nig1,ers. ,, THE PENIS THAT GREW Oh, you wnnt to hear a medical joke, rlghU A guy went, to the doctor's for his yearly checkup, and--ah--the doctor--ah--examined him, and told him to wait in the waittn1 room. And the guy was waitin1 in the waitin1 room, and the doctor said,--ah--\"'I've got some good news and some bad newn f'or ya,11 And the guy says, \"Well, what!s the good news, 11 The doctor says, \"Well, your penis has grown nine j_nches tl',is year , 11 And the guy says, \"My God, that's great!'\" An' the doctor says, 11Well1 the bad news is its malignant,11--(snif.'f) LESTER :MADOOX IS AJ Ll1J11'1T Another good variatton on that is--ah--t'iaddox, Lester Maddox, our f.'avorite gov 1oor had t.o go to the hospital, and--(pause)--he had to go to the hospital.--Yes, I was tryin1 : Homer was tryin 1 to remember the jokes/ --And--ah--doctor told him he had sorne good news and some bad nows, And Lester said, \"Well, what Is the good news 111 ' And the doctor says, 11You gonna dio in three months,\" And Lest.er says, 11Heyt That ain't good news!\" And the doctor says, \"Yes it is. You're gonna die of sickle cell anemia.11--(laughter) Homer: Can I tell some racial ,jo,~~s from way back there? Collector: Year!l Yeat Fine! MARTIN LUTHER KING AS HIGHWAY DIRECTOR You know what--ah--you know Bartin Luther King wan nominated to be the Highway Director of Alaba.ma? He was the only man that could blacktop three miles of roo.d to Selma in three days--twenty m:Ues to Selma in three days, SUICIDE Didya hear about the--hear about the nigger they found on the banks of the Mississippi with about forty.;f:ive bulletholes in 1im, and the sheriff said that wa.s the worst case of S\\licide he'd ever seen'I\"' OINK JACKSON Ba.ck to my Oink Jackson joke. Oh, yea1 Well, there was those two niggers ridin' down thls toad in this small, southern town, an' they see a pig rurmin' loose 1.n a farmer's frontyard; An I they--ah--an 1--ah--they decided to st_eal the pig, So they hooked the pig, put 'im in the car with it, and they were dappin1 , and ,jivln1 , an' drlvln' do1-m the road, An' they don't know it, but the town Is ba.'ik' s been robbed ahout tmY minutes before, an I they come around the corner, an' t,hc;re's a big roadblock there wUh all these state troopers out there, An I t,he niggero clidn I t know what to do, an I they ftgured that the only course of action where they could posn1bly escHpe 6 about stealin I the pig was to disguisca h:lm. So t,hey put a hat an I coat on the pig and put 'im in tho front seat between 'em, So they pulled up to the roadblock, an' a big, burly state trooper looked in there, an he said, \"What yo name, boy?\" An 1 t,he first nigger, he says, \"My name is Viike Jackson,\" An he looked at tho othor n:i.gg,-,r, an' he says, \"Wh,,t's yo name, boy?11 An 1 he says, 11My name is Robert Jacksoi1~u An 1 he looked at the pig, an' he says, 11What 1s yo name, boy?\" Simultaneously, one of the niggc,rs nudged the pie: h, the ribs, ''\"' the pig went,, 110i nk 1111 So the patrolman stuck his head back out the window, an I he says, \"Well, I know you three bo,vs didn't rob that bank, For mm1ber one, y'all too stupi.d, Y'all Just drive on through here.11 So t,Le nie;gers were just ecst,atic, an I they drove on through jus 1 happy as hell. An' the trooper turned around to his buddy, an I said, 11You know those three niggers didn 1t rob that ba,ik, but that Oink Jackson is tho ugliest black bastard I've ever seen in my life, 11 ' THE CON'rr,:sT flls1'vrnEN THI\u0026gt;; BLACK BOY .Alm TJI!~ wrrrn; BOY Well, l got to tell this joke! Thero was this colored boy and this white boy that ~~ew up -~ogether and they were the best of friends, And they rerna'i.ned Just Hbout li.ko brothers, but it, alwF1.ys seemed like the wh:l.tc lio;y could nlways beat the colored boy nt somet,hi n I l For 1.nstance, like when they were i.n lli.gh school, they were both h the bnck:l'ielcl cm the .f.'ootbnll t~am, but the white boy a.lways score.rJ wore, to,:chdownri then tho n:i.;,r;er, nnd the san:e '/ t,hing on hasketbaJ.l court or tho bns0ball fi old, a,,d tho whites bo,y wou1cl alwnys make A I s and tho eolorod fella I d 1nnko Tl I s. But because they were close friends probably what held thom together w1w the co,,,petHJ.vo spirit, between the black boy nnd tho wh.i.tc bo,,. And the)' won~ to coll.ego together, and thoy wnre roorrirnnt.es a.nd the sarno thine huppc,m.ed 9 An I the white f',UY st:l 11 1 hend of Lhc color eel gu;y. So they were such good f:r:iendH, they met two girls tho\", wanted to fllln'r,r ' 1bout the sa(II, tilne, decided to hr-:.ve heat n dol .. blo weckUr:' ~ hn' no, :if thc,c was one thing the nigger could \\.I.!.-' \\}1}:'. the/\\.110~1 Ht 't'nis sc-rPH1 n,1 e it, wh:ieh kinda surprtsed tho n:i.1mer, but he so.id, 111\\lr:i.ght,,11 So the white boy an 1 --an I the nigger had to fl.,~ure out how they could compete jn th,i!$ contest, without lott:ln~ their newly .found wives reeJ.ize what, wus goin I on\u0026lt;\u0026gt; So, the onl,v- way they could decide how to do it wao the fact that evor'yt,:ime they--ah--rnacle love to their wives, they would make a mark on the 111irrcr .for each time thry made love. An I then the next mornin 1 , tlioy would just simply have to loc)k nround the oornc;r an' look on the bBdroom mirror, So the white boy went :i.n o.nd made love to his wife and got up and put a mark on the mirror, went baek to bed, He got it up, again, an' made love to her the second time, an' he w2s just about. exhausted. An' ho was finally able to struggle, up to do it a third time, an he jus 1 made one little, sma.11, third, straight mar,, down the mirror ther\u0026lt;i, an' fell back in bed an passed out,--(cough)--So the next rnornin', they were both ecstatic, and met in the hallway outside the hotel room, H.n1 tho nlgger, jus 1 sr,Jlin1 like shit, nn 1 he known he 1d--he 1d won for sure, An 1 he looked at the 1,1hj te VJ.Y\", e.n I he says, 11llow ,,wny t,:i.mes did you get :l t, 11 An' the white guy saJs, \"Man, be quiet, now, jus' look in t),ere, 11 An I tho nigger saw the three straight 1110.rks an I he says, 11Goddamnl lie bea.t me, again! A hundred eleven to forty-fourl11 --(laughter) \\vHY POLISH D)GS HAVE Ji'L/\\T J?AG~S Ohl Do you know why Polish dogs have flat faces'? No, Chasing parked cars,--(langhter) TWO POLOCKS DillVING TO }!lAMI Did you hear about the two Polocks who were driving to Miami, and they saw a sign that said, CLE/\\l! RESTROOMS AHEAD. So they cleaned 2.',0 restrooms before they ma.de it to Miami. THE TWO POIDCKS Al-JD THE CA!,EL One of my favorite f\u0026gt;olock jokes is about 1,he two Polocks who went to the used CRr lot, 8 An' they went in there, an' the nalesman Has sweat.in' and ngettin', an' he couldn't get 1em to buy anyth'1ng. An the Polocks were all wo:rn out, an' he says, \"How much mo11ey you got, 11 after about an hour tryin' to give them everything, An1 they so.id, \"Well, we got forty-nine dollo.rs,11 An' the guy says, \"Shit, mant You can't buy anything in here for less tho.n H thousand clollo.rs.11 Polocks hung their heads and began to walk out of the used oar lot, The guy says, \"Wait H minute! I've got a used camel in the rear lot ho.ck there, an I he I s got, two humps, an' each of ya can ride on a hump, an I he knows o.11 the SJJeed limi t,s nn I the traffic signals. w 9 l'olocks took I im up. Paid the forty-nine dollars, an' they rode out, of th,,re jus 1 happy as shit, Ahout holf an hour lat,1i, the camel came st,rollin I back in the park;tng lot, an I the two Polocks carne r,mnin' in after 1irn. An' the salesman soys, \"My God, what, happened\\\"' An' he said, \"You were right about that l'olock (meant camel) knowing all tt10 traffic signals an' lt\u0026gt;eed lini ts, We stopped at a red light, an 1 there was this big reel Catilac convortable, an th1s guy looked up and said, 1 Look at, those two assholos on the camel.' So we, jumped off real quick to look at the two assholes, an the light turned green, a.n the ca111el left us, 11 Although jokes and legends co,,stitute tho bulk of urban folklore, the tall tale still persists in that same area, The bas:lc value of the tall tale, more than just hav1nr, a punchline, allows the teller to test his abllit;y to e:xploit the gullibility of hi!! audience, and, if t,he narrator is successful, gives the listener the delight of be:lng surprised, even duped, or, in colloquial terms, \"sucked in\", In my experience, I have found that the best stage for the tall tale is the comrr,on bull session, 'rhe potential narrator will wait until the members of his audience, convincing one another of their own lies and exagm'ations, have m:entally condi f,ioned 't,hcrnselves to believe just about anything, Skillfully, he will gain the attention of the gatheririg, and if,, during his monologue, there arr, any' doubts concerniJ'lf( the authrmti~ city of his story, the speaker will rarely openly hrni.st upon tho truth of his narration, Rather, he will show undflrst.nndi.ng toward the difficult.y to beHeve it, and in that way try to ro~establish his audienoos trust in him, Possibly, he may lightly threaten to discontinue tho story, and the listeners, out of curiosity, frequently will expreos t,heir faith in 10 him, or, at least, soften their expletives of doubt, For the next several minutes, imagine yourself' in a men's dormatory late at night, drink1.ng beer and exchanging experiences involving women and seXJrnl conquest. Gre.duoJly, attention is given to Homer Thigpon, who1 in o. low voice with an a\\\u0026gt;C)loricrti.n tone, confesses to a shameful act :in h1s dark past,. rm: TRAGIC LOVE AFFAIR \\ __ l J:;',  ' Yes--ah--1 went on vacah6n wher1 I was in college down in Florida, an went to the beach with my fr:lends, and--ah--he had to leave me, unfortunately, So I took a walk on the beach by myself, and--Goddrunn i.t;l Homer mumbles when he ~!ants .t.o rmnnble--and--ah--I was walkin1 down t,he beach, an I there was tM.s bc~aut:tful girl laying undor a blankot there, An --ah-she was just absolntely beaul;iful! But, she had this blanket on her ,m' like :i.t, was ninety dor:,ro0s out there, Well, T thought of some conversation an' went over ari 1 fa:,Jkod to her, an'--ah--asked her how she An.' we chatted alone, She still laying under the blanket which was stre.nee. An 1--ah--asked her after awh:lle if she wanted to go sw:!.P,rrrl ng, an I her face jus' becauie orentfallen, an I she was terri hly hurt,, And I said, 11\\fol11 what Is the matter 111 An she lifted the blanket an' hor legs were cut off right above t.he knees, An I I ,just felt really like a big gaper about that,, so the best, t,h1ng I could do--I felt so chagrined--!. decided to ,rnk her out for a date that evening, And I fmn golng to drive her home, bnt hex chn.uffer cru:na to the beach and picked hor up, ni1 1 1.n--j n his arrna nncl enrried her to the wheelchair an' put her i.n u lrig limos:ine an' they drovo off, But ll I had her address and I decided to--ah--t,ake her out, that evening, And so I picked her up at her home and everything, an--ah--met h\u0026lt;r mother at the door, an' her mother was not very courteous 'cuz she didn't really think her daught.m' could go out wl.th anybody that., ya know, that would treat, her daughter with respect since she dl.dn I t have any legs. But I decided to take ~13r out, an' we had a party with some other friends, an' there was alot of dr:i.oldng eo:i.n. 1 on an' everything, Ari: 1--(sigh)--about halfway through the part;y-, I ass holed out, aeain, and asked her fer--if she wanted to dance, And she tried mid it wns jus I terrible, an' I just felt so bad--(sniff)--and her mother was so worried about her and everything, This was gettin' to me, and so I was just decided to take her back e,~rly, and we were drivin' back early. So, she afJked me not to take her back in, We pulled into kind of a local lovers' lane there, an' she was beaut.i . .ful as I put it except for the lack of her lower appendages. And--ah--we start,ed ma.kin' out, soforth. She asked. mo to screw her and. it was pretty hard because her legs were cut off and they were honey and would hurt me. So I asked what, to do, and she said t,o get her outside the car, and--ah--and 1 took her outside the car, and there was a giant oak tree, And she said, \"Pick me up, put your mms nround my waist,\" And I liftod her up, and she grabbed hold of the tree limb, and we made l)Ve that wny. An I so later on that evenl.,1g, I ;jn;:it slnrnrned the -i\u0026lt;Jheelchtd r thI'ougb th,_: front door of' the. mother~' s houso,, ant the root.her, her fE:-;nrs were COlAi'i.rmed. She saJ_d, 11Whe:re 1s my dnugh~~ert 0  And l sn.id, 111 left her hn.11r~.i n I on a tree~\" CONCLUSION Different kinds of jokes, and etories1 for that matter, cause a variety of responses from various types of people, What one man may enjoy, another may feel repulsion, depending, of course, on taste, Nost of the jokes recorded by 1'om Fulton were derived from political and ethnic backgrounds, but this does not necessarily reflect Tom's opillw110f thooe leaders and groups, Fulton is a well educated and reasonable man who, like many people, can judge the proper time and place to express different ideas, and the joke is just, one vehicle for that function, For instance, as Tom, himsel1i related, the jokes about negroes arose out of the civil rii:;hts disturbanrms of the 19501s and 60s, Although many white people understood the black' s strugr'.le, the conduct ot' both groups and the negative responses t,o change caused emotional reactions. While one could rationally \u0026lt;li.scuss the issues of those times, one also had to let oi'i' emotional p!'essure. 'J.'he m,gro ethrnll joke provlded this lever i'or whites, In relation to this fuel-, c:c,,11.,dy in general nee\u0026lt;ln a dupe 01' some sort, Political leaders and members of different religious and racial groups 1:~('., are natural targets, 'l'his Hspect of thetcan be found throughout all the subcultures within the United States, and how one handles the joke very often determines its humor or insolence. I subrnit that anyone, depending on his mood and frame of mind, can laugh at anything, as illustrated by Homer 'l'h:i.gpen, himself', who upon hrn:u~:lng his own recol'ding, exclaimed between grimaces and spasms of lnr,ghtor, \"What,! Do I really sound 1:Um tha:t,'/, .. Is that me'/ .. ,Why I sound ,iust like a redneckl 11  A PDF transcript exists for this recording. Please contact an archivist for access.  Professor John Burrison founded the Atlanta Folklore Archive Project in 1967 at Georgia State University. He trained undergraduates and graduate students enrolled in his folklore curriculum to conduct oral history interviews. Students interviewed men, women, and children of various demographics in Georgia and across the southeast on crafts, storytelling, music, religion, rural life, and traditions.  As archivists, we acknowledge our role as stewards of information, which places us inaposition to choose how individuals and organizations are represented and described in our archives. We are not neutral, andbias isreflected in our descriptions, whichmay not convey the racist or offensive aspects of collection materialsaccurately.Archivists make mistakes and might use poor judgment.We often re-use language used by the former owners and creators, which provides context but also includes bias and prejudices of the time it was created.Additionally,our work to use reparative languagewhereLibrary of Congress subject termsareinaccurate and obsolete isongoing. Kenan Research Center welcomes feedback and questions regarding our archival descriptions. If you encounter harmful, offensive, or insensitive terminology or description please let us know by emailingreference@atlantahistorycenter.com. Your comments are essential to our work to create inclusive and thoughtful description.\n   \n\n   \n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1208","title":"Little Rock School District's Compliance Report","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":["2006-10-16"],"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 law and legislation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District's Compliance Report"],"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/1208"],"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":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":["122 pages"],"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\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nCase 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 1 of 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT coUR-rRECEIVED EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OCT 1 7 2006 OFFICE OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S COMPLIANCE REPORT For its Compliance Report, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. This Compliance Report is filed pursuant to paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy contained in this Court's June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion. 2. LRSD has substantially complied with the Compliance Remedy. This compliance is documented below, as well as in the eight Quarterly Updates which were filed between December 1, 2004 and September 1, 2006, the evaluations of Compass Learning, Smart/Thrive, Reading Recovery and Year-Round Education which were previously filed, and the evaluations of A+, 21 st Century Community Page 1 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 2 of 30 - Learning Centers and READ 180 which are filed with this Compliance Report. 3. The progress ofLRSD's efforts to comply with the requirement for an eighth step 2 program evaluation, the Pre-K Literacy evaluation, has been shown in LRSD's Quarterly Updates and status reports to the Court. The final evidence of LRSD's compliance with that requirement will be the evaluation itself, which the evaluator, Dr. Ross, expects to have completed on or before November 15, 2006. 4. LRSD will separately describe below its compliance with each of the requirements of the Compliance Remedy except those which set out the responsibilities of the Joshua Intervenors and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 5. The requirements of paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy are: A. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. These individuals must have experience in: (a) preparing and overseeing the preparation of formal program evaluations\nand (b) formulating a comprehensive program assessment process that can be used to determine the effectiveness of specific academic programs designed to improve the achievement of African-American students. I expect the director of PRE to have a Ph.D.\nto have extensive experience in designing, preparing and overseeing the preparation of program evaluations\nand to have a good understanding of statistics and regression analysis. I also expect LRSD to hire experienced statisticians and the other appropriate support personnel necessary to operate a first-rate PRE Department. Page 2 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 3 of 30 6. LRSD met the requirements of paragraph A by adding to the PRE team three new professionals who have knowledge and experience in assessment, evaluation, and statistical analysis. The qualifications of the seven people who were employed by PRE as of November 1, 2004 are shown at pages 3 through 5 of the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. The resumes of PRE Director Dr. Karen DeJarnette and statisticians Maurecia Malcolm Robinson, James C. Wohlleb and Dr. Ed Williams are found in Appendix A to the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. This highly trained team of professionals has the qualifications required by paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. 7. There have been a few changes in personnel since the first Quarterly - Update, but PRE has maintained a highly trained team of professionals. Administrative Assistant Irma Shelton took medical leave in May of 2005. The Administrative Assistant position was eliminated on July 1, 2005. Testing Coordinator Yvette Dillingham left PRE in August, 2005. Dr. Ed Williams temporarily assumed her responsibilities until she was replaced in November 2005 by Arthur Olds. Olds' resume can be found in Appendix A to the March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update. As reported in the June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, Olds sought reassignment to a teaching possession at Dunbar Magnet Middle School on April 14, 2006. Dr. Williams again temporarily assumed the Testing Coordinator Page 3 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 4 of 30 - responsibilities. LRSD posted the Testing Coordinator position in June, 2006 and interviews were scheduled for August, 2006. See September I, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. A new testing coordinator, Danyell Cummings was hired October 1, 2006. Her resume is attached as Exhibit A to this Compliance Report. 8. The current PRE staff has all of the qualifications listed in paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. LRSD complied with paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. 9. The requirements of paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy are: B. The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process. It may take a decade or more for LRSD to make sufficient progress in improving the academic achievement of African-American students to justify discontinuing the need for specific  2.7 programs. For that reason, the comprehensive program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. Only then will I have the necessary assurance that LRSD intends to continue using that process for as long as it is needed to determine the effectiveness of the various key  2. 7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. Part of LRSD's proof, at the next compliance hearing, must include evidence that it has devised and implemented a comprehensive program assessment process, which has been deeply embedded as a permanent part of its curriculum and instruction program. I suggest that LRSD use Dr. Ross to assist in developing this comprehensive program assessment process\nthen be sure that he approves that process before it is finalized and implemented. 10. LRSD has devised and deeply embedded a comprehensive program Page 4 of L9 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 5 of 30 - assessment process in accordance with paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. LRSD used Dr. Ross to assist in developing the comprehensive program assessment process. By the time of the first Quarterly Update on December 1, 2004, PRE and Dr. Ross had \"developed and shared with ODM and the Joshua Intervenors a program assessment process to be deeply embedded in LRSD's educational operations.\" December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, p. 6. The final draft of that process is found at Appendix B of the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. This final draft was furnished to ODM and the Joshua Intervenors more than a month in advance of its consideration by the LRSD Board of Directors. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, p. 11. The comprehensive program assessment process was approved by the LRSD Board on December 16, 2004. March 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 11. The comprehensive program assessment process has become deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. The embedding of the comprehensive program assessment process has included the development of school portfolios. \"School portfolios assemble comprehensive data about classrooms, schools, and districts from disparate sources into data bases that are accessible and informative particularly to teachers and administrators as well as to board members, parents, and other stakeholders.\" September 1, 2005 Page 5 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 6 of 30 - Quarterly Update, p. 3. School portfolios are useful for formative evaluations of student achievement and educational programs. LRSD began implementing school portfolios during the 2005-06 school year. Id. As part of the process of the development and implementation of portfolios, four PRE department members attended an institute for data analysis during the summer of 2005, and a consultant \"visited LRSD and reviewed its data collection procedures and resources.\" Id. 12. LRSD has continued to develop the infrastructure to support its comprehensive assessment process. School and district data portfolios are an important part of this infrastructure. These portfolios \"allow PRE staff as well as others to more easily analyze data and intersect various types of data sets to answer research questions about comprehensive school improvement efforts.\" December 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. During April of 2006, an expert on school portfolios provided professional development for LRSD principals, administrators, and the PRE staff regarding the creation and use of school portfolios. June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 13. As of December 1, 2005, PRE had identified the data to be included in the district portfolio and had designed a draft district portfolio. Id. District administrators and principals were making use of the portfolio and steps were being taken \"to allow a more efficient collection of data related to educational Page 6 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 7 of 30 - processes.\" Id. Dr. Catterall used data from LRSD's portfolio in his step 2 evaluation of the Year-Round Education program. March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 14. The development of portfolios is a continual process. As new data becomes available (e.g. new test results) they are added to the data base. The infrastructure is in place, and LRSD continues to expand and update its portfolios. See March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 15. LRSD has also sought to deeply embed the comprehensive program assessment process by hiring a consultant, the Janis Group, to help develop a \"data warehouse.\" The Janis Group has \"expertise in storing, integrating, and efficiently accessing data.\" March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. The data warehouse will support frequent updates of the portfolio and allow timely data reports for purposes of planning, research, evaluation and developing policy. Reports can be generated by program, classroom, school, grade, or district-wide. Id. 16. There was some debate within LRSD about whether to purchase an internet-based data warehouse from a company called TetraData or to continue the in-house design and construction of a data warehouse using the Business Objects software and the database already available to LRSD. LRSD decided, with some dissent from PRE, to continue to use and improve the Business Objects software. Page 7 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 8 of 30 - Business Objects is state of the art software which can be effectively used in the assessment of academic programs. The capabilities of the Business Objects data warehouse, including updating and reporting student data, are shown in the \"Business Objects Reporting Tools\" document attached as Exhibit B to this Compliance Report. 17. The process of developing school and district portfolios, and creating a data warehouse, has revealed the need for LRSD to take steps to insure that the data entered into its database is accurate. The accuracy of the data would be a concern whether the district used the Business Objects system, the TetraData system or some other software system. To improve the accuracy of data reporting within LRSD, LRSD has increased the number of \"error checking routines\" in its computer software. LRSD also has a full time training coordinator whose job it is to train school registrars and other LRSD personnel in the proper entry of student data, to work with those people to identify and correct recurring data entry errors, and to generally assure the accuracy and completeness of student data within the LRSD database. The accuracy of the data in LRSD's database, including its portfolios, continues to improve. 18. Finally, as another part of embedding the comprehensive program assessment process, PRE has designed \"feasible, ongoing assessments of the four Page 8 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 9 of 30 - programs which Drs. Catterall and Ross subjected to step 2 evaluations last year.\" June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. LRSD also plans to have PRE conduct ongoing assessments of the programs currently being evaluated by Drs. Ross and Catterall. 19. LRSD has devised a comprehensive program assessment process as required by paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. That process has been deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum program. LRSD has complied with paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. 20. The requirements of paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy are: C. During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005-06), LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four ( 4) formal step 2 evaluations. Each of these step 2 evaluations must cover one of the key 2.7 programs, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Thus, over the course of the next two academic school years, LRSD must hire outside consultants to prepare a total of eight (8) formal step 2 evaluations of key  2.7 programs. During the recent compliance hearing, Dr. Ross made it clear that LRSD must conduct these formal step 2 evaluations of the key  2.7 programs in order to continue to make progress in improving the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students. Again, I suggest that LRSD hire Dr. Ross -- to perform the following tasks: (1) identify the four key 2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key  2. 7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2005-06 school year\nand (2) prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible. If Dr. Ross cannot prepare all eight of the step 2 evaluations, I recommend that LRSD hire someone that Dr. Ross recommends as possessing the experience and ability necessary Page 9 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 1 0 of 30 to prepare those evaluations. 21. In accordance with paragraph C, LRSD hired Dr. Ross to \"identify the four key  2. 7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key  2. 7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2005-06 school year,\" and to \"prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible.\" 22. Dr. Ross was provided a copy of the Compliance Remedy and he endorsed the first Quarterly Update \"as representing an accurate portrayal of accomplishments to date and a viable plan for addressing the requirements of the Remedy.\" December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, Appendix C (p. 45). Dr. Ross assumed responsibility for preparing six of the required eight formal step 2 evaluations. Three of those cover the 2004-05 school year and were filed on February 6, 2006. Two others are for the 2005-06 school year and will be filed today. The sixth step 2 evaluation being prepared by Dr. Ross, Pre-K Literacy, has been delayed due to the unavailability of necessary data and is expected to be completed no later than November 15, 2006. 23. Two of the required eight formal step 2 evaluations were prepared by Dr. James Catterall. One covered the 2004-05 school year and was filed on February 6, 2006. The other will be filed today. Page 10 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 11 of 30 24. PRE, in collaboration with Dr. Ross, selected Reading Recovery, Smart/Thrive, Compass Learning and Year-Round Education to be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, pp. 7-9. Those evaluations have been completed. 25. Dr. Ross initially identified the following four 2.7 programs for step 2 evaluations in the 2005-06 school year: Arkansas A+ School Network\nKnowledgePoints\nPLATO Learning and Pre-Kindergarten Literacy Development. June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4. At the request of the Joshua Intervenors, and with the agreement of Dr. Ross, 21 st Century Community Learning Centers was substituted for PLATO Learning as the subject of an evaluation for the 2005- 06 school year. September 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4 and Appendix C, (pp. 19-21). KnowledgePoints was also replaced as the subject of evaluation by the READ 180 program because the supplier of KnowledgePoints withdrew its support of the program in Arkansas. December 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4. 26. Dr. Ross and Dr. Catterall possess the experience and ability necessary to prepare the eight required step 2 evaluations. Their qualifications are found in Appendix C to the first Quarterly Update (pp. 46-54). They are both familiar with the requirements of the Compliance Remedy and have agreed to prepare their evaluations in accordance with those requirements. LRSD has Page 11 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 12 of 30 - complied with the requirements of paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. 27. The requirements of paragraph D of the Compliance Remedy are: D. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations must answer the following essential research question: \"Has the  2.7 program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of African-American students, as it has been implemented m schools throughout the district?\" The eight step 2 evaluations may also answer as many other research questions as the designers of each evaluation deem necessary and appropriate. Each of the step 2 evaluations must be organized and written in such a way that it can be readily understood by a lay person. I will allow the outside experts preparing each of these evaluations to decide on the appropriate number of years of test scores and other data that need to be analyzed in preparing each evaluation. PRE must: ( 1) oversee the preparation of all eight of these step 2 evaluations\n(2) work closely with Dr. Ross and any other outside consultants hired to prepare these step 2 evaluations\nand (3) provide the outside consultants with any and all requested assistance and support in preparing these step 2 evaluations. 28. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations answers the essential research question of whether the program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of African-American students, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations also answers other important research questions. Each is organized and written so that it can be readily understood by a lay person. In each case, the outside experts and the evaluation teams determined the evaluation design, including the appropriate number of years of test scores and other data necessary to the utility of each Page 12 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 13 of 30 evaluation. 29. PRE has overseen the preparation of all eight step 2 evaluations and worked closely with Drs. Ross and Catterall, and those associated with them, to support their work and provide any and all requested assistance. See June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp.6-7\nMarch 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 4\nJune 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, pp. 5-6\nSeptember 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 6 and Appendix A. LRSD has met the requirements of paragraph D of the Compliance Remedy. 30. The requirements of paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy are: E. In order to streamline LRSD's record-keeping obligation, I am going to require that each of the eight step 2 evaluations contain, in addition to the traditional information and data, a special section which: (1) describes the number of teachers and administrators, at the various grade levels, who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the key  2.7 program being evaluated\n(2) lists each of the recommended program modifications, if any, that were deemed necessary in order to increase the effectiveness of each of the  2.7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students\nand (3) briefly explains how each of the recommended modifications is expected to increase the effectiveness of the  2.7 program. This requirement is intended to relieve LRSD of any independent record-keeping obligations under  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan and the Compliance Remedy. 31. In accordance with paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy, each of the eight step 2 evaluations contains a section concerning data collection which Page 13 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 14 of 30 - describes the number of teachers and administrators at various grade levels who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the program being evaluated. Each of the eight evaluations also contains recommended program modifications and explains how the recommended modifications can be expected to increase the effectiveness of the program. See March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, pp. 4-5. 32. On April 18, 2006, LRSD convened the four evaluation teams which worked on the 2004-05 evaluations to consider the feasibility and the timeframe for implementing the external evaluators' recommendations. June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. A summary of LRSD's commitments to the modifications recommended by the external evaluators is found in Appendix A (pp. 7-11) to the June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update. LRSD will follow the same process of reviewing the evaluators' recommended modifications following receipt of the evaluations for the 2005-06 school year. LRSD has complied with the requirements of paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy. 33. The requirements of paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy are: F. As soon as PRE and Dr. Ross identify the eight  2.7 programs targeted for step 2 evaluations, PRE must notify the ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of those eight programs. In addition, after PRE and Dr. Ross have formulated a comprehensive program assessment process and reduced it to a final draft, PRE must Page 14 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 15 of 30 provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua at least thirty days before it is presented to the Board for approval. I expect the Board to approve LRSD's comprehensive program assessment process no later than December 31, 2004. 34. In accordance with paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy, PRE notified ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of the eight  2.7 programs targeted for step 2 evaluations. See June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update\np. 8. PRE also provided to ODM and Joshua a final draft of the comprehensive program assessment process more than thirty days before it was presented to the Board for approval. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, pp. 6 and 11. The LRSD Board of Directors approved the comprehensive program assessment process on December 16, 2004, in advance of the December 31, 2004 deadline. March 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. LRSD has met the requirements of paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy. 35. The requirements of paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy are: G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year. These quarterly updates must be delivered to the ODM and Joshua on December 1, March 1, June 1, and September 1 of each of those two academic school years. As soon as each of the eight step 2 evaluations has been completed and approved by the Board, LRSD must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua. 36. In accordance with paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy, Page 15 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 16 of 30 LRSD submitted quarterly written updates to the Court and delivered them to ODM and Joshua on or before December 1, 2004, March 1, 2005, June 1, 2005, September 1, 2005, December 1, 2005, March 1, 2006, June 1, 2006 and September 1, 2006. Those quarterly written updates reported \"the status of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations\" prepared during the 2004-05 and 2005-06 school years. The quarterly updates also provided information on the status of compliance with other components of the Compliance Remedy. 36. As soon as the four step 2 evaluations for the 2004-05 school year were completed and approved by the LRSD Board, LRSD provided them to ODM and Joshua. 1bree of the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year will be filed with the Court and provided to ODM and Joshua on October 16, 2006. The fourth will be filed with the Court and provided to ODM and Joshua on or before November 15, 2006. As soon as the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year are approved by the LRSD Board, LRSD will provide final copies of those evaluations to ODM and Joshua. LRSD has complied with paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy. 37. The requirements of paragraph J of the Compliance Remedy are: Page 16 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 17 of 30 J. The four step program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year must be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2005. The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year must be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2006. 