{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"noa_sohpcr_r-0182","title":"Oral history interview with Robert R. Sampson, October 9, 2002","collection_id":"noa_sohpcr","collection_title":"Oral Histories of the American South: The Civil Rights Movement","dcterms_contributor":["Hornsby-Gutting, Angela","Southern Oral History Program"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, North Carolina, Guilford County, Greensboro, 36.07264, -79.79198"],"dcterms_creator":["Sampson, Robert R."],"dc_date":["2002-10-09"],"dcterms_description":["At the time of this interview, Robert Sampson was running a pharmacy on East Market Street in Greensboro, North Carolina. Sampson describes how urban renewal in the late 1950s and early 1960s affected Greensboro's thriving black shopping district on Market Street. Sampson himself managed to stay ahead of redevelopment efforts, leaving areas destined for change for places he thought more secure. However, most black businesspeople did not expect renewal efforts or see them as inevitable; as a result, they lost their businesses and often found it impossible to rebuild or relocate. While Sampson concedes that the dilapidated buildings on Market Street needed work, he suspects that the choice to seize and redevelop, rather than fund remodeling, was an effort by white Greensboro to dissolve a successful black business district. The effort worked, silencing a lively area and greatly damaging black businesses. This interview provides a look at a black business community's struggle to maintain its coherence in a changing economic climate.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["text/html","text/xml","audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of Oral histories of the American South collection."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American businesspeople--North Carolina--Greensboro","African American pharmacists--North Carolina--Greensboro","African Americans--Commerce--North Carolina--Greensboro","Urban renewal--North Carolina--Greensboro","Greensboro (N.C.)--Economic conditions","African American neighborhoods--North Carolina--Greensboro","African Americans--North Carolina--Greensboro--Social life and customs","Segregation--North Carolina--Greensboro"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview with Robert R. Sampson, October 9, 2002"],"dcterms_type":["Text","Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Documenting the American South (Project)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://docsouth.unc.edu/sohp/R-0182/menu.html"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["transcripts","sound recordings","oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["Title from menu page (viewed on June 13, 2008).","Interview participants: Robert R. Sampson, interviewee; Angela Hornsby, interviewer.","Duration: 00:45:17.","This electronic edition is part of the UNC-CH digital library, Documenting the American South. It is a part of the collection Oral histories of the American South.","Text encoded by Jennifer Joyner. Sound recordings digitized by Aaron Smithers."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Sampson, Robert R."],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"nge_ngen_cultural-landscape-of-georgia-overview","title":"Cultural Landscape of Georgia: Overview","collection_id":"nge_ngen","collection_title":"New Georgia Encyclopedia","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018"],"dcterms_creator":["Lyon, Elizabeth A."],"dc_date":["2002-10-03"],"dcterms_description":["Encyclopedia article providing an overview of Georgia's cultural landscape. Georgia's cultural landscape is a product of the distinct history of the state, of what has been built, of what has been preserved, and of past and future developments. The ordinary, or vernacular, environment in which its people live, work, and play represents many layers of time and human activity. From the coastal settlements, marshes, and beaches through the sandy hills and wiregrass agricultural areas of middle Georgia to the sprawling cities of the Piedmont and the mountains of north Georgia, the diverse qualities of the natural and manmade environment are a fundamental part of the lives of all Georgians."],"dc_format":["text/html"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of the New Georgia Encyclopedia."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Forms part of the New Georgia Encyclopedia."],"dcterms_subject":["Georgia--Culture","Georgia--Civilization","Georgia--Intellectual life","Historic sites--Georgia","Transportation--Georgia","Architecture--Georgia","Civil rights--Georgia","Cherokee Indians--Georgia","African Americans--Georgia"],"dcterms_title":["Cultural Landscape of Georgia: Overview"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["New Georgia Encyclopedia (Project)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/arts-culture/cultural-landscape-of-georgia-overview/"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["Cite as: \"Georgia's Cultural Landscape: Overview,\" New Georgia Encyclopedia. Retrieved [date]: http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org."],"dlg_local_right":["If you wish to use content from the NGE site for commercial use, publication, or any purpose other than fair use as defined by law, you must request and receive written permission from the NGE. Such requests may be directed to: Permissions/NGE, University of Georgia Press, 330 Research Drive, Athens, GA 30602."],"dcterms_medium":["articles"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"nge_ngen_ku-klux-klan-in-the-reconstruction-era","title":"Ku Klux Klan in the Reconstruction Era","collection_id":"nge_ngen","collection_title":"New Georgia Encyclopedia","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018"],"dcterms_creator":["Bryant, Jonathan M."],"dc_date":["2002-10-03"],"dcterms_description":["Encyclopedia article about the Ku Klux Klan in Georgia. From 1868 through the early 1870s the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) functioned as a loosely organized group of political and social terrorists. The Klan's goals included political defeat of the Republican Party and the maintenance of absolute white supremacy in response to newly gained civil and political rights by southern blacks after the Civil War (1861-65). They were more successful in achieving their political goals than they were with their social goals during the Reconstruction era.","GSE identifier: SS8H6"],"dc_format":["text/html"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of the New Georgia Encyclopedia."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Forms part of the New Georgia Encyclopedia."],"dcterms_subject":["Ku Klux Klan (1866-1869)","Georgia--Race relations--History--19th century","Racism--Georgia--History--19th century","White supremacy movements--Georgia--History--19th century","Reconstruction (U.S. history, 1865-1877)"],"dcterms_title":["Ku Klux Klan in the Reconstruction Era"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["New Georgia Encyclopedia (Project)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-archaeology/ku-klux-klan-in-the-reconstruction-era/"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["Cite as: \"Ku Klux Klan: Reconstruction Era,\" New Georgia Encyclopedia. Retrieved [date]: http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org."],"dlg_local_right":["If you wish to use content from the NGE site for commercial use, publication, or any purpose other than fair use as defined by law, you must request and receive written permission from the NGE. Such requests may be directed to: Permissions/NGE, University of Georgia Press, 330 Research Drive, Athens, GA 30602."],"dcterms_medium":["articles"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1745","title":"Court filing concerning plaintiff's response to Joshua intervernor's request reconsideration and motion for new trial, Joshua intervernor's motion for relief concerning the Office of Desegregation Management budget, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motions for approval of middle school, other motions and memorandum attached.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2002-10"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Little Rock School District","Joshua intervenors","Education--Evaluation","African Americans--Education"],"dcterms_title":["Court filing concerning plaintiff's response to Joshua intervernor's request reconsideration and motion for new trial, Joshua intervernor's motion for relief concerning the Office of Desegregation Management budget, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motions for approval of middle school, other motions and memorandum attached."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1745"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["26 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eDistrict Court, order; District Court, plaintiff's response to Joshua intervenors' October 1, 2002, letter; District Court, plaintiff's response to Joshua intervenors' motion for reconsideration and motion for new trial; District Court, Joshua intervenors' supplement to motion; District Court, two orders; District Court, the Joshua intervenors' motion for relief concerning the Office of Desegregation Management budget; District Court, the Joshua intervenors' memorandum concerning the Office of Desegregation Management budget; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for approval of middle school site; District Court, memorandum in support of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for approval of middle school site; District Court, motion for hearing regarding relevance of 28 U.S.C. 455 to the present proceedings; District Court, the Joshua intervenors' motion to stay reduction of Office of Desegregation Management staff; District Court, order; District Court, plaintiff's response to Joshua intervenors' motion for hearing regarding the relevance of 28 U.S.C. 455 to the present proceeding; District Court, memorandum brief in support of plaintiff's response to Joshua intervenors' motion for hearing regarding the relevance of 28 U.S.C. 455 to the present proceeding; District Court, order denying motion for hearing regarding relevance of 28 U.S.C. 455 to the present proceedings; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool    This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. * * * * -PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * 4:82CV00866 u.fo1{k,~CQRT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS OCT O l 2002 JAME~~  l!:ly: ~ 2 - ,   . Defendants, * * RECEIVED MRS. LOREN JOSHUA, et al., * lntervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., lntervenors, * * * * OCT - 3 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER Attached is a copy of a letter from Mr. Walker dated October 1, 2002. presume it should be treated as a motion of some kind. Accordingly other counsel of record may respond within the time permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 1st day of October, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON GOCKET SHt'.:ET !N COMPLIANCE ~vv i1r.~i RMuLi::: 58 AND'C'R~ gr. RCF ,.,, ,,.., ,--.,(  ' - - - - - - v. ___ - 0 -- - - - - 6 8 0 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAw 1 723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 3743758 FAX (501) 3744187 October 1, 2002 Honorable Judge William R. Wilson United States District Court 600 West Capitol, Suite 423 Little Rock, AR 72201 I Re: Little Rock School v. Pulaski County School Case No. 4:82CV00866 Dear Judge Wilson: OCT - 2 2002 OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY. P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 HENDERSON ROAD LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72210 PHONE: (501) 372-3425  FAX (501) 372-3428 EwuL: mchenryd@swbell.net On page 172 of your Order of September 13, 2002, you determine a compliance remedy with respect to the Joshua Intervenors, Section D. You also require the ODM to monitor LRSD's compliance with Section 2. 7.1. May I bring to your attention that the remedy being imposed is not preceded by any court order determining and defining the parameter of Joshua's monitoring. Those issues were not before the Court. The Court now determines that Joshua must monitor and must immediately bring to the LRSD 's attention all problems that are detected as the court has determined those problems to be. In doing so, the Court seems to impose a greater burden upon Joshua than it has imposed upon the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. I, therefore, would like to request that the Court define the nature of the monitoring that it expects ofJoshua, i.e. access to information by Little Rock, cost of production of such information, access to staff responsible for fulfilling the obligations (must this be done in writing with communication directed to LRSD counsel), and so forth. I believe that it would be appropriate for the Court to spell out the obligations which it now imposes upon Joshua and the legal basis therefor in view of the fact that the remedy defined was not sought by LRSD or any party. I also note that LRSD is not required to inform Joshua of anything set forth on pages 170 through 1 72 except to provide a compliance report on or before March 15, 2004. I must also object to Court's imposing monitoring requirements upon Joshua that were contemplated to be the responsibility of the ODM. The Court's comments indicate that it does not forsee or require a continued responsibility for monitoring of the intensity which the Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit required. In this respect, we note that the Court created the ODM and expected the ODM to carefully monitor on a daily basis, full-time, the activities of the Little Rock Page 2- Letter to Judge Wilson October 1, 2002 and other school districts. By placing the responsibility that you appear to place on Joshua, unless clarification otherwise provides, the Court is shifting the required monitoring from the ODM to Joshua. We do not believe that to be fair or reasonable. Before your final order is entered, and becomes appealable, I respectfully request a hearing on this matter so that an appropriate record on the issues of the role of ODM monitoring and Joshua monitoring may be fully developed. JWW:js cc: All Counsel of Record Ms. Ann Marshall IN THE UN1TED STATES DISTRJCT COURT EASTERN DISTRJCT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT V. NO.4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KA THERJNE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED OCT - 8 .too2 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO JOSHUA INTERVENORS OCTOBER 1, 2002 LETTER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS For its response to the Joshua Intervenors' (\"Joshua\") October 1, 2002 letter, Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") states: 1. For more than decade, Joshua has reported to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and to the District Court that it was engaged in the process of monitoring LRSD's compliance with LRSD's various desegregation obligations. At one oral argument, counsel for Joshua introduced a number of Joshua monitors to the panel of the Court of Appeals. 2. The 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan formalized a process for resolving any desegregation compliance problems which were discovered during the course of Joshua's monitoring. The obvious purpose of that process, which is found beginning at  8.2 of the Revised Plan, was to allow the quick resolution of any compliance issues for the benefit of both the - Joshua class members and the LRSD. 3. There is nothing on page 172 of the Court's September 13, 2002 Order which imposes upon the Joshua Intervenors any obligations which are not contained in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan or inherent in the class representatives' and class counsel's obligations to the class members. 4. The Court's September 13, 2002 Order followed weeks of litigation about issues which Joshua did not raise with the LRSD during the term of the Revised Plan. By requiring that Joshua and LRSD follow the \"process for raising compliance issues\" set forth in 8.2, et. film. of the Revised Plan, the Court is simply requiring the parties to abide by the terms of their own agreement. 5. TheLRSD can find in the Court's Order no basis for Joshua's argument that the Court has somehow imposed \"a greater burden upon Joshua than it has imposed upon the Office of Desegregation Monitoring.\" The LRSD does not read the Court's Order as \"imposing\" any burden upon either Joshua or the ODM which did not exist for years prior to the Court's Order. 6. The Court should decline Joshua's request \"for the Court to spell out the obligations which it now imposes upon Joshua.\" Nothing is required of Joshua that Joshua should not have been doing all along. The Court has simply let the parties know that in addition to 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, their agreement with respect to the resolution of compliance issues remains viable. The Court's Order continues a sensible and efficient system for resolving compliance issues and puts Joshua on notice that objections raised for the first time on April 15, 2004 which were not raised pursuant to the compliance process could be subject to an argument that those issues have been waived. 7. The Court should require that any future requests for relief submitted by Joshua should be placed in the form of a Motion and filed pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules of this Court. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, Joshua's letter/motion of October 1, 2002 should be denied. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT FRJDA Y, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on October 7, 2002. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 P. 0 . Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED OCT - 8 2002 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATIO.MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO JOSHUA INTERVENOR'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL Plaintiff Little Rock School District (hereinafter \"LRSD\") for its Response to Joshua Intervenor's (hereinafter \"Joshua\") Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for New Trial states: The LRSD will respond to each numbered paragraph of Joshua 's Motion for Reconsideration in tum. 1. The Court's use of the term \"supervision\" on page 2 its September 13, 2002, Memorandum Opinion (hereinafter \"Opinion\") was appropriate. It is common for a school district implementing a court ordered desegregation decree to be referred to as being under court \"supervision.\" See Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S . 467, 471 (1992)(\"The DCSS has been subject to the supervision and jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia since 1969 . .. \" (emphasis supplied)). The Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\") acted under the authority of the Court to supervise the LRSD. 2. Evidence related to Joshua's failure to raise compliance issues during the term of the LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (hereinafter \"Revised Plan\") was relevant to the Board's good faith, to assist the Court in interpreting the Revised Plan, and to the Board 's estoppel defense. 3. The ODM works for the Court, and it is entirely appropriate for the Court to define its role and for the Court to take into account the LRSD's position with regard to ex parte contact between the Court and ODM. 4. Joshua cannot blame their failure to come forward with evidence on the Court's focus on \"brevity and substance.\" In any event, Joshua agreed to narrow the issues and the time limits imposed by the Court and cannot now be heard to complain. See Tr. Dec. 11 , 2001 , pp. 36-37. 5. The LRSD denies that footnote 15 on page 9 gives the impression that Joshua counsel have been involved in this case since 1982. The record is clear that Joshua intervened ' only after the LRSD prevailed in this case. While the 1989 Settlement Agreement did also resolve the Clark and Cooper cases, the Court is correct that this is a 20 year-old case. 6. The Court correctly noted that the claims for relief and remedies sought differ in the present case from Clark. Clark was simply a continuation of the Cooper case filed in 1956 asking that \"an injunction be issued against continued segregation of the races in the Little Rock public school system.\" Aaron v. Cooper, 243 F.2d 361 , 362 (8th Cir. 1957). The LRSD filed this case in 1982 seeking consolidation of the three Pulaski County school districts based on interdistrict constitutional violations by the other districts and the State of Arkansas. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 584 F.Supp. 328 (E.D. Ark. 1984). The LRSD denies that either the late Honorable Henry Woods or Special Master Aubrey McCutcheon found that the LRSD continued to unlawfully discriminate against African-American students. 