38. The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year were filed with the Court on February 6, 2006 in accordance with extended deadlines approved by the Court. Three of the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005- 06 school year will be filed on today in accordance with extended deadlines approved by the Court. Dr. Ross requires additional time to complete the Pre-K Literacy evaluation because of the delayed availability of necessary testing data. LRSD has requested an extension of time for the filing of that step 2 evaluation to - and including November 15, 2006, and expects to file that evaluation by that date. LR.SD has substantially complied with paragraph J of the Compliance Remedy. 39. The requirements of paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy are: K. On or before October 15, 2006, LRSD must file a Compliance Report documenting its compliance with its obligations under  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, as specified in this Compliance Remedy. If Joshua wishes to challenge LRSD's substantial compliance, they must file objections on or before November 15, 2006. Thereafter, I will schedule a compliance hearing and decide whether LRSD has met its obligations under the Compliance Remedy and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. 40. LRSD is filing this Compliance Report on October 16, 2006 in accordance with paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy and the Court's July 12, Page 17 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 18 of 30 2006 letter to the parties (docket no. 4027). WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above and in the eight Quarterly Updates which have been filed with the Court, and on the basis of the completion of eight step 2 program evaluations by Drs. Ross and Catterall, LRSD prays for an order finding it to be in substantial compliance with the Compliance Remedy contained in the Court's June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion, declaring LRSD to be a unitary school district, and releasing LRSD from all supervision and monitoring by the Court. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) Khayyam M. Eddings (#02008) 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 /s/ Christopher Heller CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on October 16, 2006, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: Page 18 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 19 of 30 mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us si ones(a),mwsgw .com sjones@ilj .com johnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 /s/ Christopher Heller Page 19 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 .. P~e 20 of,,30 Career Objective: Professional Experience: 2004-Present 1998-Present Educadon: May,2005 December, ! 998 May, 1997 Professionally Related Activities: Danyel) Crutchfield Cummlnp S Ben Hogan Cove Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 (501) 407-8097 (501) 447-1737 To utilize proven academic and professional experience to obtain a challenging position as an administrator that will allow for growth and an opportunity to contribute to a progressive educational environment. High Schools TI1at Work Coordinator J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal English Teacher J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal Educational Specialist, Educational Administration and Supervision, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Master of Education, Secondary Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Bachelor of Arts, English, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Acting Assistant Principal Section 504 Coordinator Council of Secondary Education Stakeholder Southern Regional Education Board Literacy Team member Teacher of the Year Educational Specialist Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Docum-en-t 40-50- -Filed 10/16/2006 ~~~-~ ?.! .~ ( 30 References: Linda Young Grants Coordinator (501) 447-3372 work (501) 225-5439 home Jill Brooks Principal David O'Dodd Elementary (501) 447-4300 work (501) 680-3767 home William Broadnax, Ed.D Student Hearing (501) 447-3582 work (501) 407-0817 home Sharon Cauley, Ed.D Assistant Principal J.A. Fair Systems Magnet High School (501) 447-1700 ext. 1710 work (501) 666-6216 home Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/200~-~~ge 22 o!}0_ Career Objective: Professional Experience: 2004-Present 1998-Present EducatJon: May,2005 December, 1998 May, 1997 Professionally Related Activities: Danyell Crutchfield Cummings 5 Ben Hogan Cove Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 (501) 407-8097 (501) 447-1737 To utilize proven academic and professional e~1jeriencc to obtain a challenging position as an administrator that will allow for growth and an opportunity to contribute to a progressive educational environment. High Schools TI1at Work Coordinator J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little Rock. Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal English Teacher J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal Educational Specialist, Educational Administration and Supervision, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Master of Education, Secondary Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Bachelor of Arts, English, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Acting Assistant Principal Section 504 Coordinator Council of See-0ndary Education Stakeholder Southern Regional Education Board Literacy Team member Teacher of the Year Educational Specialist ' Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 References: ----------- -- ------ Linda Young Grants Coordinator (501) 447-3372 work (501) 225-5439 home Jill Brooks Principal David O'Dodd Elementary (501) 447-4300 work (501) 680-3767 home William Broadnax, Ed.D Student Hearing (501) 447-3582 work (501) 407-0817 home Sharon Cauley, Ed.D Assistant Principal ].A. Fair Systems Magnet High School (501) 447-1700 ext. 1710 work (501) 666-{\n216 home Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 24 of 30 Bl Platform Little Rock School District Business Objects Reporting Tools Business Objects Enterprise is a scalable, adaptive platform that delivers insight and corporate infonnation to all your end users. With a platform designed to help you confidently deploy and manage your Business Intelligence (BI) implementations, Business Objects 'provides the Little Rock School District with the extreme insight you need to extend your competitive advantage . . The BI Platform provides a set of common services to simplify deployment and management of BI tools, reports, and applications. The reporting system at the Little Rock School District includes information delivery in subject areas including Student Demographics, Student Performance, Budget and Finance, Employee Attendance, Child Nutrition, Human Resources, Accounts Payable, Payroll, Procurement, and Procurement Warehouse, to name a few. Flexible Services-Oriented Platform By building the Little Rock School District's BI solutions with Business Objects Enterprise, we have the flexibility to deploy a solution for a single information challenge, while being able to simultaneously expand the deployment as our needs evolve. Designed for Scalability and High Performance Business Objects Enterprise is designed for scalability, reliability, fault-tolerance, extensibility, and 24/7 availability. This platforn1 recognizes the importance of diverse global deployments, supports Unicode, and is compliant with Microsoft Windows, Sun Solaris, IBM A.IX, HP-UX, and Linux. So you can start with a single BI project on one platform, and easily grow to support an enterprise-wide standardization initiative on multiple platforms. With BI content now being delivered via intranet and extranet, BI platform scalability is a key issue. Business Objects Enterprise has the scalability you need to accommodate increasing numbers of users, process growing volumes of infonnation, and scale on a single machine-or clusters of machineswhile maintaining high performance. Proven Reliability This platform's key attributes-performance, reliability, and scalability-are proven by extensive, realworld testing and third-party certification. Enterprise is the only BI platform to achieve Microsoft Windows 2003 Datacenter certification. Business Objects Enterprise-- covered by a 24/7 technical customer support-has demonstrably installed and run on a 32-processor system, remained stable through rigorous stress testing, and stayed available after being subject to extensive failover conditions. We also continually conduct extensive benchmarking and p erfonnance testing to ensure our platform scales to meet the needs of the Little Rock School District today and tomorrow. 'i ----------------~ LRSD Bl Tools if! EXHIBIT B .._ ____ .,, Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 25 of 30 Reporting Fundamentals The fundamental requirements of any reporting system are a normalized database and a reporting tool. Data from disparate systems and formats is collected in a centralized database platform and transformed into a consistent, well organized reporting database. Many reports have been created and delivered from this reporting database using Crystal Reports as the reporting tool. Normalized Data This data, securely housed at the Little Rock School District Technology Center, has been normalized to 3rd normal form on a Microsoft SQL Server database server. The original database management software is DB2 residing on an IBM AS/400 application server, w]ch houses a majority of the studentbased data. Other student data resides in Microsoft Access or is provided to the CIS department via Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. Automated processes have been developed and scheduled to update the student data nightly, where required. Processes have also been designed and implemented to update data in key financial, human resources and accounting subject areas. Business Objects provides the industry's leading suite of integrated business intelligence products. The products are categorized into three groups: Reporting allows all levels of the Little Rock School District to access, format, and deliver data as meaningful information to large populations of information consumers like teachers and school administrators both inside and outside the organization. This is provided through detailed reports created using Crystal Reports and accessed via a web browser using the Business Objects Enterprise Info View application. Query and Analysis tools allow end users to interact with District information and answer ad hoc questions, without advanced knowledge of the underlying data sources and structures. This is provided through a product called Web Intelligence or WEBI. This allows users to create dynamic reports from their desks with little or no required knowledge of the underlying database schema. In-depth analysis is performed using OLAP Intelligence, a powerful OnLine Analytic Processing tool that provides detailed, fast, multidimensional data for sophisticated comparative analysis and reporting. Performance Management products help users align with strategy by tracking and analyzing key business and educational metrics and goals via management dashboards, scorecards, and alerting. This is provided through Performance Manager and Dashboard Manager products that present Key Performance Indicators in user-friendly, interactive graphical tools. Crystal Reports A world standard for enterprise reporting, Crystal Reports is an intuitive reporting solution that helps customers rapidly create flexible, feature-rich, high-fidelity reports and tightly integrate them into web and Windows applications. The Crystal Reports enterprise reporting solution consists of: LRSD Bl Tools Pagel o/7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 26 of 30  Powerful report design: Report authors can use the visual report designer (with a complete set of layout and design controls), to design highly formatted, interactive, and professional-looking reports. And they can design within the leading .NET and Java development tools without having to step out of their chosen development environment.  Flexible application development: Developers can leverage cross-platform support for Java, .NET, and COM development technologies. HTML is generated directly by Crystal Reports, allowing developers to focus on application business logic, rather than tedious, time-intensive hand coding. Separation of application development and report design tasks allow developers to focus on application development, while the report authors can focus on report design.  Report management and delivery: Reports are easily published to the web, for better business decisions in all areas of the Little Rock School District. Reports can be exported and repurposed to the electronic formats used by most end users (e.g. PDF and Excel). IT ean centralize the management of operational reporting while distributing the report authoring function out to departments of the District that need them. The following themes are an overview of what features are available in Crystal Reports XI:  Powerful data access and report design  Enhanced productivity and maintenance  Report management and delivery Dynamic and Cascading Prompts Report prompts can be based on dynamic values. This means that report designers no longer have to maintain static prompt value lists within individual reports. Instead, they can reuse existing prompts stored in the repository. HTML Preview The iterative report design/view process is streamlined, with a new HTML preview that allows report authors to see how reports will look when published to the web. Editable RTF Format This new feature is ideal for report export editing. It delivers reports to end users in a new RTF format, so they can easily make their own document modifications. Report Export Configuration The report designer can save report export configuration information within the report itself so that the end user forgoes the time and trouble of reconfiguring the export each time a report is run. Dependencv Checker With the new dependency checker, report authors can quickly .find broken links, formula errors, and dependency issues. This greatly reduces the time spent on QA. Business Views Speed Report Design and Maintenance Cycles Crystal Enterprise Business Views helps you better manage reporting across multiple data sources and applications by simplifying data access, change management, and data-level security processes. An LRSD Bf Tools Page3 ofl Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 27 of 30 optional service in Crystal Enterprise, Business Views allow you to integrate data from disparate sources, handle promotion/demotion between development and production environments, and control security at both the row and column level. Simplified Data Access Data access is one of the most fundamental, yet difficult aspects of designing a report. Locating the right data, joining tables appropriately, and filtering the data to focus on a specific subject area requires an indepth knowledge of the underlying data structures. The Business View Manager allows you to simplify data access for your report designers by insulating them from the raw data structures. You can build connections to multiple data sources, join tables, alias field names, create calculated fields, and then surface this simplified structure as a Business View in Crystal Enterprise. Your report designers can then connect to Crystal Enterprise and use the Business View as the basis for their report, rather than accessing the data directly and building their own queries. Business Views helps administrators pull data together from disparate sources. Data Connections (created visually or with complex SQL statements) can be integrated into a Data Foundation. Once the Data Foundation is built, Business Elements (a collection ofrelated fields from the Data Foundation) can be created and combined into a Business View. The modular architecture of Business Views also allows you to readily re-use various components of one Business View to build other Business Views. A single, broad data foundation can serve as the basis for multiple, specialized Business Views. Used carefully, these capabilities allow you to minimize the number of changes required to introduce new data, fields, or formulas into your system. Granular Data-level Security Many reporting scenarios involve complex security requirements. Each user is entitled to see a slightly different slice of District data, based on their School, Department or level of seniority. Data in the Little Rock School District is commonly segregated by School and Teacher-based infonnation. Business Views allow teachers to view data regarding their students and prevents them form seeing data regarding students that are NOT assigned to them. Rather than creating a number of different reports to meet this need, we can create a single report and use the security features of Business Views to filter data appropriately for each user. Using the Business View Manager, you can set up row- or column-level filters and map these filters to users or user groups stored in your existing LDAP, Active Directory, or Windows authentication provider. This security is  then consistently applied at the data level, ensuring that any report design based on a Business View will respect the underlying data security. You can then choose to schedule the report to run regularly. Or you can allow users to refresh it on demand. Regardless, Crystal Enterprise can generate a master instance of the report (with all the data included if you run the report under an administrator context) and then filter the report every time a user views it. All exporting, printing, and report modification requests will also return only the data the user is entitled to see. LRSD Bl Tools Page 4 of7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 28 of 30 Change Management and Re-use Maintaining a large set ofreports is often more time-consuming and complex than new development. Activities such as making small changes in response to user needs, updating business calculations, changing formatting, and moving your reports between development and production data sources all delay you from addressing new requirements. Business Views includes two key features to help you spend less time on report maintenance. First, you can use Dynamic Data Connections to store connections to multiple instances of the same database (e.g., development, test, and production). By passing a parameter when you're designing (or scheduling) the report, you can select which data source the report runs against. Second, you can store commonly-used functions, text objects, and logos directly in your data foundation. This allows you to easily roll changes across multiple reports by changing the object once. Business Objects Enterprise Info View Business Objects Info View is a completely redesigned web interface that enables user to navigate, create, and interact with District information. Integrated search and navigation tools allow users to easily find the information they need. Users can also personalize their interactions to simplify consumption of District information. Info View is built to support Java and Microsoft based web servers, to easily fit within you're the Little Rock School District IT infrastructure. Web Intelligence Many organizations find it difficult to access information not contained in standard reports. And requests to IT for new information simply add to the report backlog. Even when ad hoc query capabilities are available, they're typically difficult to use and don't provide your non-technical users with a simple method of exploring information, to really understand the business issue at hand. With Business Objects Web Intelligence, both self-service access to information and data analysis are available in one product, helping your users turn educational analysis into effective decisions. Users can create a query from scratch, format the infonnation retrieved, and analyze it to understand underlying trends and root causes. If the full power of query capabilities is not required, users can simply analyze information in existing reports-formatting and exploring them to meet specific needs. OLAP Intelligence Business Objects OLAP Intelligence is a powerful and easy-to-use tool that allows you to access and analyze data stored in the leading OLAP servers. It uniquely satisfies the analysis requirements of both information analysts (power users) and less sophisticated knowledge workers (business users). With OLAP Intelligence, power users can slice and dice, drill, rank, sort, filter, create calculations on the fly, and perform speed-of-thought data exploration. And business users can interact with pre-built OLAP workbooks that contain highly intuitive, graphical views of educational activity, guided navigation and workflows, and flexible ad hoc analysis. Its advanced analysis capabilities, shared security, and relational drill-through allow you to standardize on Business Objects for all of your BI needs. OLAP Intelligence delivers:  Best-of-breed ad hoc OLAP  Managed OLAP authoring and distribution  Integration with the market leading, trusted BI platform LRSD Bl Tools Page 5 of7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 29 of 30 Best-of-Breed Ad Hoc OLAP The primary driver for implementing an OLAP database is to provide users with fast access to multidimensional data. IT develops focused OLAF cubes to provide users with a structured data environment, optimized for analysis. But in order for users to take advantage of the pre-aggregated data within an OLAP cube, they require an interface that allows them to drill, slice, and dice while leveraging the response times that the predefined OLAP cube environment offers. Speed-of-Thought Analysis OLAP Intelligence provides an intuitive, web-based interface that allows users to select dimensions and members from a query panel as well as perform similar analysis from integrated Windows, Microsoft Excel, and ActiveX client interfaces. Users can interact with their data and ask spontaneous questions to uncover trends and identify anomalies. And because OLAP Intelligence takes advantage of the power of the OLAP cube, users are guaranteed speed-of-thought response time. Intuitive, Function-Rich Interface The OLAP Intelligence interface is both intuitive and function-rich. Common functions such as ranking, filtering, highlighting, quick calculations, zero suppression, and axis swapping are available with a single click oftbe mouse. More advanced analyses are only a few mouse clicks away and provide an uncluttered, intuitive user interface that requires minimal training. With OLAP Intelligence, users can also asymmetrically display data and hide specific dimensions that are irrelevant to data exploration. Deep, Open Access to Microsoft, Hyperion, and SAP OLAP Servers With OLAP Intelligence, you get best-of-breed, ad hoc OLAP for today's leading, multidimensional database servers-Microsoft SQL Server Analysis Services, Hyperion Essbase, IBM DB2 OLAP, and SAP BW. For example, native Hyperion Essbase 7 .x support for free-form calculations and cube actions means that organizations are maximizing their OLAP server investments and taking advantage of key enhancements and optimizations. Managed OLAP Authoring and Distribution OLAP Intelligence goes further than most OLAP clients on the market today by not only providing powerful ad hoc analysis, but also delivering a flexible, managed OLAP environment. With OLAP Intelligence, you can easily create sophisticated workbooks that exploit the power of the underlying OLAP server, and enable users to build in predefined navigation paths and workflows. Then you can securely deploy and deliver the workbooks live to business users who don't necessarily fit the powerdata analyst profile. These OLAP workbooks may contain custom buttons and multi-page reports that recipients can view and interact with over the web. Publish Live OLAP Workbooks to Business Users When users view an OLAP Intelligence workbook over the web, it may appear as a dashboard with custom functionality specific to one area of the business, or as an ad hoc interface that allows them to perform advanced analysis. Because OLAP Intelligence has a flexible design and was created to meet powerful ad hoc and managed analysis needs, the deployment possibilities are limitless. Built-In Guided Navigation and Data Exploration LRSD Bl Tools Page 6 of l Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 30 of 30 With OLAP Intelligence you can guide users through the OLAP data navigation and exploration process. For example, a user can highlight a group of cells in a report, click a custom analysis button, and view a new graph that has drilled down on the chosen group, displaying variances as a worksheet and chart. A show trend analysis button could then be made available that displays a new page in the workbook with a year-over-year comparison. Open drill-through capabilities in OLAP Intelligence empower users to dril1 from aggregated OLAP data down to relational details. This means that users can navigate and explore summarized infonnation, and drill through and pass context to more detailed Crystal Reports or Business Objects Web Intelligence documents. This contextual drill-through technology provides users with intelligent navigation without the need to understand the complexities of underlying data and metadata structures. LRSD Bl Tools Page 7 o/7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 1 of 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED OCT 2 7 2006 mea: QtRBATIUIOmomJIS PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S REVISED COMPLIANCE REPORT . For its Revised Compliance Report, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. This Compliance Report is filed pursuant to paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy contained in this Court's June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion. The reason for revising the Compliance Report is to correctly reflect the fact that school portfolios, as opposed to the district portfolio, have not been implemented in LRSD. The substantive changes from the initial Compliance Report are found in paragraphs eleven through sixteen. 2. LRSD has substantially complied with the Compliance Remedy. This Page 1 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 2 of 30 compliance is documented below, as well as in the eight Quarterly Updates which were filed between December 1, 2004 and September 1, 2006, the evaluations of Compass Leaming, Smart/Thrive, Reading Recovery and Year-Round Education which were previously filed, and the evaluations of A+, 21 st _Century Community Leaming Centers and READ 180 which are filed with this Compliance Report. 3. The progress ofLRSD's efforts to comply with the requirement for an eighth step 2 program evaluation, the Pre-K Literacy evaluation, has been shown in LRSD's Quarterly Updates and status reports to the Court. The final evidence of LRSD's compliance with that requirement will be the evaluation itself, which the evaluator, Dr. Ross, expects to have completed on or before November 15, 2006. 4. LRSD will separately describe below its compliance with each of the requirements of the Compliance Remedy except those which set out the responsibilities of the Joshua Intervenors and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 5. The requirements of paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy are: A. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. These individuals must have experience in: (a) preparing and overseeing the preparation of formal program evaluations\nand (b) formulating a comprehensive program assessment process that can be used to determine the effectiveness of specific academic programs designed to improve the achievement of African-American Page 2 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 3 of 30 students. I expect the director of PRE to have a Ph.D.\nto have extensive experience in designing, preparing and overseeing the preparation of program evaluations\nand to have a good understanding of statistics and regression analysis. I also expect LRSD to hire experienced statisticians and the other appropriate support personnel necessary to operate a first-rate PRE Department. 6. LRSD met the requirements of paragraph A by adding to . the PRE team three new professionals who have knowledge and experience in assessment, evaluation, and statistical analysis. The qualifications of the seven people who were employed by PRE as of November 1, 2004 are shown at pages 3 through 5 of the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. The resumes of PRE Director Dr. Karen DeJamette and statisticians Maurecia Malcolm Robinson, James C. Wohlleb and Dr. Ed Williams are found in Appendix A to the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. This highly trained team of professionals has the qualifications required by paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. 7. There have been a few changes in personnel since the first Quarterly Update, but PRE has maintained a highly trained team of professionals. Administrative Assistant Irma Shelton took medical leave in May of 2005. The Administrative Assistant position was eliminated on July 1, 2005. Testing Coordinator Yvette Dillingham left PRE in August, 2005. Dr. Ed Williams temporarily assumed her responsibilities until she was replaced in November 2005 Page 3 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 4 of 30 by Arthur Olds. Olds' resume can be found in Appendix A to the March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update. As reported in the June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, Olds sought reassignment to a teaching possession at Dunbar Magnet Middle School on April 14, 2006. Dr. Williams again temporarily assumed the Testing Coordinator responsibilities. LRSD posted the Testing Coordinator position in June, 2006 and interviews were scheduled for August, 2006. See September 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. A new testing coordinator, Danyell Cummings was hired October 1, 2006. Her resume is attached as Exhibit A to this Compliance Report. 8. The current PRE staff has all of the qualifications listed in paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. LRSD complied with paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. 9. The requirements of paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy are: B. The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process. It may take a decade or more for LRSD to make sufficient progress in improving the academic achievement of African-American students to justify discontinuing the need for specific  2.7 programs. For that reason, the comprehensive program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. Only then will I have the necessary assurance that LRSD intends to continue using that process for as long as it is needed to determine the effectiveness of the various key  2. 7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. Part of LRSD's proof, at the next compliance hearing, must include evidence that it has devised and implemented a comprehensive Page 4 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 5 of 30 program assessment process, which has been deeply embedded as a pennanent part of its curriculum and instruction program. l suggest that LRSD use Dr. Ross to assist in developing this comprehensive program assessment process\nthen be sure that he approves that process before it is finalized and implemented. 10. LRSD has devised and deeply embedded a comprehensive program assessment process in accordance with paragraph B of the Compliance . Remedy. LRSD used Dr. Ross to assist in developing the comprehensive program assessment process. By the time of the first Quarterly Update on December 1, 2004, PRE and Dr. Ross had \"developed and shared with ODM and the Joshua Intervenors a program assessment process to be deeply embedded in LRSD's educational operations.\" December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, p. 6. The final draft of that process is found at Appendix B of the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. This final draft was furnished to ODM and the Joshua Intervenors more than a month in advance of its consideration by the LRSD Board of Directors. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, p. 11. The comprehensive program assessment process was approved by the LRSD Board on December 16, 2004. March 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 11. The comprehensive program assessment process has become deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. The embedding of the comprehensive program assessment process has included Page 5 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 6 of 30 the development of a school district portfolio. As part of the process of the development and implementation of the portfolio, four PRE department members attended an institute for data analysis during the summer of 2005, and a consultant \"visited LRSD and reviewed its data collection procedures anq resources.\" Id. 12. LRSD has continued to develop the infrastructure to support its comprehensive assessment process. A district portfolio is an important part of this infrastructure. The portfolio will \"allow PRE staff as well as others to more easily analyze data and intersect various types of data sets to answer research questions about comprehensive school improvement efforts.\" December 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 13. As of December 1, 2005, PRE had identified the data to be included in the district portfolio and had designed a draft district portfolio. Id. District administrators and principals were making use of the portfolio and steps were being taken \"to allow a more efficient collection of data related to educational processes.\" Id. Dr. Catterall used data from LRSD's portfolio in his step 2 evaluation of the Year-Round Education program. March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 14. The development of the district portfolio is a continual process. As new data becomes available (e.g. new test results) they are added to the data base. Page 6 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 7 of 30 The infrastructure is in place, and LRSD continues to expand and update its portfolio. See March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 15. During April of 2006, an expert on school portfolios provided professional development for LRSD principals, adminis.trators, and the PRE staff regarding the creation and use of school portfolios. June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. LRSD expects to begin the creation of school portfolios during the 2007-08 school year. 16. LRSD has also sought to deeply embed the comprehensive program assessment process by hiring a consultant, the Janis Group, to help develop a \"data warehouse.\" The Janis Group has \"expertise in storing, integrating, and efficiently accessing data.\" March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. The data warehouse will support frequent updates of the portfolio and allow timely data reports for purposes of planning, research, evaluation and developing policy. The data warehouse will allow reports to be generated by program, classroom, school, grade, or districtwide. Id. 17. There was some debate within LRSD about whether to purchase an internet-based data warehouse from a company called TetraData or to continue the in-house design and construction of a data warehouse using the Business Objects software and the database already available to LRSD. LRSD decided, with some Page 7 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 8 of 30 dissent from PRE, to continue to use and improve the Business Objects software. Business Objects is state of the art software which can be effectively used in the assessment of academic programs. The capabilities of the Business Objects data warehouse, including updating and reporting student. data, are shown in the \"Business Objects Reporting Tools\" document attached as Exhibit B to this Compliance Report. 18. The process of developing school and district portfolios, and creating a data warehouse, has revealed the need for LRSD to take steps to insure that the data entered into its database is accurate. The accuracy of the data would be a concern whether the district used the Business Objects system, the TetraData system or some other software system. To improve the accuracy of data reporting within LRSD, LRSD has increased the number of \"error checking routines\" in its computer software. LRSD also has a full time training coordinator whose job it is to train school registrars and other LRSD personnel in the proper entry of student data, to work with those people to identify and correct recurring data entry errors, and to generally assure the accuracy and completeness of student data within the LRSD database. The accuracy of the data in LRSD's database, including its portfolios, continues to improve. 19. Finally, as another part of embedding the comprehensive program - Page 8 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 9 of 30 assessment process, PRE has designed \"feasible, ongoing assessments of the four programs which Drs. Catterall and Ross subjected to step 2 evaluations last year.\" June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. LRSD also plans to have PRE conduct ongoing assessments of the programs currently being evaluated by Drs. Ross and Catterall. 20. LRSD has devised a comprehensive program assessment process as required by paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. That process has been deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum program. LRSD has complied with paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. 21. The requirements of paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy are: C. During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005-06), LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four (4) formal step 2 evaluations. Each of these step 2 evaluations must cover one of the key 2.7 programs, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Thus, over the course of the next two academic school years, LRSD must hire outside consultants to prepare a total of eight (8) formal step 2 evaluations of key  2.7 programs. During the recent compliance hearing, Dr. Ross made it clear that LRSD must conduct these formal step 2 evaluations of the key  2.7 programs in order to continue to make progress in improving the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students. Again, I suggest that LRSD hire Dr. Ross -- to perform the following tasks: ( 1) identify the four key  2. 7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key  2. 7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2005-06 school year\nand (2) prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible. If Dr. Ross cannot prepare all eight of the Page 9 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 10 of 30 step 2 evaluations, I recommend that LRSD hire someone that Dr. Ross recommends as possessing the experience and ability necessary to prepare those evaluations. 22. In accordance with paragraph C, LRSD hired Dr. Ross to \"identify the four key  2.7 programs that should be formally eval~ated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key  2. 7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2005-06 school year,\" and to \"prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible.\" 23. Dr. Ross was provided a copy of the Compliance Remedy and he endorsed the first Quarterly Update \"as representing an accurate portrayal of accomplishments to date and a viable plan for addressing the requirements of the Remedy.\" December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, Appendix C (p. 45). Dr. Ross assumed responsibility for preparing six of the required eight formal step 2 evaluations. Three of those cover the 2004-05 school year and were filed on February 6, 2006. Two others are for the 2005-06 school year and will be filed today. The sixth step 2 evaluation being prepared by Dr. Ross, Pre-K Literacy, has been delayed due to the unavailability of necessary data and is expected to be completed no later than November 15, 2006. 24. Two of the required eight formal step 2 evaluations were prepared by Dr. James Catterall. One covered the 2004-05 school year and was filed on Page 10 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 11 of 30 February 6, 2006. The other will be filed today. 25. PRE, in collaboration with Dr. Ross, selected Reading Recovery, Smart/Thrive, Compass Leaming and Year-Round Education to be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, pp. 7-9. Those evaluations have been completed. 26. Dr. Ross initially identified the following four  2.7 programs for step 2 evaluations in the 2005-06 school year: Arkansas A+ School Network\nKnowledgePoints\nPLATO Leaming and Pre-Kindergarten Literacy Development. June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4. At the request of the Joshua Intervenors, and with the agreement of Dr. Ross, 21 st Century Community Learning Centers was substituted for PLATO Leaming as the subject of an evaluation for the 2005- 06 school year. September 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4 and Appendix C, (pp. 19-21 ). KnowledgePoints was also replaced as the subject of evaluation by the READ 180 program because the supplier of KnowledgePoints withdrew its support of the program in Arkansas. December 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4. 27. Dr. Ross and Dr. Catterall possess the experience and ability necessary to prepare the eight required step 2 evaluations. Their qualifications are found in Appendix C to the first Quarterly Update (pp. 46-54). They are both familiar with the requirements of the Compliance Remedy and have agreed to Page 11 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 12 of 30 prepare their evaluations in accordance with those requirements. LRSD has complied with the requirements of paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. 28. The requirements of paragraph D of the Compliance Remedy are: D. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations must answer the following essential research question: \"Has the  2.7 program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of African-American students, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district?\" The eight step 2 evaluations may also answer as many other research questions as the designers of each evaluation deem necessary and appropriate. Each of the step 2 evaluations must be organized and written in such a way that it can be readily understood by a lay person. I will allow the outside experts preparing each of these evaluations to decide on the appropriate number of years of test scores and other data that need to be analyzed in preparing each evaluation. PRE must: (1) oversee the preparation of all eight of these step 2 evaluations\n(2) work closely with Dr. Ross and any other outside consultants hired to prepare these step 2 evaluations\nand (3) provide the outside consultants with any and all requested assistance and support in preparing these step 2 evaluations. 29. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations answers the essential research question of whether the program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of African-American students, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations also answers other important research questions. Each is organized and written so that its findings and recommendations can be readily understood by a lay person. In each case, the outside experts and the evaluation teams determined the evaluation design, Page 12 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 13 of 30 including the appropriate number of years of test scores and other data necessary to the utility of each evaluation. 30. PRE has overseen the preparation of all eight step 2 evaluations and worked closely with Drs. Ross and Catterall, and thos~ associated with them, to support their work and provide any and all requested assistance. See June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp.6-7\nMarch 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 4\nJune 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, pp. 5-6\nSeptember 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 6 and Appendix A. LRSD has substantially complied with the requirements of paragraph D of the Compliance Remedy. 31. The requirements of paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy are: E. In order to streamline LRSD's record-keeping obligation, I am going to require that each of the eight step 2 evaluations contain, in addition to the traditional information and data, a special section which: (I) describes the number of teachers and administrators, at the various grade levels, who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the key  2.7 program being evaluated\n(2) lists each of the recommended program modifications, if any, that were deemed necessary in order to increase the effectiveness of each of the  2.7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students\nand (3) briefly explains how each of the recommended modifications is expected to increase the effectiveness of the  2. 7 program. This requirement is intended to relieve LRSD of any independent record-keeping obligations under  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan and the Compliance Remedy. 32. In accordance with paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy, each of Page 13 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 14 of 30 the eight step 2 evaluations contains a section concerning data collection which describes the number of teachers and administrators at various grade levels who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the program being evaluated. Each of.the ejght evaluations also contains recommended program modifications and explains how the recommended modifications can be expected to increase the effectiveness of the program. See March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, pp. 4-5. 33. On April 18, 2006, LRSD convened the four evaluation teams which worked on the 2004-05 evaluations to consider the feasibility and the timeframe for implementing the external evaluators' recommendations. June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. A summary of LRSD's commitments to the modifications recommended by the external evaluators is found in Appendix A (pp. 7-11) to the June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update. LRSD will follow the same process of reviewing the evaluators' recommended modifications following receipt of the evaluations for the 2005-06 school year. LRSD has complied with the requirements of paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy. 34. The requirements of paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy are: F. As soon as PRE and Dr. Ross identify the eight  2.7 programs targeted for step 2 evaluations, PRE must notify the ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of those eight programs. In Page 14 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 15 of 30 addition, after PRE and Dr. Ross have formulated a comprehensive program assessment process and reduced it to a final draft, PRE must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua at least thirty days before it is presented to the Board for approval. I expect the Board to approve LRSD's comprehensive program assessment process no later than December 31, 2004. 35. In accordance with paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy, PRE notified ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of the eight  2.7 programs targeted for step 2 evaluations. See June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 8. PRE also provided to ODM and Joshua a final draft of the comprehensive program assessment process more than thirty days before it was presented to the Board for approval. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, pp. 6 and 11. The LRSD Board of - Directors approved the comprehensive program assessment process on December 16, 2004, in advance of the December 31, 2004 deadline. March 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. LRSD has met the requirements of paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy. 36. The requirements of paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy are: G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year. These quarterly updates must be delivered to the ODM and Joshua on December 1, March 1, June 1, and September 1 of each of those two academic school years. As soon as each of the eight step 2 evaluations has been completed and approved by the Board, LRSD must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua. Page 15 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 16 of 30 37. In accordance with paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy, LRSD submitted quarterly written updates to the Court and delivered them to ODM and Joshua on or before December 1, 2004, March 1, 2005, June 1, 2005, September 1, 2005, December 1, 2005, March 1, 2006, June 1, 2006 and September 1, 2006. Those quarterly written updates reported \"the status of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations\" prepared during the 2004-05 and 2005-06 school years. The quarterly updates also provided information on the status of compliance with other components of the Compliance Remedy. - 38. As soon as the four step 2 evaluations for the 2004-05 school year were completed and approved by the LRSD Board, LRSD provided them to ODM and Joshua. Three of the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year will be filed with the Court and provided to ODM and Joshua on October 16, 2006. The fourth will be filed with the Court and provided to ODM and Joshua on or before November 15, 2006. As soon as the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year are approved by the  LRSD Board, LRSD will provide final copies of those evaluations to ODM and Joshua. LRSD has complied with paragraph G of Page 16 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 17 of 30 the Compliance Remedy. 39. The requirements of paragraph J of the Compliance Remedy are: J. The four step program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year must be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2005. The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year must be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2006.  40. The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year were filed with the Court on February 6, 2006 in accordance with extended deadlines approved by the Court. Three of the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005- 06 school year will be filed on today in accordance with extended deadlines approved by the Court. Dr. Ross requires additional time to complete the Pre-K - Literacy evaluation because of the delayed availability of necessary testing data. LRSD has requested an extension of time for the filing of that step 2 evaluation to and including November 15, 2006, and expects to file that evaluation by that date. LRSD has substantially complied with paragraph J of the Compliance Remedy. 41. The requirements of paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy are: K. On or before October 15, 2006, LRSD must file a Compliance Report documenting its compliance with its obligations under  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, as specified in this Compliance Remedy. If Joshua wishes to challenge LRSD's substantial compliance, they must file objections on or before November 15, 2006. Thereafter, I will schedule a compliance hearing and decide whether LRSD has met its obligations under the Compliance Remedy and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. Page 17 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 18 of 30 42. LRSD is filing this Compliance Report on October 16, 2006 in accordance with paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy and the Court's July 12, 2006 letter to the parties ( docket no. 4027). WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above and in the eight Quarterly Updates which have been filed with the Court, and on the basis of the completion of eight step 2 program evaluations by Drs. Ross and Catterall, LRSD prays for an order finding it to be in substantial compliance with the Compliance Remedy contained in the Court's June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion, declaring LRSD to be a unitary school district, and releasing LRSD from all supervision and - monitoring by the Court. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) Khayyam M. Eddings (#02008) 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 Isl Christopher Heller Page 18 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 19 of 30 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on October 25, 2006, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us siones@mwsgw.com sjones@ili.com johnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl Christopher Heller Page 19 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 20 of 30 ---------------------\"-------- Career ObJ~ttvo: Pni!euioaal Experience: 2004-Preseat 1998-Pmont Education: Danyell Crutchne1d CuDUDin,s 5 Ben HOiAJl Con Little Rockt Ar.tamu 72210 (501) 407-Sm (501) 4-47-1737 To utillf.O proven academic and profeseiOJW experience to ob(ain a ch1Uoogi11g positiou u 1n adminillrator that will allow fCt' growth and an opportunity to contribute to 1. prop,ivo cducatiooal onvironmezit. High Schools That Wo(. Coordinator J. A. Fair Systcma Magnet High School Little R.ock, Arb.aw 72210 Randy Ruthrnord. Principal EnsJiahTc~ber J. A. Fair Sy,toim Magnet Hiib School LitlioRQclc,.Arbnsas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Priocip\u0026amp;l May. 2005 Educational Specialist, Educational Administration and SupcmU\u0026gt;D, University of Arlcansas at Little Rock Dccombor, 1993 Muter of Education, Sccondaey Education, University of ArbDsas at Uttlo Rock May, 1997 Bachcl of .Arts, English, Univc:raity of ArlcaDsu at Litt.le ~ Profwlonally Relaud Actlvitia: Actina Assistant Principal Section 504 Coordinator Council of Secondary Education S1Udioldcr Southem Regional Bducali011 Boazd Ut.eracy Team mombcr Teacher oft.be Year Ed~ational Spcc!al!st Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 21 of 30 Refemlca\nLinda Young Grants Cooldinator (501) 447-3372 work (SOl) 225-5439 home Jill Broob Principal David O'Dodd Blcmcntary (501)447-4300 work (SO l) 680-3767 home William Broadnax, Ed,D -Student Heari?lg . (501} 447-3582 work (501) 4070817 homo Sharon Cauley, Ed.D ~istant Principal  J.A. Fair Systems Magnet High Scbcol (501) 447-1700 ext 1710 work (501) 6-66-6216 home Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 22 of 30 Da11.yell Crutchfield Cummlnp 5 Bea Hogan Cove Little Rock, Arwuu 71210 (501} 407-8097 (501) '47.1737 Caretr ObJe~Uve: Pr.CeatonaJ Experimco: 2004-Present .Ed1tettlon: To utll!zo proven academic and jX'Ofossional experience lo obcain a challenging position as an administrator that will allow for growth and an opportunity to contn1Jutc to a prosn,slive cdul\national onvlromncnt, High Schools That Work Coordinator 1. A. Fair Syatems Magnet High School Little ~ok. Arbnsu 72210 Randy Ruthcrlbtd, Principal English Teach J. A. Fair S)'l~ms Magnet HiiJi School LittloRo\u0026lt;:k,Ar.kallsu 72210 Randy Rutherford, Priucipal May, 2005 Educational Specialist, ducational Administration and SUpcrviaiOl,I, University of Arbnsas at Little Rock D'\"mbcr, 1998 , Master oflldUClltioa, \u0026amp;condaty Education, trniVaity of Arkaasu al Little Rode May, 1997 Bachelor of Arts, English, lroleu.tonally Related ActMtlu: University of Arlcansas at Little Rocle Acting Assistant Principal Section .504 Coordinator Counc:il of Secondary Education Stakcholdct Southom Regional Eduutioo Board Literacy Team JllOl11ber Teacher of the Year Bduoatio.aal Specialist Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 23 of 30 llc!eraic:es: Linda Young Grants Coordinator {501) 447-3372 work (501) 225-5439 home rn1 Brooks Principal David O'Dodd Elcmcnwy (501) 447-4300 woJk (501) 680-3767 home William Broadnax, Ed,D Student Hearing (501) 447-3582 work (501)407-0817 homo Sharon Cauley, B\u0026lt;ID Assiatant Principal J.A. Fair Systeots Ma,snct High Schoo! (S01)447-1700en 1710 worlc (SOI) 666-Ql6 home Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 24 of 30 Bl Platform Little Rock School District Business Objects Reporting Tools Business Objects Enterprise is a scalable, adaptive platfonn that delivers insight and corporate information to all your end users. With a platform designed to help you confidently deploy and manage your Business Intelligence (BI) implementations, Business Objects provides the Little Rock School District with the extreme insight you need to extend your competitive advantage. The BI Platform provides a set of common seIYices to simplify deployment and management of BI tools, reports, and applications. The reporting system at the Little Rock School District includes infoanation delivery in subject areas including Student Demographics, Student Perfonnance, Budget and Finance, Employee Attendance, Child Nutrition, Human Resources, Accounts Payable, Payroll, Procurement, and Procurement Warehouse, to name a few. Flexible Services-Oriented Platform By building the Little Rock School District's BI solutions with Business Objects Enterprise, we have the flexibility to deploy a solution for a single information challenge, while being able to simultaneously expand the deployment as our needs evolve. Designed for Scalability and H!gll Performance Business Objects Enterprise is designed for scalability, reliability, fault-tolerance, extensibility, and 24n availability. This platfonn recognizes the importance of diverse global deployments, supports Unicode, and is compliant with Microsoft Windows, Sun Solaris, IBM AIX, HP-UX, and Linux. So you can start with a single BI project on one platform, and easily grow to support an enterprise--wide standardization initiative on multiple platfonns. With BI content now being delivered via intranet and extranet. BI platform scalability is a key issue. Business Objcx:ts Enterprise has the scalability you need to accommodate increasing numbers of users, process growing volumes of infonnation. and scale on a single machine-or clusters of machines-while maintaining high performance. Proven RellabUlty This platform's key attributes-performance, reliability, and scalability-are proven by extensive, real world testing and third-party certification. Enterprise is the only BI platform to achieve Microsoft Windows 2003 Datacenter certification. Business Objects Enterprise- covered by a 24/7 technical customer support-has demonstrably installed and run on a 32processor system, remained stable through rigorous stress testing, and stayed available after being subject to extensive failover conditions. We also continually conduct extensive benchmarking and perfonnance testing to ensure our platform -~-~-~-,-~-m_ec_t_th_e_n_eed_s_o_f_th_e_Ll__tt1_e_R_o_ck_S_ch_oo_l D-is_tn_c_t t_o_da_y_an_d-to_m_o_rr_o_w_. __ ,.(_i _ ~EXH-IBIT __ ,,] Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 25 of 30 Reporting Fundamentals The fundamental requirements of any reporting system are a normalized database and a reporting tool. Data from disparate systems and formats is collected in a centralized database platform and transformed into a consistent, well organized reporting database. Many reports have been created and delivered from this reporting database using Crystal Reports as the reporting tool. Normalized Data This data, securely housed at the Little Rock School District Technology Center, has been nonnalized to 3rd nonnal form on a Microsoft SQL Server database server. The original database management software is DB2 residing on an IBM AS/400 application server, which houses a majority of tl!,e studentbased data. Other student data resides in Microsoft Access or is provided to the CIS department via Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. Automated processes have been developed and scheduled to update the student data nightly, where required. Processes have also been designed and implemented to update data in key financial, human resources and accounting subject areas. Business Objects provides the industry's leading suite of integrated business intelligence products. The products are categorized into three groups: Reporting allows all levels of the Little Rock School District to access, format, and deliver data as meaningful infoIU1ation to large populations of information consumers like teachers and school administrators both inside and outside the organization. This is provided through detailed reports created using Crystal Reports and accessed via a web browser using the Business Objects Enterprise Info View application.  Query and Analysis tools allow end users to interact with District infonnation and answer ad hoc questions, without advanced knowledge of the underlying data sources and structures. This is provided through a product called Web Intelligence or WEBI. This allows users to create dynamic reports from their desks with little or no required knowledge of the underlying database schema. In-depth analysis is performed using OLAP Intelligence, a powerful OnLine Analytic Processing tool that provides detailed, fast, multidimensional data for sophisticated comparative analysis and reporting. Performance Management products help users align with strategy by tracking and analyzing key business and educational metrics and goals via management dashboards, scorecards, and alerting. This is provided through Performance Manager and Dashboard Manager products that present Key Performance Indicators in user-friendly, interactive graphical tools. Crystal Reports A world SUIIldard for enterprise reporting, Crystal Reports is an intuitive reporting solution that helps customers rapidly create flexible, feature-rich, high-fidelity reports and tightly integrate them into web and Windows applications. The Crystal Reports enterprise reporting solution consists of: LRSDBITDOIJ l'll#,11o/7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 26 of 30  Powerful report design: Report authors can use the visual report designer (with a complete set of layout and design controls), to design highly fonnatted, interactive, and professional-looking reports. And they can design within the leading .NET and Java development tools without having to step out of their chosen development environment.  Flexil\u0026gt;le application development: Developers can leverage cross-platform support for Java, .NET, and COM development technologies. HTML is generated directly by Crystal Reports, allowing developers to focus on application business logic, rather than tedious, time-intensive hand coding. Separation of application development and rep_ort design tasks allow developers to focus on application development, while the report authors can focus on report design.  Report management and delivery: Reports are easily published to the web, for better business decisions in all areas of the Little Rock School District Reports can be exported and repurposed to the electronic formats used by most end users (e.g. PDF and Excel). IT can centralize the management of operational reporting while distributing the report authoring function out to departments of the District that need them. The following themes are an overview of what featw-es are available in Crystal Reports XI:  Powerful data access and report design  Enhanced productivity and maintenance  Report management and delivery Dynamic a.nd Cascading Prompts Report prompts can be based on dynamic values. This means that report designers no longer have to maintain static prompt value lists within individual reports. Instead, they can reuse existing prompts stored in the repository. HTML Preview The iterative report design/view process is streamlined, with a new IITML preview that allows report authors to see how reports will look when published to the web. Editable RTF Format This new feature is ideal for report export editing. It delivers reports to end users in a new RTF foxmat, so they can easily make their own document modifications. Report Export Cootlguratioo The report designer can save report export configuration infonnation within the report itself so that the end user forgoes the time and trouble of reconfiguring the export each time a. report is nm. Dependency Checker With the new dependency checker, report authors can quickly .find bro.ken links, formula cnors., and dependency issues. This greatly reduces the time spent on QA. Business Views Speed Report Design and Maintenance Cycles Crystal Enterprise Business Views helps you better manage reporting across multiple data sources and applications by simplifying data access, change management, and data-level security processes. An UfSD Bl TooJ1 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 27 of 30 optional service in Crystal Enterprise, Business Views allow you to integrate data from disparate sources, handle promotion/demotion between development and production environments, and control security at both the row and column level. Simplified Data Access Data access is one of the most fundamental, yet difficult aspects of designing a report. Locating the right data, joining tables appropriately, and filtering the data to focus on a specific subject area requires an indepth knowledge of the underlying data structures. The Business View Manager allows you to simplify data access for your report designers by insulating them from the raw data structures. You can build connections to multiple data sources, join tables, alias field names, create calculated fields, and then surface this simplified structure as a Business View in Crystal Entc:rprise. Your report designers can then connect to Crystal Enterprise and use the Business View as the basis for their report, rather than accessing the data directly and building their own queries. Business Views helps administrators pull data together from disparate sources. Data Connections (created visually or with complex SQL statements) can be integrated into a Data Foundation. Once the Data Foundation is built, Business Elements (a collection of related fields from the Data Foundation) can be created and combined into a Business View. The modular architecture of Business Views also allows you to readily re-use various components of one Business View to build other Business Views. A single, broad data foundation can serve as the basis for multiple, specialized Business Views. Used carefully, these capabilities allow you to minimize the number of changes required to introduce new data, fields, or formulas into your system. Granu1ar Data-level Security Many reporting scenarios involve complex security requirements. Each user is entitled to sec a slightly different slice of District data, based on their School, Department or level of seniority. Data in tho Little Rock School District is commonly segregated by School and Teacher-based information. Business Views allow teachers to view data regarding their students and prevents them form seeing data regarding students that are NOT assigned to them. Rather than creating a number of different reports to meet this need, we can create a single report and use the security features of Business Views to filter data appropriately for each user. Using the Business View Manager, you can set up row- or colwnn-level filters azid map these filters to users or U$Cl' groups stored in your existing LDAP, Active Directory, or Windows authentication provider. This security is then consistently applied at the data level, ensuring that any report design based on a Business View will respect the underlying data security. You can th.en choose to schedule the report to run regularly. Or you oan allow users to refresh it on demazid. Regardless, Crystal EntCIJ)rise can generate a master instance of the report (with all the data included if you run the report wider an administrator context) and then filter the report every time a user views it. All exporting, printing, and report modification requests will' also return only the data the user is entitled 10 see. L1ISD Bl Tools Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 28 of 30 Change Management and Re--use Maintaining a large set of reports is often more time-consuming and complex than new development. Activities such as making small changes in response to user needs, updating business calculations, changing fonnatting. and moving your reports between development and production data sources all delay you from addressing new requirements. Business Views includes two key features to help you spend less time on report maintenance. First, you can use Dynamic Data Connections to store connections to multiple instances qfthc same database (e.g., development, test, and production). By passing a parameter when you're designing (or scheduling) the report, you can select which data source the report runs against. Second, you can store COillIIl?nly-used functions, text objects, and logos directly in your data foundation. This allows you to easily roll changes across multiple reports by changing the object once. Business Objects Enterprise Info View Business Objects Info View is a completely redesigned web interface that enables user to navigate, create, and interact with District information. Integrated search and navigation tools allow users to easily find the infonnation they need. Users can also personalize their interactions to simplify consumption of District infonnation. Info View is built to support Java and Microsoft based web servers, to easily fit within you're the Little Rock School District IT infrastructure. Web Intelligence Many organizations find it difficult to access information not contained in standard reports. And requests to IT for new information simply add to the report backlog. Even when ad hoc query capabiJities are available, they're typically difficult to use and don't provide your non-technical users with a simple method of exploring information, to really understand the business issue at hand. With Business Objects Web Intelligence, both self-service access to information and data analysis are available in one product, helping your users turn educational analysis into effective decisions. Users can create a query from scratch, format the information retrieved, and analyze it to understand underlying trends and root causes. If the full power of query capabilities is not required, users can simply analyze infonnation in existing reports-fonnatting and exploring them to meet specific needs. CLAP lntelllgence Business Objects OLAP Intelligence is a powerful and easy-to-use tool that allows you to access and analyze data stored in the leading OLAP servers. It uniquely satisfies the analysis requirements ofboth information analysts (power users) and less sophisticated knowledge workers (business users). With OLAP Intelligence, power users can slice and dice, drill, rank, sort. filter, create calculations on the fly, and perfonn speed-of-thought data exploration. And business users can interact with pre-built OLAP workbooks that contain highly intuitive, graphical views of educational activity, guided navigation and worktlows, and flexible ad hoc analysis. Its advanced analysis capabilities, shared security, aod relational drill-through allow you to standardize on Business Objects for all of your BI needs. OLAP Intelligence delivers:  Best-of-breed ad hoc OLAP  Managed OLAP authoring and distribution  Integration with the market leading, trusted BI platfonn LRSDBfTools Pq,Sofl Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 29 of 30 Best-of-Breed Ad Hoc OLAP The primary driver for implementing an OLAP database is to provide users with fast access to multidimensional data. IT develops focused OLAP cubes to provide users with a structured data environment, optimized for analysis. But in order for users to take advantage of the pre-aggregated data within an OLAP cube, they require an interface that allows them to drill, slice, and dice while leveraging the response times that the predefined OLAP cube environment offers. Speed-of-Thought Analysis OLAP Intelligence provides an intuitive, web-based interface that allows users to select dimensions and members from a query panel as well as perfonn similar analysis from integrated Windows, Microsoft Excel, and ActiveX client interfaces. Users can interact with their data and ask spontaneous questions to uncover trends and identify anomalies. And because OLAP Intelligence takes advantage of the power of the OLAP cube, users are guaranteed speed-of-thought response time. Intuitive, Function-Rich Interface The OLAP Intelligence interface is both intuitive and function-rich. Common functions such as ranking, filtering, highlighting, quick calculations, zero suppression, and axis swapping are available with a single click of the mouse. More advanced analyses are only a few mouse clicks away and provide an uncluttered, intuitive user interface that requires minimal training. With OLAP Intelligence, users can also asymmetrically display data and hide specific dimensions that are irrelevant to data exploration. Deep, Open Access to Microsoft, Hyperion, and SAP OLAP Servers With OLAP Intelligence, you get best-of-breed, ad hoc OLAP for today's leading, multidimensional databa.so servers-Microsoft SQL Server Analysis Services, Hyperion Essbase, IDM DB2 OLAP, and SAP BW. For exampl~ native Hyperion Essbase 7.x support for free-fonn calculations and cube actions means that organizations are maximizing their OLAF server investments and taking advantage ofkey enhancements and optimizations. Managed OLAP Authoring and Distribution OLAP Intelligence goes further than most OLAP clients on the market today by not only providing powerful ad hoc analysis, but also delivering a flexible, managed OLAP environment. With OLAP Intelligence, you can easily create sophisticated workbooks that exploit the power of the underlying OLAP scrva, and enable users to build in predefined navigation paths and workflows. Then you can securely deploy and deliver the workbooks live: to business users who don't necessarily fit the powerdata analyst profile. These OLAP work.books may contain custom buttons and multi-page reports that recipients can view and interact with over the web, Publish Live OLAP Workbooks to Business Users When users view an OLAP Intelligence workbook over the web, it may appear as a dashboard with custom functionality specific to one area of the business, or as an ad hoc interface that allows them to perform advanced analysis. Because OLAP Intelligence has a flexible design and was created to meet powerful ad hoc and managed analysis needs, the deployment possibilities are limitless. Built-In Guided Navigation and Data Exploration UISD Bl T* Pq16of7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 30 of 30 With OLAP Intelligence you can guide users through the OLAP data navigation and exploration process. For example, a user can highlight a group of cells in a report, click a custom analysis button, and view a new graph that has drilled down on the chosen group, displaying variances as a worksheet and chart. A show trend analysis button could then be ma.de available that displays a new page in the workbook with a year-over-year comparison. Open drill-through capabilities in OLAP Intelligence empower users to drill from aggregated OLAP data down to relational details. This means that users can navigate and explore-summarized infonnation, and drill through and pass context to more detailed Crystal Reports or Business Objects Web Intelligence documents. This contextual drill-through technology provides users with intelligent navigation without the need to understand the complexities of underlying data and metadata structures. J.IISD8/Toou Pqa7o/7\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 Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\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\u003eLittle Rock School District\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 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1708","title":"Court filings: District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) supplement to motion to approve middle school implementation; District Court, memorandum and order; District Court, two orders; District Court, motion for additional time to respond to compliance report; District Court, order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' opposition to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) compliance report; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) 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","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2001-06"],"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","Pulaski County Special School District","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education, Secondary","Educational innovations","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","School improvement programs","School facilities"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) supplement to motion to approve middle school implementation; District Court, memorandum and order; District Court, two orders; District Court, motion for additional time to respond to compliance report; District Court, order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' opposition to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) compliance report; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) 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/1708"],"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":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["8 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED 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. PCSSD SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO APPROVE MIDDLE SCHOOL IMPLEMENTATION The PCSSD, for its supplement to motion, states: RECI\\VEO jU~ 4 10m --==-- PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. Attached as Exhibit \"A\" is a timeline received today from the Little Rock School District setting forth its middle school activities. 2. While the Little Rock District began a pilot program that concluded in 1997, it is clear that the actual work of committees and others to plan and implement a district-wide implementation did not begin in earnest until January of 1998. 3. Thus, if one compares the activities of the LRSD and the PCSSD respecting district-wide implementation and activities undertaken with respect thereto, it - is apparent that the timelines, actions and other strategies are very similar. 4. Indeed, in the area of professional development and training, the timelines and activities are virtually identical. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD renews its requests that its motion to implement middle schools be approved as soon as possible. 258646-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June 1, 2001, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 258646-v1 2 Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 258646-v1 .am el Jones Ill ~  3 JUN-Oi-ot FRI t0:05 AM FAX NO, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MIDDLE SCHOOL IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE DATI: 1990- 1997 December, 1995 January, 1998 January. 1998 January, 1998 March, 1998 March, 1998 October, 1998 Fall, 1998 ACTIVITY Middle school concepts piloted within  junior high configuration at Pulaski Heights, Forest Heights, Cloverdale and Southwest Junior Highs with support of the New Futures/C~sey grant LRSD Strategic Plan approved by Boa.rd of Education: Strategic Plan Includes district wide middle schools Revised Desegregation and Education Plan includes establishment of a sched1.1le for the orderly conversion of some or all of Its junior high schools to middle schools arades 6-8 Completion of district wide plan for an orderlv transition to middle schools Initial meeting of the LRSD Middle School Steering Committee. Committee received the cha,ge and tasks of serving as the coordinating committee throughout the planning and initial implementation process and to make recommendations to the Superintendent regarding the development and lmplementatlon of the middle school transition. LRSD Middle School Program Mission Statement adopted by LRSO Board of Education Stl;lering committee eleven subcommittees receive charge and task\u0026 and becin work LRSD Middle School Program Standards adopted by the Board of Education Steering committee/sub-committee recommendations finalized; regular communication briefing\u0026 conducted throuahout communltv l;XHIBIT I A P. 02/03 JUN-01~01 FRi t0:05 AM FAX NO. P. 03/03 Winter, 1999 Phase One of professional development program initiated; continued communlcat!on updates Implementation of initial phase of approved recommendation5; steering committee submits final recommendations to Superintendent; completed staff assignments for middle schools and high schools; elementary, Junior highs and high schools complete clans for student transitions Spring, 1999 Finalize logistical plans; Phase Two of professional development program; continued communication updates; implemented Intermediate phase of oroarem recommendations Summer, 1999 Phase Three of professional development program; implement logistical plan; complete final phase of oroQram recommendations Fall, 1899 OoeninQ of LRSD middle schools -- ----- - - - - - - - - ------------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JUN O ~ 2001 WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * * vs. * No. 4:82CV00866 SWW * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT, ET AL., * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., * Intervenors, * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., * Intervenors. * MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RECEIVED JUN 8 2001 OfflCEOF IISBi\u0026IIIIIIJI Before the Court are the motion and supplements to the motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") for Court approval of a conversion to middle schools and revamped high schools for the 2001-02 school year. Also before the Court are the PCSSD's motion and supplement to the motion for approval of middle school construction modification. The Court held a hearing on the motions for approval of conversion to middle schools and revamped high schools on May 4, 2001. On May 21, 2001, the Joshua Intervenors and the Knight Intervenors, on behalf of the Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (\"PACT\") and the Pulaski Association of Support Staff (\"PASS\"), filed objections to the middle school conversion. On May 29, 2001, the PCSSD filed its response to those objections. Upon review of the motions, objections, and response, as well as the evidence presented during the May 4, 2001 hearing, the Court determines that it will not prevent the PCSSD from proceeding with the conversion to -middle schools for the coming school year and grants the motions. 