7. The LRSD denies that the information in footnote 47 on pages 26 and 27 is inaccurate. It is entirely appropriate for the Court to evaluate and comment on ODM's productivity. Nothing in the Court's opinion suggests that the Court has violated or intends to violate the Eighth Circuit's mandate. 8. The LRSD denies that the ODM has been in an \"advisory position to the LRSD\" since December 27, 1996. The ODM returned to its monitoring role at the conclusion of the 2 Revised Plan's transition period. See Revised Plan,  10. Nothing in the Court's opinion suggests that counsel for Joshua was to take over the ODM's monitoring responsibilities. Counsel for Joshua was obligated to monitor the LRSD based their ethical duty to their clients and their implied contractual duty to the LRSD. 9. The LRSD denies that the Court's discussion of Joshua's 1996 request for attorneys' fees indicates bias or hostility toward counsel for Joshua, implies collusion between the lawyers, suggests Judge Wright did not know the tenns of the settlement, complains unfairly that a matter on appeal should not be resolved by the parties, suggests that Joshua's counsel agreed to assume the role of ODM, or holds counsel for Joshua to public contempt for being paid. As to counsel for Joshua's attempt to justify the monito.ring fees paid by the LRSD, the LRSD denies that counsel for Joshua attended \"hundreds of meetings\" with school District officials, that counsel for Joshua was ever \"threatened with arrest,\" and that the LRSD revised its policies because of counsels' \"persistence and vigor.\" The LRSD also denies the implication that - counsel for Joshua was responsible for the additional funding the three Pulaski County districts receive from the State by virtue of litigation related to the 1989 Settlement Agreement. While the discussion of professional fees is not directly related to the issues before the Court, the Court was free to include this discussion in its opinion. 10. The LRSD denies that the testimony ofDrs. Walberg and Armor was inapposite to the issues before this Court. Their testimony provides the context in which the LRSD and Joshua agreed to the Revised Plan and the basis on which the Court approved the Revised Plan, both of which are relevant to interpreting Revised Plan 2.7. 11 . The LRSD denies that there is no evidentiary basis for the Court's finding that ODM and Joshua did not object to the LRSD's Interim Compliance Report. Dr. Bonnie Lesley testified to this fact (Tr. Nov. 19, 2001 , p. 287), and it is stated in the introduction to the LRSD's Final Compliance Report (CX 870, p. iv.). 3 12. The LRSD denies that the Court was required to share with the parties any criticisms it had of ODM's June 14, 2000, discipline report. The LRSD's Interim Compliance Report was admitted into evidence as CX 869. The LRSD denies that the issue of discipline was not ripe for objection after the LRSD filed its Interim Compliance Report. Dr. Linda Watson testified that ODM and Joshua were regularly provided copies of the District's Disciplinary Management Reports. See Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, p. 83. 13. The Court is correct that Joshua failed to present any evidence that the LRSD was not in substantial compliance with its obligations regarding faculty and staff, student assignment, special education and related programs, parental involvement and school construction and closing. Joshua did not present any evidence on these issues:precisely because it abandoned those arguments. See Tr. Dec. 11, 2001 , pp. 36-37. Joshua cannot now be heard to complain that the Court did not allow Joshua to present evidence on those issues. 14. The Court found that Revised Plan  8.2 did not expressly require Joshua to raise compliance issues pursuant to the process set forth therein. See Memorandum Opinion, p. 89. Even so, evidence of Joshua's failure to raise compliance issues was relevant to the Board's good faith, to assist the Court in interpreting the Revised Plan, and to the Board's estoppel defense. The LRSD denies that there was \"much evidence that Joshua regularly brought matters of compliance to the attention of the school district administrators.\" 15. Footnote 2 of the Revised Plan is unambiguous, and the Court correctly interpreted the plain language of the footnote. The LRSD denies that Joshua introduced evidence \"that certain goals were to have been fully met while others would be ongoing.\" 16. The LRSD denies that the Court must presume \"that there is a correlation between student achievement and money expenditures by school districts.\" The LRSD also denies that only conclusion to be drawn from any continuing racial disparity in achievement is that the beneficiaries of desegregation funding have been white students. Joshua's argument ignores the fact that the racial disparity in achievement exists when students arrive for their first day of 4 school. As Drs. Wal berg and Armor explained, it would be impossible for the LRSD to eliminate the racial disparity in achievement given the current racial disparity in socioeconomic status. 17. The LRSD denies that the Court improperly referred to the Green factors. The Revised Plan constituted an agreement voluntarily entered into by the LRSD. The LRSD entered into that agreement because it believed implementation of the Revised Plan was in the best interest of Afucan-American students, and indeed, all students in the District. 18. The Court is correct that in this case the LRSD has never been adjudicated a \"constitutional violator.\" The LRSD denies that it was held in contempt during the implementation of the 1990 settlement plan. 19. The Court correctly interpreted Revised Plan  2. 7 as not requiring the LRSD to eliminate or reduce the racial disparity in achievement. Joshua sought to use the racial disparity in achievement to establish the LRSD's noncompliance with Revised Plan 2.7, and the Court correctly placed the burden of proof on Joshua to establish a causal connection between the current racial disparity in achievement and the LRSD's alleged noncompliance. 20. The Court acknowledged that the Revised Plan did not expressly require Joshua to raise an issue pursuant to Revised Plan  8 before it could object to the LRSD's final report. See Memorandum Opinion, p. 89. 21. The LRSD will respond to each subparagraph of paragraph 21 in tum: (a) The Court drew a reasonable inference from the fact that Joshua failed to further pursue these issues and from Baker Kurrus's testimony that he asked Dr. Carnine to work with Joshua to resolve these issues. See Tr. July 24, 2002, p. 751. (b) Dr. Lacey so testified (Tr. July 24, 2002, p. 777), and no \"record of past actions\" is required for the Court to credit the testimony of a witness. ( c) Joshua points to nothing in the \"record\" which would indicate that the Court's characterization is erroneous. 5 (d) In fact, Junious Babbs testified that ODM and Joshua were provided copies of the Compliance Plan and Compliance Handbook.Court. See Tr. July 5, 2001, pp. 73, 77 and 78. Moreover, ODM's August 11 , 1999 report establishes that ODM received both. See pp. 39 and 40. Counsel's suggestion on cross-examination that Joshua did not receive them is not evidence. See Eight Circuit Model Jury Instructions (Civil) 1.02 (2001). Thus, the only evidence before the Court was testimony that ODM and Joshua did receive the Compliance Plan and Compliance Handbook. (e) The record in this case includes motions by the LRSD after Joshua filed its objections to stop counsel for Joshua from entering the offices of LRSD staff members unexpectedly and from using the Freedom of Information Act (\"FOIA\") to conduct discovery. Joshua's opposition to these motions provides ample support in the record for the Court's finding. (f) The Revised Plan did not prohibit the LRSD from holding meetings without Joshua being present. Thus, there was no \"failure\" for the Court to excuse. (g) The Court correctly found that Revised Plan  2.5 did not require the LRSD to eliminate or reduce the racial disparity in discipline. (h) The criticisms offered by the Court were readily apparent from the report itself, and Joshua cannot blame the Court for failing to put it on notice of these shortcomings. (i) The suspension index is a well-recognized statistic and has been explained in numerous desegregation cases. See, li, Hoots v. Pennsylvania, 118 F.Supp.2d 577, 608 n.25 (W.D. Pa. 2000). The Court was free to accept the LRSD's calculations which were admitted into evidence without objection. See CX 743 . (j) The Court correctly interpreted Revised Plan  2.5 as not requiring the LRSD to eliminate or reduce the racial disparity in discipline. Joshua sought to use the racial disparity in discipline to establish the LRSD's noncompliance with Revised Plan  6 2.5, and the Court correctly placed the burden of proof on Joshua to establish a causal connection between the current racial disparity in discipline and the LRSD's alleged noncompliance. (k) The Court correctly noted that not a single student testified that he or she had been discriminated against in the imposition of discipline. The LRSD fails to see how the Court's admonition not to present cumulative evidence prevented Joshua from calling any students to testify during the hearings on Revised Plan  2.5 . (I) The Court's description of Dr. Watson's testimony is accurate given the ' context in which the statement was made. (m) The fact that African-American teachers suspended African-American students more than white teachers is not \"a finding ofracial mistreatment by AfricanAmerican teachers toward African-American students.\" (n) The Court's statement that \"students of all races tend to gravitate toward sports that they have grown up playing and that they enjoy'' does not condone racial disparities in activities. ( o) The only inference to be drawn from testimony of Ray Gillespie is that the LRSD responded appropriately when confronted with allegations that white coaches mistreated African-American student athletes. (p) The Court did not accept a \"means\" test for participation in activities. The LRSD presented evidence of the steps it took to ensure that no student was denied participation in an activity due to a financial barrier, and Joshua came forward with no evidence that a single student was denied participation in an activity because of a financial barrier. ( q) The Revised Plan did not require the LRSD to eliminate or reduce the racial disparity in the percentage of students taking AP courses. The LRSD has worked hard to increase the number of African-American students in AP courses, and it has done 7 so. The LRSD's success cannot be diminished by Joshua characterizing the LRSD's efforts as \"minuscule.\" (r) The Court gave due weight to the testimony of Jason Mercer and Ramona Horton. (s) The Court did not accept a \"means\" test for participation in the University Studies Program at Hall High School. It is true that Dr. Lacey did not identify the race of the student for whom a private donation was sought so the student could participate in the University Studies Program. See Tr. July 24, 2002, p. 802. However, it was reasonable for the Court to infer that the student was African-American for two reasons. First, when counsel for Joshua began this series of questions, he limited the question to AfricanAmerican students. See Tr. July 24, 2002, p. 801. Second, there was evidence that African-American students were more likely to be poor, and therefore, to be excluded by financial barriers to activities. See Tr. July 24, 2002, p. 602 and 624. (t) (u) The Court gave due weight to Ms. Watson's testimony. The Court correctly interpreted Revised Plan  2.7 as not requiring the LRSD to eliminate or reduce the racial disparity in achievement. (v) The Court may infer that counsel for Joshua read Revised Plan  2. 7 before agreeing to it, and therefore, knew what it required. (w) The Court is correct that Joshua did not raise the issue of the LRSD's March 19, 2001, agreement with the State of Arkansas in its Opposition to the LRSD's Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status filed May 30, 2002. WHEREFORE, the LRSD prays that Joshua's Motion for Reconsideration; that Joshua's Motion for New Trial or in the Alternative Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order be denied; that the LRSD be awarded its costs and attorneys' fees expended herein; and that the LRSD be awarded all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. 8 F:\\HOME\\FENDLEY\\l..RSD 200 1\\unitary-rcsponsc-mot-rcconsider.wpd Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRJDA Y, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 37 -\"1LM-+---- 9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on October 7, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 F:\\J-IOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD 2001 \\uni1ary-rcsporuc-mot-rccoruidcr wpd 10 : - JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. A't'TORNEY AT I.Aw 1723 l3RoADWAY Lrrru: RoCK, .AluWlsAS 7.2206 TE.t.EPRONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHNW. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS OFCOUNsEL ROBERT Mc~1.~ DONNAJ. M=t 8210 liENtll!RSON BaAn Ll1't1.P. Roel[, .AiKANSAS 72210 l'BONE: (601) 572-8426  FAX (501) 372,.8428 EMan.: mchen:ryd@nrbell.net Honorable William R.Wilson United States District Judge 600 W. Capitol Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD Dear Judge Wilson: Via Facsimile: 604-5149 October 9, 2002 Tius is a supplement to my letter motion of October 1,2002. I appreciate the Court treating it as a motion, although I did not so couch it, and I believe that the appropriate action taken by the Court in inviting the parties to react will be most useful. 1 believe that it is important for me to specify, however, what Joshua believes it would be appropriate for the Court to do with respect to clarifying the monitoring role of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. I am therefore asking that the Court conduct a hearing: ( a) to identify the instructions received by the Office of Desegregation. Monitoring (later referred as the ODM) regarding monitoring and reporting in reference to the LRSD's Motion for Unitary Status; (b) to consider whether the instructions received by the ODM were consistentmth the earlier identification ofODM's role as setfonh by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; and ( c) to identify with greater particularity ODM' s monitoring and reporting role regarding the three school districts, If the Court is inclined to have me fonnalize my October 1, 2002 letter and today's letter in motion form, I will be happy to do so. I am also writing to observe that the Joshua Intervenors filed a Motion for Reconsideration within the time allowed by law and that there has no response filed by either party within the rule time to our motion. Local Rule 7.2(b) requires that any party opposing our motion shall file such motion within eleven days. By my count, any opposing party should have filed its opposition not later th.an October 4, 2002. Today is obviously October 9, 2002. I am nor aware that the Court has a received a Motion to Extend the Time and I have not had a request from any counsel regarding an extension of such time. Page Two October 9, 2002 Accordmgly, we request that the Court role on the motion. JWW:lp cc: All Counsel of Record Ms. Ann Marshall Brown i _-t.ttorne-; at Law 17ZJ Broadwcry Ltrrle Roa:; _4.J-!car..sr::s 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 .Fzc (501) 37-~ '.' 187 F/4,X TR.-4.L\"'iSlY.!ISSION CO\"y'ER SEEET Da:i2: [ To: [ Fa..-c: l __ 3. c-..\u0026lt;-2 ...... r- d)-.:-.LJ_c_JP __ __,1 Re: ,. l Sender: [_= =g,;===luY-==========; YOU SHOu2D R.ECE.TVE [_ _ (including cover sheer)] P.:!..GE(S), fl'ICLUDING l'F..JS CO VER. S,--:.r;;''f:T. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, P LE...:JSE CJ.LL \"\u0026lt;(501) 374-3758\u0026gt;\" The information coma.ineciin !his ~;mile meo:sage is atto:r-ey privilege:i and conficientfaJ. information intended only for the use of .b.e in.diviriual or en.rit-; nmned. above. If tile ruder of this m~sage is il.Ot tb.e intended recipient, or me ~ployee or agen, res-ponsibie to de.!iver it ro 1:le intended recipient, you sre b.ereoy .iotiiied ilint any cfuse:nination, di.'\"ll'founon or cop;1ing of cbis COIIlllluuication is stric:tiy prohiliii:ed. If you bave received. ihis commi'tni.c:icon in error, ple!:l!e immediate notify u.s by wlephoiie, md rerura the onginal messagi: .a J.l.:'J at the above address via .lie U.S. Postal s~:--lic:. Tilanic you. R CEIVED EAST~Rs~l~~e~~s s - CT 12 2002 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS OCT 1 1 2002 AO 72A (Rev.8/82) OFFICE OF LITTLE ROCK DIVISION JAMES W. DES REGATION MONITORING By: __~ ~~~.,..,J... ..... LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS On September 24, 2002, Joshua lntervenors (\"Joshua\") filed: (a) a Substituted Motion for Reconsideration (docket no. 3678), 1 which asks me to revisit many aspects of the September 13, 2002 Memorandum Opinion (docket no. 3675) (\"Memorandum Opinion\") declaring the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") to be unitary with regard to all aspects ofits operations under the Revised Plan (CX 871 ), except for 2.7.1; and (b) a Motion for New Trial or in the Alternative Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order ( docket no. 3677). On October 7, 2002, LRSD filed a Response to Joshua Intervenors ' Substituted Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for New 1On September 23, 2002, Joshua filed their first Motion for Reconsideration (docket no. 3676), which contained numerous errors. The next day, September 24, 2002, Joshua filed a second Motion for Reconsideration, which corrected most of those errors. I will consider this second motion as a Substituted Motion for Reconsideration, although it was not so designated. As a matter of fact, a motion for reconsideration is not recognized in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They are, however, commonly filed and ruled upon in this jurisdiction--and I will hew to this custom. 3 6 8 4 AO 72A (Rev.8/82) Trial (docket no. 3682).2 After an initial review of Joshua's Substituted Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for New Trial, I considered summarily denying both motions on the ground that each of the arguments in support of reconsideration or a new trial is without any apparent merit. I believe that my 17 4-page Memorandum Opinion fully and accurately sets forth the relevant history of this case and that my detailed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are amply supported by the record and controlling legal authority. In short, I have given this case my best shot, and, if counsel for Joshua believe I have erred, they should ~ppeal my decision to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Thus, on the merits, Joshua's arguments raise nothing that warrants comment beyond my stating I find they are without any factual support or legal foundation. However, to the extent that a number of Joshua's arguments tend to torque the Memorandum Opinion out of shape, and are supported only by speculation and personal innuendo, I think it best to set the record straight. First, Joshua suggests that I improperly \"faulted\" Joshua for failing to present evidence 2Under Rule 7 .2(b) of the Local Rules, LRSD's Response to Joshua's Substituted Motion for Reconsideration was due eleven days from September 24, 2002, and its Response to Joshua's Motion for a New Trial was due eleven days from September 23, 2002. Because Joshua's Substituted Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for New Trial were served on counsel for LRSD pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(B) (mail) and (D) (electronic means), an additional three days must be added to LRSD's eleven days. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e). Thus, LRSD had fourteen days to respond to those motions, making its Response to Joshua's Motion for New Trial due on or before October 7 and its Response to Joshua's Substituted Motion for Reconsideration due on or before October 8. As indicated previously, LRSD filed its Response to both those Motions on October 7. In a letter dated October 9, 2002, Joshua's counsel asked me to strike LRSD's Response to those two motions because it was not filed within eleven days. Because Joshua's counsel overlooked Fed. R. Civ. P. S(b) and 6( e ), they miscalculated the deadline for the filing of LRSD 's Response to be October 4. Therefore, their request to strike that Response is denied. -2- A072A (Rev.8/82) on the March 19, 2001 Agreement between LRSD and the Arkansas Department of Education (CX 548). Substituted Motion for Reconsideration at 2. To the contrary, the Findings of Fact explicitly state that: The March 19, 2001 Agreement between the ADE and LRSD is unrelated to the question of whether LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations under the Revised Plan. It is important, too, that Joshua did not raise that issue as part ofits challenge to LRSD's request for an immediate declaration ofunitary status. Memorandum Opinion at 149, ,1 17 ( emphasis in original). Thus, although Joshua introduced CX 548 into evidence,3 I expressly did not consider it in deciding the unrelated question of whether LRSD had substantially complied with its obligatio.ris under the Revised Plan. Nowhere in my Memorandum Opinion do I \"fault\" Joshua for failing to produce evidence regarding the March 19, 200 l Agreement between LRSD and ADE--a subject that clearly was not before me in the hearings on unitary status. Second, Joshua contends that I should not have addressed \"the involvement of the ODM with respect to issues which were litigated before Judge Wright and Judge Wilson . . . [because] the competence of the ODM, the quality of the ODM reports, [and] the budget of the ODM .. . were not before the Court in evidentiary form .'\"' Substituted Motion for Reconsideration at 2, 6-7, and 10. The ODM, an employee of the district court, has monitored LRSD's compliance 3It strikes me as a little strange that Joshua introduced the March 19, 2001 Agreement into evidence during the hearing on unitary status and now argues, in their Substituted Motion for Reconsideration, that the document is irrelevant to the question of whether LRSD substantially complied with its obligations under the Revised Plan. I agree that the document is irrelevant to the issue of substantial compliance, but this begs the question of why Joshua chose to introduce the document into evidence in the first place. I remain puzzled. 4For the record, my Memorandum Opinion does not consider \"the competence of the ODM.\" -3- A072A (Rev.8/82) with its obligations under the 1990 Settlement Agreement, the 1992 Desegregation Plan, and the Revised Plan. Because the ODM works for the court, all of its budgets, as well as all of the reports it has prepared over the years, have been filed and are part of the record in this case. Historically, all of the parties and the court have used ODM reports, to the extent they were relevant, during the many hearings that have taken place since 1991. After being assigned this case in January of 2002, I carefully reviewed the entire record. In doing so, I examined the ODM 's annual budgets from 1990 to date. I was troubled by the large increases in the OD M's budget over that period of time. I was also troubled by the large sums of money that I discovered had been paid to the attorneys for both Joshua and the three school di stricts.5 While attorneys are unquestionably necessary in school desegregation cases, it is the school children who ultimately are disadvantaged by unnecessary or exorbitantly high litigation costs. Thus, I believe that it was entirely appropriate for me to express my views on the ODM's rapidly escalating budgets,6 which are part of the record in this case, and the total amount of money that has been paid to all of the attorneys in this case during the last ten to fifteen years. As footnote 58 makes clear, my concern is with the enormous amount of money that has been paid to the entire professional group--the ODM, the attorneys for LRSD, PCS SD, NLRSD, and Joshua. As I thought my admonition made clear on page 44 of the Memorandum Opinion, I believe the issue of the money paid to the professional group is important because \"I understand the meaning of being careful with a dollar, and I expect the professional group to keep that 51n most long-running school desegregation cases that have been decided in the last ten years, courts have expressed dismay over the high cost of school litigation. I now know why. 6See Memorandum Opinion at 26-27. -4- A072A (Rev.8/82_) _ important point fixed in their minds from here on out.\" Why Joshua's counsel seriously contend that I should not have addressed a subject of such obvious importance is beyond me. In the same vein, Joshua's counsel argue that I should not have commented on the quality of the ODM's June 14, 2000 Report of Disciplinary Sanctions in LRSD (docket no. 3366). Joshua's counsel used that Report extensively in his examination of various LRSD employees who testified during the hearings on unitary status. Joshua's decision to use that Report, one of the Court 's own documents, in his examination of witnesses on the issue of student discipline, required me to read and carefully analyze that do~ument. In doing so, I discovered patent deficiencies which rendered the Report of little use to the court or the parties in trying to determine the cause for African-American students being over-represented in disciplinary proceedings. Thus, in my discussion of the history of this litigation (Memorandum Opinion at 47-50), I was obliged to point out the flaws in the ODM's Report of Disciplinary Sanctions. I note that Joshua does not deny those flaws--they simply object to my noting them. In my Findings of Fact on the issue of student discipline, I again commented on the OD M's Report of Disciplinary Sanctions, which was prepared for the express purpose of being used by the court in monitoring and evaluating LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. In light of that fact, I believe I would have been remiss ifI had not closely scrutinfaed the ODM's Report in deciding whether LRSD had substantially complied with those sections of the Revised Plan dealing with student discipline. Otherwise, what is the role of the Judge? Finally, and perhaps most importantly on this point, none of my Findings of Fact on the issue of whether LRSD substantially complied with its obligations regarding student discipline were based on anything contained in the OD M's Report of Disciplinary Sanctions. Rather, my -5- AO 72A (Rev.8/82 findings simply pointed out that, because the Report failed to develop a proper statistical model for evaluating the data on student discipline, its conclusions were based on pure speculation-making the Report of no use to the court or the parties in evaluating the cause for AfricanAmerican students in LRSD receiving a disproportionate number of suspensions. See Memorandum Opinion at 105-07, ,i,i 24-26. Third, Joshua's counsel take general exception to my discussion of the attorneys' fees that have been paid in this case during the last twenty years and particular exception to my allegedly erroneous finding \"that the Joshua counsel, including the Legal Defense Fund counsel, were paid more than $3,750,000 for their work between 1987 and the present time.\" Substituted Motion for Reconsideration at 3. The amount that Joshua's counsel have been paid, to date, in attorneys ' fees is a matter of public record. As pointed out in footnote 58 of my Memorandum Opinion, these attorneys' fees are as follows: $3,150,000 paid to Joshua's counsel under the 1990 Settlement Agreement;7 $700,000 paid by LRSD to Joshua's counsel for monitoring work performed after December 12, 1990, and before July 1, 1998 (see Exhibit 7 to docket no. 3581 ); and $124,861 paid by LRSD to Joshua's counsel for monitoring work performed under the Revised Plan between July 1, 1998, and January 2001 (see Exhibit 8 to docket no. 3581 ). Thus, based entirely on the evidence in the record, without any need for me to speculate or make assumptions, Joshua's counsel have been paid, to date, $3,974,861 in attorneys' fees--this is more than $3,750,000. In footnote 58 of my Memorandum Opinion, I hazard what I admit to be a \"guess\" that, since 1990, the attorneys ' fees that LRSD, PCS SD, and NLRSD have paid to their own attorneys 7LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 , 1390 (8th Cir. 1990). -6- AO 72A - ~(Rev.8/82) \"totals at least $4,000,000.\" Joshua's counsel clearly lack standing to complain about my \"guess\" regarding the aggregate amount of attorneys ' fees paid to counsel for the three school districts--an estimate that LRSD has not challenged. In light of these undisputed facts, I seriously question how Joshua's counsel can make the statement that \"counsel Walker does not accept the court's conclusion that he has directly benefitted from the perpetuation of this case.\" Substituted Motion for Reconsideration at 9. With all due respect to Mr. Walker, I am having a hard time escaping the conclusion that he has been \"directly benefitted\" by receiving millions of dollars in attorneys' fees in this case. Fourth, Joshua's counsel, without citing any supporting facts, accuse me of \"a predisposition which could only have come from previous attitudes regarding the role oflawyers in this long-standing case\";8 \"negative attitudes toward lawyers who are involved with and associated with this case\";9 and \"a bias or hostility toward Joshua's counsel.\"10 Although this should go without saying, I want to remind Joshua's counsel that, while I ruled against them on five of the six arguments they advanced, this does not mean that I harbor any bias against or hostility toward them. 11 For the record, I have no \"predispositions,\" \"negative attitudes,\" or \"bias or hostility\" toward Joshua's counsel. I did indeed express dismay over the attorneys' fees that have been paid to all of the 8Motion for Reconsideration at 2. 9Motion for Reconsideration at 3. 10Motion for Reconsideration at 7. 11\"The Judge must not like me\" is a refrain usually sung by lawyers who have just been called to the bar--when a lawsuit doesn't tum out exactly as they had wanted. Experienced lawyers generally resist the temptation to raise this claim. -7- A072A (Rev.8/82) attorneys in this case--! believe that was a subject that called for comment during my discussion of the long history of this case. Likewise, the concerns I expressed about LRSD's decision to pay Joshua's counsel $700,000 for performing monitoring work for which Judge Wright ruled Joshua's counsel had already been paid ( docket no. 2821) and the $48,333.33 per year that LRSD agreed to pay Joshua's counsel for performing monitoring work under the Revised Plan are directly supported by detailed citations to the record 12--not speculation or conjecture--and also deserved to be mentioned in my review of the history of this case. As I stated in the Memorandum Opinion, counsel for both LRSD an,d Joshua should have done a better job of documenting the reasons for the payment of these attorneys' fees and the precise role of Joshua's counsel in receiving monthly payments from LRSD to monitor its compliance with the Revised Plan. However, in reaching that conclusion, I was guided entirely by the plain facts contained in the record and not by any \"preconceived ideas\" or a \"bias or hostility toward Joshua's counsel.\" Fifth, Joshua argues that: (a) because I discuss the fact that the OD M's staff and budget have more than doubled since its creation, I am implicitly criticizing \"Judge Wright's actions and the Court of Appeals for requiring the creation of the office in the first place\"; 13 (b) I \"may be I signaling that [I] want to end the role of the ODM as that role was established and created by the Eighth Circuit\"; 14 and ( c) I may be trying to infer that \"Joshua take over the roie of ODM with respect to monitoring at a rate of approximately $49,000 per year.\" 15 No one could fairly read the 12See Memorandum Opinion at 33-35 and 38-44. 13Motion for Reconsideration at 6. 14Motion for Reconsideration at 7. 15Motion for Reconsideration at 7. -8- A072A (Rev.8/82) Memorandum Opinion as stating anything within shouting distance of these three farfetched notions. As I repeatedly noted in my Memorandum Opinion, Judge Wright did an outstandingjob of presiding over this case for eleven long years, during which time she faithfully and skillfully decided well over a thousand motions. Nowhere do I implicitly or explicitly direct any criticism toward her. 16 Likewise, my Memorandum Opinion makes it clear that I believe it was a good idea for the Eighth Circuit to create the ODM so that the district court and the Eighth Circuit could ensure \\. that each of the three school districts complied with their many desegregation obligations. Obviously, it is important for the ODM to continue its monitoring work until each of the three school districts is declared to be unitary and released from further supervision by the court. At this point, my only concern is that the ODM operate as frugally and efficiently as possible in going forward with its monitoring of the now much less onerous single remaining compliance issue for LRSD and the desegregation obligations that remain in effect for NLRSD and PCS SD. Finally, Joshua's counsel are absolutely correct that, in my Memorandum Opinion, there \"surely cannot be an inference that Joshua was [to] take over the role of ODM with respect to monitoring at a rate of approximately $49,000 per year ... . \" There is no such \"inference\" or \"implication.\" Sixth, Joshua argues that they should be allowed to present additional evidence ofLRSD' s alleged noncompliance with other sections of the Revised Plan. Substituted Motion for Reconsideration at 10-11. In support of this argument, Joshua alleges that \"the court previously 161 do not understand how counsel can possibly discern (or divine) any such criticism in the Memorandum. -9- AO 72A (Rev.8/82) instructed Joshua not to present any of that evidence [on LRSD's alleged failure to substantially comply with its obligations regarding faculty and staff, student assignment, special education and related programs, parental involvement, and school construction and closing].\" This is not true. It is an after-the-fact assertion. On May 9, 2002, I entered an Order (docket no. 3598) explaining in detail how I intended to proceed in conducting up to five days of hearings on the remaining issues Joshua had raised in their challenge to LRSD's request for unitary status. Four pages of that Order were devoted to discussing what transpired during the December l l., 2001 hearing before Judge Wright, which was held to discuss the remaining grounds for Joshua's challenge to LRSD's substantial compliance with the Revised Plan. Id. at 9-12. The May 9 Order pointed out that, during the December 11 hearing, Joshua's counsel attempted to raise numerous new grounds for challenging LRSD 's alleged noncompliance after they had rested their case on what they viewed as their three strongest grounds--lack of good faith, failure to comply with obligations related to AfricanAmerican achievement, and student discipline. Judge Wright ruled that Joshua could present evidence on three remaining grounds for noncompliance: advanced placement courses; guidance counseling; and extracurricular activities. In addition, she ruled Joshua could present additional evidence of LRSD's alleged lack of good faith, but only to the extent that evidence was related to advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities. Judge Wright also made it clear that, after she had heard the evidence on these three remaining areas of alleged noncompliance, she would decide the question of unitary status. Joshua's counsel responded: \"That 's fin e, Your Honor.\" (Docket no. 3597 at 36-37.) Consistent with Judge Wright's ruling during the December 11 , 2001 hearing, the May 9 -10- A072A (Rev.8/82) Order provided that I planned to conduct up to five days of additional hearings on unitary status, during which Joshua would be allowed to present evidence of LRSD's alleged noncompliance with its obligations related to advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities. In addition, I allowed Joshua to present noncumulative evidence related to: (a) LRSD's lack of good faith, but only to the extent that it was related to advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities; and (b) how LRSD 's alleged failure to comply with its obligations regarding advanced placement, guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities adversely affected the aca~emic achievement of African-American students (docket no. 3598 at 13-14). I hardly see how the May 9 Order could have been any clearer in setting forth the precise ground rules regarding Joshua's three remaining challenges to LRSD's substantial compliance with the Revised Plan. Joshua's counsel raised no objection to the May 9 Order, and, after completing three additional days of evidentiary hearings on July 22-24, 2002, Joshua's counsel rested their case challenging whether LRSD should be declared unitary. Under these circumstances, there is no basis for Joshua's counsel to argue that the court \"instructed\" them not to present evidence ofLRSD 's alleged noncompliance with numerous other provisions of the Revised Plan. Joshua's counsel agreed, flat footedly, to the ground rules for conducting the hearings on unitary status, including the six specific areas of the Revised Plan under which they challenged LRSD's substantial compliance. It is far too late for Joshua to argue that they should be allowed to engage in piecemeal litigation by raising additional grounds for attacking LRSD's substantial compliance with the Revised Plan. Again--one last time--the grounds delineated by Judge Wright and me, and agreed to by all counsel, were fully litigated. -11- AO 72A (Rev.8/82) I do not know how to put it any more plainly than that. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Joshua's Substituted Motion for Reconsideration be and it is hereby DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Joshua's Motion for a New Trial or in the Alternative Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order be and it is hereby DENIED. nf DATED this day // of October, 2002. -12- /)J v_J ~ . ~ L!l UNITED STATES DISTRICTJU~ THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH tULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRC ON 10 I 1 / o 2.. BY D ~VI , () AO 72A (Rev.8/82) ECEIVEf OCT 1 2 2002 OFRCE GfSEGREGATtnN ;\\\\'.: lilTGRING EAsrM~l~~gl!2b IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS OCT 1 1 2002 LITTLE ROCK DIVISION JAMES W. Mc By: A K LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS In a letter dated and delivered to me on October 1, 2002, counsel for Joshua requested that I modify or clarify: ( a) various aspects of the compliance remedy contained in the September 13, 2002 Memorandum Opinion (the \"Memorandum Opinion\") declaring LRSD to be partially unitary; and (b) the role of Joshua and the ODM in performing future monitoring work in this case. Later that day, I entered an Order ( docket no. 3680), stating that I intended to :treat the letter as \"a motion of some kind.\"1 In a letter dated October 9, 2002, counsel for Joshua wrote me a \"supplement\" to their October 1, 2002 letter. Attached to this Order is a copy of the October 9 letter. On October 7, 2002, LRSD filed its Response to Joshua's October 1, 2002 letter (docket no. 3681 ). Because I see no reason to await LRSD's Response to the matters raised in Joshua's 1A copy of the October 1 letter is attached to my Ord~r. A072A (Rev.8/82) October 9 letter, I will proceed to address the merits of the reliefrequested by Joshua's counsel in both of those letters. As a threshold matter, I want to clarify how I view these two letters. On September 24, 2002, Joshua filed a Substituted Motion for Reconsideration (docket no. 3678) requesting that I clarify or modify many aspects of the Memorandum Opinion. Because both of Joshua's letters are seeking reconsideration of still other aspects of the Memorandum Opinion, I will treat those letters as a \"Supplement\" to their Substituted Motion for Reconsideration and address in this Order only those arguments raised in that \"Supplement.\"2 In the future, I think it will be best if all counsel file motions--not letters--raising any issues that they believe require my attention. I should not be copied on general correspondence amongst counsel. First, Joshua's counsel request that I clarify the monitoring obligations the Memorandum Opinion imposed on them with regard to LRSD's compliance with 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. I shall do so. In 1990, Joshua's counsel made the commitment to participate in a monitoring system to ensure that LRSD, NLRSD, and PCS SD complied with their desegregation obligations under the 1990 Settlement Agreement. See Memorandum Opinion at 34. Later, in approving that Settlement Agreement, the Eighth Circuit recognized that counsel for Joshua were \"the best  defenders and guardians of the interests of their own clients.\" LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371, 1386 (8th Cir. 1990). Between 1990 and 1998, Joshua's counsel participated in monitoring 2In a companion Order that I am entering contemporaneously with this Order, I have addressed and rejected the arguments raised by Joshua in their Substituted Motion for Reconsideration. -2- A072A (Rev.8/82) LRSD's compliance with the 1990 Settlement Agreement and the 1992 Desegregation Plan.3 After Joshua and LRSD implemented the Revised Plan in 1998, Joshua's counsel entered into an agreement with LRSD to monitor its compliance with the Revised Plan, a task for which LRSD agreed to pay Joshua's counsel $48,333.33 per year.4 Thus, for the last twelve years, Joshua's counsel have been involved with monitoring LRSD's compliance with its desegregation obligations . . In Section VII.A., B., and C. of the Memorandum Opinion, I outlined the Compliance Remedy LRSD must implement in order to comply with its remaining obligations under  2. 