34 40 I. When the PCSSD initially filed its motion for approval of conversion to middle schools and revamped high schools, the Court had concerns about the degree of planning that the PCSSD invested in the conversion and about whether its desegregation obligations were being addressed. The submissions in support of the motions did not reflect a coherent plan of action and there was no indication that the PCSSD used desegregation and equity as a filter through which to plan and implement various aspects of the middle school concept, such as racial balance, student assignment, staffing, capacity, and student recruitment issues. Further, the PCSSD's filing did not reflect evidence that the Assistant Superintendent for Equity and Pupil Services and the Director of Desegregation were significantly involved in the middle school planning or implementation process. In addition, there was no budget document that broke down all the costs of the middle school conversion, and there were no projections of enrollment and racial balance at Bates Elementary School nor recruitment plans for Bates in conjunction with the middle school conversion. The issues regarding Bates were specifically raised by the Court during the August 9, 2000 hearing on an administrative reorganization and a modification of the PCSSD's student assignment plan. At the hearing held on May 4, 2001, several parents testified as to their involvement in the conversion to middle schools. From their testimony, the Court concludes that parental involvement was minimal. Ms. Gloria Rousseau, Director of Secondary Education and Chairman of the Middle School Task Force, who took over in the middle of the conversion process after Dr. James Fox, an assistant superintendent, became ill and subsequently resigned, testified regarding her efforts to involve parents and teachers in the process. She testified that the PCSSD had no 2 written comprehensive district-wide plan for conversion to middle schools nor did the District have an overall plan addressing the effects conversion would have on desegregation. The Joshua lntervenors object to the conversion on the basis that the PCSSD has yet to comply with its desegregation commitments, has not considered the racial impact of the middle school conversion, has no written plans for conversion of the schools or a time table, has not involved the PCSSD's Office of Desegregation regarding desegregation impact, and has not collaborated with the other parties in the case regarding implementation or planning. The PACT and PASS contend that the PCSSD has failed to involve stakeholder groups in the planning process. They object to the conversion as well, asserting the lack of a district-wide comprehensive written plan, the lack of a staff development training program, the lack of space, and the lack of timely deployment of staff. All these shortcomings have resulted in confusion, - frustration, anxiety, and low teacher morale. In response to these objections, the PCSSD disputes the Joshua Intervenors' assertion that the District has not complied with its desegregation commitments and has not considered the racial impact of middle schools. The PCSSD reiterates that no student assignment zones will change, and that it will continue to apply the same rules regarding assignment and allocation of staff. Further, the PCSSD submits a Plan for Transition to Middle Schools as an exhibit to its response as well as consolidated timetables for all activities which have occurred and the few that are yet to occur. The PCSSD points out the testimony of Mr. Karl Brown, Assistant Superintendent for Equity and Pupil Services, who stated he is comfortable with the process and the activities which have occurred, and Ms. Rousseau's testimony concerning the middle schools and districts which the PCSSD examined and visited as part of this process. 3 In response to the PACT and PASS objections, the PCSSD asserts their objections are \"untimely, speculative, and premised largely upon double and triple hearsay, and . mischaracterization of witnesses' testimony.\" 1 In addition, the PCSSD submits exhibits which it contends show that, contrary to the assertions made by PACT, the staff allocation process is 94 % complete for the middle schools,2 and that the agreement between the District and the Union regarding the conversion does not require that middle school personnel placement be completed by the end of May. 3 Further, the PCSSD submits an exhibit which it contends shows that the reservation of openings for minority staff is in keeping with Plan 2000 in which the District committed to increasing the number of African-American secondary core teachers. 4 Neither the Court nor any of the parties or intervenors conceptually oppose the conversion of the school grade alignment from essentially a six-grade primary, three-grade junior high and three-grade senior high to a five-grade primary, three-grade middle, and four-grade high school configuration. The Court continues to have its own concerns and shares the concerns of the objectors about the lack of planning and stakeholder involvement on the part of the PCSSD in the conversion to middle schools. However, the Court believes and hopes that the implementation of the middle school concept will benefit student achievement and reduce disparity. In addition, the Court believes it is important for the PCSSD to align its grade configuration with those of the Little Rock and North Little Rock school districts as soon as possible to avoid negative impacts 1See Docket entry 3435 (PCSSD's Combined Reply to Joshua Intervenors and PACT) at 3. 2See Docket entry 3435, Ex. D. 3See Docket entry 3435, Ex. E. 4See Docket entry 3435, Ex. E. 4 on M-to-M recruiting and magnet school attendance. The Court determines that putting a hold on the conversion to middle schools, however flawed the planning has been, would be more damaging than allowing the PCSSD to proceed to middle school conversion on the present schedule. The Court, therefore, will not prevent the conversion to middle schools and will grant the motions. The Court will direct the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to monitor closely the conversion process and the impact of the realignment on the desegregation plan. II. Also before the Court are motions to approve middle school construction modification.  The Court notes that the construction projects at Mills and Robinson High Schools were underway  prior to the filing of the April 13, 2001 motion and April 18, 2001 supplement to the motion. Additionally, to seek the court's permission for construction after the fact is neither a demonstration of good planning and management nor a manifestation -of good faith on the part of the PCSSD. The Court is concerned about the changes in building capacities and in the use of space created at the elementary schools when the sixth grade is moved to middle schools. Again, the Court does not wish to obstruct the implementation of the conversion to middle schools in the PCSSD and, therefore, grants the motions. The Court will direct the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to monitor closely the impact of the construction upon the desegregation plan as well as the use of space created by the middle school conversion. 5 m. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motions to approve middle schools and revamped high schools5 are granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motions to approve middle school construction modification6 are granted. i1f1\\.... DATED this _\"T_ day of June 2001. 5Docket entries 3402 \u0026 3422. 6Docket entries 3418 \u0026 3419. -~~~~~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH R~,LE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON 6 r Lf--0} BY_vf:..-,1.... __ 6 -  FILED EAsTMRsN. DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUN 0 5 2001 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ~~:ME1'f, ~iri~~ ~K DEPCLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * * vs. * No. 4:82CV00866 SWW * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT, ET AL. , * Defendants, * RECEIVED * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., * JUN 13 100\\ Intervenors, * * omCEOf KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., * DESE61Sll0li MONll0RlNG Intervenors. * ORDER On April 4, 2001, the Joshua Intervenors filed a motion for extension of time to respond to the LRSD 's Notice of Filing and Request for Scheduling Order. On the same day, the Court filed an Order setting forth deadlines and hearing dates to address any challenges to the LRSD Compliance Report. 1 Therefore, the Court finds that the motion [ docket entry 3415] is moot. The Clerk is directed to remove said motion from the pending motions report. DATED this~ day of June 2001. \u0026iLll~.)1~~ F JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 The Court referenced in that Order a letter from the Joshua Intervenors' counsel in which he stated he needed additional time to review the report. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE -~l~_')._U~~ ~8 AND/D_~9(a) FRCP FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUN O 5 2001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. , Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER No. 4:82CV00866 SWW RECEIVED JUN 1 3 2001 OFFlCE Of DESEGREGATION MDNITOiUNS Before the Court is the motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") for Court approval of the addition of an activities complex at Baker Interdistrict School. The Joshua Intervenors have responded in opposition to the motion. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants the motion. The PCSSD notes that parents and an area business have approached the principal of Baker Interdistrict School about privately funding the building of an activities complex that would include a gymnasium, music room, and art room. 1 The PCSSD asserts that the addition of an activities complex would enhance recruitment of minority students to Baker and help it compete more effectively with the private schools in the area. The Joshua Intervenors object to the motion, 1See Ex. A, PCSSD Mot. to Approve Add. of Activities Complex, docket entry 3430. arguing that the proposal has not been developed and fully considered, and may serve to further establish Baker as a racially identifiable school. Among the specific concerns expressed by the Joshua lntervenors are the PCSSD 's recruitment ( or lack thereof) of minority students from the Little Rock School District and the lack of a recruitment plan in the motion; the absence of a plan setting forth any additional resources, including staff that may be required in expanding programs; the lack of a statement of costs; no indication of whether existing programs will be duplicated; and no indication of the effect of the addition on other schools. Lastly, the Joshua Intervenors -- question whether private donations may be used to establish \"'separate but unequal' schools. \"2 The Court believes community and parental involvement in public schools, including voluntary contributions, should be encouraged. Perhaps the Baker experience will serve as an example to encourage similar parental and community involvement at other schools in the three - Pulaski County school districts. In granting the motion and approving the addition at Balcer, however, the Court directs the PCSSD to file a report by July 9, 2001, setting forth how it intends to improve racial balance at Baker and how it is going about meeting its obligations under Section J of Plan 2000. The Court further directs the PCSSD to set forth target dates for completion of these obligations.3 2See Joshua's Resp. to PCSSD's Mot. to Approve Baker Addition (docket entry 3436) at 3. 3Section J of the Plan, School Resources, provides: \"PCSSD shall design and carry out, in consultation with the Joshua Intervenors, a study to detennine whether school resources are allocated equitable (sic) among the schools of the district. The resources assessed may include such factors as pupil/teacher ratio; pupil/staff ratio; square feet per pupil; percentage of staff with a masters degree and nine or more years of experience; the turnover rate of certified staff; school size; computer/pupil ratio; per pupil expenditure; volunteer hours per pupil; and donations per pupil. The study shall contain recommendations, where appropriate, to address any problems identified.\" See docket entry 3337, Attach. C (PCSSD Plan 2000). 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion to approve the addition of an activities complex at Baker Interdistrict School4 is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the PCSSD file its report on or before July 9, 2001. ..JI\\.. DATED this l,) day of June 2001. ~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO{IB.T THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH Rl,ILE 58 ANO/OR~) FRCP ON (c, - l.;,- Q) BY---'\\.._[L __ The Court notes that the same ten factors were addressed in the \"Report of LRSD's Assessment of the Equitable Allocation of Resources,\" docket entry 3214. 4Docket entry 3430. 3 .,I FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUN f 5 2001 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTJA.MES W. McCORMACK, CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS By. ______ =-=-- WESTERN DIVISION DEP CLEl\u003cK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLIANCE REPORT PLAJNTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VENO RS Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, for their Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to LRSDs Compliance Report, state: 1. Counsel is in negotiations with counsel for the Little Rock School District regarding the compliance report and other matters. 2. This request is not made for purposes of delay. 3. Counsel for Little Rock School District has been consulted and has authorized undersigned counsel to indicate that he does not object to this request. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors pray that the Court enter an Order extending the time in which they may respond to the Little Rock School District' s Compliance Report up to and including June 25, 2001. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-3~74]/5]8 ~ I . By _{__Jj; _Qv'-\u003c:...,-v-'----\" J W. alker CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing has been sent to all counsel ofrecord on this 15th day ofJune, 2001. RECEIVl:IJ JUN 2 5 2001 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JUN 2 O 2001 ~(I~ WESTERN DNISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, * * * * *  JA~E1. ~RMACK. ~ By. \\ ' \\ l /\\ /\\f\\ DEPCLERK vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT, ET AL., * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., * Intervenors, * KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., lntervenors. * * * ORDER No. 4:82CV00866 SWW Before the Court is the motion of the Joshua Intervenors for an extension of time in which - to respond to the Little Rock School District's Compliance Report. For good cause shown, and without objection from the Little Rock School District, the Court grants the motion. The Joshua Intervenors have until and including June 25, 2001, within which to file their response. No further exte~ions will be granted. SO ORDERED this ~ay of June 2001. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE Wll1' RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON e_~c)..(,Ol sv_rr=-: __ ~A, ~ F JUDGE --=-- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRicf coUR1J.foU~1E,D EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAf SA's'STERN DISTRg A~~:~SAs WESTERN DMSION f' . JUN 2 5 2001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants, NIRS . LORENE JOSHUA, et al:, Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors, * .~:~ES W. McCORMACK, CLERK * * * No. 4:82CV00866 SWW * * * * * * * * * * RECEIVED JUN 2 6 2001 OfRCEOf OESE6RE6AnON lllNJTORJNG JOSHUA INTERVENOR'S OPPOSITION TO LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S COMPLIANCE REPORT PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the Court to defer final decision upon the petition of the Little Rock School District for a declaration that it is now unitary as that term has been defined by relevant case law. Toe Joshua Intervenors believe that there are numerous significant questions which are not addressed in a clear, accurate and substantive manner which need to be further explored in an evidentiary proceeding before the Court. Upon that event the Court would be in a better position to make the necessary analysis to determine whether the objectives and commitments of the revised desegregation plan have been fully met. Toe Joshua Intervenors believe further that = the Court must have before it a written response to the district's plan or other written analysis -1- regarding that plan from the Court's Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) before the Court can issue a final opinion regarding the matter. Otherwise, any assessment by the Court would be incomplete and not in keeping with the expectations of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals when it required the establishment of the ODM to assist the Court in determining and effectuating desegregation compliance. The sc:hool district's compliance report of March 15, 2001, which incorporates by reference its interim compliance report dated March 15, 2000, is before the Court reportedly to inform concerned interests of \"the status of the district's efforts to meet its obligations under the revised plan . . . \" The district makes reference to the fact that it offered the opportunity for interested parties to provide comments or suggestions to the interim court and that it received none. Because it received no comments or suggestions regarding that report, the district has determined that the form of the report is appropriate for the present report. That position is inaccurate. Joshua made many comments throughout the year to District officials regarding areas of noncompliance and bad faith implementation. Joshua notes, however, that before either of the reports was submitted to the Court, the district did not consult and meet with Joshua regarding the contents in order to reach the agreements of the report contemplated by the desegregation plan. The present report has many of the same failings of earlier reports to the Court. In fact, it has been the exception rather than the rule for the district to affirmatively involve Joshua in preliminary stages of any report or other activity undertaken by the school district. Joshua submits that the Little Rock School District is far from being \"unitary\" at this time, and that the District has much work to accomplish before court release is appropriate. Joshua further submits that the burden of proof that the District is unitary, i.e., has fulfilled all of its obligations, -2- is upon the District rather than upon Joshua. The following comments by Joshua to the March 15, 2001 report raise appropriate for further inquiry by the court. JOSHUA'S SERIATIM RESPONSES TO THE DISTRICT'S REPORT DATED MARCH 15, 2001 Section 2.1. LRSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools. The district firsts projects the covenants dated January 11, 2000 to illustrate its good faith beyond March 15, 2001 in.the event that the Court declares the district to be unitary. It points to meetings of administrators who were informed of the covenant; the involvement of Dr. Terrence Roberts, a consultant to the district1 ; and the receipt of the district of a \"quality interest award\" from the Arkansas Quality Award Nonprofit Agency to demonstrate that the initiatives now in place will continue. Joshua notes that the emphasis of the report is upon the objective to improve the academic achievement of all students through the use of its resources in a manner which complies with the non discrimination requirements of law. The commitment is vague! It allows equal, we say greater, attention to the higher achieving white students than to the lower achieving Black students. It does not address the problems which have persisted since the settlement agreement was reached in 1989, especially the concern of remediating preexisting achievement disparities between white and Black 1 Dr. Roberts is one of the first African American students to enroll in Little Rock Central High, i.e., \"the Little Rock Nine\"; he is a clinical psychologist who is on the staff of the University of Antioch University. .., -.)- students. The district received at least $20 million dollars in the form of a forgivable loan by which to address the remediation disparities. Those achievement disparities linger. 2 In this respect, the State of Arkansas has given the district little assistance in meeting this objective and, on information and belief, despite noncompliance, has agreed to forgive the Little Rock School District loan obligation (See Exhibit 1 hereto). Joshua further notes that an objection to the incentive schools by district officials was that those schools were too program heavy and therefore did not lend themselves to effective implementation and evaluation of those programs. We believe that the district now has even more programs which were present in its schools and that the district's past criticism of the incentive schools programs may be applied to the programs which it has put in place since it reduced the number of incentive school programs. Effectiveness of the programs is still lacking. Effect is usually determined after program evaluation. The district's evaluation system borders upon being nil. The district makes reference under good faith to the success of the Campus Leadership Team, later referred to herein as CLT. The person assigned the responsibility for the CL T was Ms. Gayle Bradford. She (like School Superintendent Les Carnine and Associate Superintendent Brady Gadberry) is leaving the school district as of July 1. Her assignment to the position was makeshift in the first place in that it was a job created for her while the district determined what good use could be made of her services after she was removed as principal at Hall High School due to problems associated with desegregation complaince. The Campus Leadership Program was ill conceived, and 2The plan which set the objective that African American achievement as measured by appropriate standardized tests, on a comparative basis, would come within ten percentage points of white student academic achievement. -4- has been poorly implemented. It may be said that the CLT is only a hope for better school management for the future. But it too lacks an assessment or evaluation component. The Campus Leaderships Team are generally under the overall leadership of Associate Superintendent Ms. Sadie Mitchell, to whom Ms. Gayle Bradford reported. Ms. Mitchell, to her credit, has sought to create a working environment conducive to better cooperation between administrators and teachers. But those efforts .on her part are have just begun and with the departure of Ms. Bradford, must begin anew with new staff. The program is not so fundamentru.ly sound as to be self executing. Good faith is to be determined, we submit, within the context of the objectives set by the parties and by the law, especially the law of the case; the actions promised to be taken in order to achieve the objectives; and the manner in which those actions are actually undertaken. Good faith contemplates results as well as processes for achieving the contemplated results. The Little Rock School District outrageously argues that it is simply obliged to make promises to meet its objectives and to set up a procedure for fulfilling those promises but, having done that, it is not required to meet  the objectives set. That position reflects the basic difference between Joshua and Little Rock. Joshua believes that the commitments agreed upon required that the processes or plans for achieving the agreed upon objectives actually be fulfilled and that only conditions of impossibility could preclude compliance. Joshua further believes that the agreement contemplated that there would be prompt undertaking of the commitments; and that that undertaking would be vigorous and sustained. Joshua also believes that implicit in the agreement is that the commitments would be subject to professionally competent evaluation of policies, programs, and procedures put in place as implementing tools for the plan objectives. As will be shown below, the District's efforts have been neither timely nor prompt, vigorous or sustained; nor complimented by competent professional -5- evaluation. We are thus met with a pleading of excuse with promises (the Covenant) of actions that will follow upon Court release. The question before the Court is whether the district can be expected to achieve goals and objectives without Court oversight (the Covenant) that have not been achieved with Court oversight. Moreover, how can Black students enforce this Covenant? \"The LT program was at the heart of the District's efforts to met its obligations under the reviewed plan\". P. 1, Compliance Report. \"A quality school district meets the needs of all students.\" In adopting the CLT program, the District committed itselftoproviding each school the leadership and autonomy necessary to meet the needs of each school's unique population. With that autotomy comes a responsibility to ensure the success of each student.\" Page 3, Compliance Report. Joshua differs with that obj~.ctive. Remediation of disparity conflicts with that concept. When racial grouping is taken into account. Joshua has not been provided with any report which reports an evaluation of the CLT program or of the results that have been achieved by that program. The program appears to accept the proposition that individual schools, through the CLT, will meet their responsibility to each of its students. Because of this \"autonomy\", some magic conversion or remediation of disparities will occur it seems to be argued. Joshua submits that the CLT's actually provide more opportunity for discrimination and for mischief and maintenance of the status quo_ than a system wide appr "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1725","title":"Court filings: District Court, the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) defendants' response to motion to extend time and for referral; District Court, motion to substitute a complete copy of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) interim compliance report; District Court, two orders; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) 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","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2000-04"],"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","Pulaski County Special School District","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) defendants' response to motion to extend time and for referral; District Court, motion to substitute a complete copy of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) interim compliance report; District Court, two orders; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) 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/1725"],"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":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["76 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  EDWARD L . WRIGHT (1903 - 1977 ) ROBERTS . LINDSEY (1'1 13-1991 ) ISAAC A. SCOTT, JR . JOHN G . LILE WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHN O DAVI S JU DY SIMMONS H ENR Y KIMBERLY WOOO TUCKER RAY F CO X. JR . GORDON S . RATHER . JR . TERRY L. MATHEWS OA VIO M. POWELL ROGER A . GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD, JR . PATRICK J . GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS. JR . JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C . PRICE CHARLES T . COLEMAN JAMES J . GLOVER EDWIN L . LOWTHER. JR . CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T . JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E . BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPAOOEN ROGER 0. ROWE NANCY BELLHOUSE MAY Mr. John Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: PCSSD Dear Counsel and Ms. Brown: 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 WEBSITE : www .wlj .com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A . MAY M. TOCO WOOD Wri ter ' s Direcl Dial No . 501-21 2-1273 mjones@wlj .com April 11, 2000 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark TROY A PRI CE PA TRICIA A. SI EVERS JAMES M. MOODY . JR KA THRYN A PR YOR J . MARK DAVIS CL AIRE SHOWS HANCOCK K EV IN W. KENNEDY JERRY J . SALLINGS FRED M. PERKINS 111 WILLIAM STUART JA CKSON MICHAEL 0 . BARNES STEPHEN R . LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER BETSY MEACHAM K YLE R. WILSON C . TAO BOHANNON MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRISTI M. MOODY J . CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH PHYLL I S M. McKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE JANE M. FAUL KNER ROBERT W. GEORGE J. ANDREW VINES JUSTI N T. ALLEN 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RECEIVED Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 APR 1 2 2000 OfflGEOf DESEGREGATIOtl MORJTORJNQ Enclosed is a copy of the PCSSD defendants' response to motion to extend time and for referral which is being filed today. Cordially, WRIGHTEDSLEIY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP c?~ M. Sam I Jones, Ill MSJ/ao Encl. 169467-v1 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. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. THE PCSSD DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE ECEIVED APR 1 2 2000 QffiCEOi OESESREGAD ~ PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS TO MOTION TO EXTEND TIME AND FOR REFERRAL The PCSSD defendants for their response to motion to extend time and for referral, state: 1. Pursuant to the rules of this Court, Joshua's time for the submission of a fee petition began to run on July 19, 1999 (docket no. 3282]. Thus, Joshua's time for submitting a fee petition has long since expired. 2. Since July 19, 1999, the activities of the parties have revolved around the PCSSD's submission of Plan 2000 to which, as this court has previously found, Joshua did not object and to which no member of the Joshua Class submitted either comments or objections. 3. While the PCSSD defendants thus respectfully submit that there are no fee issues that can be now timely advanced by Joshua, nevertheless, the PCSSD has no objection to submission of the issue to the Department of Justice, Community Relations Service, but it will be the position of the PCSSD, if such referral occurs, that 169379-v1 any colorable claim for attorney's fees by Joshua is time-barred pursuant to the rules of this Court, this District and this Circuit. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD defendants pray that this Court enter an order consistent with this response and for all proper relief. WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By-:-:---=--r-,--r.---:-:--:-=~c+------- M. At Sc CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On April I(, 2000, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on each of the following : Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 169379-v1 2 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 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.  DERICK S. URSERY, P.A. ARE. DAVIS , JR ., P.A. ES C. CLARK, JR ., P.A. OMAS P. LEGGETT , P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON , P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM Ill , 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, P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER , P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN, P.A. RICHARD 0 . TAYLOR, P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST, JR., P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER, P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P.A. ROBERTS. SHAFER , P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN Ill, P.A. MICHAELS. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY, P.A. WALTER M. EBEL Ill , P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS, P.A. WILLIAM A . WADDELL , JR . . P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER , P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY, P.A. ROBERT 8 . BEACH. JR .. P.A. J. LEE BROWN, P.A. JAMES C. BAKER , JR ., P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT, P.A. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones, P.A. 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501 -376-2011 FAX NO. 501-376 -2147 April I 8, IECEIVED ~ICE0F 0t5.i:9rur\u0026rriCN MONffOHING Mr. Sam Jones SCOTT H. TUCKER, P.A. GUY ALTON WADE, P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER, l' .A. TONIA P. JONES, P .A. DAVID D. WILSON. P.A. JEFFREY H. MOORE. P .A . DAVID M. GRAF, P .A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR , P.A . JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR . , P.A. JONANN CONIGLIO FLEISCHAUER. P.A. R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON, P.A. GREGORY 0 . TA YLOR, P.A. TONY L. WILCOX, P.A. FRANC. HICKMAN, P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY, P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON, l' .A. JAMES W. SMITH CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT DANIELL. HERRINGTON K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK, JR . ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS HELENE N. RAYOER JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE 8 . TIDWELL CHRIS A. AVERITT KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN ROBERT T. SMITH o, COUNS EL WILLIAM J. SMITH B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE, P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS , P .A. WRITER'S DIRECT NO, (501) 370 -3323 Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222 Ms. Ann Brown - Hand Delivered Desegration Monitor Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 323 Center Street 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: LRSD vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. I, et. al.; Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et. al.; Katherine Knight, et. al. USDC, Eastern District, Western Division No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Ms. Brown \u0026 Gentlemen: Enclosed please find a Motion to Substitute a Complete CopyofLRSD' s Interim Compliance Report which we are filing today. As indicated in the motion, attachments 1 - 4 ofLRSD's interim compliance report were inadvertently omitted during the printing process. We are enclosing attachments 1 - 4 which you can insert in the original copy of the report served on you. F:IHOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSDlpcssd-brown et ,I It. wpd Ms. Brown \u0026 Gentlemen April 18,2000 Page2 If you would rather receive a second and complete copy of the report, please do not hesitate to call, and we will try to provide one. Sincerely, John C. Fendley, Jr. JCF/bgb enclosure(s) F:IHOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD\\pcssd-brown et al lt.wpd 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 KNTGHT, ET AL MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE A COMPLETE COPY OF LRSD'S INTERIM COMPLIANCE REPORT RE.Cif~~ili APR 19 2000 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Little Rock School District (LRSD) for its Motion to Substitute A Complete Copy of LRSD's Interim Compliance Report states: 1. On March 15, 2000, LRSD filed its Interim Compliance Report outlining the programs, policies and procedures implemented in accordance with LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan . 2. Since that time, it has come to LRSD's atte~tion that attachments 1 through 4 of the Interim Compliance Report were inadvertently omitted from the report during printing. 3. A complete copy of the report, including attachments 1 through 4, are attached to this Motion. LRSD respectfully requests that this report be substituted for the one filed March 15, 2000. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that the complete copy of LRSD ' s Interim Compliance Report attached hereto be substituted for the one filed March 15, 2000. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000  400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY,pe~ ~ ofu;c. '~y,J. 'r21a2) 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on this 18th day of April, 2000. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \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 P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 C. Fendley, Jr. ~ 3 --- - - ----- ------ - - - - EDUCATION: Ph.D. MSW BA VITAE TERRENCE J. ROBERTS, Ph.D. Clinical Psychology - S.outhem Illinois University, 1976, Psychology - University of California, Los Angeles, 1970 - California State University, Los Angeles, 1967 LICENSING AND CERTIFICATION: California State Licensed Psychologist, Lie. #PSY8892 California State Licensed Social Worker, Lie. #5600 EXPERIENCE: Attachment 1 Chief executive officer for Terrence J. Roberts \u0026 Associates, a management consultation firm active in California since 1975. A dynamic group with a wide range of skills and professional abilities. Workshops and Seminars in the areas of: Stress Management Effective Communication Managing Human Relationships Employment Transition Team Building Management Skills Managing Racial and Ethnic Diversity Self Growth and Development Conflict Resolution Developing Multicultural Awareness Employee Evaluation Staff Development Created training programs and materials for employees in the department. Participated in program delivery, evaluation and revision. Provided social welfare services to children and families in the child welfare division. CONSULTATION\\PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES General psychology and consultation practice office in Pasadena, Ca. Practice includes psychological assessment, psychotherapy for individuals; families, and groups, and psychological consultation to education, business and industry. MEMBERSHIPS: Member, American Psychological Association Board Member, African American Cultural Institute Board Member, Eisenhower World Affairs Institute Board Member, Economic Resources Corporation PUBLICATIONS,;_ __ \"Managing Trial Stress,\" in Jonathan M. Purver, Douglas R. Young, and James J. Davis III, Trial Handbook For California Lawyers, Bancroft-'Whitney Co., 1987. - __ \"Understanding Choice: Gateway to Sound Mental Health,\" Journal of Mental Health Administration, Vol.9, No.l, 1978. __ \"Social Welfare in Black America,\" in Cox; et al, eds. Introduction to Black America:A Cultural Perspective, Southern Illinois University Press, 1974. AWARDS: Spingarn Medal, 1957 Annual award presented by NAACP to that person or persons making outstanding .contributions to the area of human rights. Robert S. Abbott Memorial Award, 1958 Annual award presented to those who do most to extend the frontiers of democracy. Outstanding Teacher of the Year, College of Human Resources Southern Illinois University, 1974. NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. Award, 1982 Award commemorating twenty-fifth anniversary of \"Little Rock Nine's\" integration of Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. Southern Christian Leadership Conference Women Martin Luther King, Jr. \"Drum Major for Justice\" Award, 1995 Presented in Atlanta, Georgia. REFERENCES: Available upon request. '--- --- ---- - - Consultation services provided to: California Attorneys for Criminal Justice California Medical Center Cedars Sinai Hospital Children's Bureau of Southern California  Claremont Graduate School Cleveland College of Chiropractic Coca-Cola, Mid-Atlantic Division Crown City Medical Episcopal Diocese, Los Angeles Fairfield Community Hospital Heller, Ehrman, White \u0026 McAuliffe Internal Revenue Service, Los Angeles Kaiser Foundation King-Drew Medical Center, Los Angeles Los Angeles County Department of Children's Services Oskar J's Sightseeing Tours, Inc. Pacific Union College Pasadena Community College Pasadena Tournament of Roses Pepperdine University Pomona College Redwood Empire Central Service Association Riverside County Children's Services Department Santa Clara Valley Medical Center The Fielding Institute The March of Dimes Foundation TRW University of California, (Davis, Los Angeles, San Diego) Chair, Master's in Psychology Antioch University, Los Angeles 1993 - present Responsibilities of the Chair include developing and overseeing curriculum, coordinating student programs, creating and managing yearly budgets, parti!=ipating in the governance of the University, and hiring and supervising adjunct faculty and staff. Included in the job description as well are- I - --- _J Institution Pennsylvania State University Undergraduate Major: Graduate Major: BRIEF VITA PERSONAL DATA Steven M. Ross EDUCATION Psychology Educational Psychology PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS American Psychological Association, Fellow American Educational Research Association, Member Mid-South Educational Research Association, Member Attachment 2 Degree-Year B.A. 1969 M.S. 1972 Ph.D. 1974 Association for Educational Communications \u0026 Technology, Member International Congress for School Effectiveness and School Improvements, Member EXPERIENCE Instructor, Continuing Education, 1973-74, Pennsylvania State University Instructor, Psychology, Spring Semester, 1974, Lock Haven State College Lock Haven, Pennsylvania Evaluator, Swnmer, 1974, Mitre Corporation, McLean, Virginia Assistant Professor, Educational Psychology, 1974-79, University of Memphis Associate Professor, Educational Psychology, 1980-1985 Professor, Educational Psychology, 1.985 -Present  Senior Researcher, Center for Research in Education Policy, Univ. of Memphis, 1995 - Present COURSES RECENTLY TAUGHT Theories of Leaming (Undergraduate) Individual Differences and Leaming (Graduate) Educational Statistics (Undergraduate and Graduate) Educational Research (Graduate) Computers in Education (Graduate and Undergraduate) Thesis Writing (Graduate) Educational Assessment (Graduate) activities designed to enhance the quality of the program and to maintain connections with psychology programs at schools in the southern California area. Assistant Dean, Student Services UCLA School of Social Welfare 1985-1993 Responsible for overall direction of student services including recruitment, admissions, retention, financial aid, student government, and coordination of both MSW and Ph.D. candidate programs. Supervisory responsibilities for student services assistant and srudent workers. Classroom teaching responsibilities included preparation and delivery of courses in cross-cultural awareness and group conflict and change. Director, Mental Health Services St. Helena Hospital and Health Center Deer Park, CA. 1975-1985 General administrative responsibility for sevent'een bed acute care mental health unit. Duties included staffing, program development, budget allocation, staff development, quality control, coordination of ancillary services, and other related tasks. Served also as \"troubles-shooter\" for other units in the hospital providing assessment and consultation around changes in procedures and personnel. Lectured and led groups in Health Center programs including cardiac, alcohol, and pulmonary rehabilitation; smoking cessation; weight management; and eating disorders. Program Director, Social Work Pacific Union College Angwin, CA 1975 - 1978 Responsible for development of social work curriculum  and coordination of program within a behavioral science department. Instructor, Social Work Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Illinois 1972-1975 Taught courses and advised majors in undergraduate social work program. Los Angeles County Children's Service 1. Staff Development Specialist: 1970 - 1972 2. Child Welfare Worker: 1967 - 1970 - -  1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Attachment 2 HONORS AND DISTINCTIONS NDEA Fellowship for graduate study at the Pennsylvania State University, 1971-1973. Graduate Student Associate, Southwest Regional Laboratory, Summer, 1971 . Distinguished Teaching Service Award, University of Memphis, 1980. Phi Delta Kappa Professional Research Award, Memphis Chapter, 1983. Elected Fellow, Division 15, American Psychological Association, 1986. Visiting Scholar, National Center for Research on Improving Postsecondary Teaching and Learning. University of Memphis, 1987. Distinguished Research Award, University of Memphis, 1987. Distinguished Teacher Service Award, University of Memphis, 1988. (First eligibility since 1980; no longer eligible) Memphis State University nominee, CASE Professor of the Year Award, 1989. 10. Superior Performance in University Research (SPUR) Award, University of Memphis, 1990, 1991, 1992 11. Distinguished Research Award, University of Memphis, 1993. 12. Board of Visitors Eminent Faculty Award, University of Memphis (first recipient), 1993 13. Editor, Educational Technology Research and Development, 1993-present 14. Editorial Board, Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 1995- present 15. Editorial Board, Computers and Human Behavior, 1994-present SCHOLARSHIP Publications in Refereed Journals: Books Book Chapters Papers Presented at Professional Meetings SELECTED RECENT PUBLICATIONS 115 6 16 170 Ross, S.M., Henry D., Phillipsen, L., Evans, K., Smith, L., \u0026 Buggey, T. ( 1997). Matching restructuring programs to schools: Selection, negotiation, and preparation. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, \u0026, 45-71. Ross, S.M., Troutman, A., Horgan, D., Maxwell, S., Laitinen, R., \u0026 Lowther, D. (1997). The success of schools in implementing eight restructuring designs: A synthesis of first-year evaluation outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,~. 95-124. Ross, S.M., Smith, L.J. \u0026 Casey, J. (1997). Preventing early school failure: Impacts of Success for all on standardized test outcomes, minority group performance, and school effectiveness. Journal for Research on Students Placed at Risk, 1., 29-54. Attachment 2 Stringfield, S., \u0026 Ross, S.M. (1997). A \"reflection at time three of marathon: The Memphis restructuring initiative in mid-stride. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, l 151-161. Ross, S. \u0026 Smith, L.J. (1997). Improving the academic success of disadvantaged children: An examination of Success for All. Psvcholo12v in the Schools, 3 4, 171-180. Jayasinghe, M.G. Morrison, G.R. \u0026 Ross, S.M. (1997). The effect of distance learning classroom design on student perceptions. Educational Technology Research and Development, .ij_, 5-20. Ross, S.M., \u0026 Smith, L.J. (in press). Improving school achievement and inter-group relations for children placed at risk. Euronean Journal of Intercultural Education. Smith, L.J., Ross, S.M., McNelis, M., Squires, M., and others (1998), The Memphis restructuring initiative: Analysis of activities and outcomes that impact implementation success. Education and Urban Societv, 3 0 (3), 326- 357. Stringfield, S., Datnow, A., Ross, S., \u0026 Snively, F. (1998). Scaling up school restructuring in multicultural multilingual contexts: Early observations from Sunland County. Education and Urban Society, 3 0 (3), 326-357. Ross, S.M., Smith, L.J. \u0026 Casey, J.P. (in press). \"Bridging the Gap\": The A effects of the Success for All Programs on elementary school reading W achievement as a function of student ethnicity and ability level. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. Summary of Interests During the past ten years, I have worked extensively with school districts, both regionally and locally, to dev~lop and evaluate programs for improving student achievement. The primary fos:us of these studies has been schools predominantly serving disadvantaged inner-city minority children. In 1992, I was the lead researcher for the school equity study for the State of Alabama Financial Equity Case and am currently lead researcher on a comparable study in Louisiana. Additional ongoing research projects are studies of school restructuring designs as they are implemented in Memphis City Schools and Dade County (FL) schools and ofprofessional development schools in seven national sites as part of the NEA Teacher Education Initiative (NEA-TEI). - Attachment 3 1998-99 (DRAFT 2/7/00) Relationship Between Total Scores and Percent of African American Students Correlations Percent of African-Americ Total Score: an Students: 1998 1998 Total Score: 1998 Pearson Correlation 1.000 .158 Sig. (2-tailed) .285 N 48 48 Percent of Pearson Correlation .158 1.000 African-American Sig. (2-tailed). Students: 1998 .285 N 48 48 :..,1 100 0 0 co O') 0 0 0 0 O') 90  . ..-- 0 0 \u003cJl C c C B Q) C \"O 80  .a C U) B C cCo C C CJ 70 C C c 0 0 0 Q) E C \u003c( ' 0 0 Cco 60 0 0 CJ ..c... . 00 0 0 \u003c( 0 0 0 8 0 B 0 50, c 0 0 Q) C 0 .C..J. 0 Q) 0.. 40 30 40 50 60 Total Score: 1998 70 Attachment 4 1999-00 (DRAFT 2/7/00) Relationship Between Total Scores and Percent of African-American Students Correlations Percent of African-.A.meric Total Score: an Students: 1999 1999 Total Score: 1999 Pearson Correlation 1.000 -.046 Sig. (2-tailed) .758 N 48 48 Percent of Pearson Correlation -.046 1.000 African-American Sig. (2-tailed) .758 Students: 1999 N 48 48 .:1 100 0 0 0 0 0 en 90 , 8 en 00 0 .e,.n.. 0 0 0 t/l 0 c 80 0 0 Q) 0 \"O 0 0 C .2 0 0 Cf) 0 70 0 0 C C1l 0 C tc) C Q) C 0 E 60 C 0 \u003c( C 0 0 I 0 C ro oO 0 (.) 50, 0 0 c 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 c 40 , 0 0 Q) .(...) Q) 0... 30 20 30 40 50 60 Total Score: 1999 0 70 - FILED EASTMlN '6',il~',g ~2~~SAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT APR 2 5 2000 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAME:3!.JV WESTERN DIVISION .By:--'/~j ~~~'7\\RK DEP~ 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. * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER No. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVED uFFICE orOESEGREGATIOM MONITORING The Joshua Intervenors filed a motion requesting that the Court refer the matter of attorney's fees related to the Pulaski County Special School District's revised desegregation plan to the Department of Justice, Community Relations Service [docket no. 3352]. Additionally, Joshua requests that the Court postpone the deadline for filing a petition for attorney's fees until such time as it is determined the parties cannot resolve the matter on a voluntary basis. The Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) has no objection to Joshua's request for a referral but asserts the time for submitting a fee petition has expired [docket no. 3354]. In an Order entered February 22, 2000 this Court conditionally approved PCSSD's revised desegregation plan stating, \"Joshua may file a motion for attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C.  1988.\"1 On March 20, 2000, this Court officially approved the revised plan. Joshua 1 See docket no. 3337. 1 - filed the present motion for referral and extension on March 31, 2000, eleven days after the Court formally approved the revised desegregation plan. Under Local Rule 54.1, Joshua had fourteen days to submit a petition for attorney's fees or a motion to extend the time for submitting such a petition. The Court finds Joshua's motion timely. THEREFORE, for good cause shown, Joshua's motion is GRANTED [docket no. 3352]. The matter of attorney's fees is hereby referred to the Department of Justice, Community Relations Service. Additionally, the Court extends the deadline for Joshua to file a petition for attorney's fees until such time as it is determined the matter cannot be resolved between the parties on a voluntary basis. FURTHER, the Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to: Mr. Gus Taylor Community Relations Service U.S. Department of Justice 1100 Commerce Street Dallas, TX 75242 ..f{A.__ ITIS SOORDEREDTHis'2:!i._DAYOF APRIL,2000 UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT 2 r- - FILED t U.S. DISTRICT COURT  EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS f IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION APR 2 5 2000 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. * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER No. LR-C-82-866 The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") filed a motion to substitute a complete copy of the district's interim compliance report for a copy originally filed March 15, 2000.1 The motion is GRANTED [docket no. 3355]. . ~-f(_ IT IS SO ORDERED THIS~DAY OF APRIL, 2000 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT n-flS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN :MP'11J~ULE s~;N~a) FRCP _ 1 Docket no. 3344. ,~ 'jW- / ~ RECErVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 .. , ,; l j _._\\ jU~ Ml', I J. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al . DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance \\,;rh tJ1e Court's order of December 10, 1993, tJ1e Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of tJ1e filing of AD E's Project :\\Ia11agement Tool for April, 2000. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PR\"i.'OR Attorney General 1-/~~~i,;- TIMOTHY G. GA :c R #95019 Assistant Attorney eral 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL NO. LR-C-82-866 PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL 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 April 30, 2000 B. 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 .  This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources. "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1787","title":"Court filings regarding responses to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for a declaration of unitary status, notice of docket correction with additional exhibit, and response re: order regarding Pulaski Association of Classroom Teacher's (PACT's) request to file a belated response.","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":["2008-01-07/2008-01-18"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","Pulaski County Special School District","School districts","Teachers","Parents' and teachers' associations","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","North Little Rock School District","School integration","Little Rock School District","Education--Evaluation"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings regarding responses to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for a declaration of unitary status, notice of docket correction with additional exhibit, and response re: order regarding Pulaski Association of Classroom Teacher's (PACT's) request to file a belated response."],"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/1787"],"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":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["43 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eCourt filings: District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) reply to Pulaski Association of Classroom Teacher's (PACT's) response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for a declaration of unitary status; District Court, motion to file a belated response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for a declaration of unitary status; District Court, surreply to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for a declaration of unitary status; District Court, response to December 21, 2007, letter order; District Court, letter order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for unitary status; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to the Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) brief in support of motion for unitary status; District Court, Joshua intervenors' reply to state's and North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) response to December 21, 2007, order; District Court, notice of electronic filing, notice of docket correction with additional exhibit; District Court, letter order; District Court, response re: order regarding Pulaski Association of Classroom Teacher's (PACT's) request to file a belated response; District Court, response re: order; District Court, motion for substitution of counsel; District Court, notice of electronic filing, order    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4178 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNIIBD STATES DISTRICT COURT EASIBRN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESIBRN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. t-ARS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD REPLY TO PACT'S RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S MOTION FOR A DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS INTRODUCTION This court should disregard the PACT Response for two (2) fundamental reasons: 1. The PCSSD filed its Motion for Unitary Status on October 29, 2007. The PACT ''Response\" was filed on December 21, 2007, or almost two (2) months later. PACT neither sought nor obtained an enlargement of time to respond to the PCSSD Motion and under the Rules the ''Response\" should be dismissed as untimely. 2. More substantively and fundamentally, the relief sought by PACT, to the extent it can be discerned, exceeds the limited reasons for which PACT was granted intervenor status in 1984. In 1984, PACT persuaded the Court of Appeals to permit it and the other teacher organizations then in operation in Pulaski County to intervene for the limited purpose of protecting their contractual rights and their collective bargaining rights, particularly assuming that consolidation might be ordered. 738 F.2d 82. (8th Cir. 1984). Here, the relief seemingly sought by PACT asks the district court to exclude from its ultimate decision the issues of racial discrimination in hiring and promotions as alleged in two individual cases: Humphries v. PCS SD ( citation omitted) and Dixon v. PCSSD ( citation omitted). PACT 's submission at p.4. 1121892.1 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4178 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 2 of 5 DISCUSSION 1. Pursuant to the rules of this court, a response to a motion is due within eleven (11) days of service. See Rule FRCP 6. Here, a response was due no later than November 9, 2007, even assuming that PACT had any standing or basis or make a response. The gross tardiness of the response alone is a sufficient basis for the court to strike or disregard it or to deny the relief sought. 2. Much of the PACT submission discusses the claims of two individuals, a Dr. Donna Humphries who wishes to be an administrator, and a Ms. Norma Dixon, a non-certified employee who would like to be a \"buyer.\" Two preliminary observations are in order. If Dr. Humphries is ever successful in becoming an administrator, she would forfeit her eligibility to remain a member of PACT. PACT is an acronym for Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers. Likewise, Ms. Dixon, as a non-certified employee who wishes to be a buyer in the business department, does not even aspire to be a classroom teacher, and is likewise not eligible to be a PACT member. Much of the rest of the PACT submission complains about the racial composition of the administrative staff of the PCS SD, a matter outside the scope of its intervention. 738 F.2d 82 (8th Cir. 1984). Nowhere does it point to a specific violation of Plan 2000, the Plan pursuant to which the District is seeking to demonstrate its compliance and thus attain unitary status. Plan 2000 states simply and exclusively as regards administrators that: \"The PCSSD shall select its administrative staff from a racially diverse pool of applicants.\" Plan 2000 at page 6, SectionL. Staff Plan 2000 says nothing about what the statistical outcomes should be. The test for the hiring of teachers is phrased identically. Later in its submission, PACT seeks to make much of its view that the PCSSD is in compliance with some standards not found in Plan 2000 regarding the racial composition of its teacher corp. PACT cites a case from 1987 when the PCSSD operated pursuant to an earlier plan. At various points in this litigation, other litigants have sought to promote or otherwise litigate their perceived interests of individual employees. As predecessor judges in this case have consistently ruled, this class action institutional reform litigation is not a proper forum for the litigation of individual claims or perceived individual slights. The PACT ''Response\" should be dismissed on this basis as well. Premises considered, PACT, as an organization of teachers 1121892.1 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4178 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 3 of 5 allowed to intervene to protect their contract rights as teachers, simply lack standing to file their ''Response.\" WHEREFORE, the PCS SD prays for an order denying whatever relief is sought by PACT and for all other proper relief. 1121892.1 Respectfully submitted, :l\\1ITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODY ARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Telephone: (501) 688-8800 Facsimile: (501) 688-8807 Isl M. Samuel Jones. III M. Samuel Jones III (76060) E-mail: sjones@mwsgw.com Attorneys for Pulaski County Special School District 3 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4178 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 4 of 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on January 7, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following:  Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com  Mark Terry Burnette mbumette@mbbwi.com  John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net,yeldnef@yahoo.com  Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net,tmiller@fec.net,brendak@fec.net  M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com,aoverton@mwsgw.com  Stephen w. Jones sjones@jlj.com,linda.calloway@jlj.com  Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com,nmoler@williamsanderson.com  Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com,aroaf@seark.net,paramer@odmemail.com  Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov,agcivil@arkansasag.gov,danielle.williams@arkansasag .gov  John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.comJorap72297@aol.com.jspringer@gabrie1maiLcom I certify that on January 7, 2008, I mailed the foregoing document and a copy of the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by United States Postal Service to the following non CM/ECF participants: Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Massachusetts 02173 1121892.1 4 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4178 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 5 of 5 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 1121892.1 Isl M. Samuel Jones. III M. Samuel Jones, III Arkansas Bar No. 76060 Attorneys for Pulaski County Special School District MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODY ARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Telephone: (501) 688-8800 Facsimile: (501) 688-8807 E-Mail: sjones@mwsQW.com 5 Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 2:34 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Brief in Opposition This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Jones, M. on 1/7/2008 at 2:33 PM CST and filed on 1/7/2008 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Pulaski County Special School District WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4178 Docket Text: BRIEF IN OPPOSITION filed by Pulaski County Special School District re [4175] Response to Motion - PCSSD Reply to PACT's Response to PCSSD's Motion for a Declaration of Unitary Status (Jones, M.) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com 1/8/2008 Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle.williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com,jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ST AMP dcecfStamp ID= 1095794525 [Date= 1/7/2008] [FileNumber= 1070655-0] [3c6b7ca956241038bba68bdb4ddbd820dlfl89c0e21297c6b3bf7c923d8308b67520 7a3c381397c5b193a0e0fe82c9a085839e3146b6d3e33a97ae9a8df83dec]] 1/8/2008 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4179 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS MOTION TO FILE A BELATED RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S MOTION FOR A DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS Comes the Intervenor, Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT), and, moves for leave to file its Response to Motion for a Declaration of Unitary Status, and in support, states: 1. PACT mistakenly relied upon the Court's prior grant ofan extension of time until December 29, 2007, for the Joshua Intervenors to file their response to PCS SD' s motion for declaration of unitary status, and therefore, filed its response on December 21 , 2007. 2. PCSSD now seeks to strike that response pursuant to Rule 6, FRCP. 3. As PCS SD' spending motion is a dispositive motion for this case, PACT should be heard on the issues raised in its December 21, 2007, response, despite the delay in filing relative to PCSSD's motion. 4. PCS SD is not prejudiced by this delay, as the Joshua Intervenors were previously granted an extension of time for filing their response, and PACT filed within that time period. Further, the court has indicated that it will not set a hearing on PCSSD's motion until after the Court Page 1 of 3 'I Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4179 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 2 of 3 of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit rules on the Joshua Intervenor's appeal of the court's order granting LRSD unitary status. PCSSD has had adequate time to reply, and has done so, substantively, already. Wherefore, PACT prays for an order, nunc pro tune, granting it additional time to respond to PCSSD's motion for declaration of unitary status to include December 21, 2007. Respectfully submitted, ls/Mark Burnette Mark Burnette, ABN 88078 MITCHELL,BLACKSTOCK,BARNES WAGONER, IVERS \u0026amp; SNEDDON, PLLC 1010 West Third P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 (501) 378-7870 Page 2 of 3 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4179 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 3 of 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on January 9, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: ___ John Clayburn Fendley, Jr. clayfendley@comcast.net; yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net;tmiller@fec.net;brendak@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com;aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com;linda.calloway@jlj .com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com;nmoler@williamsanderson.com Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com;aroaf@seark.net;paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov;agcivil@arkansasag.gov danielle.williams@arkansasag.gov John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com; lorap72297@aol.com;jspringer@gabrielmail.com M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com I certify that on January 9, 2008, I mailed the foregoing document and a copy of the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by United States Postal Service to the following non CM/ECF participants: Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Massachusetts 02173 By: ls/Mark Burnette Mark Burnette, ABN 88078 Page 3 of 3 Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 3:26 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including prose litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Burnette, Mark on 1/9/2008 at 3:25 PM CST and filed on 1/9/2008 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4179 Docket Text: First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to [4159] MOTION for Order for a Declaration of Unitary Status by Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (Burnette, Mark) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, abray@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com 2/12/2008 Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com - Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Office of the Governor State Capitol Room238 Little Rock, AR 72201 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=l/9/2008] [FileNumber=1073027-0] [85f4eb2890762693857547f8cfcac50348467752285b7alae8f633abcd5fD2dd6189 6101f3a91ed914aa161cdd93858ecd6af6dlbfadd94ffaa2bd2f1084eb3e]] 2/12/2008 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4180 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. SURREPLY TO PCSSD'S PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS MOTION FOR A DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS Comes the Intervenor, Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT), and, for its surreply to Pulaski County Special School District's Motion for a Declaration of Unitary Status, states: 1. PACT simultaneously files herewith a Motion for Leave to File Belated Response and Sur Reply to PCSSD's Motion for a Declaration of Unitary Status to meet PCSSD's objection to the previously filed response without an order granting such a belated filing. PACT mistakenly relied upon the time granted to the Joshua Intervenors as setting a deadline for all responding to the dispositive motion filed by PCSSD. The usual eleven days for responding to motions was insufficient to allow PACT to assess the motion relative to the multiple interests at stake. PACT urges the court to accept its original pleading filed ono December 21, 2007, after considering the accompanying motion, and thereafter, grant the relief requested. 2. Further, PCSSD 's Reply, ,i 2, makes two erroneous \"preliminary observations,\" which it presumably intends for the court to rely upon to find PACT \"simply lack standing to file their Page 1 of 5 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4180 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 2 of 5 \"Response.\" First, PCS SD asserts that the two individuals (Dr. Donna Humphries and Ms. Norma Dixon) for whom PACT responded on December 21, 2007, are either not members of PACT ( re:Ms. Dixon) or would \"forfeit\" PACT membership if \"successful in becoming an administrator,\" and presumably, therefore, PACT does not have standing to represent the interests asserted in PACTs' Response to Motion for Declaration of Unitary Statuse. PCSSD Reply,p. 2. Dr. Humphries is a member of PACT, and will not forfeit membership upon being granted relief as an administrator. PCS SD is well aware that it withholds PACT membership dues for well over 40 principals and assistant principal administrators employed by the district. Further, PACT simply has no restriction on membership relative to an administrative employee's status as such so long as the member must have a teaching certificate as a condition of his or her employment, and, - the person is not the chief administrator of the district, i.e. the superintendent. PACT's bargaining status is limited to non-administrative personnel, but, as discussed below, that does not limit PACT's class representative status on behalf of virtually all employees of the district. See Dkt. No. 1179, also cited in PACT's Response. Secondly, with respect to Ms. Dixon and Dr. Humphries, PACT is obligated to represent both of these employees, whether members of PACT or not, pursuant to the April 17, 1989 consent Order Dkt. No. 1179, which states in relevant part: The Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association, the Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers, the North Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association, Grainger Ledbetter, Joyce Elliott, Sue Simmons, Katherinie Knight, Ed Bullington, Willie Givens, Teretha Jackson, and Leola Scoggins, are certified as class representatives under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the class of all present, past and future certified and non- Page 2 of 5 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4180 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 3 of 5 certified, past and future certified, and non-certified staff employees of the Little Rock School District, Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, and the North Little Rock School District; Hence, by agreement and order of the court, PCSSD is precluded from asserting any alleged objection to PACT's standing on behalf of either non-teacher employees, non-certified employees, or non-PACT member employees. All are represented by PACT at this juncture. PCSSD's counsel may have been unaware of the expanded role of PACT on behalf of all PCSSD employees as he was not the attorney signing that consent order on behalf of PCSSD, attorney N. M. Norton, Jr., was counsel at that time. However, PACT cited DKT 1179 in its Response, thus PCSSD is aware that PACT's representative status has been expanded beyond the parameters of the 1984 Court of Appeals ruling which PCSSD cites. In light of the 1989 consent order establishing PACT's expanded class representative status, - PACT' s substantive interests in this matter are not constrained or controlled by the limits established in 1984, to \"protect their [sic] contract rights as teachers\" as asserted by PCS SD. Reply Brief p. 3. Nevertheless, the protection of PCSSD's employees' contract rights are precisely what is being raised by PACT herein. The contract rights which PACT seeks to protect from implicit resolution within this case are as based on the following: All employment contracts with public entities include an implied term of equal protection, pursuant to the 5th and 14th Amend. to the U.S. Const.; all employment contracts by employers who employ more than 15 employees include an implied term of equal employment opportunity as described by Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e. Further, PCSSD's \"Professional Negotiated Agreement,\" explicitly addresses the process for filling administrative positions from within the ranks of its employees, which is directly asserted as a basis for Dr. Humphries' claims. The problem Page 3 of 5 V \u0026lt; ... ... Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4180 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 4 of 5 PACT sees with PCSSD's position herein is its apparent attempt to gloss over, and gain potential legal advantage, by referring the court to its administrative assignment statistics, PCSSD 's Motion for Declaration of Unitary Status, p. 4-5, which, if approved, may be interpreted as implicitly approving its hiring statisics for these positions. One cannot \"assign\" minorities to 52% of the available administrative positions without having also \"hired\" 52% minorities for those positions. If the court grants its approval to one, it may well be held to have implicitly granted approval to the other. That should not be done, and that is what PACT seeks to prevent by filing its Response. WHEREFORE, PACT prays any order issued on PCS SD' spending motion for unitary status make explicit exclusion of the issues ofracial discrimination in hiring and promotions as alleged in Humphries v. PCSSD, Case No. 4 :06 CV-00606 (E.D. Ark.) and Dixon v. PCSSD, Case No. 4-07-cv- 01119 (E.D.Ark). Respectfully submitted, ls/Mark Burnette Mark Burnette, ABN 88078 MITCHELL,BLACKSTOCK,BARNES WAGONER, IVERS \u0026amp; SNEDDON, PLLC 1010 West Third P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 (501) 378-7870 Page 4 of 5 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4180 Filed 01/09/2008 Page 5 of 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on January 9, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: ___ John Clayburn Fendley , Jr. clayfendley@comcast.net; yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net;trniller@fec.net;brendak@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com;aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com;linda.calloway@jlj .com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com;nrnoler@williamsanderson.com Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com;aroaf@seark.net;paramer@odmemail.com ScottP.Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov;agcivil@arkansasag.gov danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov John W. Walker j ohnwalkeratty@aol.com; lorap72297@aol.com;jspringer@gabrielmai1.com M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com I certify that on January 9, 2008, I mailed the foregoing document and a copy of the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by United States Postal Service to the following non CM/ECF participants: Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Massachusetts 02173 By: ls/Mark Burnette Mark Burnette, ABN 88078 Page 5 of 5 Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 3:33 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Response in Opposition to Motion This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including prose litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Burnette, Mark on 1/9/2008 at 3:32 PM CST and filed on 1/9/2008 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4180 Docket Text: RESPONSE in Opposition re [4159] MOTION for Order for a Declaration of Unitary Status filed by Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers. (Burnette, Mark) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec .net, brendak@fec .net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, abray@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com 2/12/2008 Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Office of the Governor State Capitol Room238 Little Rock, AR 72201 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 - Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=l/9/2008] [FileNumber=1073049-0] [295d492bfa46dlfbac44420e507ba0b87f98cld95027c217c49e075f825fl28763c7 ccd4b412a96ddb147da03783ac2a7a07d4c327baf3150e6b135c8f80c3be]] 2/12/2008 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4181 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. 4:82-cv-866 WRW PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO DECEMBER 21, 2007, LETTER ORDER The Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), by and through its attorney, Assistant Attorney General Scott P. Richardson, and the North Little Rock School District, by and through its attorney Stephen W. Jones, state for their Response to the Court's December 21, 2007, Letter Order: 1. On December 21, 2007, the Court issued a letter expressing concern about scheduling hearings on the School Districts' motions for unitary status because of the Joshua Intervenors' \"challenging the compliance standard [the Court] used during the last hearing\" in the pending appeal of the LRSD's unitary status. 2. The standard for determining whether the school districts have complied with their desegregation plans is well established in this case. In 2002, when this Court released the LRSD from all but one of the areas of its desegregation plan, the Court explained that the standard was whether a district had \"substantially complied\" with its desegregation obligations. The 2002 opinion gave a focused definition of this standard when it held: I am required to examine whether any of LRSD's failures to comply with the Revised Plan in the six challenged areas are \"serious enough\": (1) to constitute \"substantial noncompliance\"; and (2) \"to cast doubt\" on LRSD's \"future compliance with the constitution.\" Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4181 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 2 of 5 LRSD v. PCSSD, et al., 237 F.Supp.2d 988, 1032-33 (E.D. Ark. 2002). 3. Although the Joshua lntervenors appealed the 2002 release of the LRSD, they did not challenge this standard on appeal. The Eighth Circuit in affirming this Court's 2002 decision relied on this standard to evaluate the LRSD's release. LRSD v. Armstrong, 359 F.3d 957 (8th Cir. 2004). This standard thus became the law of the case as the Court recognized in 2004. LRSD v. PCSSD, 470 F. Supp. 2d 963,965 (E.D. Ark. 2004). Accordingly, this is the standard that should continue to govern the evaluation of the school districts' compliance with their desegregation plans. 4. Further, the standard of substantial compliance in good faith established by this Court and the Eighth Circuit is consistent with Supreme Court precedent starting with Brown II in 1955. Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 299, 75 S.Ct. 753, 746 (1955) (release from court supervision required if \"the action of school authorities constitutes good faith implementation of the governing constitutional principles.\") (emphasis added); Accord Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430, 439, 88 S.Ct. 1689, 1695 (1968)(school district's obligation of compliance was \"to be acting in good faith.\"); Board of Education v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237, 249, 111 S.Ct. 630, 637-8 (1991)(requiring \"good faith of the school board in complying with the decree.\"); Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 493, 112 S.Ct. 1430, 1447 (1991)(rejecting assertion that school district had to engage in \"heroic measures\" to demonstrate compliance with a desegregation plan). 5. The Joshua Intervenors have not challenged the general application of this standard to this case in their currently pending appeal. They have argued in their Appellant's Reply Brief that the \"deeply embedded\" requirement in the Court's 2004 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4181 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 3 of 5 Compliance Remedy was not a new standard but that it came \"straight from the broad 2.7.1 bargain, by 'reasonable implication.