7. l of the Revised Plan. Because I believe that Joshua's counsel have an ethical obligation and professional duty to monitor LRSD's compliance with its obligations under  2. 7. l , I provided a monitoring role for them in Section VII.D of the Memorandum Opinion. I intended for Joshua's counsel to continue to perform their monitoring role according to the same procedure they and LRSD have followed for many years in this case. One could read the October 1, 2002 letter as suggesting that Joshua's counsel only intend to continue to monitor LRSD's compliance with 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan if they are ordered to do so by me. I do not believe I can force Joshua's counsel to perform monitoring duties--something that I may have mistakenly assumed they wanted to continue to do. I will leave it up to Joshua's counsel to decide if they have an ethical duty and professional obligation to 3Judge Wright ruled Joshua's counsel were not entitled to receive attorney's fees for any monitoring work performed after the Eighth Circuit's approval of the 1990 Settlement Agreement (docket no. 2821). While that ruling was on appeal to the Eighth Circuit, LRSD voluntarily agreed to pay Joshua's counsel $700,000 forperformingthatmonitoringwork. See Memorandum Opinion at 33-35 and 38-44. 4See Memorandum Opinion at 42. -3- AO 72A (Rev.8/82) continue monitoring LRSD's compliance with its sole remaining obligation under the Revised Plan. I hope Joshua's counsel resolve that question in favor of continuing their long-standing commitment to monitoring LRSD's compliance with its desegregation obligations. However, since they complain about my expressly directing them to continue monitoring LRSD's compliance with  2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan--something I never expected to hear--I believe I must now modify Section VII.D. of the Memorandum Opinion to read as follows: Joshua may monitor LRSD 's compliance with  2. 7 .1 and, if they choose to do so, they should bring to the attention of LRSD, on a timely basis, all problems that are detected in its compliance with its obligations under  2.7.1, as those obligations are spelled out in this Complianc'f: Remedy. Thereafter, Joshua and LRSD must use the \"process for raising corripliance issues\" set forth in  8.2, et seq., of the Revised Plan to attempt to resolve those compliance issues. If those efforts are unsuccessful, Joshua shall present the issues to me for resolution, as required by  8.2.5. Any such presentation must be timely. Regardless of whether Joshua's counsel continue to monitor LRSD's compliance with  2. 7 .1, the ODM staff most certainly will continue their close monitoring ofLRSD 's compliance with that section of the Revi_sed Plan. I have every confidence that the staff of the ODM will carefully monitor LRSD's implementation of the Compliance Remedy I have ordered under 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. If Joshua's counsel decide to continue with their monitoring role, which is independent from the monitoring work performed by the ODM, the preceding paragraphs of this Order make it clear that I expect them to follow the same monitoring practices they have followed for years in this case. I expect counsel for Joshua and LRSD to cooperate and work together to ensure that things go smoothly with regard to monitoring LRSD's implementation of its obligations under  2. 7 .1. However, if actual disputes arise regarding monitoring, I will be available to resolve them. -4- A072A (Aev.8/82) Second, Joshua's counsel makes an unsupportable and speculative statement that certain unspecified\"comments\" in the Memorandum Opinion \"indicated that [I] do not foresee orrequire a continued responsibility for monitoring of the intensity which the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit required.\" This assertion simply is not true. I will expect and require the ODM staff to work hard every day to ensure that all three school districts fully comply with all of their remaining desegregation obligations. Of course, for LRSD, these obligations are now far less onerous than they have been in the past. Likewise, NLRSD has already been declared unitary with regard to several ofits original desegregation obligations. In other words, while I will expect ' and require the ODM staff to diligently and fully discharge their obligation to monitor the three school districts, the reality is they now have far fewer obligations. Finally, in Joshua's counsel's October 9, 2002 letter, they request that I conduct a hearing to clarify the role of the ODM. I find there is no need for any requested clarification of the role of the ODM--much less for a hearing on that subject. I feature myself capable of directing the ODM staff in performing their ongoing duties as monitors. IfI waiver in this belief, I may, at that time, call on counsel for suggestions. Of course, if Joshua's counsel determines that the ODM staff is not adequately discharging its monitoring duties, I would expect them to immediately file an appropriate motion. In closing, let me repeat the comment I made in my companion Order addressing the merits of the arguments made by Joshua in their Substituted Motion for Reconsideration: \"I have given this case my best shot, and, if counsel for Joshua or LRSD believe that I have erred, they should appeal my decision to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.\" No more paper should -5- A072A (Rev.8/82) be wasted in asking me to reconsider aspects of my September 13 Memorandum Opinion or to clarify roles or responsibilities associated with the Compliance Remedy. That's myrulin'. If any party perceives error, that party should get its best hold and go to the Eighth Circuit. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Joshua's Supplement to their Substituted Motion for Reconsideration be and it is hereby DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Section VI.D. of the Memorandum Opinion is modified to read as set forth, supra, at 4. TM DATED this day / ( of October, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 7~ ON IO '\" l Q-Z... gy_j-\"\"'-=;~,,,__,_~- -6- JOHNW. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Honorable William R.Wilson United States District Judge 600 W. Capitol Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD Dear Judge Wilson: JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAw 1723 l3RaADWAY Lrrru: RoCK, .Aluw.SAS 7.2206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile: 604-SJ 49 October 9, 2002 0FCOtlNsEL ROBERT M~,'!..~ DONNAJ.M=r 8210 liENi\u0026gt;KRSON Ra.\\n Ll'rrl.P. Ro~ AIKANSAs 72210 PHONE: (501) 872-8426  FAX (501) 372-8428 EMAn.: mcliemyd@s1rbell.net Tiris is a supplement to my letter motion of October 1,2002. I appreciate the Court treating it as a motion, although I did not so couch it, and I believe that the appropriate action taken by the Court in inviting the parties to react will be most useful. I believe that it is important for me to specify, however, what Joshua believes it would be appropriate for the Court to do with respect to clarifying the monitoring role of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. I am therefore asking that the Court conduct a hearing: (a) to identify the instructions received by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (later referred as the ODM) regarding monitoring and reporting in reference to the LRSD's Motion for Unitary Status; (b) to consider whether the instructions received by the ODM were consistent with the earlier identification of ODM' s role as set forth by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; and ( c) to identify with greater particularity ODM' s monitoring and reporting role regarding the three school districts, If the Court is inclined to have me formalize my October 1, 2002 letter and today's letter in motion fonn, I will be happy to do so. I am also writing to observe that the Joshua Intervenors filed a Motion for Reconsideration within the time allowed by law and that there has no response filed by either party within the rule time to our motion. Local Rule 7.2(b) requires that any party opposing our motion shall file such motion within eleven days. By my count, any opposing party should have filed its opposition not later than October 4, 2002. Today is obviously October 9, 2002. I am not aware that the Court has a received a Motion to Extend the Time and I have not had a request from any counsel regarding an extension of such time. Page Two October 9, 2002 Accordmgly, we request that the Court role on the motion. JWW:lp cc: All Counsel of Record Ms. Ann Marshall Brown .!!.trorne\"J at Law 17:Z3 Broadwcy Ltrrle Rod; A:rkar..s:::s 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 .F'zc (501) 37-! '.1187 Fil TR..4.J.~SlV1ISSION COv'JER SERET p A ...:!.. 0 ..c:-1 . Date: [ To: [ Fa..\"C: l _..... .,3.c;.....c..-7 .f.. .-.o ~L-..::cJV;___ ____,7 Re: ,. ' Sender: [_= =~===l)==========; YOU SHOu'LD RECElr'\"E [_ __ (including cover sheer)} PA.GE(S), INCLUDING l'EJS COVER. S,~'f.T IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEA.SE CALL \"\u0026lt;(50]) 374-3758\u0026gt;n T.he information comaineci. :in this fu:!:im:ile m~sage is attorney privilegea and couficientfal infomiation mrended only for tb.e use of 'die indivirlulll or en.tit\u0026lt;/ nllm.ed. above. Ii tile re:icier of mis mem1ge is il.Ot the intended reci:pienr, or me employee or agenr res-pons,\"bie to de!.iver re to the intended. recipient, you sre b.ereoy aoti:iied ilim any disse::nination. di.'1ri\"ouiion or copying of cllis commuuicarion is .rtricrly prohibited. If you b.ave received. this c.onmumic:ition in c!l:IOr. p1C3.!e immedi.\u0026amp;e notify us by telephone. md = cb.e ongmal message .a l.l.'l at tile above address via rb.e U.S. Post.l.l Sc:~iice. Ti:um.k you. RECEIVED OCT 1 6 2002 OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NIRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR RELIEF CONCERNING THE ODM BUDGET DEFENDANT INTER VEN ORS INTER VENO RS The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move for the entry of an order for the parties' participation in the establishment of the budget for the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, in accordance with the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 971 F 2d. 160, 166 (8th Cir. 1992). This motion is based upon the following allegations and the accompanying memorandum. 1. It has come to the attention of the Joshua Intervenors that this court is in the process of reducing the ODM staff and budget. A member of the ODM staff affected by staff and budget reductions planned by the court has contacted counsel for these intervenors with regard to her legal rights. 2. In LRSD v. PCSSD, supra, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit articulated the 1 rights of the parties with regard to the establishment fo the ODM budget. To this point, it appears that the court plans to make reductions in the ODM budget and staff without affording the parties the opportunity for participation in the budget-setting process, identified by the Court of Appeals. 3. The Joshua Intervenors concern about this matted~ magnified by the virtual non-use of ODM in the process of determining whether the LRSD had attained unitary status. That is, the court's lengthy opinion is silent on the question of the court's requesting ODM to report on any particular aspect of LRSD' s compliance with the Revised Plan, evidencing that no such request was made. 4. Appeal of the court's merits decision is likely. Any contemplated change in ODM's staffing level should take account of the fact that the Court of Appeals will have the final word - (absent Supreme Court review) on the scope of the LRSD's remaining plan obligations. 5. Alternatively, ODM' s staffing and budget should not be such that it is unable, in the future, to monitor the three districts ' compliance with remaining plan obligations in the manner contemplated by the Court of Appeals. Wherefore, the Joshua Intervenors respeqtfully pray that the court: a. provide the parties access to documents exchanged between ODM and this court concerning ODM staffing and the ODM budget (in th past and in the future): and b. permit the parties to promptly review, analyze, question, and make recommendations concerning or objections regarding the ODM budget and elements thereof, prior to their implementation. Respectfully submitted, 2 /', /) / 1 I ,I I ,  Ro 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 Mass. 405900 ohn W. Walker ~ John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 AR 64046 . - . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 3 RECEIVED OCT 1 6 2002 OFACE OF OCT :  DESEGREGATION MONITORING JAM Es 'J1J fi,_ r- r , ~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT \u0026amp;'!JllT_  f. ~-A\u0026lt; EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS -- WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT ~S. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANT INTER VENO RS INTER VENO RS THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' MEMORANDUM CONCERNING THE ODM BUDGET The Joshua Intervenors respectfully submit this memorandum in support of their accompanying motion for relief concerning the ODM budget. It has come to the attention of the Joshua Intervenors that this court is apparently in the process of reducing the ODM staff and budget. In a 1992 decision, the Court of Appeals identified the roles of the court and the parties in the establishment of the ODM budget. See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 971 F 2d. 160, 166 (8th Cir. 1992). The motion seeks to insure that the parties have the opportunity for participation identified by the appellate court. A viable ODM is important to these intervenors because in their counsel's view the ODM was not given by the court the role envisioned by the Court of Appeals in the process for  determining court that the LRSD had attained unitary status in most areas. Intervenors' counsel 1 want to guard against a like result in the future. . ,1/ J ff -4? . IC7Ju L / ) ~ ,,y~/4 Robert Pressman t- 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 Mass. 405900 I I :..- / Respectfully submitted, . . 46 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing motion has been to all counsel of record on this r, day of October, 2002. )  ,- / / ,-) ( ./ J26 7 : /_,,,/ \u0026lt;\"// / -1 :./ c)---r. '-1 - 1  /, r ,1 ,J\\ 'l,/.v,__(,'f 1 1-v ,: __,,, 2 RECEIVED OCT 1 7 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. 4:82CV00866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MRS. LOREN JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. ORDER OCT '1 C 2002 JAMES \\'I'. L'i -=RK Qy: ___ -\"t.L--=ll'~.\u0026amp;..\u0026lt;;::;:,...,..,.~~ Defendants Intervenors Intervenors Joshua Intervenors have filed a pleading entitled \"The Joshua Intervenors' Motion for Relief Concerning the ODM Budget.\" Paragraph 4 of this pleading reflects that, \"(a)ppeal of the court's merits decision is likely.\" If an appeal is to be taken, Joshua's motion is considerably premature. Following the procedure used in the past in this case (and Eighth Circuit directives), once a proposed budget is submitted by the ODM, I will enter an Order attaching a copy of the proposed budget and will provide all parties an opportunity to file objections or comments. ! To my knowledge, no proposed budget has yet been submitted, and; if an appeal is taken, it is unlikely that there will be any significant changes in the budget until the appeal is decided. Accordingly, because Joshua's motion is premature, it is denied, without prejudice. rfl IT IS SO ORDERED this 11_ day of October, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR~(~ ON\\o \\ l~ 10 2..- 8YJ\u0026gt;.1~~~-;;_=.....- U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE { .,, 6 8 8 RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OCT 2 1 2002 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS OFACE OF WESTERN DIVISION DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL  DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF MIDDLE SCHOOL SITE PCSSD for its motion, states: 1. Plan 2000 requires that: \"An elementary school, located around 145th Street and a middle school or junior high school in the Crystal Hill/Maumelle area will be built.\" 2. The PCSSD proposes to acquire a site located at Carnahan and Murphy Drives in Maumelle, Arkansas and to construct its new middle school there. 3. The PCSSD proposes to build a school with a capacity of 1,000 students and to reserve 200 seats for M to M students. 4. The history of the site selection process, statistical projections concerning racial balance and other pertinent information is set forth in the accompanying memorandum. WHEREFORE, PCSSD prays that its motion be granted and for all proper relief. 373871-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On October 22, 2002, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 373871-v1 2 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OCT 2,i 2002 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS OFACE OF WESTERN DIVISION DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PCSSD MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF MIDDLE SCHOOL SITE Plan 2000 Plan 2000 requires that: \"An elementary school, located around 145th Street and a middle school or junior high school in the Crystal Hill/Maumelle area will be built.\" This Court approved a district-wide conversion to middle schools on June 4, 2001. Accordingly, this request is specifically to build a middle school to be located at Carnahan and Murphy Drives, Maumelle, Arkansas. A Brief History 1. Pine Forest Elementary School remains the only PCSSD school within the city limits of Maumelle. Pine Forest Elementary School was built in 1980. The present capacity of the school as used this year is 556 .. Maumelle was incorporated in 1985 with a population of 4,359. Today, the population of Maumelle is approximately 10,557. 369448-v1 2. Since its inception as a town in the 1960s, junior and senior high students from Maumelle have all been bused to Oak Grove Junior-Senior High School. As noted in previous filings with this Court, the PCSSD desires to convert Oak Grove into a 9-12 high school and to construct a 6-8 middle school to substitute for the current Oak Grove Junior High School. 3. Currently, Pine Forest Elementary, which would jettison its sixth grade under this proposal, can accommodate only 63% of K-6 children residing in Maumelle. The remainder are currently bused to either Crystal Hill Elementary or Oak Grove Elementary. Under this proposal, both Crystal Hill and Oak Grove Elementary would become K-5 schools. 4. To accommodate current M to M sixth graders at Crystal Hill and to otherwise help realize a fully intergraded middle school, the PCSSD would reserve 200 seats at the new middle school for M to M students. 5. The PCSSD Board of Directors voted 6 to Oto seek approval for a school located within Maumelle at their meeting held on November 13, 2001. Advantages of a Maumelle Site 6. The proposed school will allow the PCSSD to move toward completing its conversion to the middle school system and will relieve over-crowding at the landlocked Oak Grove Campus. 7. The proposed school will allow the PCSSD to establish a middle school with an interdistrict feature offering more choices and grade levels particularly for those LRSD students who currently attend Crystal Hill Elementary. 369448-v1 2 8. The PCSSD proposes to construct the school with a capacity of'1,000 students providing room not only for the 200 seats reserved for M to M students 1, but also space for students who can be attracted from the local charter school, area private schools and children who are currently being home-schooled. 9. The PCSSD proposes to begin construction by April 1 of 2003 so that the new facility can be open for education by August of 2004. The PCSSD requests approval of this motion as early as reasonably possible so that sites specific work can be completed prior to the April 1, 2003 commencement of construction. 10. The PCSSD proposes to pay for the acquisition and the construction of the school by re-financing existing debt as approved by the voters on September 17, 2002. The Site Selection Process 11. On January 17, 2002, Dr. Henderson, then Assistant Superintendent for Support Services and now Interim Superintendent, addressed approximately 150 parents at the Pine Forest PTA meeting regarding the progress toward selecting a site for a new middle school. Five different proposed sites were highlighted. 12. On February 4, 2002, Dr. Henderson addressed the Crystal Hill Elementary PTA meeting. Again, approximately 150 parents were in attendance and the same five proposed sites were reviewed with them. 13. Dr. Henderson addressed the Oak Grove Elementary PTA meeting on March 5, 2002. Approximately 90 parents were in attendance. On this occasion, seven 1 By agreeing to this reservation, the PCSSD is assuming that M to M funding as currently configured and provided will remain in effect for the foreseeable future. If such funding is reduced or eliminated in the future, the continued reservation of such seats would likely prove impossible. 369448-v1 3 proposed sites were described. 14. By letter dated March 13, 2002, Dr. Henderson invited the Joshua lntervenors to serve on the Site Selection Committee. By letter dated March 15, 2002, Mr. John Walker, on behalf of Joshua, declined the invitation to participate. 15. By memo dated March 19, 2002, the Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers nominated Diane Jones to serve on the Site Selection Committee, as a Knight intervenor. 16. By memo dated March 14, 2002, the principal of Crystal Hill Elementary School forwarded the names of four parents who desired to serve as members of the Site Selection Committee. One of those is a parent of an M to M student attending Crystal Hill. Oak Grove and Pine Forest Elementary Schools provided a bi-racial list of committee members by telephone. 17. A preliminary meeting of the Bi-Racial Site Selection Committee, which included representatives of ODM, was held on April 23, 2002, at Pine Forest Elementary School. 18. The second meeting of the Site Selection Committee was held on April 29, 2002, at Crystal Hill Elementary School. As part of this meeting, the Committee physically visited the seven possible sites. 19. As the process continued, some of the sites were deleted for various considerations including costs and lack of availability. 20. A copy of the minutes of the meeting held on April 29, 2002, is attached as Exhibit A. It includes capsule descriptions of each site evaluated including information concerning costs. 369448-v1 4 21. The next meeting was held May 8, 2002, at Oak Grove Elementary School. 22. A revised list of the Site Selection Committee members as of May 1, 2002, is attached as Exhibit B. 23. At the Oak Grove meeting, an initial vote was taken to rank the available sites. A final meeting was held on June 10, 2002, at Pine Forest Elementary School. At the end of the process, the site described in Paragraph 1 of this memorandum was selected by the Committee and approved by the School Board. Statistical Considerations 24. As part of the Court approved process for building Crystal Hill Elementary School, the PCSSD agreed to reserve up to 399 seats at Crystal Hill for transferring LRSD students. The construction of the middle school would eliminate the sixth grade at Crystal Hill. It is appropriate to reserve, at a minimum, that prorata number of seats at the new school for LRSD students. 25. Excluding pre-K, there are seven grades at Crystal Hill including kindergarten. This equates to 14% of the seats. 14% of 399 is 56 seats. 26. This number, however, is not sufficient to reach the long-standing PCSSD goal of a minimum of 20% African American students at every school. Accordingly, the PCSSD proposes to reserve a total of 200 seats for eligible M to M transfers at the new school. This would provide 10% of the African American student body if the school is built to house 1000 students. 27. This number coupled with the African American student population currently residing in the Crystal Hill, Pine Forest and Oak Grove zones will be sufficient 369448-v1 5 to safely populate the new school at at least 20% minority. An examination of the current fourth, fifth and sixth grades at those referenced schools demonstrates this projection. Crystal Hill Pine Forest Oak Grove 4\"' Grade Black Students 4\"' Grade Black Students 4\"' Grade Black Students MtoM Resident Total MtoM Resident Total MtoM Resident Total 51 51 2 9 11 5 9 14 5'\" Grade Black Students 5'\" Grade Black Students 5'\" Grade Black Students MtoM Resident Total MtoM Resident Total MtoM Resident Total 51 51 0 20 20 1 6 7 61 \" Grade Black Students 6'\" Grade Black Students 6'\" Grade Black Students MtoM Resident Total MtoM Resident Total MtoM Resident Total 38 38 3 8 11 4 17 21 140 140 5 37 42 10 32 42 28. To make the projection, one should consider both the M to M students currently attending 41 \\ 5th and 6th grade at these schools, together with the resident African American population in these zones. This totals 224 students. This number, as compared to 1,000 seats, projects a minimum population of over 22% African American at the new middle school. 29. Overall, the latest census figures project 7 40 school children between the ages of 12 and 15 years old will be resident within the city limits of Maumelle by the . - year 2005. (Please see Exhibit C). This, together with the students who will be transferred from the Oak Grove area together with the projected M to M students, dictates sizing the school to accommodate 1,000 students. Staffing 30. There should be no negative affects on current staffing. While the Oak Grove Junior/Senior High will be no more, the new middle school will require similar, if not identical, administrative staffing. 369448-v1 6 31. The same students who are currently taught at the sixth grades at the three elementary schools will simply attend the new middle school. The same students who would be seventh and eighth graders at Oak Grove Junior/Senior High School will simply be attending the new middle school but will require the same number of teachers as the District currently employs at the sixth grade in the elementary schools and at the seventh and eighth grades at Oak Grove. Attendance Areas 32. The \"attendance zone\" for the new middle school will be identical to the current attendance zone for Oak Grove Junior/Senior High School. Accordingly, there will be no need to change any attendance zones. Transportation 33. Currently, all secondary Maumelle students are transported from ', ... Maumelle to Oak Grove for grades seven through twelve. Under this concept, resident Maumelle students would now be allowed to attend grades six, seven and eight in their resident community but would continue to be transported for grades nine through twelve at Oak Grove High School. Those Oak Grove students currently attending Oak Grove Junior High School would be transported to Maumelle for their middle school years. The PCSSD believes that this arrangement generates greater equity for the affected communities as the transportation factor is more equally shared under the new arrangement. 34. M to M students would continue to be transported by choice. That is, since they elect to be M to M students, they are not \"assigned\" to the schools they select. Under this proposal, they would simply have the option to continue in an 369448-v1 7 interdistrict setting that includes the seventh and eighth grades and does not terminate at the sixth grade. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays that the Court approve the location of a new middle school located at Carnahan and Murphy Drives, Maumelle, which would reserve 200 seats for M to M transfer students and for all proper relief. 369448-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By _ ....,...._~--..,..:....;:;=-a.__ _____ _ A nty Special s 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On October 22, 2002, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 369448-v1 9 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 12201  Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Donald J. Henderson, ED.D. Assistant Superintendent DIVISION OF SUPPORT SERVICES 925 East Dixon Road/P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, Arkansas 72216 (501) 490-2227 Ext. 209 Fax: (501) 490-0483 Minutes of Crystal Hill/Maumelle Area Bi-Racial Selection Committee Meeting April29,2002 Dr. Don Henderson opened the meeting by handing out a_ meeting agenda and a sign-in sheet for attendees to sign. Dr. Henderson provided several handouts to the attendees and discussed each handout as .they were distributed. Comments and questions were made during the handout process. Dr. Henderson introduced Mr. Jim Sharkey, City of Maumelle, who went over the possible sites. Mr. Sharkey had several map displays that helped show the location of the sites. The sites discussed were six sites from the Maumelle area and the site adjacent to Crystal Hill Elementary owned by PCSSD. Sites 1 and 2 are owned by the City of Maumelle and land costs would be $25,000 per acre. If one of these sites is selected the City would provide an access road and utilities to the site. Site 3 is along Maumelle Boulevard north of the Kroger Store. This site originally was 19 acres but due to a recent partial sale the area now available is 12 acres. Additional acreage is available from adjacent property owners so that a 20 plus acre site could be obtained. The owners of these lands would want to do some type of land swap rather than sell the properties. Access and utilities are available to this site. Site 4 is a 19-acre site at intersection of Naylor Drive and North Odom. Asking price is $50,000 per acre. Access and utilities are available to this site. - Site 5 is a 42-acre site north of the Molex Plant. Needed acreage would be available at $1 .00/SF ($43,560 per acre). Access and utilities are available~to 1111 ___ 1111!11_IIII this site. . EXHIBIT I Site 6 is an 18-acre site owned by Baptist Health. Addition acreage is available from adjacent property owners so a 20 plus acre site could be obtained. Price is in the $2.00 to $2.50/SF ($87,120 to $108,900 per acre) range. Access and utilities are available to this site. Site 7 is property owned by PCSSD that is adjacent to Crystal Hill Elementary. Approximately 20 acres of the 30 acres originally purchased for an elementary/middle school site is available for a middle school. The property value in this area is probably in the $3.50 to $5.00/SF ($152,460 to $217,800) range. This site could be used in a land swap if needed. Following Mr. Sharkey's presentation a field trip via PCSSD school bus was made to visit each of the possible sites. The field trip concluded at approximately 8:00 PM. Next meeting of committee will be at Oak Grove Elementary on Wednesday, May 8, 2002 at 5:30 PM.  Revised 05/01/02 CRYSTAL HILUMAUMELLE AREA MIDDLE SCHOOL SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE COMMITTEE MEMBER Terri Ayers ( j. ; 12 Mine Hill ; I No. Little Rock, AR 72118 758-2861 / Russell Laster 24 Hogan Drive Maumelle, AR 72113 851-2151 j Ms. LaBrenda Cohens 1 \u0026lt;1j ').. ?- 7-022 Marche Lateral Road No. Little Rock, AR 72118 851-1717 Mr. Anthony Gross ~,- ., 10711 Mundo Road No. Little Rock, AR 72118 r t \u0026gt;.- Ms. Diane Jones _,} r  123 Ridgeland Drive  Maumelle, AR 72113 851-8188 / M s. P am Skile s ..f,. . :,.. i ,,. \".I  ': .;_ 13 Havenwood Lane 1\\ 1 Maumelle, AR 72113 753-7653 / Ms. Pam Roberts 117 Carnahan, Suite 3 : .1. :.  {:'j : i.__:,tJJ :,..., Maumelle, AR 72113 851-9300 ,11'1s. Essie Coffee .i'. 1),/ 13916 Old Maumelle Rd. Maumelle, AR 72113 851-2696 I ,. ! v'Walter Pace , l-s( i'-,  25023 Highway 365, North Maumelle, AR 72113 851-1388 :. : . \\ ~ .. ~\\ ~ REPRESENTING Crystal Hill Elementary Parent Crystal Hill Elementary Parent Oak Grove Elementary Parent Oak Grove Elementary Parent Knight Intervenors Community Person PCSSD School Board Member District Bi-Racial Committee District Bi-Racial Committee I EXHIBIT /3 -/4s. Mary Scruggs 8 Hickory Place Maumelle, AR 72113 851-8450 -l -.. .. - vl\\1r. Brent Lowrey J. :;.!' . '. (t\\.; 14505 Berberich No. Little Rock, AR 72118 803-4456 . /4r. and Mrs. Reggie Davis _  4 Holly Brook Cove :,_.\\ ';\\) I 1 Maumelle, AR 72113 851-2177 , Mrs. Nancy Foster 12 Barber Drive Maumelle, AR 72113 851-8708 / 1-Mrs. Shenel Sandidge '.  : . _ ,, 17 Pin Oak Loop (_., . Maumelle, AR 72113 \\ (_.-, :,; if_, ,. f:, ~..l 57(H) 682-7893(W) Mrs. Carol Worley 12 Stoneledge Drive i . } \\ ( . Maumelle, AR 72113 'r'.\\ r: : , , . J 851-8208 (H) ~2.1'.\"~.5~5 (W) v1'1rs . Melissa Guldin Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza r: ,, t ! 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 , :\\\\ : \\ Little Rock, AR 72201 376-6200 / Mr. Horace Smith Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza ('.  i : 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 376-6200 .)Mr. Richard Crider 26 Sugarloaf Loop Maumele, AR 72113 851-8846 . . .... -   ..  --  --~--- --- ......... . Oak Grove Elementary Parent , Oak Grove Elementary Parent :,u' Pine Forest Elementary Parent Pine Forest Elementary Parent Pine Forest Elementary Parent Office of Desegregation Office of Desegregation Crystal Hill Elementary Parent . ( . I ~ 's. Barbara Means '.: __ l.~ / M ... 1J, tI; t ,.;-,L. .. ~_r j \"J tv'~ ,'\\\\\": _. 13500 Ridgehaven Road G ; . \\( U i C ..-r \u0026lt; ,.\\ Little Rock, AR 72211 223-8477 Dr. Donald J. Henderson. 925 East Dixon Road Little Rock, AR 72206 490-6209 Dr. Martha Johnson 925 East Dixon Road Little Rock, AR 72206 490-6205 Mr. Jim Sharkey, CCD Director Community and Economic Development 550 Edgewood Drive, .Suite 590 Maumelle, AR 72113 Mr. Junius Babb Assistant Superintendent Little Rock School District 501 Sherman Street Little Rock, AR 72202 Mr. Bobby Acklin North Little Rock School District 2700 North Poplar Street North Little Rock, AR 72114 Crystal Hill Elementary Paren,t PCSSD Assistant Superintendent PCSSD Director of Equity ., . c~;s~s~,ta-_f~ ;r -\u0026lt; . -~ . Pulaski County Special School District . Pro:pQsed)\\fi:dd'}e S~bool ,.  According to the 2000 U.S. Census, 1,984 children between the ages .of 5 to 17 years old reside within-the City of Maumelle . . The average annual growth rate for.this age group w~ 4%, between the y.eatS 1990 and 2000. Based on:this continued average rate of growth, the City of Maumelle should have . approximately 2; 146 children in the-year 2002 and 2, 4l4 children in the: y~ar-2005. According to the 2000 U.S. -Census, 591 children between the ages of 12 to 15 years old . reside within the-City of Maumelle. The average annual growth rate for this age group was 4. 6%, between the years 1990 and 2000. Based on this continued average rate of growth, the City of Maumelle should have  approximately 646 children in the year 2002 and 740 children in the year 2005. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, 431 children between the ages of 13 to 15 years old reside within the City of Maumelle. Unfortunately, the U.S. Census did not obtain data on 12 to 13 year old children. Source: Mr. Jerry L. Bell Assistant Research Specialist Census State Data Center UALR Institute for Economic Avancement Tel: 501-569-8538 EXHIBIT I ~ RECEIVED C lr-D \\f- li--..J\"l'ff OCT 2 9 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERJ.'-J DIVISION U s OISlRICT ~~SAS EASTE.RN DISTRICT oc, 2 5 2002 JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLER~ B'f.- OE.P CLE.RK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.I, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MOTION FOR HEARING REGARDING RELEVANCE OF 28 U.S.C. 455 TO THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move the Court to set a hearing for the purpose of determining whether 28 U.S.C. 455 has any relevance to the present proceedings. The Joshua Intervenors respectfully submit that 28 U.S .C. 455 states: (a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate [magistrate judge J of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questions. (b) He shall also disqualify hi\"mself in the follovving circumstances: (]) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding; (2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judg eor such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it; (3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or -1- expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy; (d) For the purpose of this section the following words or phrases shallhave the meaning indicated: (1) \"proceeding\" includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of litigation; In reference to 28 U.S .C. 455(b)(2), the Comt is required to disqualify itself\"where in private practice he served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy ... \" Undersigned counsel are informed that the Honorable District Court, while in private practice, appeared in 833 F.2d 113 (8th Cir. 1987) in re: Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski Countv Special School District, No. 1., Nos. 87-2150 and 87-2363, before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The cited Opinion addressed the issue of whether Judge Henry Woods should be disqualified. The disqualification - issues had been raised by several of the parties including, notably, the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District. See attached Opinion, Exhibit A. The Court of Appeals determined \"that errors of procedure took place but we do not agree that it is reasonable to infer partiality or bias on the part the able and experienced district judge.\" The Court of Appeals apparently upheld the arguments of his honor which were made while His Honor was in private practice. The Court of Appeals did not explain its reasons in that Opinion but did so in 839 F.2d 1296, 1299. The disqualification issues, which were presented by His Honor while in private practice, were addressed in a lengthy Opinion on pages 1301, 1302 and 1303. The Court of Appeals, in that same Opinion, also addressed many of the issues which are raised or could have been raised in the present proceedings including compensatory programs in the LRSD, 839 F.2d 1306, magnet schools, 839 F.2d 1309, and teacher assignments in LRSD, 839 F.2d 1296. -2- The Court , in writing its Opinion dated September 13, 2002, included virtually all the citations from the Court of Appeals (see Exhibit B) hereto but did not refer to, mention or address these two impo1iant Opinions in which the Collli, participated as a trial attorney in private practice. Plaintiff's counsel have sought to obtain the briefs which were filed with respect to Nos. 87-2150 and 87-2363 by His Honor, while in private practice, and any other briefs or activity which address that subject and have been unable to do so in a timely fashion. Their own records are incomplete regarding those filings . Request has been made of the Clerk of the Court of Appeals, however, to retrieve such briefs of all the parties regarding the two cited cases and are informed by the Clerk of that Court that he will retrieve the file. See Exhibit C. The Joshua Intervenors request that the Court convene an evidentiary hearing for the purpose of exploring the role the Court had, if any, while in private practice with respect to the subject case. - In this respect, counsel having just learned this information, also notes that the Court has employed as a law clerk of the Court's staff one of the original lawyers who filed the instant case, Ms. Janet Pulliam. Counsel also note that at least one of Joshua counsel is a friend of Ms. Pulliam. Ms. Pulliam and her associates, however, are listed as counsel of record in at least these appellate citations; 778 F.2d 404, 407; and 959 F.2d 716. She was in association with Phil Kaplan and other counsel in833 F.2d 112 where Mr. Kaplan's name appears before the Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. and she was in association with Mr. Kaplan in 839 F.2d 1296. This is confirmed by the fee application of counsel for the LRSD which went to the Comi of Appeals in 1992. See Exhibit D. The Joshua Intervenors believe that 28 US.C. 455 issues are raised which should be developed at a hearing. Counsel are not moving for the Court to recuse at this time; however they would like to have an opportunity to review the proceedings that are set fo1ih above and any other ,., - .) - writings to which the Court was privy, while in private practice, between himself and his client, Judge Woods. In that way, the Com1 and the pai1ies would be in a better position to address the applicability of 28 U.S.C. 455. FURTHERMORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully further pray that at such heaiing the Court 1) inform counsel whether the present assignment of this case to this Court considered His _Honor's earlier role in the case while in private practice, in the light of28 U.S.C. 455(b)(2); 2) the basis for the Com1's conclusion that it did not have a duty to recuse pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 455 (b )(2); and 3) request that the Court, if possible, make available to counsel copies of all briefs which His Honor has filed in this case while in private practice. '; 7 / ,. ./ , I / I .  