\"' Ex. A, Joshua Reply Brief p. 9. The Joshua Intervenors go on to state that the \"deeply embedded\" standard does not apply to the other two districts, because \"the standard is a part of LRSD's voluntary substantive obligation drawn from Sec. 2.7.1.\" Id. In short, the Joshua Intervenors have taken the position on appeal that the standard involved in their Eighth Circuit appeal applies only to the LRSD and only to one part of its desegregation plan. Principles of fairness and estoppel should prevent the Joshua Intervenors from changing positions on this issue as the two remaining school districts move forward. Hossaini v. Western Missouri Medical Center, 140 F.3d 1140 (8th Cir. 1998). 6. With regard to the PCSSD's petition for unitary status, a response to that pleading was due on or about November 12, 2007. Neither the LRSD (the original plaintiff in this case) nor the Joshua Intervenors have filed a response to that petition in the two months since it was filed. 7. The undersigned would also note that the Arkansas General Assembly has made funds available for reimbursement of attorneys' fees if the school districts can obtain a ruling by June 14, 2008, that they have at least partially complied with their desegregation plans. Ex. A, Act 395 of 2007. WHEREFORE, the State of Arkansas and the North Little Rock School District state that the currently pending appeal should not be an impediment to having the two remaining school districts provide their students assurance through court action that they either have fulfilled or are fulfilling their desegregation obligations and requests that the 3 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4181 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 4 of 5 Court enter a scheduling order on the pending petitions for unitary status, and issue all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. BY: BY: Respectfully submitted, DUSTIN McDANIEL Attorney General Isl Scott P. Richardson SCOTT P. RICHARDSON, Bar No. 01208 MATTHEW B. McCOY, Bar No. 01165 Assistant Attorneys General 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 (501) 682-1019 direct (501) 682-2591 facsimile Email: scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov ATTORNEYS FOR STATE OF ARKANSAS AND ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Isl Stephen W. Jones STEPHEN W. JONES, Bar No. 78083 Jack Nelson Jones Fink Jiles \u0026amp; Gregory, P.A. 425 West Capitol Avenue Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone 501-375-1122 Fax 501-375-1027 ATTORNEY FOR THE NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 4 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4181 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 5 of 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on January 10, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: Mr. Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mr. Mark Terry Burnette mbumette@mbbwi.com Mr. John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net Mr. Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net Mr. M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com Mr. Stephen W. Jones sjones@j lj .com Mr. John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com; aroaf@seark.net; paramer@odmmail.com I, Scott P. Richardson, Assistant Attorney General, do hereby certify that I have served the foregoing and a copy of the Notice of Electronic Filing by depositing a copy in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, on January 10, 2008, to the following nonCM/ ECF participants: Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Mass. 02173 Isl Scott P. Richardson SCOTT P. RICHARDSON 5 - 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 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 - 35 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4181-2 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 1 of 5 Stricken language would be deleted from and underlined language would be added to the law as it existed prior to this session of the General Assembly. Act 395 of the Regular Session State of Arkansas As EAosB .-i}3i7/07 86th General Assembly Regular Session, 2007 HOUSE BILL 1829 By: Representative Bond For An Act To Be Entitled AN ACT TO ENSURE EFFICIENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS INVOLVED IN DESEGREGATION LITIGATION; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Subtitle AN ACT TO ENSURE EFFICIENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS INVOLVED IN DESEGREGATION LITIGATION. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS: SECTION 1. Findings. It is found and determined by the General Assembly that: (1) The school districts in Pulaski County entered into a settlement agreement and desegregation plans in 1989 with the intent to fulfill a \"promise for achieving unitary school systems which are free from the vestiges of racial discrimination\"; (2) The State of Arkansas has paid the districts in excess of approximately seven hundred million dollars ($700,000,000) to assist the districts in fulfilling their promise to achieve unitary schools free from the vestiges of racial discrimination; (3) There has never been a date certain when the state's desegregation obligations in the case styled Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al, No. LR-C-82-866, are to end; (4) The Little Rock School District has recently been declared lllllllllllll 111111111111111111111111111 Exhibit A 03-07-2007 09:14 JDFlll 1 2 3 4 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4181-2 As Engrossed: H3/7/07 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 2 of 5 HB1829 unitary and has been released from federal court supervision, but the Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District have yet to attain a ruling that they have fulfilled their promise to their students to achieve unitary school systems; 5 (5) These school districts believe they are unitary or have 6 achieved a unitary status in some respect, and have stated so publicly in 7 legislative committee meetings; 8 (6) The General Assembly finds that without any ruling from the 9 federal district court that the districts have achieved unitary status, there 10 is no assurance that the promise of schools free of the vestiges of racial 11 discrimination has been fulfilled by these districts; 12 (7) The General Assembly finds that, as a part of the state's 13 overall obligation to provide a general, suitable, and efficient school 14 system, the students and parents of the Pulaski County districts deserve to 15 know that they are being educated in a unitary school district, or if their 16 district is not unitary in some respect the district should be making 17 18 19 20 adequate progress towards being declared fully unitary; (8) The General Assembly seeks to assist the school districts to achieve unitary status and to fulfill their promise to provide school systems which are free from the vestiges of racial discrimination consistent with 21 their desegregation plans; and 22 (9) The General Assembly also seeks to provide some assurance to 23 the children in the districts that the promise of unitary schools in the 24 Pulaski County districts will be fulfilled within a reasonable amount of 25 time. 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 SECTION 2. Arkansas Code Title 6, Chapter 20, Subchapter 4 is amended to add additional sections to read as follows: 6-20-415. Consultants. The Department of Education in consultation with the Attorney General shall hire consultants on the following basis: (1) The consultants shall be qualified as experts in public school district desegregation; 1, 2007; (2) The department shall hire the consultants prior to October (3) The purposes for employing the consultants are to determine 2 Exhibit A 03-07-2007 09:14 JDFlll 1 2 3 4 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4181-2 As Engrossed: H3/7/07 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 3 of 5 HB1829 whether and in what respects any of the three (3) Pulaski County school districts: (A)(i) Are unitary. (ii) If a school district has been declared unitary 5 or has been declared unitary in some respects, the consultants shall not 6 examine the school district on those issues; and 7 (B) Have complied with their respective consent decrees; 8 and 9 (4) The consultants shall understand and acknowledge in their 10 work and research that their testimony in court may be required. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 6-20-416. Desegregation funding. (a) The Department of Education and the Attorney General are authorized to seek proper federal court review and determination of the current unitary status of any school district in the case of Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al, No. LR-C-82-866. (b)(l) Upon the effective date of this section, the department and the Attorney General are authorized to seek modification of the current consent 20 decree or enter into a new or an amended consent decree or settlement 21 agreement under this section that allows the State of Arkansas to: 22 (A) Continue necessary and appropriate payments under a 23 post-unitary agreement to the three (3) Pulaski County school districts for a 24 limited and definite time period not to exceed seven (7) years and for a 25 definite limited sum of payments; 26 (B) Ensure that the amount of funding provided under the 27 post-unitary agreement is the total maximum obligation of the state and the 28 school districts in the case; 29 (C) Ensure that the payments required pursuant to the 30 post-unitary agreement are structured so that the total amount of the 31 payments decrease so that no financial obligation remains due or owed by the 32 state at the end of the time period specified in the post-unitary agreement; 33 and 34 35 36 (D) Ensure that the total of any financial obligation created or established for the state in any one (1) year shall not exceed the state's desegregation obligation for the 2007-2008 school year. 3 Exhibit A 03-07-2007 09:14 JDFlll 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 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4181-2 As Engrossed: H3n /07 Filed 01/11/2008 Page 4 of 5 HB1829 (2) The agreement under this subsection (b) may only be a postunitary agreement and the school districts shall receive the continued funding only if they are declared unitary. However, the agreement does not have to be post unitary and may commence upon all districts having been declared, previously or in the future, unitary in terms of student assignment and student racial balance so long as all other requirements in subdivision (b)(l) of this section are met. (3) Before any agreement is entered into pursuant to this subsection (b), the proposed post-unitary agreement shall be submitted to the Legislative Council for review and approval. (c)(l) The department in consultation with the Attorney General shall have the authority to enter into agreements with the three (3) Pulaski County school districts to reimburse the school districts for legal fees incurred for seeking unitary status or partial unitary status. (2) To be eligible for possible reimbursement under this subsection (c) for legal fees incurred, motions seeking unitary status or partial unitary status shall be filed no later than October 30, 2007 1 and the school districts must be declared unitary or at least partially unitary by the federal district court no later than June 14 1 2008. (3) Under no circumstances shall any one (1) school district be entitled to reimbursement under this subsection (c) in excess of two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000). (4) Before a reimbursement agreement is entered into pursuant to this subsection (c), the proposed reimbursement agreement shall be submitted to the Legislative Council for review and approval. (d)(l) By modifying the current consent decree or entering into a new or an amended consent decree or post-unitary agreement, the State Board of Education may create one (1) or more new school districts within Pulaski County if the creation of the new school district or districts does not eliminate the Pulaski County Special School District from existence. (2) The state board shall seek the federal district court's approval prior to creating a new school district pursuant to this subsection (d), unless the federal district court's approval is not required because: (A) The school district or districts involved have been released from the federal district court's supervision; or (B) The new school district or districts is contemplated 4 Exhibit A 03-07-2007 09:14 JDFlll 1 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4181-2 As Engrossed: H3n/07 only as part of the post-unitary agreement. Filed 01/11/2008 Page 5 of 5 HB1829 (3) Any new school district created in Pulaski County shall 3 receive a pro rata distribution based on its average daily membership of the 4 funding provided under subsection (b) of this section for the school district 5 or districts from which it was created. 6 (e) Nothing in this section shall be construed: 7 (1) To force entry of a consent decree or settlement agreement 8 by the department or the Attorney General with the three (3) Pulaski County 9 school distri cts; or 10 (2) As protecting any school district from action or sanction by 11 the department for fiscal, academic, or facilities distress. 12 13 14 15 16 17 - 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 - 36 Isl Bond 5 APPROVED: 3/21/2007 Exhibit A 03-07-2007 09:14 JDFlll Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 4:16 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Response (Non Motion) This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Richardson, Scott on 1/11/2008 at 4:16 PM CST and filed on 1/11/2008 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Arkansas, State of WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4181 Docket Text: RESPONSE re [4176] Order of December 21, 2007 by Arkansas, State of (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A, Act 395 of 2007)(Richardson, Scott) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, abray@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com 2/12/2008 Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle.williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Office of the Governor State Capitol Room238 Little Rock, AR 72201 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 - Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=l/11/2008] [FileNumber=1075449-0 ] [a025e51e79d39c79ba67025907cd934ad8bc4b0d36928763bf7f9903f31a89c73d8 d7f4471 b50b27998567a6f720aa60faf0ae6211 bdbfe4b75c7758b5f27583]] Document description:Exhibit A, Act 395 of2007 Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=l/11/2008] [FileNumber=1075449-l ] [7fb9987a8c1692f917deb5b9830564c6385221857531cb9a136c61e009318e08746 23afc1693fbe3e2d80f0146153a8c5e2e49525fb2bec8fde06ac8a6a3411f]] 2/12/2008 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4182 Filed 01/14/2008 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 500 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 0444 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3325 (501) 604-5140 Facsimile (501) 604-5149 January 14, 2008 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72024 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, 4:82-CV-00866 Dear Mr. Walker: It appears that you have not filed a response to the Pulaski County Special School District's Motion for Declaration of Unitary Status (Doc. No. 4159), which was filed on October 29, 2007. Do you concede their motion? If not, why has no response been filed? Please advise by noon, on Tuesday, January 22, 2008. I also note that the State and the North Little Rock School District have filed a response (Doc. No. 4181) to my December 21, 2007 Letter-Order. If you wish to reply to this pleading, do so by noon, Tuesday, January 22, 2008. Original to the Clerk of Court cc: The Honorable J. Thomas Ray Other Counsel of Record Cordially, /s/ Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 2:10 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Order This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 1/14/2008 at 2:10 PM CST and filed on 1/14/2008 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4182 Docket Text: ORDER responses due by noon Tuesday, January 22, 2008 re [4176] Order, [4159] MOTION for Order for a Declaration of Unitary Status filed by Pulaski County Special School District. Signed by Judge William R. Wilson, Jr on 1/14/08. (dac) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, trniller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, abray@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com - John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com,jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com 1/15/2008 John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle.williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Office of the Governor State Capitol Room238 Little Rock, AR 72201 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 - Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ST AMP dcecfStamp ID= 1095794525 [Date= 1/14/2008] [FileNumber= 107 6222-0 ] [9b46924dedf356eb7397040212d07959ac9fl 7602042c 1 b2481 fl 05d3284f0bdb70 46fff719b4a842adl24874634e131ae33a7f6e8ce961e2bbf0461cc19b6at]] 1/15/2008 Page 2 of2 , . Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4184 Filed 01/15/2008 Page 1 of 2 INTI-IE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. Case No. 4:82cv866WRWIJTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S MOTION FOR UNITARY STATUS 1. They deny the allegations of paragraph one. 2. They deny the allegations of paragraph two. 3. They deny the allegations of paragraph three. 4. They admit the allegations of paragraph four. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors oppose the Motion for Declaration of Unitary Status. Respectfully submitted, Isl John W. Walker 1 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4184 Filed 01/15/2008 Page 2 of 2 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-374-3758 501- 374-4187 (Facsimile) Email: johnwalkeratty@aol.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing Opposition has been filed using the CM/ECF system on this 15th day of January, 2007 wherein on copy will be served on the following counsel: M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com Christopher Heller heller@fec.net Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov 2 Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com Mark T. Burnette mBumette@mbbwi.com Office of Desegregation Mon. andreeroaf@odemail.com Isl John W. Walker Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf _ support@ared. uscourts. gov Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 11 :57 AM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Response to Motion This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. Notice of Electronic Filing U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas The following transaction was entered by Walker, John on 1/15/2008 at 11 :56 AM CST and filed on 1/15/2008 Case Name: Case Number: Filer: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al 4:82-cv-866 Leslie Joshua Stacy Joshua Wayne Joshua Lorene Joshua WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4184 Docket Text: RESPONSE to Motion re [4159] MOTION for Order for a Declaration of Unitary Status filed by Lorene Joshua, Leslie Joshua, Stacy Joshua, Wayne Joshua. (Walker, John) 4:82-cv-866 Notice bas been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com - Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, abray@mwsgw.com 1/15/2008 .. \\ . .,,. Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalk:eratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Office of the Governor State Capitol Room238 Little Rock, AR 72201 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=l/15/2008] [FileNumber=1077106-0 ] [4fe730110079004854c2a451 bc5efff96e21694690b61eee0739979fl 5276a21e9a 18320e6a6e6ec8514a5c659ed01539ec66b5378cdlcfc7ab215d5454f12aa]] 1/15/2008 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4185 Filed 01/15/2008 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. Case No. 4:82cv866WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS THE PCSSD'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS The Joshua Intervenors respectfully oppose the motion that the PCSSD be declared unitary. The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that this matter be set for hearing at which point the defendants be required to demonstrate by a substantial evidentiary showing that the schools have fulfilled the requirements of law and the agreements between the parties. To the court's inquiry regarding Joshua's delay in filing this response, Joshua respectfully shows the Court that issues related to compliance have been the subject of ongoing negotiations between Joshua and the PCSSD with the United States Department of Justice being the mediating source as provided by the settlement agreement. Joshua has 1 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4185 Filed 01/15/2008 Page 2 of 10 kept the Office of Desegregation Monitoring informed of the Joshua objections and has invoked the process set forth in the settlement agreement for resolution of disputes between the parties. The PCSSD motion was filed during the period that the invoked process was underway. 1 The matter was further set for negotiation on December 18, 2007 but was cancelled due to the unavailability for health related reasons of PCSSD counsel, M. Samuel Jones. The process is scheduled to resume on a date to be determined by the parties now that Mr. Jones health is no longer an issue. The Joshua objections are generally that the PCSSD has not substantially complied with the provisions of the settlement agreement and that it has not implemented the recommendations of this court's Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The PCS SD has generally taken the position that it is no longer required to implement the provisions of the settlement agreement because \"desegregation is over, as a matter of law.\" That opinion has been stated on many occasions by district officials though not embraced in any writing known to undersigned counsel. 1 . The motion filed was more or less mandated by the State officials represented by the Arkansas Legislature, the Arkansas Department of Education and the Attorney General's office. Neither of those officials have made a substantive assessment of the district's compliance with law and the existing agreements. 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4185 Filed 01/15/2008 Page 3 of 10 The ODM has submitted a number of monitoring reports which reflect PCSSD's dismal performance with respect to meeting its settlement and legal obligations. Joshua has persistently brought these matters to the attention of the court through ODM. The invocation of the process for raising objections and discussions pursuant thereto, as provided by the plan, have been underway now for more than two (2) years. The parties have not been able to resolve the issues. 1. To the argument set forth in the PCSSD \"Introduction,\" i.e., schools should ordinarily be under local control, Joshua points up that a district's having remedied acknowledged violations is prerequisite to that perspective. Whether that remedy has occurred as directed would ordinarily be a judicial determination. Local control as a concept, however, is subordinate to insuring that promised constitutional rights and remedies are implemented. 2. The PCSSD's observation that LRSD has been declared unitary, Section A, p. 2, is correct only in part. Moreover, because partial unitary status was induced without express direction of the LRSD Board of Education by recorded Board motion and vote, and by documentation of that fact which is now that earlier decision may be the subject of a new or other appropriate. 3. PCSSD argues that it is \"positioned to be declared unitary in the area of student assignments.\" The trouble with the PCSSD position is that upon the 3 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4185 Filed 01/15/2008 Page 4 of 10 ending of M to M funding, the schools located in Pulaski county which now house African American students from Little Rock will no longer accept those students. The students will thus be left homeless because LRSD, through the initiative of Ken James, and his successor Superintendent Roy Brooks, have closed schools located in the African American communities and have no plans for accommodating the return of those students upon cessation of M to M funding who now claim PCSSD schools as their home site. This is underway as those forces in the LRSD which initiated the Motion for Unitary status, i.e., ADE Director Ken James, LRSD board members Baker Kurrus and Larry Berkeley, and unidentified persons in the LR business community, seek to have constructed primarily for white children another school in west Little Rock. If this happens state imposed segregation will be continued. Furthermore, the students who will be necessarily returned from PCS SD will have no home school for, contrary to LRSD plans, schools in their neighborhoods - Rightsell, Mitchell, Badgett and Cloverdale have been closed. 4. PCSSD acknowledges that a number of its schools are out of compliance, p. 3. The district's figures presented were for 2006-7, not the present term. The court's Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) noted that 5 of 23 elementary schools fell \"outside the plan described range for 2007-8, each above 4 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4185 Filed 01/15/2008 Page 5 of 10 the maximum black enrollment.\" The ODM said that the same situation persisted in 2006-7 as well. The district refers to Harris and relies upon court approval of district strategies for correcting the imbalance. The strategies presented to the court did not work and have largely been ignored by PCSSD. Importantly, PCSSD did not report is failed strategy to the court and as a result state imposed segregation clearly remains at Harris. Upon partial unitary status being declared for Mills, Fuller and College Station, those schools will become racially identifiable for white students will largely no longer be in the surrounding attendance zones. Fuller, College Station and Harris are physically unequal to the new Chenal school which will be virtually one race. Surely, the court will recognize the force of Plessey v. Ferguson. 1898, which required equal facilities at the least and as a condition for release require substantial new facilities for those areas which are equal to Chenal and Maumelle, the replacement site for Oak Grove. 5. On page 4 of the brief, the PCSSD addresses faculty and administrative assignments. Joshua Intervenors note that the ODM has addressed this area and has made recommendations regarding the matter. See ODM report dated December 15, 2006. 6. On page 5 of the brief under facilities, the PCS SD argues that unequal 5 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4185 Filed 01/15/2008 Page 6 of 10 schools are not \"vestiges of the prior dual system of education for the races.\" It is to be noted that Harris Elementary school on a comparative basis is dismal, in need of remodeling or replacement. While the PCSSD has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on the facility, it is still unequal and in no way can be regarded as comparable to the new Chenal school, Baker and Pine Forest and Maumelle elementary and middle schools among others. The reference to the Lakeview case is misplaced because Lakeview did not address racial inequalities with respect to facilities. The schools which are located in majority African American communities in Pulaski County, with few exceptions, are not the equal of those schools which are located in middle class, majority white communities. 7. On page 5 of the brief, the PCS SD further argues that it has complied in good faith and that it has eliminated the vestiges of past discrimination to the extent practicable. The District's good faith is not demonstrated by the filing of this petition. The filing of this petition for full unitary status was not authorized by the Board. Indeed, board members recognize that there are still vestiges of discrimination in the district. Moreover, the ODM has found continuing vestiges of discrimination. See status reports of ODM dated August 16, 2006 and December 15, 2006. Joshua is prepared to demonstrate that the PCSSD Board only authorized its administration and counsel to seek partial unitary status. 6 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4185 Filed 01/15/2008 Page 7 of 1 O However, prodded by state officials, PCSSD administrators changed the record to reflect Board action for unitary status. 8. The PCCSD made commitments with respect to student discipline which are the partial subject of the referenced conflict between the parties now pending before the Department of Justice as well as the area of Special Education. The District has conceded that it was non compliant with respect to those areas. It has been only within the last two years that they have initiated actions to address their dereliction in those areas. The motion does not address at all the pertinent area of academic achievement, discipline, and special education, all of which are being discussed by the parties with the Department of Justice. 9. The district basically acknowledges that it has not complied with obligations under the settlement decree and under law. Because of intense pressure from the State of Arkansas, the present motion has been filed. That pressure includes dissolution of part of the district and the establishment of one and possibly to separate school districts, one for the Jacksonville area and another for Maumelle-Sherwood. It is contemplated that there will be other efforts to diminish and realign the PCSSD which efforts operate to the detriment of the African American students in all three districts. Those efforts violate the stated good faith commitments. 7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4185 Filed 01/15/2008 Page 8 of 1 O 10. In this action, upon release from it, the State of Arkansas committed to fully support desegregation actions, improve achievement, and to otherwise eliminate all vestiges of state imposed discrimination. This was done in what is called the \"Allen letter\". In this respect, the State of Arkansas has established, contrary to the wishes of PCS SD, a charter school, the LISA Academy in the district which is racially identifiable (79% white). The State appears anxious to establish other racially identifiable schools in Pulaski County under guise and label of \"charter schools.\" The State is fully aware of the likely efforts of such privatization of public education. PCS SD is powerless to resist the State's resegregative initiative because of fear that the district will be taken over by the ADE as either academically or financially distressed. The court is obliged to respect the reports of ODM in considering the district's compliance. The PCS SD is also obliged to do so. The ODM is not a party but its role has been well defined and not modified by later court directive. The PCSSD (and the NLRSD) and the State of Arkansas may be of the view that this court does not respect the considered work of the ODM monitors because of the approach taken by the court during the LRSD proceedings now on appeal. Joshua submits that even in the absence of these objections the ODM reports establish that the PCSSD has not fulfilled its legal requirements approved by the 8 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4185 Filed 01/15/2008 Page 9 of 10 court. Furthermore, by \"invoking the process\" and utilizing the Department of Justice Community Relations Department, Joshua has proceeded as the plan directs. This court should not interfere by crediting PCS SD' s request until the parties have exhausted the process and until Joshua has presented its complaints to the court. The PCSSD motion should be denied! Respectfully submitted, Isl John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-374-3758 501- 374-4187 (Facsimile) Email: johnwalkeratty@aol.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing Opposition has been filed using the CM/ECF system on this 15th day of January, 2007 wherein on copy will be served on the following counsel: M.SamuelJones,ill sjones@mwsgw.com Christopher Heller heller@fec.net 9 Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com Mark T. Burnette mBurnette@mbbwi.com Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4185 Filed 01/15/2008 Page 1 O of 1 O Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov 10 Office of Desegregation Mon. andreeroaf@odemail.com Isl John W. Walker Page 1 of2 pally From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 12:02 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Brief in Support This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including prose litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Walker, John on 1/15/2008 at 12:01 PM CST and filed on 1/15/2008 Case Name: Case Number: Filer: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al 4:82-cv-866 Leslie Joshua Stacy Joshua Wayne Joshua Lorene Joshua WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4185 Docket Text: BRIEF IN SUPPORT filed by Lorene Joshua, Leslie Joshua, Stacy Joshua, Wayne Joshua re [4184] Response to Motion {Walker, John) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com - Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, trniller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, abray@mwsgw.com 1/15/2008 - Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com,jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Office of the Governor State Capitol Room238 Little Rock, AR 72201 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original ftlename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ST AMP dcecfStamp ID= 1095794525 [Date= 1/15/2008] [FileNumber= 1077124-0 ] [lb59dfaa5eda3412fD9c87c2f62b8034d5ae976489fea19435b171d029b9446a35e 7ba8c5bbd6054ddca4 70b 1 c06c77bd8:f9e0bf9e0bd04 fl 5b7fD 11 e91 e5955]] 1/15/2008 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4186 Filed 01/15/2008 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. Case No. 4:82cv866WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. JOSHUA INTERVENORS' REPLY TO STATE'S AND NLRSD'S RESPONSE TO DECEMBER 21, 2007 ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. The State is not a party to this proceeding. It's part in the motion is inappropriate unless it is to be considered as either a Motion to Intervene or for relief otherwise provided to it by agreements between the parties. There has been no showing of either. On the other hand, the State's response demonstrates the State's ability to direct the actions of the NLRSD (and the PCSSD). It's arguments are not appropriate unless and until it is made a party. 2. The NLRSD response was obviously dictated by the ADE and other state officials under threat of financial loss. 3. In reply to the Response to the Court's Letter Order, Joshua submits 1 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4186 Filed 01/15/2008 Page 2 of 4 that the Order was appropriate. The briefs of the LRSD and Joshua parties are before the Court of Appeals as is an amicus brief, denoting non party status, by the State as well. 4. The parties response essentially argues what LRSD is arguing on appeal. Those parties are in effect requesting this court to make a new ruling on the pending appeal while the standard of review used by the court in LRSD is being appealed and is under review itself. (Para(s). 3-4, p. 2 of Response.) 5. The parties' response is simply their assessment of the appeal before the Eighth Circuit. Their opinions of Joshua's pending Eighth Circuit case are not legally relevant to the issue set forth as a basis for deferring hearing. In short the Response to the Court's Order by an interloper party, the ADE, not properly before this court and who is an amicus in the referenced litigation, is inappropriate without express intervention for which there must be a factual and legal basis. The State must at least allege harm. The NLRSD' s argument which remains simply that notwithstanding the appeal in the Little Rock case, the court should proceed post haste to consider its motion. The court is reminded that this is the first motion filed by NLRSD in years. For NLRSD, time obviously has not been urgent in the past for considering the issue of unitary status. It is not urgent now and there is no demonstrated 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4186 Filed 01/15/2008 Page 3 of 4 prejudice to NLRSD. Indeed, the State of Arkansas has extended the time to NLRSD regarding this petition. The Court's Letter Order should therefore stand as issued. Respectfully submitted, Isl John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-374-3758 501- 374-4187 (Facsimile) Email: johnwalkeratty@aol.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing Opposition has been filed using the CM/ECF system on this 15th day of January, 2007 wherein on copy will be served on the following counsel: M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com Christopher Heller heller@fec.net Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov 3 Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com Mark T. Burnette mBumette@mbbwi.com Office of Desegregation Mon. andreeroaf@odemail.com Isl John W. Walker Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 12:08 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Reply (Non Motion) This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents ftled electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Walker, John on 1/15/2008 at 12:07 PM CST and filed on 1/15/2008 Case Name: Case Number: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Leslie Joshua Stacy Joshua Wayne Joshua Lorene Joshua WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4186 Docket Text: REPLY re [4181] Response (Non Motion) Joshua Intervenor's Reply to State's and NLRSD's Response to December 21, 2007 Order by Lorene Joshua, Leslie Joshua, Stacy Joshua, Wayne Joshua (Walker, John) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net 2/12/2008 M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, abray@mwsgw.com - Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj .com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Office of the Governor State Capitol Room238 Little Rock, AR 72201 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=l/15/2008] [FileNumber=1077136-0 ] [99288d5be7fe75c1422e044a3bb24144ed7b15e18569b127833acb0122ca7ce7183 40585ace9a56c0eb4f436fa78a5e4b1769d0ce74617346681634c8f6041lfj] 2/12/2008 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4187 Filed 01/15/2008 Page 1 of 1 \"Scott Richardson\" \u0026lt;Scott.Richardson@arkansas ag.gov\u0026gt; 01/15/2008 02:14 PM To \u0026lt;clerksoffice@ared.uscourts.gov\u0026gt; cc \"Sam Jones\" \u0026lt;SJones@mwsgw.com\u0026gt;, \u0026lt;sjones@jacknelsonjones.com\u0026gt;, \"Chris Heller\" \u0026lt;Heller@fec.net\u0026gt;, \u0026lt;johnwalkeratty@aol.com\u0026gt;, bee Subject LRSD v. PCSSD, et al., No. 4:82-cv-866 WRW Attached is an exhibit that was inadvertently left off of the Response to December 21, 2007, Letter Order (Dkt. # 4181) (Docketed as \"RESPONSE re 4176 Order of December 21, 2007 by Arkansas, State of) filed by the State of Arkansas and the North Little Rock School District. I understand that this exhibit can be appended to the original pleading by the clerk's office through the CM/ECF system. Please accept this as my request that you do so. Thank you for your assistance. Scott P. Richardson Assistant Attorney General 323 Center St., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 (501)682-1019 (501)682-2591 fax scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov Joshua Reply Brief. pdf Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 2:33 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Notice of Docket Correction This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including prose litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 1/15/2008 at 2:32 PM CST and filed on 1/15/2008 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4187 Docket Text: NOTICE OF DOCKET CORRECTION re: [4181] Response re: Order of 12/21/2007. CORRECTION: Exhibit B was added as an attachment to docket entry [4181], based on the attached request. (thd) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, abray@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com 1/15/2008 John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle.williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Office of the Governor State Capitol Room238 Little Rock, AR 72201 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=l/15/2008] [FileNumber=1077392-0 ] [6bac00b54dbalc7e768e53ebldda7875e9bdd9851d43530fed40bb7f4014b3b77fe ecc977f94a8bddd3b536c204fadd5801d9435d0732ac0blcb9a14f658d2d5]] 1/15/2008 Page 2 of2 07-1866 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENOR/APPELLANTS v. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT APPELLEE Reply Brief of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, Et Al. On Appeal From United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Hon. William R. Wilson District Judge Presiding Robert Pressman John W. Walker 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (F) EXHIBIT B Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................... . Table of Authorities ........................................................................... . Argument .......................................................................................... . The Arguments of the LRSD and the State Lack Merit A. The Original Section 2.7.1 Commitment Encompassed Structure for Assessment/Evaluation Deeply Embedded in the Operation of the LRSD B. The LRSD's Freedom to Craft an Implementation Plan During the Agreed Upon Duration of the Revised Plan C. This Court's Identification of the District Court's Remedial Authority D. The District Court's 2002 Decision and Its Initial Compliance Remedy to Address LRSD Default E. F. The District Court's 2004 Decision and Its Second Compliance Remedy to Address LRSD Default The District Court's Giving Notice of a Change in the Standards for Judging Compliance Only After the Hearing Requires Reversal 1 11 1 1 3 3 4 6 9 Certificate of Service............................................................................. 12 Certificate of Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Attachments i EXHIBIT B Table of Authorities Black v. Lane, 22 F.3d 1395 (7thCir. 1994) Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237 (1991) First Union National Bank, Trustee v. Pictet Overseas Trust Corp., 477 F.3d 616 (8thCir. 2007) Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.s. 565 (1975) Grand State Marketing Co. v. Eastern Poultry Distributors, 975 S.W.2d 429 (Ark.App. 1998) Hynes v. Mayor and Council of Borough of Oradell, 425 U.S. 610 (1976) Knight v. PCSSD, 112 F.3d 953 (8thCir. 1997) LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (8thCir. 1990) LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013 (8thCir. 1996) LRSD v. PCSSD, 237 F.Supp.2d 988 (E.D.Ark. 2002) LRSD v. PCSSD, 470 F.Supp.2d 963 (E.D.Ark. 2004) LRSD v. PCSSD, 451 F.3d 528 (8thCir. 2006) LRSD v. PCSSD, Order Declaring the Little Rock School District Unitary, Feb. 23, 2007 McGinty v. Beranger Volkswagen, Inc., 633 F.2d 226 (lstCir. 1980) Ramos-Falcon v. Autoridad de Energia Electrica, 301 F.3d 1 (lstCir. 2002) Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992) United States v. ITT Continental Baking Company. 420 U.S. 233 (1975) ii 10, 11 10 10, 12 10 2 10 4,9 3,4 8 2,4,6 6, 7, 11, 12 1, 6, 9 2, 12 10 9, 11 4 2 EXHIBIT B Rule 55, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Restatement (Second) of Contracts, Sec. 201(1) (1981) iii 10 2 EXHIBIT B The Arguments of the LRSD and the State Lack Merit LRSD and the State ignore the breadth, in context, of LRSD's original commitment in Section 2. 7 .1; LRSD's agreement necessarily required multiple actions creating a structure for implementation fairly characterized by the \"deeply embedded\" language later employed by the District Court, after LRSD twice failed to fulfill its voluntary commitments. They do not account for these defaults, or the District Court's remedial authority in such circumstances. They minimize, or ignore entirely the District Court's communicating an important change in the criteria for judging LRSD compliance only in its February 23, 2007 post-hearing opinion, thereby denying Joshua counsel the opportunity to challenge LRSD compliance with know ledge of all governing standards. A. The Original Section 2. 7 .1 Commitment Encompassed a Structure for Assessment/Evaluation Deeply Embedded in the Operation of the LRSD In 1998, the District Court approved the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan), to which the Joshua Intervenors and the LRSD had agreed. LRSD, 451 F.3d at 3. Section 2.7.1 provided that: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2. 7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. While only 65 words and 2 sentences, this was a commitment of considerable breadth. First. The text referred to annual reviews of the specified programs in terms of 1 EXHIBIT B - their effectiveness in improving African-American student achievement. 1 The text also obligated the LRSD to modify or replace programs shown to be ineffective. Second. The programs, identified in Sec. 2. 7 of the Revised Plan, were those \"designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African American students .. . . \" The LRSD \"identified almost 100 [such] programs .... \" LRSD, 237 F.Supp. at 1076, n. 135. Third. The parties interpreted \"assess\" and \"assessment\" to require evaluations, a more detailed study than an assessment, of at least the key Section 2.7 programs. 237 F.Supp. at 1076-80; LRSD (dist. ct.), 2-23-07, at 13-15.2 The mere agreement to and approval of these two sentences was obvious! y not the goal of the parties. The objective meaning of these words, in the context of a school district of substantial size, contemplated a great deal of activity by its officers - and employees. There would be a need, inter alia, for the adoption of policies and guidelines; the employment of personnel capable of performing assessments and evaluations; interaction with those involved in the content of LRSD curriculum; communication with and training of school-level personnel; reports on 1 In 1997-98, the LRSD enrolled 24,886 students, 16,664 of whom were African Americans; LRSD then operated 50 schools. [ODM enrollment report, Dec. 7, 2007] 2 As the district court notes [LRSD, 2-7-07, at 2, 15] RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS Sec. 201(1) (1981) provides: \"Where the parties have attached the same meaning to a promise or agreement or a term thereof, it is interpreted in accordance with that meaning.\"; see also U.S. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 420 U.S. 233,238 (1975) (reliance on \"any technical meaning words used may have had to the parties\"); Grand State Marketing v. Eastern Poultry Distribs., 975 S.W.2d 429,442 (Ark.App. 1998) (\"In particular, when a technical term is used, the trier of fact may determine in what sense the term was used.\") 2 EXHIBIT B - implementation to high level administrators and the school board; oversight; and documents containing completed program studies. Not infrequently, a phrase is used to describe an endeavor of considerable complexity. Here, a reasonable construction of the parties' broad voluntary agreement was that it contemplated, over time, multiple, mature actions at different levels and locales in the LRSD, i.e., that a structure to carry out the parties' broad agreement be \"deeply embedded\" in the LRSD curriculum and instruction program. B. The LRSD's Freedom to Craft an Implementation Plan During the Agreed Upon Duration of the Revised Plan Section 11 of the Revised Plan provided for implementation for a three-year period, assuming substantial compliance with its terms. In this period, the system's implementation of Section 2.7.1 was not constrained by any directive(s) of the District Court. The LRSD was free to fashion and implement steps to comply with the parties' agreement. C. This Court's Identification of the District Court's Remedial Authority Prior to the approval of the Revised Plan, this court addressed in this case the implementation and enforcement of agreements of the parties. The appeal in LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) followed the parties' agreement to a desegregation plan for each of the three districts involved in the case, as well as an \"Interdistrict Desegregation Plan\" and a \"Settlement Agreement\" concerning obligations of State officials. 921 F.2d at 1378-80. Rejecting rulings of the District Court, this court approved the parties' plans. The court noted that \"the parties have all agreed to continued monitoring\" and continued [at 1386]: 3 EXHIBIT B It is important for the settlement plans to be scrupulously adhered to -- and here we have in mind especially the kinds of programs that the plan contemplates for the Incentive Schools -- and it will be the job of the District Court to see that the monitoring is done effectively, and that appropriate action is taken if the parties do not live up to their commitments. This court also addressed the District Court's authority in the concluding section of its 1990 opinion, which summarized this court's rulings and directives. This court wrote: 8. The District Court is instructed to monitor closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, to take whatever action is appropriate, in its discretion, to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement, and otherwise to proceed as the law and the facts require. See also Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367,378 (1992) (\"A consent decree no doubt embodies an agreement of the parties and thus in some - respects is contractual in nature. But it is an agreement that the parties desire and expect will be reflected in, and be enforceable as, a judicial decree that is subject to the rules generally applicable to other judgments and decrees.\"); Knight v. PCSSD, 112 F.3d 953, 955 (8th Cir. 1997) (parties' agreement \"becomes, in a sense, a particularization of federal law applicable to these parties\"). D. The District Court's 2002 Decision and Its Initial Compliance Remedy to Address LRSD Default In 2002, following hearings, the District Court ruled on the LRSD's effort to show compliance with the Revised Plan sufficient to achieve full unitary status and the termination of court jurisdiction. The court clustered the Plan provisions at issue in six areas. LRSD, 237 F.Supp. at 1086. In all areas but one, implementation of Plan provision 2. 7 .1, the court found substantial compliance and ended court supervision. 4 EXHIBIT B 237 F.Supp. at 1086, 1089. As to 2.7.1, the court found an absence of substantial compliance. Id. The District Court's discussion, 237 F.Supp. at 1076-80, may be summarized as follows: [i] LRSD interpreted Sec. 2.7 .1 consistently to obligate the district to prepare program evaluations of the key 2.7 programs, which by the text of that section were not limited to the programs in Plan Section 5. [At 1076-80] [ii] The school board adopted an evaluation policy belatedly, i.e., in February 2001, only in the month before LRSD filed its Compliance Report (at the time specified in the 1998 Revised Plan), seeking a complete release from court supervision. [At 1078, para. 7] [iii] LRSD lacked the personnel needed to prepare adequate evaluations. [At 1081, 5-16-01 E-mail] [iv] LRSD's March 2001 Compliance Report was marked by a lack of candor, - exaggerating the extent of completion of evaluations; none were complete. [At 1079- 80, para. 14] [v] In view of its earlier consistent position that Sec. 2.7.1 required the preparation of evaluations of key 2. 7 programs, LRSD's contrary position in the hearing also evidenced a lack of candor. [At 1078, para. 10] Faced with an absence of the evaluations which LRSD had agreed to be necessary and evidence of bad faith, the District Court did not simply plead with LRSD to comply. Rather, in keeping with this court's instructions in 1990, the Court devised a \"Compliance Remedy.\" This remedy required LRSD, among other things, to [237 F.Supp. at 1087-88]: [i] establish \"a program assessment procedure ... that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented under Sec. 2. 7 in improving the academic achievement of African-American students\"; [ii] prepare 5 EXHIBIT 8 and use certain \"program evaluations\" which it had identified; [iii] continue during a specified period to assess each 2.7 program and use this and other available information in deciding on program modification and elimination; [iv] maintain certain written records regarding these assessments, including records regarding program modification and elimination, a topic specifically addressed in Sec. 2.7.1; and [iv] use a particular external expert or someone else with equivalent qualifications to prepare the evaluations, which the LRSD had referenced. There is no proper basis for criticism of the District Court regarding the 2002 remedy. Faced with LRSD default, the court extended the implementation period and identified actions inherent in the parties' 2. 7 .1 agreement, as construed by the parties. The District Court fulfilled the responsibility identified in strong terms by this court in 1990, in order to give Joshua Intervenors the benefit of the parties' bargain. Importantly, the LRSD neither sought clarification of the meaning of this remedy, nor appealed. LRSD, 470 F.Supp. at 969; LRSD, 451 F.3d at 536. E. The District Court's 2004 Decision and Its Second Compliance Remedy to Address LRSD Default In 2004, the LRSD sought a termination of court supervision based upon asserted compliance with the court's 2002 remedy and Sec. 2.7.1. The District Court again found a lack of substantial compliance. Faced with a second instance of noncompliance, the court set forth the second Compliance Remedy, which was, intentionally, more specific than the 2002 remedy. LRSD, 470 F.Supp. at 997. The factors on which the court relied in finding non-compliance and framing its 2004 remedy included the following: [i] the LRSD had again recognized that its 6 EXHIBIT B obligation encompassed some program evaluations; [470 F.Supp. at 970-71]; [ii] although, as LRSD's expert witness testified, all districts implement sub-programs within a curriculum, which can be and should be evaluated [Dr. Ross, hearing transcript at 195; 470 F.Supp. at 986], the \"evaluations\" which the LRSD presented were global overviews of the entire literacy and math-science curricula, not studies of particular programs which could be used to make the requisite decisions about program modification and elimination [ 4 70 F.Supp. at 971-72, 987, 990]; [iii] neither global overview addressed the key research question identified in LRSD's assessment\\evaluation policy, i.e., \"has this curriculum/instruction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students?\" [470 F.Supp. at 987, 990]; [iv] LRSD did not maintain the - records regarding its program studies required in paragraph B of the 2002 Compliance Remedy [470 F.Supp. at 994-95]; [v] the shortcomings in LRSD performance were again attributable to staffing problems in the district [470 F.Supp. at 985-86]; [vi] in the opinion of the LRSD expert, Dr. Ross, a system the size of the LRSD could be expected to provide four or five evaluations a year [ 4 70 F.Supp. 994]; [vii] LRSD had failed to provide to ODM and Joshua Intervenors promised progress reports on the literacy and math-science evaluations [470 F.Supp. at 988-89, 991]. There is no proper basis for criticism of the District Court regarding the 2004 remedy. Faced with a second LRSD default, the court addressed more specifically required actions and steps to achieve them. No goal, required action, or standard was outside the parties' broad agreement. Except when it came to court, LRSD always 7 EXHIBIT B identified its obligations as including some evaluations. When LRSD had twice failed in this area, the court drew upon the testimony of LRSD's expert to identify the number of evaluations to require in its second remedy. LRSD having twice failed with regard to adequate personnel, the court was specific with regard to both in-house staff (PRE) and external experts (to do evaluations). The court's deeply embedded language was not a requirement untethered to the original 2. 7 .1 commitment, or fairly characterized as made up out of whole cloth, but instead a provision fairly descriptive of the LRSD landscape in a full compliance with Section 2. 7 .1 setting. Had LRSD complied at the outset, or after entry of the first compliance remedy, the District Court would not have had the need to articulate a global standard, geared to the particular subject matter of Sec. 2. 7 .1, to help measure compliance. The District Court could not allow itself to be \"run off.\" It could not condone non-compliance. It had a responsibility, which its second remedy sought to address. To the extent relevant on this appeal, it should be noted that no part of the argument made by the dissenting judge in this court's 2006 decision withstands scrutiny. See 451 F.3d at 541-43. First. The interpretation of the word \"assessment\" and the identification of the type of program studies required overall by Sec. 2.7.1 ignores two critical factors. These are LRSD's repetitive construction of its bargain as requiring some evaluations and the relevance of the parties' position on this to proper interpretation of Sec. 2. 7 .1. 8 EXHIBIT 8 See n.2, supra.3 Second. Having qualified personnel was an inherent element of the original 2. 7 .1 bargain; and the District Court dealt specifically with this topic only after a second default, each encompassing personnel deficiencies, as previously shown. Third. The \"deeply embedded\" standard, invoked only after two defaults, comes straight from the broad 2. 7 .1 bargain, by \"reasonable implication, \"4 as previously shown. A focus on the status and completeness of the identified actions for achieving compliance with Sec. 2. 7 .1 is more (not less) objective than application of the \"good faith\" standard ultimately employed. The State expresses concern about the impact of the \"deeply embedded\" concept on the two other Pulaski County school districts. [State brief at 16-17] No factual basis for this concern is shown. The State shows no order employing this standard regarding these systems (Pulaski County and North Little Rock). The State does not relate its concern to any particular remaining remedial provision in one of these districts. Beyond this, the State does not recognize that the standard is a part of LRSD's voluntary substantive obligation drawn from Sec. 2.7.1. and invoked by the District Court only after a second LRSD default. F. The District Court's Giving Notice of a Change in the Standards for Judging Compliance Only After the 3 Factual findings bearing upon contract interpretation are reviewed for clear error. LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013, 1017 (8thCir. 1996). Given the volume of evidence relied upon, the lower court's findings that Sec. 2.7.1 encompassed evaluations are unassailable. 4 Knight v. PCSSD, 112 F.3d 953, 954 (8th Cir. 1997). 9 EXHIBIT B Hearing Requires Reversal Prior notice, including of governing standards, is a fundamental and required element of fairness in many contexts. See [A] Ramos-Falcon v. Autoridad de Energia Electrica, 301 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2002) (district court entered default judgment on ADA claim, but after hearing conducted pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2), Fed.R.Civ.Pro., dismissed claim on the merits; while the district court could conduct a hearing \"to 'establish the truth of any averment' in the complaint,\" it could only do so if it \"had made 'its requirements known in advance to the plaintiff, so that [he] could understand the direction of the proceeding and marshal! such evidence as might be available to [him].' Id. (quoting McGinty v. Beranger Volkswagen, Inc., 633 F.2d 226, 229 (lstCir. 1980).\"; [B] Black v. Lane, 22 F.3d 1395, 1398 (7thCir. 1994) ( opinion written by Circuit Judge Lay, sitting by designation) (same); [C] First Union National Bank v. Pictet Overseas Trust, 4 77 F.3d 616, 621 (8thCir. 2007) ( discussing possible applicability of law of the case doctrine; \"Even had the district court intended to resolve the fiduciary duty issue in its Interest Rate Decision, it failed to do so with sufficient directness and clarity to establish the settled expectations of the parties necessary for the subsequent application of the law of the case doctrine.\"); [D] Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 581-82 (1975) (in context of school suspension for disciplinary reason, required element of affording procedural due process rights is that \"the student [must] first be told what he is accused of doing and what the basis of the accusation is\"; this affords student \"opportunity to present his side of the story\" in an informed manner); [E] Hynes v. Mayor and Council of Borough of Oradell, 425 10 EXHIBIT B U.S. 610, 620 (1976) (whether as to law or rule persons \"of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application\"); [F] Board of Educ. of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237,246 (1991) (\"[A] school board is entitled to a rather precise statement of its obligations under a desegregation decree.\"). The District Court departed from this basic standard of fairness. In Part K of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, the District Court identified LRSD's \"obligations under Sec. 2. 7 .1 as specified in the Compliance Remedy [ of 2004]\" as the measuring rod for assessing the district's right to a termination of court jurisdiction. [ 4 70 F.Supp. at 1000] That remedy, in Part B, included the \"deeply embedded\" language, which even referred to \"[p]art ofLRSD's proof, at the next compliance hearing .... \" [470 F.Supp. at 998] The District Court gave notice of changing this standard only in its post-hearing opinion. [LRSD, 2-7-07, at 16-17] Obviously, Joshua counsel could not, on a key point, \"understand the direction of the proceeding and marshall such evidence as might be available to [them]\" [Ramos-Falcon and Black. supra], when the change to the \"good faith\" standard was set forth only after the evidentiary hearing was completed. Moreover, \"management orders\" and guidance to counsel before the hearing magnified the harm. By letter of December 6, 2006, the District Court required each side to present by December 8 for each witness \"a fair and accurate summary of the expected testimony ... and the length of time you estimate for direct examination.\" In a letter of January 18, 2007, the court stated that each side would be limited to 7 11 EXHIBIT B hours for its direct case and 2 hours for cross-examination. The court added: \"Crossexamination must be brisk and to the point, i.e., a Blitzkrieg, not an invasion of Normandy.\" [See attachments to this brief] In this setting, Joshua counsel had to focus with great care on the existing compliance standards. LRSD argues that Intervenors should have perceived the change in standards. [LRSD brief at 37-38] Neither the Court of Appeals, nor the District Court before the 2006 hearing or its decision, identified the good faith standard ultimately used by the lower court. Whether one refers to the law of the case or the criteria for assessing compliance, the standard actually used was not timely identified with \"sufficient directness and clarity .... \" First Union National Bank, 477 F.3d at 621. Moreover, LRSD does not recognize that the deeply embedded standard is a substantive element - of Sec. 2. 7 .1, fairly construed. The State discusses the law of the case concept. It is, however, silent on the problem here, the timing of the district court's changing in an important way the standards for judging compliance. [States's brief at 10-11] The State also does not recognize the nature of the deeply embedded standard; it is an element of the substantive bargain of Intervenors and LRSD in Sec. 2.7.1; it describes steps necessary to move from a few words on a page to a reality in the operation of the district. It is not, as the State discussion implies, a global standard, apart from Sec. 2. 7 .1, for assessing whether there is sufficient compliance with the agreement to justify a termination of the case as to LRSD or another district. Compare State brief at 12-13. 12 EXHIBIT B Conclusion This court should vacate the judgment of dismissal and: [i] direct the District Court, after a hearing, to reinstate a compliance remedy for an additional period; [ii] or, alternatively, direct that the District Court, after a hearing, determine the compliance of the LRSD with the second remedy, including the \"deeply embedded\" component as a substantive element of the remedy; [iii] or, alternatively, direct that the District Court, after a hearing, determine the compliance of the LRSD with the second remedy, utilizing the good faith standard in doing so. 13 Respectfully submitted, /s/,Tohn W. Walker John W. Walker, AR No. 64046 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 E-Mail: johnwalkeratty@aol.com Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 EXHIBIT B CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, JOHN W. WALKER, the undersigned counsel for the Joshua Intervenors, Appellant herein, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Reply Brief has been served on this 18st day of December, 2007, by dispatch to a third-party commercial carrier for overnight delivery to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Clerk's Office, Thomas F. Eagleton Court House, Room 24.329, 111 South 10th Street, St. Louis,Missouri 63102-1125 and via U.S. Mail and/orhanddelivery to Mr. Chris Heller, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK, 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000, Little Rock, AR 72201 and to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, One Union National Plaza, 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201. ls/John W. Walker 14 EXHIBIT B CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE The undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(7)(C) and Eighth Circuit Rules 28A(c), that this Reply Brief (exclusive of the table of contents, the table of authorities, any addendum, and any certificates of counsel) contains 3427 words. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of FRAP.32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of FRAP.32(a)(6) because of this brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Wordperfect 9.0 in Times New Roman, 14-point. The undersigned has provided one virus free digital version of this brief to the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and to all counsel of record. The digital version of this brief has been furnished on a 3.5\" computer diskette in Portable Document Format (also known as PDF or Acrobat Format). The digital version was generated by printing to PDF from the original word processing file. Dated: December 18, 2007 ls/John W. Walker 15 EXHIBIT B Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4188 Filed 01/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 500 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 0444 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3325 (501) 604-5140 Facsimile (501) 604-5149 January 16, 2008 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72024 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, 4:82-CV-00866 Dear Mr. Walker: Regardless of whether there are \"interloper parties\" in the case, has Joshua taken the position at any time, in the District Court or in the Court of Appeals, that the standard applied in the most recent Little Rock School District Order is the standard to be applied in the North Little Rock and Pulaski County School District cases? I may have missed something, but I don't believe this issue was specifically addressed in your response of yesterday. Please let me have your specific response by noon, Tuesday, January 22, 2008. Original to the Clerk of Court cc: The Honorable J. Thomas Ray Other Counsel of Record Cordially, Isl Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 2:28 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Order This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including prose litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 1/16/2008 at 2:27 PM CST and filed on 1/16/2008 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4188 Docket Text: LETTER/ORDER directing additional response of Joshua lntervenors by noon 'January 22, 2008 re [4184] Response to Motion filed by Leslie Joshua, Wayne Joshua, Lorene Joshua, Stacy Joshua. Signed by Judge William R. Wilson, Jr on 1/16/08. (dac) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, abray@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com - John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, 1orap72297@aol.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com 1/17/2008 John Clayburn Fendley, Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Office of the Governor State Capitol Room238 Little Rock, AR 72201 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [ST AMP dcecfStamp ID=l 095794525 [Date= 1/16/2008] [FileNumber=l 078278-0 ] [56cd5acef3c3541f6a87a4b590b4b62c20f86c7935dd0154blf28c99944fe5df631 00d10c8e5cf409301flfbc4b1300dd936bcela22ead0a3f84badb2b9df60f]] 1/17/2008 Page 2 of2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4190 Filed 01/16/2008 Page 1 of 2 LAW OFFICES MITCHELLWILLIAMS SELIG  GATES  WOODYARD  PLLC M . SAMUEL JONES, Ill 01,tECT DIAL: 501688-8812 E-MAIL : S.JONE  @MWSGW. COM Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. United States District Court 600 W. Capitol Ave., Rm. 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 JANUARY 16, 2008 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al. U.S.D.C. No. 4:82CV00866WRWIJTR Dear Judge Wilson: 425 WE5T CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE I BOO LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 3525 TELEPHONE 501 688-8800 FAX 501 6888807 The Court is probably aware that PACT, right before Christmas, filed a \"Response\" to the PCSSD Motion for Unitary Status. The PCSSD filed a Reply which was thereafter followed on January 9, 2008 by both a Motion by PACT to file a belated response and a Sur Reply. The PCSSD is going to respond in a timely fashion to PACT's Request to File a Belated Response. I also need to submit to the Court, in an appropriate form, an affidavit from the District's Assistant Superintendent for Business Affairs regarding the issue of what dues are withheld from paychecks and to whom or what they are paid. The procedural posture of the PACT \"claim\" seems a little odd and I am trying to figure out what to call this further pleading. I just wanted to apprise the Court and the parties that I am working on this, hope to have fresh papers in the Court's hands by Friday, and trust this will be satisfactory. Thank you. MSJlab Cordially yours, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODY ARD, P.L.L.C. By Isl M. Samuel Jones, III LITTLE RocK, ARKANSAS  ROGERS, ARKANSAS  AUSTIN, TEXAS cc. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4190 Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. January 16, 2008 Page2 cc Via Email: Mark Terry Burnette John W. Walker Clayton R. Blackstock Philip E. Kaplan Christopher J. Heller Stephen W. Jones John Clayburn Fendley, Jr Scott P. Richardson Office of Desegregation Monitor Via US Mail: Timothy Gerard Gauger James M. Llewellyn , Jr. William P. Thompson Filed 01/16/2008 Page 2 of 2 Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 4:30 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Response (Non Motion) This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Jones, M. on 1/16/2008 at 4:30 PM CST and filed on 1/16/2008 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Pulaski County Special School District WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document N um her: 4190 Docket Text: RESPONSE re [4188] Order regarding PACT's Request to File a Belated Response by Pulaski County Special School District (Jones, M.) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, abray@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com 1/17/2008 Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle.williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Office of the Governor State Capitol Room238 Little Rock, AR 72201 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 - Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original ftlename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=l/16/2008] [FileNumber=1078646-0 ] [5270da50b09118371a3dd85c21f4adb98f38480e14a0fdd3292779dbcfe87354a94 dfe79bbd3f768f432c945744cc221 b3be532edaf6e40edl b4312c018fa836]] 1/17/2008 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4191 Filed 01/18/2008 Page 1 of 2 LAW OFFICES MITCHELLWILLIAMS SELIG  GATES  WOODYARD  PLLC M . SAMUEL JONES, Ill DlftECT DIAL: 501 6888812 EMAIL: SJONES@MWSGW.COM Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. United States District Court 600 W. Capitol Ave., Room 423 Little Rock AR 72201 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al. January 18, 2008 425 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 1 800 LITTLE RocK, ARKANSAS 72201 -3525 TELEPHONE 50 1 688-8800 FAX SO I 688-8807 U.S.D.C. No. 4:82CV00866WRWIJTR Dear Judge Wilson: Several days ago I wrote the Court concerning the papers PACT has filed. I predicted the PCSSD would be filing additional papers today. We have encountered logistical delays in obtaining pleadings and orders that are circa 1984 and 1989 but have now secured them. Since the latest PACT filings are dated January 9 and considering the federal holiday on Monday, January 21, 2008, I believe our additional papers, if transmitted to the court on or before January 22, 2008, would be timely. This is also the date the Court has been consistently using in suggesting further responses from Joshua and perhaps others. Accordingly, that is our new target date for additional filings and responses. MSJlab cc Via Email: Mark Terry Burnette John W. Walker Cordially yours, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026amp; WOODYARD, P.L.L.C. By Isl M. Samuel Jones, III LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS  ROGERS, ARKANSAS  AUSTIN, TEXAS 1127447.1 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4191 Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. January 18, 2008 Page2 Clayton R. Blackstock Philip E. Kaplan Christopher J. Heller Stephen W. Jones John Clayburn Fendley, Jr Scott P. Richardson Office of Desegregation Monitor cc Via US Mail: 1127447.1 Timothy Gerard Gauger James M. Llewellyn , Jr. William P. Thompson Filed 01/18/2008 Page 2 of 2 Page 1 of2 - pol_lY_ ___________ _____ ____________ From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 3:03 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Response (Non Motion) This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Jones, M. on 1/18/2008 at 3:02 PM CST and filed on 1/18/2008 Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Pulaski County Special School District WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4191 Docket Text: RESPONSE re [4188] Order regarding PACT's Request to File a Belated Response by Pulaski County Special School District (Jones, M.) 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeld.nef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, abray@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com 1/18/2008 Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odrnemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Office of the Governor State Capitol Room238 Little Rock, AR 72201 James M. Llewellyn, Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original ftlename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=l/18/2008] [FileNumber=1080472-0 ] [a8ad57a4ad578261cd064477cb0d80345dl43e534a3ee46496c9d712d86b3737660 fe2d4c032f2c729ccf70acf8f656cd4b13465fl 76fa3fd6c1540f34af0151]] 1/18/2008 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4192 Filed 01/18/2008 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. 4:82-cv-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS The State of Arkansas and the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), by and through its attorney, Assistant Attorney General Scott P. Richardson, and for its Motion for Substitution of Counsel, states: 1. Deputy Attorney General Tim Gauger has left the employ of the Attorney General's Office. 2. Assistant Attorney General Scott P. Richardson has been given responsibility as lead attorney for this case. WHEREFORE, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) and the State of Arkansas request that former Deputy Attorney General Tim Gauger be withdrawn from this case and that Assistant Attorney General Scott P. Richardson be substituted in his stead and for all other just and proper relief to which they may be entitled. Respectfully submitted, DUSTIN McDANIEL Attorney General BY: Isl Scott P. Richardson SCOTT P. RICHARDSON, Bar No. 01208 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4192 Filed 01/18/2008 Page 2 of 3 Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 (501) 682-1019 direct (501) 682-2591 facsimile Email: scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov ATTORNEYS FOR SEPARATE DEFENDANT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on January 18, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the following: Mr. Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mr. Mark Terry Burnette mbumette@mbbwi.com Mr. John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net Mr. Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net Mr. M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com Mr. Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com Mr. John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com; aroaf@seark.net; paramer@odmmail.com 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4192 Filed 01/18/2008 Page 3 of 3 I, Scott P. Richardson, Assistant Attorney General, do hereby certify that I have served the foregoing and a copy of the Notice of Electronic Filing by depositing a copy in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, on January 18, 2008, to the following nonCM/ ECF participants: Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Mass. 02173 3 Isl Scott P. Richardson SCOTT P. RICHARDSON Page 1 of2 polly From: ecf_support@ared.uscourts.gov Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 4:08 PM To: ared_ecf@ared.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Motion to Substitute Attorney This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. U.S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Richardson, Scott on 1/18/2008 at 4:07 PM CST and filed on 1/18/2008 Case Name: Case Number: Filer: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al 4:82-cv-866 Arkansas, State of Arkansas Department of Education WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 4192 Docket Text: MOTION to Substitute Attorney by Arkansas Department of Education, Arkansas, State of (Richardson, Scott} 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been electronically mailed to: Clayton R. Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi.com Mark Terry Burnette mbumette@mbbwi.com John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast.net, yeldnef@yahoo.com Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net, tmiller@fec.net - M. Samuel Jones , III sjones@mwsgw.com, abray@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, linda.calloway@jlj.com 1/22/2008 Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@williamsanderson.com, nmoler@williamsanderson.com Office of Desegregation Monitor andreeroaf@odmemail.com, aroaf@seark.net, paramer@odmemail.com Scott P. Richardson scott.richardson@arkansasag.gov, agcivil@arkansasag.gov, danielle. williams@arkansasag.gov Page 2 of2 John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, jspringer@gabrielmail.com, lorap72297@aol.com 4:82-cv-866 Notice has been delivered by other means to: Timothy Gerard Gauger Office of the Governor State Capitol Room238 Little Rock, AR 72201 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 William P. Thompson Thompson \u0026amp; Llewellyn, P.A. Post Office Box    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1723","title":"Court filings: District Court, memorandum brief in support of motion for an immediate declaration of unitary status; District Court, exhibits one through three from memorandum brief","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2002-03-15"],"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","Pulaski County Special School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School districts","School management and organization","School integration","Educational statistics","School employees","Student assistance programs","Universities and colleges","School improvement programs","Education--Curricula","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, memorandum brief in support of motion for an immediate declaration of unitary status; District Court, exhibits one through three from memorandum brief"],"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/1723"],"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":["filing"],"dcterms_extent":["20 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Wright, Susan Webber, 1948-"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVED PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MAR 1 5 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN IMMEDIATE DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS I. Introduction. On April 10, 1998, this Court granted the joint motion of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") and the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") and approved the LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"). See Docket Nos. 3107, 3136 and 3144. The Revised Plan expired by its own terms on May 31, 2001, the last day of classes for the 2000- 01 school year. See Revised Plan 9. The LRSD moves for an immediate declaration of unitary status and an end to court supervision based on its substantial compliance with the Revised Plan in accordance with Revised Plan  11. Section 11 of the Revised Plan provided: At the conclusion of the 2000-01 school year, the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 indicating the state ofLRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSD's compliance bears the burden of proof. Ifno party challenges LRSD's compliance, the abovedescribed order shall be entered without further proceedings. The LRSD reported on March 15, 2001, that it had substantially complied with the Revised Plan. See Docket No. 3410. Joshua challenged the LRSD's compliance with a limited number of Revised Plan sections. See Docket No. 3447. Joshua bears the burden of proving that the LRSD I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I failed to substantially comply with those Revised Plan sections. See Revised Plan  11. Unitary status should be granted if the Court finds either that the LRSD complied with those Revised Plan sections challenged by Joshua or that the LRSD's noncompliance does not cast doubt on the District's intent to comply with the Constitution absent court supervision. See Cody v. Hillard, 139 F.3d 1197, 1199 (8th Cir. 1998). In proceedings before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright, the Court heard five and onehalf days of testimony and received 201 exhibits on the Revised Plan sections covering academic achievement( 2.7), program assessment( 2.7.1) and student discipline( 2.5 - 2.5.4). The LRSD should be granted unitary status with regard to these Revised Plan sections based on the record of those proceedings. Joshua failed to come forward with any evidence that the LRSD failed to comply with those sections or that would cast doubt on the LRSD's intent to comply with the Constitution absent court supervision. Additionally, the LRSD should be granted summary judgment as to all remaining Revised Plan sections with respect to which Joshua challenged the LRSD's compliance. The discovery process revealed that Joshua has no evidence that would cast doubt on the LRSD's intent to comply with the Constitution in the future absent court supervision. As a result, there are no material factual disputes, and additional hearings are unnecessary. Cody. 139 F.3d at 1200 (\"They do not cite any cases stating that a hearing is a necessary prerequisite to terminating supervision of a decree . . . . At any rate, the necessity of a hearing depends on whether there are disputed factual issues.