I, . I  //\\ /--J';,( -~-+ ,/_ ~ '-c,'2-r,.;,f,-/'Lu:..._;, Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 40960 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 Respectfully submitted, Jo n W. Walker, AR Bai No. 64046 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (50 l) 374-3 758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) Rickey Hick1\u0026lt;_9{ Bar No. 89235 -. Attorney at L-a:w Evergreen Place 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 (501) 663-9900 -4- \\ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing: hqf been serzs:9- fl -~ ,,,and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to the following counsel of record, on this i-5 , l\\_day of cfl-. '/?-\u0026amp;..., 2002: Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 -5- Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rocle Arkansas 72201 Ivlr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL LAW FIRM 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 3 833 FIWERAL llEI'ORTEU, 2d SE!t!ES In 1e LJ'l\"J'LI~ HOCK SCHOOi, lllS'!'lllC'r, Petilloncr. LITTLE HOCK SCIIOOL DIS'fJtl C:r, Appellant, V. PUl,ASIU COUNTY SPECIAi, SCHOOi, DlS'l'Rl\u0026lt;.:I' NO. I, Appcllcc. Nos. 87-2150, 87-2303. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth CircuiL Submitted Nov. 3, 1987. Deciclcd Nov. 6, 1U87. Supplemental Opinion Filed l'eb. 9, 1988. l.,iligalion was hroughl involving election for school board positions. The Uniled States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Henry Woods, J., direct,. ed elections for three school board positions and nppenl was filed and petition for writ of mandate was filed asking for disqualification of district coutt judge. The Court of Appeals, Arnold, Circuil .Judge, held Lhnt: (1) fact Lhat lawyer wilh whom trial judge once practiced npp\"ared at one time in nnolher case consolidated with pending cnse did not require district court judge's disqualification, and (2) enors of procedure in p1oceeding did not give rise lo reasonable inference of parLialily or bias so as to require disqualiricalion of district courL judge. Ordered accordingly. J. Judges e,,45 Fact that lawyer with whom district court judge once practiced appeared at one lime for amicus curiae in case consolidated with and Inter severed from pending case did not warrant disquali(icalion of district court judge; consolidated case was closed case, or at most, dormant, when it was consolidated and such fleeLing and tenuous connection did not require recusal. 28 U.S. C.A.  455(n), (h)(2). l.   Herny Woods, Unile\u0026lt;I Slates Dislrlct 2. Judges \u0026lt;S=-~9(1) Procedural errors which occurred in litigation involving school board election did not give rise to reasonable inference of partiality or hias so as to require disqualification of district court judge. 28 U.S.C.A.  465(a), (b)(2). P.A. Hollingsworth, LiLtle Rock, Ark., for appellant. William R. Wilson, Jr., Little Rocle, Ark., fot Judge Woods in mandamus. Phil Kapla,i, Little Rock, Ark., for Little Rock School Dist.  Sam Perroni, Little RocU, Ark., for Rayburn. Phillip Lyon, Chicago, 111., for North Lit,. tie Rock. Before HEJi NEY, ARNOLD, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges. ARNOLD, Circuit Judge. The two proceedings captioned above, to gether wiLh a number of appeals raising related issues, were argued before us on November 3, 1987, in Little Rock, Arkansas. Two of Lhe many important issues p1esenled deserve immediate answers: (1) Shall the school-board election now scheduled for December 8, 1987, in the Little Rock School District (LRSD), be allowed to lake place? (2) Who shall preside over the District Court! No. 87- 2368 is an appeal by LRSD from Lhe DistricL Court's I order of October 1, 1987, directing that elections for three school-board positions be held on December 8, 1987. This order is affirmed. We find no error of law, abuse of discretion, or clearly erroneous finding of fact in the District Court's order. It is ou, understanding that LRSD is free now to pursue actively the search for a new superintendent, and that it will be free to hire someone right after the elec tion. No. 87-2160 is a petition for writ of mandamus filed by LRSD, asking us to Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. APPLICATlON OF WOOD 113 Cltcns833 F.211 ltJ (SlhClr. 1981) declare that Judge Woods should have dis- The judgment in No. 87-2363 is affirmed qualified himself. In the alternative, it is The petition for writ of mandamus in No. suggested that we simply direct that anoth 87-2160 is denied. We t.lirect lhnt our rnnn er judge be assigned lo this case. ln addi dates in these lwo cases issue forthwiU1 lion to the petition for mandamus, various 1 t is 50 ordere\u0026lt;l. appeals also include suggestions for Lhe disqualification of the trial judge. We are not satisfied that such drastic re1ief is ap propriate. [1] Two main grounds for recusal are urged. First, a lawyer with whom Judgt? Woods once pracLiced appeared at one Lime for an amictis curiae in a case called Cla,t, v. Board of Educ. of the Little Rock School Dist, No. LR-C-64-155. The o;otrict Court first consolidated Cla,k with the instant case, then later severed it and returned it to the docket of another judge. Disqualification is sought under 28 U.S.C.  455(b)(2), which requires disqualification \"where in private practice . . a lawyer with whom [the judge] previously prncliced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter.\" We disagree with this argumenl Clark was a closed case, or at most dormant, when it was consolidated with this one, and in any event it has now been severed. We do not think that such a fleeting and tenuous con nection between the present case and the judge's p3rlner's activiLies while in practice years ago, was intended by Congress to require recusal. [21 In addition, Lhe parties seeking disqualification assert that because of certain procedural improprieties the judge's \"impartiality might reasonably be questioned.\" 28 U.S.C.  455(a). We agree that errors of procedure took place, but we do not agree that it is reasonable to infer partiali ty or bias on the part of U,e able and experienced District Judge. He has performed with diligence in circumstances that are anything but easy. We decline to re rnove him from the case.  Another opinion will be filed in due course further explaining our reasons for the conclusions expressed today with re spect to the election and disqualification matters, and addressing as well the other questions raised in these cases. In re Applicalion of Lnny A. WOOD lo Appear Before the Grnnd Jury (Misc. 85-L-02). Appcnl of UN11'ED S'l'A'fl~S of America. No. 86-1719. United SLnl.es Court of Appenls, Eighth Circuit Submilled March 10, 1987. Decided Nov. 12, 1987. Former conspirncy defendant, who w; acquilted, broughL applicalion to mnke inc vidual presentation lo grand jury concer ing allegations of perjury by F'Bl agent. United States ALtorney presented alleg lions lo grand jury, which declined to t.al acLion. Applicant then filed petition alle ing matter had not been fairly present, nnd again requesting permission to nppe before grand jury. The United Slntea D lrict Court, District of Nebraska, Wan, !{. Urbom, J., issued order lo United St.ul Attorney of Disll\"ict to make represen1 lion of matler, or applicant's petition war be granted. The United States appeal\u0026lt; The Court of Appe\u0026gt;tls, Henney, Cir\u0026lt;! Judge, held that (1) District Court's ori was proper exercise of supervisory pow and (2) order did not violate separation powers. Affirmed. f\u0026lt;'agg, CircuiL Judge, dissented w opinion. ~ --  \u0026lt;.\u0026gt; ~- ..) ---:s: -~ l-l{ - 921 F.2d 1371 (1990) 949 F.2d 253 (1991) 56 F.3d 904 (1995) 148 F.3d 956 (1998) 243 F.2d 361 (1957) .369 F.2d 661 (1966) 426 F.2d 1035 (1970) 449 F.2d 493 (1971) 465 F.2d 1044 (1972) 705 F.2d 265 (1983) 778 F.2d 404 (1985) - 971 F.2d 160 (1992) 131 F.Jd 1255 (1997) 83 F.Jd 1013 (1996) 112 F.3d 953 (1997) JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS ivlr. j\\,fichael Gans United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Thomas F. Eagleton Court House Room 24.329 111 South 10th Street St. Louis, MO 63102 JOHN vV. 'vVALKER, P.A. A'ITORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FA.t'C (501) 374-4187 Vi.a Facsimile - 314-244-2780 October 22, 2002 Re: Case No. 84-1543 Little Rock School District v. Joshua; Case No. 84-1620 Little Rock School District; OF COUNSEL ROBERT JVIcHENRY. P.A. DONNA J. 21-IcHENRY 8210 HENDERSON ROAD W'ITLE ROCK. ARKANSAS i2210 PHONE: (501) 372-3425  FAX (501) 372-3428 EM.ill: mchenryd@swbell.net Case Nos. 87-2150 and 87-2363 - Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School Dear Mr. Gans: Would you kindly search your files and advise whether you have in your archives the briefs of the Appellants and the Appellees regarding the above captioned cases. I am panicularly interested in whether there were briefs filed on behalf of the District Court in the above captioned cases. JWW:js Thank you for your attention to this matter. ~incerely, %9 F'JWBJIJ\\L ItEPOitTJm, 2d SERJES Cl'lTl,E R\u0026lt;JCI( SCHOOL D!STR!CT. Appollant, Aune Milchell; Bob Moore; Pfl.t Gee; Pal Rayburn; Mary .T. Gngej North LiHli Roch CIDs:;room Teachers Associalion; Pula!;Jd Association rJf Clai-~room TeaChP.r~; Litf.le Rock Cl~ssroom 'J.'':!:achers Association; Al~xa Arm slron:;; I{arlos Armsfronr;; Etl Bullinv ton; 1\\h,yyam DcJ.vjs; .Jani1.::e Deni: John Harrison; Alvin 1-J.ndson; Talia Hut.Ison; Milton .Jacksoni Lor\u0026lt;2:ne Jo.~ht1a; Lesl.ie .lo!'lhu;:,.; Stacy .Joshua: Wayne .Joshuai ltatherine f{nighl: Sara Matthews; Ber.it)' Mcl{inney; .Derr iclt Milesi .hrnlCe Miles; .John M. Mi l2s; NAACPi Joyce Person; Brli1n Tnyl01:; Hilton Taylor; Par5l,a 'f~ylor: RfJbert Willingham; 1'011y~ Willi11g. ham, Jnterve11orn, V. PULASIU COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOi, D_18TJ1ICT II I; North Little . Rock School DislrJct; Ll;!:OI\\ B:irues; Sheryl Dunn; Mac Faulhn~ri Ilichanl A. Gid, ding:,; Mari:,.rme Go::;ser; Dl111 Hind man; Shirley Lowery; Bob Lyon: GCorge A. McCrary; Bob l\\lf)rnr.; Stert Morley; Buddy R~ines; D~vid Sain: Hoh Stender; Dole Wnrd; John \\VRrd: Judy Weari Gni.inger Williams, Dcfen- 1lant-::, PhiliJl E. Kapla11; JanP.t PulH::i.mi John Bi.lheilner; F.A. Holling!'iworth, Appel lees. LITTLE llOCK SCl!OOL JJJSTHICT, Appellee, Aune Mitchell; Bob P.-'loore: Pat Gee; Piit R~Jburn; Mary .T. Gage; fforth Lilllr . Roel( Clrtl=i!'il'oorn Teachers /\\ssociation: Pul::u,ld As:mciation or Classroom Teachers; Little Reel\u0026lt; Classroom Te::tchets Assnc.ialion; Alexa J\\_rm!' it.ro11g; I{arlos An11!'itron11; Ed Dul/ingt, 111; l{huyyam Dads; Janice Deni: .Jo h 11 Hnnisun; Alvin Hut.Ison; T:1li.i ; . t: i.,l'l'TLE 1t0CJ{ SCHOOL lHS'l', \" Plll,ASIO \u0026lt;)T\\'. 8CltOOL I . 'i.l'I Cllc :i.c: 959 F.,.d 716 (IUh Cir. 1992) Huclsun: Milton Jackson; .l,ur-?:nc Josh- Sara l\\lnU:llcw:,: H\u0026lt;'cl(J' l\\'lcllin ucJ'; Hcr- 110; Le~lie. Joshua; Slncy Joshun; riclr J\\.li les; .Tn ni (e Mi.lr.:r.; Jo hn M. Wr1y11e Joshua; J(alhninc J.{nighl.; Miles; NAACP; Joy\u0026lt;:~ .Pcnm11: Bthrn Sl\\rn ~fa.Llhews: He.ckr l\\ld{ inuer; Der- Taylor: .lli ll.0 1\\ 'l':t)' lor; Par i:: hn TaJ lor; rick ~mes; Janice ntiles; .Juhn I\\'[. lloherl. \\V illi11 p. lrn 111: 'f'onJ'a Willin rr- ~liles; NAACP; Joyce Persol!; Ddan Imm, lulervcnon;, Tr1rlor; Hilto11 Taylor; Pan; lrn. Tay lor; v .  Robert Willi11ghru11: To11yn Will ing- PUl. ,\\Sl\\l CO\\JN'l'Y sn;c.u1. SCIIOOI, ham, IntervenonJ, PULASl{l COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT # I: North Little !lock School District: L(!on Barnes; Sher.\\'! D111111: J\\lnc Faullrner; Riclrn rd A. GicldingSi Mnria1111c Gosser; Don Himlmnn; Shirley i..fJtrery: Bob L)'OJli George A. l\\kCrory; Bol, Moore; Sl.c,e ~forley; Butld.r Rnines; Dadd Sain: Dab Stender; Dale \\Varel; .J ohn Wnnl; Judy Wear; Grainger Willin111s, De[en don ls, Philip E. J{nphn; .i~t1et Pullia111; .John IJilhcimer: P.A. llo ll i11gsworth, Appe/la11ls. LITJ'LE ROC![ SCHOOL DIS'l'!llCT. Appelhrnt, Anne Milchclli llolJ l\\foore; Pat. Gee; Pnf: Hayburn; l\\fory .J. Gage: Norlh Little flock C.:las~room Tcad1crs Association; Pulos-kt Assor.iation ur Classro(1m Tenchers; J ,iltle Rock Cla~sroont . Teo.chers J\\.ssodalion; Alcxn Arm-strong; Rarlos Annslro11g; Ed B11fli11r.lo11; l(hayyfuu J.)avi!';; Janice Hcnl.: John Harrison; Aldn Ilml.c;on; 'l'alin Hudson: Milton .fncksoni .Lorc11e .Jo~h. ua; Leslie .Joshua; Sl0;cy J o~ lrn :i; Wa_rne .Jo~lni:i.; !{nllt!!dne JC11 ig-llt.i IJISTl l l CT ff .l: North l,lltlc H.oclt fk hoo l Hist.rid: Leon JJ:in1 1~!;i Sher.1'1 1J111111; .t\\:lnc Ji'1111 llmer; lticJrnnl A. n it1- di 11 r,s; Muri:rnne Om:sex; ])un Jl i1111- 1tm n; Sh irlny l,nwcty: Uob L.Yon: \u0026lt;:cnrirc A. McCrnry; Hoh Moon::; Steve .l\\'lorl~y; Utu111y .1lai 11 e5; 1):1\\'id S:i i1t; Boh Sl:cntlc r; On ie \\Vnnl; John Wnnl; Jud]' Wear; (~ rai11 r~er \\V illi;1111 ~, DP.fen~ Phi.lip R Rapln11: .fmtd I1u11i:1111; Joh11 Bilheimer: P.A .. ll ollin ~!-wmth. Appcll cte,;. Nos. D.l-.tr.3R, !H-1U1R, , .. ,,1 D.l--ZIG2. United Stat.es Court: or Appe:tlf::, gight;h Circuit. Suhmitted ,fan. '1, J992. Decided Marc:li ?..!I, .lH92. .Law firm which ,eprescuted school di$ti ict in schoril de~eg-rcg:ll:io11 Ci\\SC n11plied (or att.orney fees for  ~crv icP.s rendP. rr.,1. The United Stat.e~ .Uisl.rkt Court for I.he gast.r.rn Dist.rid n( Ark~nsas, Snsa11 Web her Wrir,hl:, ,J.1 round thnt. di~trict Wt18 a prevnili11g p:ut_y, l:h:it t.l1e parties hn,I agreed l:lrnt clisl:dct would prosecute foe pct.ilions at firm~ pn~vailing 1ntet,, that di~t.rid wonlrl pay tliffcrP.nr:.c bet.ween \\.heir billed ml.rs \"ml \\ltocr.ed~ u.f nny :tU.oi:11cys1 fees award, and 1.hnt I.he p:trtir.~ hnll rnotlifir. cl their n,rrec111c11l. l,t\u0026gt; providP. that ixro11p :ind firm \\\\;ou ld split: ewinly any aw:tnl mncle h_1 the coo rt. I lir,l.rid nppe:ile,1. The Court of Appeals he.lei I.hat: (1) nmouol: of nwanl was neil .her dearly erro1H?.0115 nor ~huM of ,!iscrnl:ion: (2) (i11din1,r l.h:1t. cnt\\- 1-rnd r.xisl.ed hct:wccn clistr id: hnd firm a11d conl.enL\":: of I.Im cont.rnd w:m supported hy I.he e,,idenr.e; and (B) tlisl.ricl: w:is not e::; l: opp,~d 1-(1 dcf~nd :tj{:dn~I: conlP.nl.ion llrnt superin!:cudent had np;recd l.o firm's ptopost, I for r;o;r,o ~plit in aw~rd of :'tU.ornnys' foes . Affirmed. --:..---____ __ _ RECEIVED OCT 3 1 2002 f:t1 -o UC'.' Mn: f~.fl.JI IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT coultl5'rt:,~N 8itf~,trl 1 OFFICE OF EASTER.t\"'\\J DISTRICT OF AR.KAJ.\"'\\JSAS DC Hicr,4Jtt;SA.s DESEGREGATIOH MOHITORIHG WESTERN DIVISION JAM T 2 5 lOO By.- s VV Mccc , '2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL _DISTRICT NO.I, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RMA.cic 'L'~F Of: P C(;;;RK DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS THE JOSHUA INTERVENOR'S MOTION TO STAY REDUCTION OF ODM STAFF The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move for the entry of an order staying reduction of the - ODM staff, if any, until the final approval of the ODM budget. For cause, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully show the Court as follows: 1. On or about October 14, 2002, Intervenors' counsel learned from an African American staff member of ODM, Ms. Linda Bryant, that she had been given notice of termination as an ODM staff member effective on or about October 15, 2002. Ms. Bryant conveyed to counsel her understanding that her termination was attributable to a directive or requirement of this Couii. 2. Thereafter, in an Order entered on October 16, 2002, this Court recognized that under the law of the case [LRSD v. PCSSD, 971 F.2d 160, 166 (8 1h Cir. 1992)], the pa1iies must have the opportunity for comments and objections prior to final approval of the ODM budget. See Order, para. 3. This Court also wrote that \"no proposed [ODM] budget has yet been submitted .. .. \" Order, para. 4. A. \\j os hua. staymnt -1- 3. The number of ODM staff is a matter encompassed in the ODM budget. 4. In view of the content of the Court's Order of October 16, 2002, it appears that (a) the termination of Ms. Bryant may have resulted from a misunderstanding; (b) alternatively, any actual directive or requirement that Ms. Bryant be te1minated, prior to the completion of the budget-approval process, was inconsistent with the law of the case. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully pray that the Court delay any reduction of ODM staff until final approval of the next ODM budget and declare that it was not the Comi's intention that any reduction in ODM staff take place before final budget approval. Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 A: \\joshua.staymnt Respectfully submitted, y' hrr W. Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 / 'JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (50 l) 3 74-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) Rickey Hicks, AR Bar No. 89235 Attorney at Law Evergreen Place 1100 Nonh University, Suite 240 Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 (501) 663 -9900 -2- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent by fa~ and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to the following counsel of record, on this ';2_ ,;1-/4iay of 62-e,6.i..\u0026amp;.-.\u0026gt;c- 2002: Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 A: \\jos hua. staymnt Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3 4 72 Mr. Richard Roachell ROA CHELL LAW FIRNf 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-73 88 Jo~;lw. Walker  I_ ., - .) - A.uonz2y at Zc.w 1723 Broad,,vcry Lt..,_,l~ Roe~ ld.7,b:?t.ras ';1206 Te!ephor:e (501) 374-3758 Fr=: (501) 374-418~ .L~\"\u0026lt;{ TR.~\"fSiY.J1SSION COv-:E.R SHEET .... J. Da:ie_ ,- L Io ( J.. c I Zo O --z- 1 .;o.- [ Fa::.. [ $7/-0107) i Re: [ Sender~ (_ YOU S'.!.~OuID R.ECE.:.'i/E [__ __( including cover shee~J] Pd.GE(S), INCLUDING TEJS COvL'?. \u0026amp;\u0026lt;-:.TET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE .tl...LL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL \"\u0026lt;(501) 374-3758\u0026gt;\" The iD:fur.nmion coi.mined.in tlll! fucs;mile =age is a.ttoraeyprivileged.ao.d coufidenti:il .in:formation im:encied only for the use of tb.e indidua! or entity namd above. Tf the re~e: of mis message is not th.e incencied reci-pie!lt, or tb.e e::nployee or ..g~ ~onsibie ,o ~liver re ro dle in:.;;nd.cd. recrpien.:, you are b.e.--eby ll.O~ed ibar my dissetrinarion. c!L-mbunon or copying of 1bis communication is sn-ictly prohibim. if you have received. dris communic:i.tiOll m =r, pies.se i=.ediE.Ie ilOttty us by ,:clepr..one, and return ,he or:ginal me.;sage to us E.! tb.e above address via die U.S. Pesta! Service. T..:lc.llk you.. ---------------------- ~ RECEIVED OCT 3 1 2002 - OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT vs. 4:82CV00866-WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al ORDER FILED E U.S. DISTRICT COURT ASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS OCT 2 5 2002 ~~Mr-Y~_-s_w=GG'.::~::Q~~::':Q~:.C l!;RK -- ~ PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS Joshua Intervenors' Motion to Stay Reduction of ODM Staff is DENIED because it is moot- please see the Order entered on October 16, 2002. IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of October, 2002. W~0.~- UNITED ST A TESDlSTRICT E THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE (~~~~1~1,j~Q~~~~~.~~ 6 9 2 1N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVED PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL OCT 3 0 2002 OfFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORJNG DEFENDANTS JNTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO JOSHUA INTERVENOR'S MOTION FOR HEARING REGARDING THE RELEVANCE OF 28 U.S.C.  455 TO THE PRESENT PROCEEDING Plaintiff Little Rock School District (hereinafter \"LRSD\") for its Response to Joshua Intervenor's (hereinafter \"Joshua\") Motion for Hearing Regarding the Relevance of 28 U.S.C.  455 to the Present Proceeding states: 1. Joshua's Motion should be denied for failing to comply with the requirement of Local Rule 7.2(a) that all motions be accompanied by a brief consisting of a concise statement of the relevant facts and applicable law. Joshua essentially seeks to obtain discovery from the Court to determine whether grounds for disqualification exist and an advisory opinion as to the applicability of 28 U.S.C.  455(b)(2). The LRSD knows of no legal authority for Joshua to obtain discovery from the Court. If such legal authority exists, Joshua should include it in a brief as required by Local Rule 7.2(a). It is well-settled that advisory opinions are rarely, if ever, proper in federal litigation. See Order filed Feb. 19, 2002, p. 1 (Docket No. 3576). 2. Joshua's Motion should also be denied because (a) it is too late for Joshua to seek recusal based on the Court's representation of the Honorable Henry Woods over a decade ago and (b) the Court's prior representation of Judge Woods does not require recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.  455(a) and (b). WHEREFORE, the LRSD prays that Joshua's Motion be denied; that it be awarded its costs and attorneys' fees expended herein; and that it be awarded all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. F:IHOME\\FENDLEYILRSD 200 1\\unitary-rcsponsc-mot-hcaring-DQ wpd Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on OctoberZr-, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg.  200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 F:\\HOME\\FENOLEY\\LRS D 200 I \\unitary-response-mot-hearing-DQ. wpd 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL   MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED OCT 3 0 2002 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING RECEIVED OCT 3 0 2002 OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO JOSHUA INTERVENOR'S MOTION FOR HEARING REGARDING THE RELEVANCE OF 28 U.S.C.  455 TO THE PRESENT PROCEEDING I. Joshua Cites No Authority Authorizing the Relief Sought. Joshua essentially seeks to obtain discovery from the Court to determine whether grounds for disqualification exist and an advisory opinion as to the appli,cability of 28 U.S.C.  455(b)(2). The LRSD knows of no legal authority for Joshua to obtain discovery from the Court. If such legal authority exists, Joshua should include it in a brief as required by Local Rule 7.2(a). It is clear that Joshua has no right to compel discovery from the Court. See Cheeves v. Southern Clays, Inc., 797 F.Supp. 1570, 1580-81 (M.D. Ga. 1992)(\"At the outset, there is simply no precedent for deposing the presiding judge pursuant to compulsory process in aid of motions to disqualify; and, for a number of practical as well as legal and policy considerations, there is no need or justification for such a procedure.\"). It is equally clear that advisory opinions are rarely, if ever, proper in federal litigation. See Order filed Feb. 19, 2002, p. 1 (Docket No. 3576). For these reasons alone, Joshua's Motion should be denied. II. 28 U.S.C.  455. Joshua's Motion should also be denied because (a) it is too late for Joshua to seek recusal based on the Court's representation of the Honorable Henry Woods over a decade ago and (b) the Court's prior representation of Judge Woods does not require recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.  - 455(a) and (b). Each of these grounds for denial will be discussed in tum below. A. It is too late for Joshua to seek recusal based on the Court's representation of the Honorable Henry Woods over a decade ago. The Eighth Circuit has consistently held that motions to disqualify pursuant to 28 U.S.C.  455(a) and (b) must be filed in a timely manner. Holloway v. United States, 960 F.2d 1348 (8th Cir.1992)( claims under 28 U.S.C.  455 must be made in a timely manner); Oglala Sioux  Tribe v. Homestake Mining Co., 722 F.2d 1407, 1414 (8th Cir.1983) (\"Although 455 does not include an explicit time limitation, we believe that a timeliness requirement is appropriate .... \"); United States v. Bauer, 19 F.3d 409, 414 (8th Cir.1994) (\"This court has held that claims under  455 'will not be considered unless timely made.'\") (quoting Holloway). Parties are required to apply for recusal \"at the earliest possible moment after obtaining knowledge of facts demonstrating the basis for such a claim,\" Apple v. Jewish Hosp. \u0026amp; Medical Ctr., 829 F.2d 326, 333 (2nd Cir.1987), for two reasons: (1) a prompt application affords the district judge an opportunity to assess its merits, and (2) a prompt application avoids the risk that a party is holding back a recusal motion as a fall-back position in the face of an adverse ruling. See In re International Business Machines Corp., 45 F.3d 641,643 (2nd Cir.1995); accord In re Cargill, Inc., 66 F.3d 1256, 1262-63 (1st Cir.1995) (\"In the real world, recusal motions are sometimes driven more by litigation strategies than by ethical concerns.\"); Phillips v. Amoco Oil Co., 799 F.2d 1464, 1472 (11th Cir.1986) (\"Counsel, knowing the f    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_195","title":"Enrollment, LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD, gender and racial count, school capacity, and transfers","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2002-10-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Education and state","School integration","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County"],"dcterms_title":["Enrollment, LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD, gender and racial count, school capacity, and transfers"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/195"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\ne,==- RECEIVED STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 NOV- 7 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT OFFIOCFE FINAL DESEGREGMAOTNIIOTNO RING 1001 - CENTRAL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! 09 7 10 212 187 3 0 0 118 121 659 10 5 4 139 166 2 3 0 112 119 551 11 5 3 Ill 108 3 0 0 88 93 412 12 5 5 107 79 0 3 0 0 103 87 389 ss 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~TALFOR:CE TRAL 22 22 569 541 8 7 l 421 420 2,012 $j1 I,//\u0026amp; .\nI j-1/ I 002-HALL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTALI 09 6 4 134 154 13 16 0 0 34 33 394 10 2 125 120 15 19 0 0 38 29 349 II 2 120 100 6 18 0 50 ?\" _., 321 12 2 0 107 106 9 7 0 0 18 29 278 ss 0 0 4 9 0 0 0 0 5 19 TOTALFOR:HALL 10 8 490 489 43 60 1 0 145 ll5 1,361 ,,,.. /P-.,, 003 - MANN MIS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTALI 06 7 5 89 63 3 63 61 294 07 7 3 86 61 3 0 0 78 52 291 08 3 2 79 71 0 4 2 69 42 273 V TOTAL FOR: MANN M/S 17 10 254 195 6 s 2 4 210 155 858 ~~ f .., ~ -'=-\" .,) !OOS- PARKVIEW GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM Wf WM TOTAL! I 09 3 4 75 72 6 2 0 0 78 60 300 10 3 5 79 64 6 6 0 0 76 48 287 II 5 5 73 70 6 0 76 46 283 /4-AL FOR: PARK\"VIEW 12 4 3 77 59 5 0 0 0 62 59 269 15 17 304 265 23 9 0 1 292 213 1.139 ~ ? -=\n-.o. \" LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Monday, October 28. 2002 Page ! of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 006-BOOKER GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 24 29 0 2 0 0 17 21 94 02 0 21 24 2 2 0 22 16 89 03 2 33 28 0 2 0 0 23 19 108 04 0 0 35 24 3 0 0 38 16 117 05 0 0 36 24 0 0 31 20 113 V K 0 0 26 24 0 0 0 24 20 95 OTAL FOR: BOOKER 4 175 153 6 9 0 155 112 616 9.\n?. .,....., J 007 - DUNBAR MIS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 06 4 6 75 79 6 6 2 0 42 46 266 07 7 5 71 73 6 5 0 0 33 43 243 ~TAL FOR: DUNBAR M/S 08 7 5 69 64 6 0 32 37 222 18 16 215 216 18 12 3 0 107 126 731 I  , -7./  ,, ~ ~ / [oos-FAIR GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 09 0 0 119 136 4 4 3 18 25 310 10 0 0 87 106 2 2 0 32 25 255 11 0 0 80 90 3 0 17 28 220 12 0 0 75 56 2 0 0 0 17 14 164 ss 0 0 9 II 0 0 0 0 0 5 25 TOTAL FOR: FAIR 0 0 370 399 9 9 I 5 84 97 974 7'}\n! ~\n? 1009 - FORST HTS M/S GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF M WF WM TOTAL 06 92 87 3 2 0 0 36 36 258 07 0 106 83 2 0 0 43 33 269 08 0 85 88 2 0 0 43 38 258 SM 0 0 2 9 0 0 0 2 5 19 TOTAL FOR: FORST HTS M/ 1 ! 285 267 8 4 0 0 124 112 804 t\n?1o I .:9,~ ..p LRSD INFORMATIOJ\\' SERVICES DEPT Monda\u0026gt;. October 28. 2002 Page 2 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 010 - PUL HTS M/S GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 06 0 59 69 0 0 0 0 36 45 210 07 2 2 71 80 0 0 0 51 44 251 08 0 0 60 57 4 0 43 61 227 SM 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 8 TOTALF OR:P ULH TSM IS 2 3 191 212 5 1 1 0 131 150 696 .:ts\"8jt' -(oa J ~OJ 011 - SOUTHWST M/S GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 06 99 100 0 0 0 0 0 6 207 07 0 0 96 98 2 0 0 5 3 205 08 0 0 80 80 2 2 0 0 5 4 173 SM 0 0 5 17 0 0 0 0 0 23 TOTALF OR:S OUTHWSTM IS 280 295 4 4 0 0 10 13 608 q~~ -5\"5 I e, ~o F-MCCLELLA GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM T-OTALI 09 0 0 146 155 3 3 0 0 7 11 325 10 0 0 136 142 3 5 0 0 3 9 298 11 0 0 120 97 0 0 7 9 235 12 0 0 89 92 0 0 0 6 6 194 ss 0 0 4 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 *TALFOR:MCCLELLA 0 0 495 496 7 9 1 0 23 35 1,066v' C/9/ 11 5~ 9:?J~ 013 - HENDERSN MIS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTA~ 06 81 89 8 13 0 13 12 219 07 0 73 98 6 9 0 17 16 221 08 0 80 83 4 6 0 15 20 210 SM 0 0 6 19 0 0 0 0 0 5 30 ~T ALF OR:H ENDERSNM IS 2 2 240 289 18 28 2 45 53 680 g\ni.9 c/53 1'6 ?8?'., LRSD INFORMATJON SERVJCES DEPT Monday, October 28, 2002 Page 3 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 015 - CLOVR M/S GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 06 0 117 114 II 17 0 0 7 7 274 07 0 0 109 134 II 14 0 0 7 9 284 08 0 2 112 114 7 8 0 0 4 7 254 SM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 TOTAL FOR: CLOVR M/S 0 3 339 363 29 39 0 0 18 23 814.,., ft--\n{ '1 ~ , I 016-MABEL MIS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 06 0 80 76 0 4 0 0 25 35 221 07 0 102 83 3 3 0 18 24 235 08 0 0 71 84 0 15 21 194 SM 0 0 2 JO 0 0 0 2 2 17 TOTAL FOR: MABEL MIS 0 2 255 253 4 8 l 2 60 82 667 -7,7- ,9 I 7 I ...,. 017 - BALE GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL I 01 0 18 24 4 0 0 2 SJ 02 0 0 JS 18 2 0 0 0 0 36 03 0 17 22 0 0 0 3 4 48 04 0 0 18 17 0 0 2 40 05 0 0 19 16 0 0 0 0 3 39 EE 0 4 7 0 0 0 0 2 15 K 0 24 23 4 4 0 0 2 59 p 0 0 11 ?.I 14 0 I 0 0 3 p 0 ~ 35\n\"\" TOTAL FOR: BALE 2 2 132 141 13 6 0 12 14 323  e1p :?!1 d-,f' ~ LRSD INFORMATION SERVJCES DEPT Monda). October 28. 200'.! Page 4 or 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 018-BRADY GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL I 01 0 0 25 24 0 0 0 2 53 02 0 0 32 21 0 0 0 2 4 60 03 0 0 17 15 0 0 0 6 40 04 0 0 15 15 2 0 0 2 0 35 05 0 0 16 23 0 0 0 0 5 0 44 EE 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 7 K 0 0 18 30 0 0 0 3 3 55 p 0 Q_ 5 )0 5 l_ Q_ I Q_ 0 3 '1 4 5 18  TOTAL FOR: BRADY 0 0 132 135 4 4 0 0 23 14 312  gt..?~ _) 5\" -\nz !020 -MCDERMOT GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 4 13 12 2 0 0 11 15 59 02 2 22 17 2 0 0 9 8 62 03 2 0 14 14 4 4 0 IS II 65 04 0 16 15 3 0 0 0 13 10 58 05 13 16 2 0 0 0 6 6 45 K 4 15 13 0 3 0 0 13 8 57 p 3 0 4 ,, 3 2 o AS o Q 3 l, 3 I! 18 TQTALFOR:MCDERMOT 15 6 97 90 13 11 -r~ 0 70 61 364v' _\nl,.-, / \"'\"' I 021-CARVER GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 2 14 29 0 0 15 20 83 02 0 23 16 0 0 0 IO 27 78 03 0 21 23 0 2 0 0 14 28 89 04 0 20 32 0 2 0 13 18 87 05 0 0 20 24 0 0 0 0 15 22 81 K 3 22 17 2 2 0 12 15 75 TOTAL FOR: CARVER 3 7 120 141 3 6 3 79 130 493V 9-l. I\n\"\\ ..., ~~1 ,:?\" LRSD INFORMt\u0026gt;.TJONSE RVJCESD EPT Monday. October 28. 2002 Page 5 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 022 - BASELINE GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 26 15 0 0 0 3 0 45 02 0 0 20 18 0 0 3 3 46 03 0 0 23 16 0 0 0 3 2 45 04 0 0 22 14 0 0 2 41 05 0 0 16 20 0 3 0 0 4 2 45 EE 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 K 0 0 17 19 0 0 2 0 40 p _o_ .ll.:~3 0 Q ?n 3 r. 4 32 / TOTAL FOR: BASELINE 0 137 116 5 5 2 19 13 299 / 7. ,:\n:j ~ 023 - FAIR PRK GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 17 8 0 0 0 0 4 3 32 02 0 0 18 13 0 0 0 0 3 3 37 03 0 0 13 13 0 0 0 0 5 7 38 04 0 0 10 7 0 0 0 0 0 2 19 05 0 0 14 7 0 0 0 0 s 2 28 K 0 0 17 18 0 0 0 2 2 40 p __ 2 15 ~-:\nJ 2 0 0 .3J)_ _l) A 'z -.5 t11 36 / TOTAL FOR: FAIR PRK 2 104 75 0 0 0 23 24 230 / ?J/. 1024 - FORST PK GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 2 9 12 0 0 0 19 24 68 02 0 2 8 11 0 0 0 0 7 15 43 03 0 2 8 12 0 0 0 10 11 44 04 0 0 7 10 0 0 0 0 17 14 48 05 0 9 8 0 0 0 0 16 16 50 K 2 2 5 5 0 0 19 25 60 L---!l--- --0-- , ~J)_ .....Q__\u0026lt;LQ._Q... ..Q_ - 15 8 :,. 7. 17 / TOTAL FOR: FORST PK 4 8 48 58 3 0 0 95 113 330 / ~\"?f\u0026gt; ''-' I~ ,\nLRSD INFORJ\\1AT JON SERVICESD EPT Monda). October 28. 2002 Page 6 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 025 - FRANKLIN GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 26 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 02 0 31 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 03 0 0 17 28 0 0 0 0 0 46 04 0 0 23 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 05 0 0 28 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 EE 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 13 K 0 19 37 0 0 0 0 2 60 p 0 0 285~24 0 0 0 0 0 l a-1 1.\u0026amp;7s4 __ TOTALFO~ 2 0 178 188 0 0 0 3 3 375 / 1 g70 ~~~ .3 (, 027 - GIBBS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 16 8 0 0 0 0 9 12 46 02 0 2 18 14 0 13 14 64 03 17 16 2 0 0 17 10 65 04 0 11 12 0 0 0 ll ]] 47 05 0 0 13 13 0 0 12 7 47 /4L FOR:G IBBS K 0 2 10 10 0 0 0 0 9 9 40 2 6 85 73 4 4 1 0 71 1~1 309  \u0026amp;\"/lo 1~\"6 11 028-CHICOT GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 32 21 3 6 0 0 5 3 70 02 0 0 21 29 9 8 0 4 3 75 03 0 0 29 25 6 9 0 0 3 2 74 04 2 0 17 34 2 4 0 0 3 5 67 05 0 24 32 6 6 0 0 2 4 75 EE 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 5 18 K 0 0 25 39 4 7 0 0 2 3 80 p 0 0 13\n).\u0026amp;\\5 Q 2 ~ 0 0 0 C\u0026gt; 0 111 36  TOTAL FOR: CHICOT 2 164 200 36 43 0 23 25 495  ?~1i\u0026gt; j,\u0026amp;1 i.3 -1i LRSD INFORMATJON SERVICES DEPT Monday, October 28, 2002 Page 7 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 029 - WEST HIL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 22 16 0 0 0 8 2 49 02 0 0 10 19 0 2 0 0 6 4 41 03 0 0 17 21 2 0 0 0 4 5 49 04 0 0 25 14 0 2 0 0 5 4 50 05 0 13 15 0 0 0 0 s 0 34 K 0 0 15 18 0 0 0 0 s 39 p 0 Q_ 0 12 _Q_ 0 2 -1 2 1v,. 18 / TOTALF ORW: ESTH IL 0 107 112 2 5 0 0 35 18 280  .. ~ Q' :::\u0026gt; \"'5/J 030 - JEFFRSN GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 10 IO 0 0 0 18 12 53 02 0 0 15 II 0 0 0 0 19 18 63 03 0 15 14 0 0 0 0 20 19 69 04 0 0 25 II 0 0 0 0 14 18 68 05 0 9 18 0 0 0 28 20 77 EE 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 K 0 0 15 17 0 0 0 0 14 14 60 p _o_ Q_ I I 0 JL D D 0 0 5 1112 i.t.7 18 - TOTALF ORJ: EFFRSN 3 91r 87 0 0 118 113 415  ../6?. \" 1031 - CLOVR EL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 21 29 6 3 0 0 61 02 0 0 30 31 4 4 0 0 2 72 03 0 0 24 26 2 0 0 0 4 57 04 0 0 21 24 2 5 0 0 0 0 52 05 0 0 23 25 0 5 0 0 0 2 55 K 0 0 28 38 4 7 0 0 2 80 p 0 0 11'9/)19 3_.)L o 0 0 _/_J -~'~,o 35 / TOTAL FOR: CLOVR EL 0 0 158 192 19 27 I 0 4 11 412  3t- f1\n5 '-3'~ LRSD INFORM.AT.I ON SERVICESD EPT Monda). October 28. 2002 Page 8 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 1032-DODD GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! 01 0 0 6 14 0 0 4 3 29 02 0 0 9 9 3 0 0 0 8 34 03 0 0 15 6 0 0 0 12 35 04 0 0 6 8 0 0 0 2 18 05 0 0 6 3 0 0 0 2 4 16 EE 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 10 K 0 0 14 11 4 0 0 4 6 40 p 0 Q_ 11 $. 2... {L ~ 0 0 2.5 ..3 \u0026lt;.e_t718 / TOTALF OR:D ODD 0 0 59 64 12 3 0 0 32 30 200 ~::\u0026gt;-7. . I :::I 1- t~ 1033 - MEADCLIF GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! 01 0 18 12 2 3 0 0 4 7 47 02 0 0 15 26 0 0 0 5 3 50 03 0 13 16 3 0 0 7 5 46 04 0 0 20 11 4 0 0 0 8 4 47 05 0 0 22 14 2 2 0 0 2 43 K 0 0 22 26 0 0 0 5 6 60 0 0 IQ f~ 6 ~ 2 ..J Q_ Q 2 3 5,.,,jo 28 / TOTALF OR:M EADCLIF 120 111 17 9 0 0 33 29 321 / 73--?-i ~cl ~Q' I .) LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Monda). October ~8. 2002 Page 9 of I 7 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 034 - MITCHELL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL OJ 0 0 19 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 02 0 0 24 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 03 0 0 24 16 0 0 0 0 0 41 04 0 0 22 19 0 0 0 0 43 OS 0 0 25 20 0 0 0 0 2 48 EE 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 7 K 0 0 27 11 0 0 0 0 0 39 p 0 0 8 f?S IQ Q 0 C\u0026gt; 0 0 Q 0 Q 1~2-18/ TOTALF OR~:\n:) 0 0 151 125 2 0 0 0 4 2 284/ 97~ 77(., ~ (.p 035-MLKING GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 18 19 0 0 0 25 13 77 02 2 15 24 0 0 21 15 80 03 3 2 19 21 0 21 14 83 04 22 23 0 20 18 88 05 0 20 17 2 0 0 0 9 13 62 K 0 4 23 23 0 2 0 21 22 96 p 3 3 20 ~~13 Q Q (., 0 Q_ 1s~ 0 1s ~[-tl-69v ,OTAL FOR: ML KING IO 12 137 140 5 5 2 2 132 110 555V ~77 3(,, d(..\n/~ ol, 036 -ROCKFELR GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 15 20 2 0 0 0 13 14 64 02 0 0 18 17 0 0 0 0 8 7 50 t~$r'?) 03 0 0 26 13 3 0 0 7 7 57 04 0 0 15 15 0 0 0 8 6 45 05 0 0 20 J 8 0 2 0 0 8 IO 58 K 0 16 17 2 0 0 10 ll 58 p 2 4 22 ,j_j_ ?? Q 0 ~ 2 21,j~ 22 \u0026gt;(l,'?, 96/ *OTAL FOR: E~  2 5 132 122 5 7 2 75 77 428 ~Q.,._ ,.p_:)- JSc,)....J 11- LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Monday. October 28, 2002 Page 10 of 17 hL 1/Jrk,n~-- 3/io/~ ~.,~,.d- :th /4iL .J/ r olt\u0026gt;~ ,H.o\" +I I f\n)t1w~I/ ~u e \"\"' ?If' 0. STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 037- GEYER SP GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 16 13 0 3 0 0 3 3 38 02 0 0 26 21 0 0 0 50 03 0 0 23 18 0 0 2 2 47 04 0 0 25 17 0 0 3 4 51 05 0 0 16 27 0 4 0 0 0 48 K 0 0 25 14 0 0 0 0 0 40 p Q 0 l6~0I~ 2 2 ....\nQ Q o D o \u0026lt;{,'?6 o 34 / TOTALFOR:GEYERSP 0 0 147 124 6 12 0 0 10 9 308-:/ gg?o ~1/ I~ (1 038-PULHTE GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 10 11 0 0 0 0 12 13 46 02 2 8 0 0 0 0 11 11 41 03 11 13 0 0 0 0 12 6 44 04 0 ]I 11 0 0 0 0 13 16 52 05 0 0 ]I 12 0 0 0 0 JO 9 42 K 0 JO 10 0 0 0 0 9 9 39 p 0 2 4 ~ 4 0 I _3 0 0 2 7 2 .']_)/1, V TOTALF OR:P ULH TE 4 5 65, ~ ~9 0 1 0 0 72 66 282 ..yglo /C /:!, ~ 039 - RIGHTSEL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL I 01 0 0 21 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 02 0 0 20 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 03 0 0 23 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 04 0 0 26 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 05 0 0 25 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 K 0 0 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 p 0 Q 1s P'F 1s 0 0 0 0 0 o o _Q_J__,:~:\u0026gt;'r~ TOTALFOe~ 0 0 153 145 0 0 0 0 0 0 298 / Jt}f)(o ~13 0 0 LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Monday. October 28, 2002 Page 11 of l 7 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 040-ROMINE GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL OJ 0 0 12 8 5 0 0 6 4 36 02 0 0 12 15 5 0 0 5 4 42 03 0 JO 18 2 2 0 2 2 38 04 0 13 8 3 0 0 3 30 05 0 0 8 11 4 0 0 3 6 37 EE 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 4 17 K 0 14 17 4 4 0 5 7 53 e J'l (~ 5 1 2 1 0 0 4 I/ 7 #\u0026gt;!- 36  TOTA L FOR: ROMINE 3 2 83 94 16 26 2 0 28 35 2891 ~17' 171 ~1 G.3 041 - STEPHENS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 45 47 3 2 0 0 2 100 02 0 0 35 37 0 0 0 75 03 0 0 45 40 0 5 0 0 2 0 92 04 0 0 38 27 2 2 0 0 0 0 69 05 0 0 37 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 EE 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 2 3 12 K 0 0 43 34 0 0 0 0 2 80 e Q Q 752_/ 26 0 I o 0 0 ,\nL, 2 q-11. 54 TOTAL FOR:~ ~,.. 0 271 261 6 10 1 0 7 9 c:6 q!?o 5~?- I~ /lt' LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Monday. October 28, 2002 Page 12 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 042 - WASHNGTN GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 2 0 28 24 3 0 0 6 3 67 02 2 3 17 19 7 5 0 0 7 8 68 03 2 0 15 24 4 0 0 6 53 04 21 18 7 2 0 0 7 13 70 05 17 21 5 7 0 0 4 8 64 EE 0 6 7 0 0 0 0 2 0 16 K 3 3 22 22 3 2 0 0 10 6 71 ~AL FOR, WASHNGTN p 2 _Q_ _.L(L 'u A _i_j _l_ 0 1. ,~ 12 2 54 / 13 9 136 152 33 19 0 49 51 463 (p,\n\u0026gt;-~ A~i 70 /t, c\u0026gt; 043 - WILLIAMS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 13 19 0 0 0 0 17 15 64 02 4 18 13 0 0 0 0 14 13 63 03 3 6 29 16 0 0 13 19 88 04 2 6 18 28 0 0 0 0 18 18 90 05 3 6 25 23 0 0 0 0 13 25 95 0oTAL FOR: WILLIAMS K 2 19 1~ 0 0 0 0 8 18 60 13 21 122 lll 0 0 83 108 460/ 7e .A,., 3 .:5., 0 1044 - WILSON GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTALI 01 0 0 16 17 0 0 0 2 37 02 0 17 28 0 0 0 0 0 2 48 03 0 0 16 24 0 0 0 43 04 0 0 17 15 2 0 0 0 0 35 05 0 14 18 0 0 0 2 0 36 EE 0 4 16 0 0 0 0 0 22 K 0 0 20 16 2 0 0 0 40 l'_ _()_ 0 2 15 j_ ~ L _J -0- _a_ _Q_ /_1_ \"ilf  17  278 TOTAL FOR: WlL 01' 2 ]13 140 5 4 0 5 7 /1 .., ~ I :\n)_, I . LRSD INFORMATlON SERVICES DEPT Monda). October 28. 2002 Pagel3of17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 045 - WOODRUFF GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 22 20 0 0 0 4 48 02 0 0 14 17 0 0 0 0 3 35 03 0 0 21 17 0 0 0 0 40 04 0 0 22 12 0 0 0 0 0 35 05 0 0 22 17 0 0 0 0 2 42 K 0 0 19 14 0 0 0 0 4 3 40 p 0 0 14~q 15 Q._ 0--12 0- 3 (L__3_ ~ 7 35 / TOTAL FOR: WOODRUFF 0 0 134 112 0 0 0 2 14 13 m-/ 37 /2- ..\n?~ ~ ~, 046 - MABEL EL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 16 17 0 2 0 0 2 38 02 0 0 17 II 0 0 6 0 36 03 0 0 9 16 2 0 0 4 6 38 04 0 0 20 10 0 0 0 0 2 35 05 0 0 17 12 0 0 0 0 7 41 EE 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 0 10 K 0 16 17 0 0 0 0 2 3 39 p 0 0 s 1/ 6 0 Q OQ _lL 3 \" 4 lt/i y TOTALFOR:MABELEL 0 103 94 3 4 0 0 27 23 255 IV 77 ~ ,9~ Q ~ 1047-TERRY GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 4 7 22 29 2 4 0 0 17 15 100 02 2 21 19 3 0 0 13 12 72 03 5 0 19 17 4 2 0 0 19 14 80 04 0 21 19 3 2 0 0 12 13 71 05 2 25 20 0 3 0 0 15 13 79 K 6 3 28 22 6 0 0 16 15 97 p 2 2 4 '1 5 0 0 0 0 I ~ 3 ~\"' 18 ./' TOTAL FOR: TERRY 20 16 140 131 17 15 0 0 93 85 517 -':\u0026gt; ~l- ~'1/ e,,'5 1?0 LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Monda). October 28. 