\"). Finally, the LRSD should be granted unitary status with regard to those Revised Plan sections to which no party filed a timely challenge to the LRSD's compliance. See Revised Plan 11. 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II. Discussion. A. Background. 1. 1954 Through 1972. On May 20, 1954, three days after the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), the LRSD released a public statement declaring its intent to comply with the Constitution and to integrate the LRSD. See Aaron v. Cooper, 156 F. Supp. 220, 222-23 (E.D. Ark. 1957). The first LRSD desegregation plan was adopted in 1956 and was approved by the Eighth Circuit in 1957. See Cooper v. Aaron, 243 F.2d 361 (8th Cir. 1957). That plan called for gradual desegregation based on geographic attendance zones and was to be fully implemented by 1963. Id. Governor Orval Faubus' attempt to block implementation of this plan resulted in the infamous \"crisis\" at Central High School in 1957. However, as noted by the Supreme Court in Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 9 (1958), \"the Governor's action had not been requested by the school authorities, and was entirely unheralded.\" In 1966, the Eighth Circuit approved, with two minor modifications, a \"freedom of choice\" desegregation plan for the LRSD. See Clark v. Little Rock School District, 369 F.2d 661 (8th Cir. 1966). The Eighth Circuit noted the LRSD's good faith commitment to desegregation: Many of the problems encountered are not of the Board's making or choosing and, we believe, the Board has evidenced a genuine desire to follow the commands of the Brown case to ultimately place into effect a non-racially operated school system. Id., at 666. The freedom of choice plan was in effect through the 1968-69 school year. In 1968, the Supreme Court held that \"freedom of choice\" plans, standing alone, failed to satisfy the constitutional obligation of school districts formerly segregated by law. See Green v. County Sch. Bd. ofNew Kent County. 391 U.S. 430, 439-440 (1968). Accordingly, the LRSD developed a new desegregation plan based on geographic attendance zones for the 1969-70 school year. See Clark v. Little Rock School District, 426 F.2d 1035 (8th Cir. 1970). Due to segregated housing patterns which existed in Little Rock at that time, however, a number 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I of racially identifiable schools remained under this plan, and the Eighth Circuit found this plan to be \"constitutionally infirm.\" Clark, 426 F.2d at 1044. The LRSD began massive crosstown busing of students to achieve racial balance in grades 6 through 12 in the 1971-72 school year. See Clark v. Little Rock School District, 328 F. Supp. 1205, 1209 and 1214 (E.D. Ark. 1971). Racial balance was achieved in grades 4 and 5 by means of crosstown busing in the 1972-73 school year. See Clark v. Little Rock School District, 465 F.2d. 1044, 1046 (8th Cir. 1972). By the 1973-74 school year, all LRSD schools and all LRSD grade levels were racially balanced. See Exhibit 1 attached, Memorandum and Order filed July 9, 1982, p. 16. 2. 1973 Through 1982. The LRSD maintained almost perfect racial balance in its schools from 1973 through 1982 with voluntary periodic adjustment of attendance zones. The district court in Clark noted that \"the Little Rock School District has operated in compliance with court decrees for nine years as a completely unitary desegregated school system . . . . \" See Exhibit 1, p. 16. Despite nine years of successful desegregation, however, the LRSD was on its way to becoming a one race school district. In the fall of 1971, the LRSD was 42% black. In each year from 1971 through 1981, the number of black students increased while the number of white students decreased. See Exhibit 2 attached, Austin Study, p. 17. In the fall of 1981, 76% of elementary students were black and 55% of high school students were black. See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 584 F. Supp. 328,335 (E.D. Ark. 1984)(\"LRSD v. PCSSD\"). If existing trends continued, it was expected that 90% of the students entering the first grade in the LRSD in the fall of 1989 would be black. See Exhibit 2, p. 19; see also LRSD v. PCSSD, 584 F. Supp. 328, 351 (E.D. Ark. 1984)(\"The Little Rock School District in spite of its good faith efforts to comply with orders of this court and to establish a unitary school system will become a segregated all-black district in a few years if present trends continue, which appears highly likely.\"). 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I In early 1981, the LRSD commissioned a study of desegregation in the LRSD by the Desegregation Assistance Team from Stephen F. Austin University (the \"Austin Study\"). The Austin Study concluded that the demographic trends which accounted for the decrease in white enrollment in the LRSD were \"long-term\" and \"deeply rooted,\" and as a result, \"[t]hey are not likely to be fundamentally altered by any change in the desegregation plan within the city .... The changes are rooted in migration patterns, housing segregation practices, changing birth rates, factors that determine the location of new private market housing, and decisions on the location of new subsidized housing.\" Exhibit 2, p. 28. The \"fundamental\" problem, according to the study, \"has been the school board's inability to expand its boundaries in pace with a very rapidly expanding urban area.\" Exhibit 2, p. 28. Thus, the Austin Study concluded that the LRSD had done all it could do within its borders to desegregate its schools and that, if the LRSD's accomplishments were not to be undone by the \"vast forces of demographic change,\" the LRSD would have to seek an interdistrict remedy. See Exhibit 2, p. 28. As an initial step to stem the tide of white flight, the LRSD adopted the Partial K-6 Plan on April 26, 1982. Under this plan, the LRSD created twelve K-6 neighborhood schools and retained fourteen paired schools with grades K-3 at one site and grades 4-6 at another. Eight of the 12 neighborhood schools were racially balanced and four were virtually all black. The plan converted Booker from a junior high school to an intermediate school. Finally, the Partial K-6 Plan provided for the creation of a magnet school west of University Avenue and required that a committee be appointed to ensure that the four virtually all black schools would be treated equally. See Clark v. Little Rock School District, 705 F.2d 265 (8th Cir. 1983). The Partial K-6 Plan was approved by the Eighth Circuit in 1983. Clark, 705 F.2d at 272. 3. Interdistrict Relief. In late 1982, the LRSD filed the present case against the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\"), the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") and the State of Arkansas seeking consolidation of the three school districts into one metropolitan school district and state 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I funding to assist in eliminating any remaining vestiges of segregation in the three school districts. On April 13, 1984, the Honorable Henry Woods found the PCSSD, the NLRSD and the State of Arkansas liable for interdistrict constitutional violations. LRSD v. PCSSD, 584 F. Supp. at 328. Judge Woods ordered consolidation of the three districts in a memorandum opinion dated November 19, 1984. LRSD v. PCSSD, 597 F. Supp. 1220 (E.D. Ark. 1984). The Eighth Circuit reversed Judge Woods' consolidation order a year later, finding consolidation too drastic a remedy. LRSD v. PCSSD, 778 F.2d 404 (8th Cir. 1985). In reversing, the Eighth Circuit ordered as part of a comprehensive interdistrict remedy that each district \"revise its attendance zones so that each school will reasonably reflect the racial composition of its district\" and permitted a variance of plus or minus 25% of the minority race. Id., 778 F.2d at 435. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 839 F.2d 1296, 1305 (8th Cir. 1988). The Eighth Circuit also ordered the adjustment of district boundaries, making the LRSD coterminous with the City of Little Rock. LRSD v. PCSSD, 778 F.2d at 435. Recognizing the need for the LRSD to grow with the City of Little Rock, Judge Woods interpreted the Eighth Circuit's order to require the automatic expansion of the LRSD upon expansion of the City of Little Rock. Unfortunately, the Eighth Circuit disagreed with Judge Woods' interpretation and effectively eliminated further boundary changes as a means to desegregating the LRSD. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 805 F.2d 815, 816 (8th Cir. 1986). The LRSD's \"controlled choice\" desegregation plan was approved by Judge Woods on February 27, 1987. Docket No. 739. Under this plan, the LRSD was divided into two attendance zones of approximately equal racial balance. Students were assigned to schools so that each grade at each school reflected the racial balance within that attendance zone. After a student was assigned to a particular school, the student's parents could request reassignment to another school within their attendance zone. That request would be granted so long as each school would remain within a range of plus or minus one-eighth of the black student population at the school. Additionally, the plan provided for eight magnet schools (four elementary, two 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I junior high and two high schools) with seats reserved for students of each of the three Pulaski County school districts. The target racial composition of the magnet schools was 50%-50%. A Magnet Review Committee was established with representatives of each of the three districts. Joshua and the Knight Intervenors were each granted a non-voting member on the committee. This plan was implemented beginning with the 1987-88 school year. See Docket No. 670. The controlled choice plan resulted in many central and east Little Rock schools having fewer than fifty white students. The LRSD submitted a new desegregation plan for the 1988-89 year which was approved by Judge Woods. The 1988-89 school year was to be a \"stabilizing year\" to allow the LRSD to carefully plan for the 1989-90 school year and beyond. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 716 F. Supp. 1162, 1188 (E.D. Ark. 1989). Negotiations related to the development of a long-term desegregation plan for the LRSD culminated in a settlement agreement in March of 1989 (the \"Settlement Agreement\").1 The Settlement Agreement also included desegregation plans for the PCSSD and the NLRSD, as well as an interdistrict desegregation plan. 4. 1989 Settlement Agreement. The LRSD's 1989 desegregation plan reflected the fact that the LRSD was, and had been for some time, unitary with regard to student assignments, faculty and staff. See Exhibit 1, p. 18. While these areas had been the focus of past desegregation plans, the 227-page 1989 plan contained only a six-page section on student assignments and no separate section specifically dedicated to the hiring and assignment of faculty and staff. The 1989 desegregation plan focused instead on secondary desegregation issues, such as improving African-American academic achievement. The Settlement Agreement was initially rejected by Judge Woods who ordered implementation of a more comprehensive plan known as the Tri-District Plan. The parties appealed, and the Settlement Agreement as originally written was approved by the Eighth Circuit 1 A revised Settlement Agreement was agreed to by the parties on September 28, 1989. None of the revisions are relevant to this motion. \"Settlement Agreement\" as used hereinafter shall refer to the agreement as revised September 28, 1989. 7 I I in December of 1990. LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1374 (8th Cir. 1990). In approving the Settlement Agreement, the Eighth Circuit recognized that, \"It may be necessary, in order to make I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I a smooth transition, for the details of the settlement plans to be adjusted to produce an appropriate fit between their future application and existing circumstances.\" Id., at 1394. Judge Woods recused following the Eighth Circuit's December 1990 decision, and the case was reassigned to the Honorable Susan Webber Wright. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 740 F.Supp. 632 (E.D. Ark. 1990). The parties agreed to modifications to the desegregation plans and submitted them to Judge Wright for approval. On June 21, 1991, Judge Wright rejected the modifications, finding that they exceeded the authority granted by the Eighth Circuit. LRSD v. PCSSD, 769 F. Supp. 1483 (E.D. Ark. 1991). The parties appealed, and on November 14, 1991, the Eighth Circuit vacated Judge Wright's opinion and remanded for consideration of the proposed modifications based on the analysis set forth in its opinion. Appeal ofLRSD, 949 F.2d 253 (8th Cir. 1991). On May 1, 1992, Judge Wright issued an order approving in part and rejecting in part the revised desegregation plans. No appeal was taken. 5. Implementation of the 1989 Plan. The Settlement Agreement required the LRSD to implement its 1989 desegregation plan for six years.2 The parties agreed, in effect, that implementation of the plan would eliminate to the extent practicable any remaining vestiges of discrimination resulting from the interdistrict constitutional violations by the defendants. See Settlement Agreement, p. 1. Because the Tri-District Plan was substantially similar to, but more comprehensive than, the LRSD's 1989 desegregation plan, the LRSD considered implementation of the Tri-District Plan during the 2The six-year term of the plan was one of the primary reasons that the Settlement Agreement was rejected by Judge Woods. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 716 F. Supp. at 1167 (\"LRSD admits that the double funding is guaranteed for only six years, but contends that it 'retains its commitment to provide compensatory and enhancement funding to any school which might remain racially identifiable.' That commitment does not appear in the plan.\"). The LRSD argued to Judge Woods that its six-year plan could be successful: \"We think a six-year plan can succeed where a one-year plan has failed. There are several components in place to help us assure the Court that a six-year plan can succeed.\" Tr. May 30, 1989, p. 13. 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1990-91 school year as the first year of implementation of its six-year desegregation plan. During the 1995-96 school year, the LRSD conducted an audit of its desegregation obligations and found that it had substantially and in good faith complied with 96% of its desegregation obligations. See Exhibit 3 attached, p. 1. Accordingly, on May 17, 1996, the LRSD moved for a declaration of unitary status and an end to federal court supervision. See Docket Nos. 2665 and 2666. Without a hearing, Judge Wright denied the LRSD's Motion to End Federal Court Supervision, finding \"nothing in the settlement plans which would release the LRSD from the Court's jurisdiction after six years of implementation of the plans.\" See Docket No. 2821, p. 10. Although Judge Wright recognized that the LRSD compared favorably to other urban school districts already declared unitary, Judge Wright focused on the ambitious \"goals\" of the 1989 plan. See Docket No. 2821 , p. 12. Judge Wright stated, \"Reports of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and other evidence received in hearings in this matter reflect that the LRSD has fallen short of its goals with respect to many aspects of the plan.\" Id. In conclusion, Judge Wright invited the parties to niodify those parts of the LRSD desegregation plan which had proved \"ineffective and unworkable.\" Id. 6. The Revised Plan. Rather than appeal Judge Wright's denial of unitary status, the LRSD decided to work with Joshua to reach an agreement for ending more than 40 years of federal court control of the LRSD. On January 21, 1998, the LRSD and Joshua filed a joint motion seeking approval of the LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. See Docket No. 3107. The Revised Plan addressed numerous deficiencies in the 1989 desegregation plan. First, to prevent the plan's express or implied goals from being construed as obligations, the Revised Plan included a footnote which stated: The identification of specific goals in this Revised Plan is not intended to create an obligation that LRSD shall have fully met the goal by the end of the plan's term. LRSD's failure to obtain any of the goals of this Revised Plan will not be considered a failure to comply with the plan ifLRSD followed the strategies 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I described in the plan and the policies, practices and procedures developed in accordance with the plan. Revised Plan, p. 14 n.2. Second, the 277-page 1989 plan included too much detail and provided too little flexibility. The Revised Plan simply obligated the LRSD to implement \"programs, policies and/or procedures\" in 13 different areas. See Revised Plan 2. With some exceptions, the LRSD had discretion to determine the \"programs, policies and/or procedures\" to be implemented. The Revised Plan included a process by which Joshua or any other party could raise compliance issues, including a failure by the LRSD to adopt or implement the required programs, policies and/or procedures. See Revised Plan  8.2 and 8.3. The LRSD also agreed in advance to pay Joshua to monitor the LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan, and Joshua billed the LRSD for monitoring the LRSD's Compliance. See Exhibits 7 and 8 attached. Even so, Joshua raised no objection to the programs, policies or procedures implemented by the LRSD during the term of the Revised Plan. Finally, the Revised Plan included a definite term and a process for terminating federal court supervision at the conclusion of that term. The term of the Revised Plan was \"three (3) years beginning the 1998-99 school year and ending the last day of classes of the 2000-01 school year.\" See Revised Plan, 9. The last day of classes for the 2000-01 school year was May 31, 2001. Section 11 of the Revised Plan provided: At the conclusion of the 2000-01 school year, the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 indicating the state of LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSD's compliance bears the burden of proof. If no party challenges LRSD's compliance, the abovedescribed order shall be entered without further proceedings. See Revised Plan,  11. 7. Status of Current Proceedings. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The LRSD provided the Court and the parties with an Interim Compliance Report on March 15, 2000 (\"Interim Report\") \"to help the District assess its progress toward full compliance and to reassure the court, the parties, and the community of the District's good faith efforts to be in total compliance with the Revised Plan.\" See Docket No. 3344, Interim Report, p. 1. The Interim Report expressly requested that the parties and other interested persons submit comments on the content or format of the report. Id. No party commented on the Interim Report or otherwise challenged the District's \"progress toward full compliance.\" See Docket No. 3410, Final Report, p. iv. One year later, on March 15, 2001, the LRSD reported that it had substantially complied with all provisions of the Revised Plan (\"Final Report\"). See Docket No. 3410. On June 25, 2001, and after being granted two extensions of time, Joshua filed a pleading challenging the LRSD's compliance with some, but not all, sections of the Revised Plan. Joshua's challenge included little more than general allegations of noncompliance. Hearings were held on July 5-6, August 1-2 and November 19-20, 2001, on the issues of academic achievement( 2.7), program assessment( 2.7.1) and discipline( 2.5 - 2.5.4).3 B. Substantial Compliance. The Revised Plan does not define \"substantial compliance.\" In Cody v. Hillard, supra, the Eighth Circuit discussed the meaning of the term \"substantial\" as it related to compliance with and termination of a consent decree. The consent decree in that case arose out of prison reform litigation in the State of South Dakota. Prison officials moved to terminate the consent decree after operating under the decree for nearly 11 years. The plaintiffs opposed the motion 3Judge Wright stated at the conclusion of the November 20, 2001, hearing that Joshua could have 25 minutes to present true rebuttal evidence, even though Joshua had used all of their allotted time. Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, 399 and 575. Judge Wright defined rebuttal evidence as evidence necessary to respond to evidence presented by the other side which could not have been anticipated. Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, 399. The LRSD submits that it presented no evidence which could not have been anticipated by Joshua, rendering Joshua's request for rebuttal time moot. The Court could resolve this matter by requiring Joshua to proffer their purported rebuttal evidence as a part of their response to this Motion. 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I and requested a hearing. The district court refused to order a hearing, but ordered the plaintiffs to submit evidence supporting their allegations of noncompliance. Id. at 1198. The plaintiffs filed a report from their expert, Robert Powitz, which stated that he inspected the prison and found \"a number of conditions that pose serious health or safety risks,\" but he failed to specify how those conditions violated the consent decree. The plaintiffs then filed a supplemental brief linking those conditions to provisions of the consent decree. Without a hearing, the district court entered a two-paragraph order terminating the consent decree but making no findings of fact with regard to the conditions identified by Powitz. Id. at 1199. stating: The plaintiffs appealed, and the Eighth Circuit remanded the case for factual findings We cannot determine the basis for the district court's decision from this brief order. The record indicates that there have been failures in the past to comply with the decree and supplemental orders, and that there are at least some violations of the decree. The district judge's order does not give us enough information to determine whether he ignored the evidence of past and present violations or whether he considered any violations inconsequential in the context of substantial compliance. If the conditions Powitz complained of constitute violations of the consent decree, the district court must exercise its discretion in determining whether those violations were serious enough to constitute substantial noncompliance and to cast doubt on defendants' future compliance with the Constitution. See McDonald [v. Carnahan]. 109 F.3d [1319,] 1322-23 [(8th Cir. 1997)]. Moreover, the ultimate question of whether the defendants are likely to comply with the Constitution in the absence of court supervision is a question of fact, see [Board of Educ. v.] Dowell, 498 U.S. [237,] 247, 111 S.Ct. [630,] 636-37 [(1991)], for which the district court made no finding. Id. at 1199-1200 (emphasis supplied). Therefore, a party to a consent decree substantially complies with the decree so long as the party's noncompliance does not \"cast doubt on [the party's] future compliance with the Constitution.\" Id. See Manning v. The School Bd. of Hillsborough County. 244 F.3d 927, 946 (11 th Cir. 2001)(\"[I]n determining whether a school board has acted in good faith, a court should not dwell on isolated discrepancies, but rather should 'consider whether the school board's policies form a consistent pattern of lawful conduct directed at eliminating earlier violations,\"' quoting Lockett v. Bd. of Educ. of Muscogee County. 111 F.3d 839, 843 (11 th Cir. 1997)). 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Both the past and recent conduct of the LRSD Board of Directors confirms the District's commitment to complying with the Constitution. Three days after the Supreme Court's 1954 decision in Brown, the LRSD released a public statement declaring its intent to comply with the Constitution and integrate the LRSD. In 1982, the district court in Clark stated that \"the Little Rock School District has operated in compliance with court decrees for nine years as a completely unitary desegregated school system . . . . \" See Exhibit 1, p. 16. Having done all that it could do on its own, the LRSD filed the present case that same year, seeking and obtaining interdistrict relief. During the term of the Revised Plan, the LRSD Board of Directors (\"Board\") conducted a comprehensive review of all District policies. See CX 719. Fifteen of the 21 policies making up the District's \"Foundation and Basic Commitments\" express the District's commitment to fighting discrimination of all types. See CX 719, Section A. Among those were regulations setting forth the District's commitment to comply with the Revised Plan and to establish procedures for employees and patrons to raise compliance issues. See CX 719, Policy ACG-Rl, R2 and R3. The Board institutionalized numerous provisions of the Revised Plan by making them official Board policy. See CX 719.4 Finally, in anticipation of being released from court supervision, the Board adopted the \"Covenant for the Future\" (\"Covenant\") on January 11, 2001. In the Covenant, the Board promised to continue to exercise its best efforts to: (1) improve the academic achievement of all students, (2) comply with the Constitution and ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis or race, color or ethnicity in the operation of the District, and (3) provide equitable educational resources, programs and opportunity in a nondiscriminatory environment for all students attending LRSD schools. See Final Report, p. 1, CX 739, and CX 719, Policy AB. 4The following Board policies and regulations come directly from the Revised Plan: ACBB, ACBE, ACG, ACG-Rl, ACG-R2, ACG-R3, GCE, GCE-R, IHBH, JB, IBA, JBA-R, JC, JCA, n, JJ, JJ-R, JllA, JnB, JnB-Rl, JnB-R2, JLD, JMA, JMA-R, JRAA, and JRAA-R. See ex 719. 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I To be sure, the LRSD is not a perfect school system, but the Constitution does not require perfection. See Belle v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 269 F.3d 305, 335 (4th Cir. 2001) (Traxler, J.)(\"This is not to say that CMS is a perfect school system- it is not.\"). The ultimate question is whether the Board can be trusted to comply with the Constitution absent court supervision. In the five and one-half days of hearings held to date, Joshua presented no evidence indicating that it could not. C. Revised Plan Sections Already Litigated. 1. Revised Plan 2.7: Academic Achievement. 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. The LRSD identified and described the programs, policies and procedures implemented pursuant to Revised Plan 2.7 in the Interim Report (pp. 41-69 and 93-127) and the Final Report (pp. 51-148). Although Joshua monitored the LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan and received fees for doing so, Joshua did not raise any objection during the term of the Revised Plan to the programs, policies and procedures pertaining to academic achievement which were outlined in the Interim Report and the Final Report. Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 370-71. Joshua's belated challenge to the LRSD's compliance with 2.7 is based on the long-standing achievement gap between African-American and non-African-American students on standardized tests (hereinafter \"achievement gap\"). See Docket No. 3447, pp. 28-30. Joshua's challenge fails because the Revised Plan contained no requirement that the LRSD eliminate or reduce the achievement gap. The Revised Plan simply required the LRSD to implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve African-American achievement. See Revised Plan,  2. 7. To that end, the LRSD began in the Spring of 1998 what has been perhaps the most comprehensive curriculum reform in the history of the District. As a part of the reform effort, the District adopted research-based teaching strategies that have been proven to be effective in improving 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I African-American achievement. Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 195-210. The District provided its teachers with comprehensive, in-depth professional development. See Final Report, pp. 32-33 (Gifted and Talented), 60-61 (K-12 Social Studies), 67-68 (middle schools), 73 (PreK), 81-90 (early childhood and primary grade literacy), 96-102 (intermediate grade literacy), 109-111 (secondary literacy), 117-123 (math and science) and 138-143 (technology). New instructional materials, including technological applications, were adopted in all curriculum areas. See Interim Report, pp. 41-51 (generally), 96 "}],"pages":{"current_page":11,"next_page":12,"prev_page":10,"total_pages":27,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":120,"total_count":319,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"lesson plans","hits":8},{"value":"teaching guides","hits":5},{"value":"learning modules","hits":1},{"value":"timelines (chronologies)","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":292},{"value":"Sound","hits":20},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":13},{"value":"StillImage","hits":6}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","hits":41},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":21},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":16},{"value":"United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit","hits":6},{"value":"Bushman Court Reporting","hits":4},{"value":"Bell, Lorenzo, 1925-2001","hits":2},{"value":"Brown, Myers; Johnson, Ahnekii","hits":2},{"value":"Joshua Intervenors","hits":2},{"value":"Pulaski County Special School District","hits":2},{"value":"William Gordon Associates","hits":2},{"value":"Abernathy, Juanita, 1929-","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":254},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":210},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","hits":166},{"value":"Education--Evaluation","hits":127},{"value":"Educational law and legislation","hits":105},{"value":"Educational planning","hits":88},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","hits":74},{"value":"School integration","hits":65},{"value":"School improvement programs","hits":64},{"value":"School management and organization","hits":64},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":52}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":6},{"value":"Kennedy, John F. (John Fitzgerald), 1917-1963","hits":3},{"value":"Walker, John W.","hits":3},{"value":"Abernathy, Ralph, 1926-1990","hits":2},{"value":"Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","hits":2},{"value":"Bond, Julian, 1940-2015","hits":2},{"value":"Shuttlesworth, Fred L., 1922-2011","hits":2},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":2},{"value":"Abernathy, Juanita, 1929-","hits":1},{"value":"Barnes, Billy E. (Billy Ebert), 1931-2018","hits":1},{"value":"Barnett, Ross R. (Ross Robert), 1898-1987","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":7},{"value":"Abernathy, Ralph, 1926-1990","hits":2},{"value":"Bond, Julian, 1940-2015","hits":2},{"value":"Kennedy, John F. (John Fitzgerald), 1917-1963","hits":2},{"value":"Shuttlesworth, Fred L., 1922-2011","hits":2},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":2},{"value":"Abernathy, Juanita, 1929-","hits":1},{"value":"Barnes, Billy E. (Billy Ebert), 1931-2018","hits":1},{"value":"Barnett, Ross R. (Ross Robert), 1898-1987","hits":1},{"value":"Bell, Griffin B., 1918-2009","hits":1},{"value":"Borders, William Holmes, 1905-1993","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":6},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":2},{"value":"Integration of Clemson University","hits":2},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":2},{"value":"University of Georgia Integration","hits":2},{"value":"Brown versus Board of Education","hits":1},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":1},{"value":"Freedom Summer","hits":1},{"value":"Montgomery Bus Boycott","hits":1},{"value":"Selma-Montgomery March","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":263},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":257},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":249},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":233},{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":9},{"value":"United States, Southern States, 33.346678, -84.119434","hits":5},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Montgomery County, Montgomery, 32.36681, -86.29997","hits":4},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Atlanta Metropolitan Area, 33.8498, 84.4383","hits":4},{"value":"United States, North Carolina, Guilford County, Greensboro, 36.07264, -79.79198","hits":4},{"value":"United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026","hits":3},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Jefferson County, Birmingham, 33.52066, -86.80249","hits":3}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Arkansas","hits":258},{"value":"Georgia","hits":15},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":10},{"value":"Alabama","hits":9},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":5},{"value":"","hits":4},{"value":"District of Columbia","hits":3},{"value":"Florida","hits":3},{"value":"Illinois","hits":3},{"value":"Louisiana","hits":3},{"value":"Tennessee","hits":3}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"2000","hits":73},{"value":"1999","hits":69},{"value":"2001","hits":67},{"value":"2002","hits":65},{"value":"1996","hits":62},{"value":"1994","hits":58},{"value":"1995","hits":58},{"value":"1997","hits":55},{"value":"1992","hits":53},{"value":"1993","hits":53},{"value":"1998","hits":53},{"value":"2003","hits":46},{"value":"1991","hits":44},{"value":"2004","hits":43},{"value":"2006","hits":34},{"value":"2005","hits":32},{"value":"1990","hits":24},{"value":"1989","hits":19},{"value":"2007","hits":14},{"value":"2013","hits":14},{"value":"2008","hits":11},{"value":"2014","hits":11},{"value":"1980","hits":10},{"value":"2010","hits":10},{"value":"2012","hits":10},{"value":"2016","hits":10},{"value":"1983","hits":9},{"value":"1984","hits":9},{"value":"2009","hits":9},{"value":"2011","hits":9},{"value":"2015","hits":9},{"value":"2017","hits":9},{"value":"2018","hits":9},{"value":"1975","hits":8},{"value":"1978","hits":8},{"value":"1988","hits":8},{"value":"1967","hits":7},{"value":"1970","hits":7},{"value":"1974","hits":7},{"value":"1977","hits":7},{"value":"1979","hits":7},{"value":"1981","hits":7},{"value":"1982","hits":7},{"value":"1985","hits":7},{"value":"1986","hits":7},{"value":"1960","hits":6},{"value":"1962","hits":6},{"value":"1964","hits":6},{"value":"1965","hits":6},{"value":"1968","hits":6},{"value":"1971","hits":6},{"value":"1972","hits":6},{"value":"1973","hits":6},{"value":"1976","hits":6},{"value":"1987","hits":6},{"value":"2019","hits":6},{"value":"1959","hits":5},{"value":"1961","hits":5},{"value":"1966","hits":5},{"value":"1969","hits":5},{"value":"2022","hits":5},{"value":"1945","hits":4},{"value":"1950","hits":4},{"value":"1951","hits":4},{"value":"1952","hits":4},{"value":"1953","hits":4},{"value":"1954","hits":4},{"value":"1955","hits":4},{"value":"1956","hits":4},{"value":"1957","hits":4},{"value":"1958","hits":4},{"value":"1963","hits":4},{"value":"2020","hits":4},{"value":"2021","hits":4},{"value":"1900","hits":3},{"value":"1901","hits":3},{"value":"1902","hits":3},{"value":"1903","hits":3},{"value":"1904","hits":3},{"value":"1905","hits":3},{"value":"1906","hits":3},{"value":"1907","hits":3},{"value":"1908","hits":3},{"value":"1909","hits":3},{"value":"1910","hits":3},{"value":"1911","hits":3},{"value":"1912","hits":3},{"value":"1913","hits":3},{"value":"1914","hits":3},{"value":"1915","hits":3},{"value":"1916","hits":3},{"value":"1917","hits":3},{"value":"1918","hits":3},{"value":"1919","hits":3},{"value":"1920","hits":3},{"value":"1921","hits":3},{"value":"1922","hits":3},{"value":"1923","hits":3},{"value":"1924","hits":3},{"value":"1925","hits":3}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1860","max":"2033","count":1494,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":143},{"value":"filing","hits":63},{"value":"exhibition (associated concept)","hits":18},{"value":"reports","hits":18},{"value":"oral histories (literary works)","hits":14},{"value":"transcripts","hits":13},{"value":"correspondence","hits":12},{"value":"sound recordings","hits":12},{"value":"lesson plans","hits":8},{"value":"photographs","hits":8},{"value":"web sites","hits":8}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":263},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":31},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":10},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/","hits":6},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-RUU/1.0/","hits":4},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":2},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":255},{"value":"Oral Histories of the American South: The Civil Rights Movement","hits":7},{"value":"Teaching with Historic Places","hits":6},{"value":"John Burrison Georgia Folklore Archives Collection","hits":4},{"value":"Historical Manuscripts and Photographs","hits":3},{"value":"Veterans History Project: Oral History Interviews","hits":3},{"value":"Alabama History Education Materials","hits":2},{"value":"Augusta Baker papers, 1911-1998","hits":2},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Audio Collection","hits":2},{"value":"Civil Rights Clippings from Guilford College Publications","hits":2},{"value":"Civil Rights Papers","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":257},{"value":"Atlanta History Center","hits":8},{"value":"University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Documenting the American South (Project)","hits":7},{"value":"United States. National Park Service","hits":6},{"value":"University of Southern Mississippi. Libraries","hits":3},{"value":"Alabama. Department of Archives and History","hits":2},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":2},{"value":"Guilford College. Library","hits":2},{"value":"Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Library Alliance","hits":2},{"value":"John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum","hits":2},{"value":"Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":311},{"value":"Collection","hits":8}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":312},{"value":"true","hits":7}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}