2002 Page 14 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 048 - FULBRIGH GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 12 16 0 0 0 27 33 89 02 2 0 12 s 0 0 0 0 11 37 67 03 0 14 18 0 0 0 23 15 72 04 0 0 21 17 0 0 0 0 18 20 76 OS 0 0 14 17 0 0 0 16 21 69 EE 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 6 K 3 2 10 18 0 0 18 24 77 p 0 2 3 I 0 0 I 0 0 s Ii 6 177. 18  TOTAL FOR: FULBRIGH 6 3 85 94 2 0 123 158 474  ~'6i'v !'?Cj I 050 - OTTER CR GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 23 23 0 0 0 0 11 16 74 02 0 16 22 2 0 0 0 14 10 65 03 0 26 17 0 0 ll 12 69 04 0 17 17 0 0 0 16 14 66 05 0 0 13 21 0 0 0 10 11 56 K 0 2 24 21 0 0 13 17 79 p 2 _Q_ 2 .ts 3 o.3 0 0 4 /0 6 fil 18 / TOTAL FOR: OTTER CR 4 4 121 124 6 3 0 0 79 86 427/ 5\"?,le ~/6\n7 /46 051 - W AKEFIEL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 16 18 3 2 0 0 0 40 02 0 0 24 I 8 6 7 0 0 0 56 03 0 0 19 18 0 2 0 0 0 3 42 04 0 0 26 23 2 0 0 0 0 52 05 0 0 30 18 0 2 0 0 0 0 50 K 0 0 ?_\", 28 7 0 ~ 0 69 TOTAL FOR: WAKEFfEL 0 0 138 123 19 21 0 2 2 4 309v tl- ~~( ..\n/::J-.-\n~ LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Monday. October 28. 2002 Page 15 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 052- WATSON GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL OJ 0 0 40 42 0 0 0 85 02 0 0 36 30 2 0 0 0 0 69 03 0 0 34 31 0 3 0 0 2 73 04 0 0 44 36 0 0 0 0 82 05 0 0 22 30 0 0 0 2 56 K 0 0 29 45 2 2 0 0 0 2 80 :e 0 Q ]!!~ 021 0 l o 0 0 c) 0 . ,171. 36 / TOTAL FOR: WATSON 0 0 219 235 7 7 /}/ 0 6 7 481/ 9-'l?o I~ 725-AGENCY GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL OJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 03 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 04 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 07 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 0 2 II 08 0 0 3 8 0 0 0 0 13 09 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 2 27 IO 0 0 3 9 0 0 0 0 2 15 11 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 5 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 K 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALFOR:AGENCY 0 0 16 59 0 0 0 0 7 JO 92 LRSD INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Monday. October 28, 2002 Page 16 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2002 LRSD ENROLLMENT REPORT FINAL 766-ALC GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 06 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 07 0 0 3 19 0 0 0 0 0 23 08 0 0 4 .z../011 0 0 .P0- -, 0 0 0 0 Ji\nu 95?. 09 0 0 9 24 0 0 0 0 0 34 IO 0 0 4 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 II 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 6 TOTAL FOR: ALC\nI .. J:. 0 0 25 74 0 0 103 \" a/I D _?---- t I 97~ I 1767-ACCL P GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL\\ I 09 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 10 IO 0 0 9 6 0 0 0 0 3 4 22 JI 0 0 30 25 0 0 0 3 8 67 12 0 0 47 31 0 0 0 6 IO 95 TOTAL FOR: ACC LP 0 0 92 64 2 0 0 12 23 194 7. 1- ,:3 '3' GRA DTOTAL: 207 201 8777 8809 455 471 30 27 3294 3251 25,522 t\n:/,,, j --,=--..,..,.._/ 2?,t. 8'o/ ~o/ d),_\n1~'7 ~7.\n1,3 t\n'J~ /?l,p,_/,. ~./ 1\u0026lt;t1 P,'J\nL 1 -1/1 t[, fp~ 71?- ~,../~ /t~ /.,/ .,iiP$~ :5\u0026lt;?~ /) 88.\nL, c.f{, 1 {,~fl , . .::::,. .\n), ~)J~ \u0026lt;3/' is71 ~- \"B1 j,~IP{ /~1o1 t? ---r,-,,,..,/::\n, ~1lP -r\n,..\nl7i~tl\n) 9-CIJ t.~~g- ~.i\nao (,? 7,, ff~ t.,\n) I ,P 8~ ~-g\n.:\nr~tt ~(p~ LRSD INFORMATJON SERVICES DEPT Monda). October 28. 2002 Page 17 of 17 1,95/ ( I General Information - Enrollment Data Page 1 ,\n1 Count results for 2002-2003 for Districts: liiiiiii:iiiit@iittiiiii@ii TERMS:  EE: Elementary - Ungraded  E: Elementary - Ungraded  MU: Middle School - Ungraded  SM: Middle School - Ungraded  SS: Secondary - Ungraded  S: Secondary - Ungraded  P: Pre-Kindergarten  PK: Pre-Kindergarten  K: Kindergarten  KA Kindergarten AM  KF: Kindergarten Full Day  KP: Kindergarten PM Return to Search http://www.as-is.org/search/search_ enr. cgi ?year=2002\u0026amp;data _level=district\u0026amp;distname=600... 1/27/2003 01/08/2003 11:27 Tuniow Babbs 4.ssociate Superintendent lulie Wiedower Director- Dates to Remember: Nov. 27-28-29 Thanbg1vmg . Holiday Nov. 10 PTA Council Brady Elementaxy 11:30 501-324-2281 Nov. 19 School Board Meeting Dec. 23-Jan. 3 Winttt Vacation Jan. 6 Classes Resume Jan. 14 PTA Council Dunbar Middle 11:30 Jan. 17 Teacher Records Day Students Out Jan. 20 King Holiday Students Out Jan. 22-24 \"Check Us Out'' in all schools 9 am to 1:30 pm Jan.17-Feb.7,2003 Registration for 2003-04 Items Needed For Registration: Birth Certificate Social Security Number Proof of Address LR SD SRO PAGE: 01/02 UTTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Student Registration Office 501 Shennan Streei, Little Rock, 4.R 72202 501-447-2950 www.lrsd.org FAX COVER SHEET 501-447-2951 To:_....i..,L..-C?\u0026lt;Wj=-----+--- FaxNumber: 3 / / -O { 0 0 From:_----+-Q------\"A!_'=-WV\\\"\"-=-~-Q__,,i-=-Date:_. _ _.i_/_---=[f_-_0_3_ # Pages Including Cover Sheet: d' Re: ------------------------ cc: _______________________ _ 01/08/2003 11:27 501-324-2281 LR SD SRO Little Rock Schoof District 2002-2003 Capacities 2002-2003 Cape\u0026lt;:i\\let SCHOOi.. Capaciti C6ntraH1S + FairHs____ 122200(0 Hall HS ----1300 includes portables McC/e/lBHt1S 14-40\"i ncludes annex PeriMewM\u0026amp;g~ 1200 Sub-Total 7340 CloverdalMe iddle ~150 DvnbBMl iddle 780 F0tesHt eightMs iddleI -~ Hend9fSoMn iddle -r 960 Msb6t,taMlei ddl9 600 Mell/MI iddle 900 PulaskHi eightsM id\u0026lt;llo 750 SouthwesMt iddle 750 Sub-Total 0270 -----1 Bele:,_ _____ +- _ 383 Base/Jne I 3ro aoo1re, -~~ Brady ' ,09 Carver m Cllicot --~ 509 c~1~=J  -~ Dod_d_ _  27J_ FeirP~--=t~ ForestP 9rk , 400 Triinkfln 532 1-F_u\n_1_J_n_g_-\"--_h_l 49 358 _1 GgyerS pring$ Gibbs 324 ~rson -~ King i 715 ~elyal\u0026amp; -IT. 443 McDermott 453 MeedoWcliff f 358 Mitchell --~ OtterC1'891( +~ ~Heighls- '---~ Righlsell ---r 296 Rockefe~ --r-481  P1 - 5th Grade --- 403 Stephens '--~~ Terry I 597  ,ncludei\nportables Wakefleld I 395 utthzing Badgett Gita includes portables W\u0026amp;shingto,1 I 678 '-------~- Wstson t- 534 WestemH ills 370 ~:\ns=-+ : ~ -- --m Sub-Total 15015 Grand Total 28$25 PAGE 02/02 1/lliOJ LEA: 6002050 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL FORM COUNTY: PULASKI SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT:'. N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: AMBOY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PAGE: 1 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 I GRADEi ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ I TOTAL I I WHITE F BLACK HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M M F M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLL! 561 Bi 41 181 251 11 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I O I O I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLL I 5 6 I 9 I 9 I 16 I 2 2 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 01 11 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLL! 511 61 61 231 161 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 0 I 0 I 11 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLL I 50 I 71 6 I 20 I 14 I 2 I 11 0 I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLL I 621 131 91 161 24 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLL I 51 I 10 I 9 I 22 I 10 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 6 ENROLL I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 B ENROLL I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLL I 3261 531 431 ll51 llll 31 11 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 2 I 0 I 11 11 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- /(. x'~4- -y' \u0026amp;-r\u0026gt; 7,. Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y RECEIVED JAN 2 7 2003 OFACEOF DESEGREGMAOTNIOITNO RING J.,EA: 6002053 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: BELWOODE LEMENTARYS CHOOL PAGE: 2 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 I GRADEi I TOTAL I I WHITE F BLACK ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M M F M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLL! 281 31 31 121 101 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 2 5 I 5 I 2 I 6 I 11 I O I 1 I O I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 20 I 51 3 I 5 I 71 0 I O I OI OI OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 20 I 31 4 I 9 I 4 I O I OI O I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLLI 371 71 41 131 111 01 21 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 5 ENROLLI 18 I 4 I 4 I 7 I 3 I O I O I OI OI OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLLI 11 01 01 01 11 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 8 ENROLLI O I OI OI OI OI OI O I OI O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 1491 271 201 521 471 01 31 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ..\u0026gt;/7 n 3 ~~,-/4 Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y\nLEA: 6002054 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 PAGE: 3 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: BOONEP ARK ELEMENTARYS CHOOL I GRADEi I TOTAL I I M WHITE F BLACK M F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLb\nS9~1 s .11 1111~,1 1so1 1.-1 01 01 01 01 o ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 62 I 4 I 2 I 2 9 I 2 6 I O I 11 0 I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 761 31 21 331 361 11 11 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 761 31 01 251 471 01 01 01 01 01 1 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 581 31 11 241 291 01 11 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLLI 521 11 11 251 251 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 72 I 3 I 3 I 33 I 311 2 I O I O I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 3961 171 91 1691 1941 31 31 01 01 01 1 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+.-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- -jl.5:5. ~.:)..., ~er s fl ~/ ?~ Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y .LEA: 6002055 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOL FORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 PAGE: 4 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: CRESTWOODE LEMENTARYS CHOOL !GRADEi I TOTAL! I M WHITE F BLACK M F ASIAN/ !AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLL! 551 161 181 151 61 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 101 51 51 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 711 2 5 I 2 6 I 14 I 6 I O I OI OI OI OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 1 I O I 1 I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLL! 581 211 181 101 91 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 1 I 1 I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 4 9 I 15 I 14 I 111 8 I O I OI OI O I 11 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLL! 481 131 211 Bi 61 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 0 I 11 0 I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 50 I 151 131 10 I 111 0 I O I 11 0 I OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLL! Oi 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLL! 3311 1051 1101 681 461 01 01 11 01 11 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 13 I 6 I 7 I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+--:::\n-16---+-----:\n7--+-----~--+---~:_\n-\n,--+-----+-----+---- Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y _LEA: 600205 6 PAGE: 5 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: GLENVIEWE LEMENTARYS CHOOL SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 I GRADEi I TOTAL I I M WHITE F BLACK M F I ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC IPACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 2 4 I 6 I 1 I 8 I 9 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 2 9 I 5 I 5 I 10 I 9 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 351 21  31 171 13 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 311 31 31 131 12 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLLI 28 I 11 51 14 I 8 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 36 I 4 I 21 18 I 121 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 1831 211 191 801 631 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ...yo /- 2' o 7/f/o Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y\nLEA: 6002057 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: INDIAN HILLS ELEMENTARYS CHOOL PAGE: 6 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 I GRADEi I TOTAL I I WHITE F BLACK ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M M F M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 77 I 27 I 281 10 I 10 I 0 I 11 0 I 11 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 13 I 6 I 6 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 1 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 7 0 I 2 6 I 2 4 I 8 I 9 I 0 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLL! 751 241 301 71 111 01 01 21 11 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 3 I 11 2 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLL! 661 251 261 81 61 01 11 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 0 I 11 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 4 ENROLLI 7 5 I 2 9 I 2 5 I 10 I 7 I 0 I 1 I 1 I 2 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 11 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLL! 661 211 281 61 101 11 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 21 21 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I O I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 4291 1521 1611 491 531 11 41 41 51 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 201 101 91 01 01 01 11 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+---_:\n3--+----/~:\nL.-+-----+\n7+--- ~+-----+-----+---- Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y :LEA: 6002058 PAGE: 7 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOL FORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: LAKEWOODE LEMENTARYS CHOOL SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 \\GRADE\\ \\TOTAL\\ I M WHITE F BLACK M F ASIAN/ \\AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC \\PACIFIC ISL\\ALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLL\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLL\\ 60\\ 24\\ 26\\ 3\\ 6\\ 1\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 54 I 14 I 20 I 11 I 7 I 2 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLL\\ 55\\ 221 14\\ 9\\ 7\\ 1\\ 11 1\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLL I 4 9 I 17 I 9 I 11 I 8 I 2 I 2 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0\\ 0\\ 01 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLL\\ 421 13\\ 12\\ 131 3\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 11 0\\ 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLL\\ 53\\ 16\\ 15\\ 71 11\\ 1\\ 3\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLL\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 01 0\\ 0\\ 01 0\\ 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLL I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 01 01 0\\ 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLL\\ 0\\ 0\\ 01 0\\ 0\\ 01 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE\\ 0\\ 01 0\\ 0\\ 01 0\\ 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLL\\ 3131 106\\ 96\\ 541 421 7\\ 61 11 1\\ 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 01 0\\ 01 01 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ~0_\n2..-, 9C'r /6 ,4/?.. Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y ~EA: 6002059 PUPIL ENROLLMENBT Y SCHOOLF ORM PAGE: 8 COUNTY: PULASKI SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 SIS: rpt404 ~~\n~~~~:~~~~~:~~\n:\n:~~~~:~~\n~~~:::::~__pl~--~_!:'~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~ I GRADEi ITOTALI I M WHITE F BLACK M F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI O I OI OI OI O I O I OI O I OI OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI O I OI OI OI O I OI OI O I OI OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI O I OI OI OI OI OI OI O I OI OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLLI 6591 1151 1121 1921 2131 111 131 11 01 21 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 1 I O I O I O I 1 I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 6591 1151 1121 1921 2131 111 131 11 01 21 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 01 01 01 11 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ~~7 -\u0026lt;105 ~ '\"I c\n./7, Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y LEA: 6002060 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 PAGE: 9 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: LYNCH DRIVE ELEMENTARYS CHOOL I GRADEi I TOTAL I I M WHITE F BLACK M F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 4 3 I 3 I 2 I 21 I 1 7 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 01 01 11 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 561 51 41 161 301 11 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 531 31 4 I 27 I 1 7 I 2 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 0 I 0 I 11 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLL! 661 21 61 261 311 11 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 1 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 1 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLLI 631 91 4 I 251 251 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLL! 521 61 91 131 241 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 8 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 3331 281 291 1281 1441 41 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 3 I 0 I 0 I 2 I 11 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+--- c:57 --+--- ~7~ +----y ---+- g-_\ni~ ----+-----+-----+---- Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y\nLEA: 6002061 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: MEADOWPA RK ELEMENTARYS CHOOL PAGE: 10 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 I GRADEi I TOTAL I I WHITE F BLACK ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC IPACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M M F M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 2 6 I 4 I 4 I 11 I 7 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 351 31 51 101 171 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 251 3 I 3 I 8 I 9 I 0 I 0 I 11 1 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 3 ENROLLI 21 I 0 I 0 I 8 I 12 I 1 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLLI 261 31 31 71 131 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 24 I 4 I 4 I 9 I 7 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 8 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 1571 171 191 531 651 11 01 11 11 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- -34, 118 ..3 ?~,/4 Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y ,LEA: 6002063 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 PAGE: 11 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: NO. HEIGHTS ELEMENTARYS CHOOL I GRADEi I TOTAL I I M WHITE F BLACK M F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 651 Bl 71 161 181 31 131 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 01 01 01 11 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLL! 671 81 71 171 191 101 61 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 711 61 101 221 181 Bl 71 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 82 I 19 I 12 I 13 I 18 I 13 I 71 0 I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+----. +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLLI 87 I 111 121 22 I 251 111 61 0 I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 791 131 131 201 231 71 21 01 01 11 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 8 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 4511 651 611 1101 1211 521 411 01 01 11 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 01 01 01 11 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- /.\n? ~ ~.31 7~ I?. Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y LEA: 6002064 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOL FORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: PARK HILL ELEMENTARYS CHOOL PAGE: 12 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 I GRADEi ITOTALI I WHITE F BLACK ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC IPACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M M F M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 351 91 71 81 111 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 38 I 12 I 8 I 8 I 10 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 38 I 9 I 4 I 14 I 11 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 381 51 101 101 121 01 11 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 4 ENROLLI 4 2 I 11 I 7 I 14 I 8 I 2 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 561 111 111 181 151 01 11 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 2471 571 471 721 671 21 21 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+----10 -+----\n/ic/--+------ ---+--~~--\n,~--+-----+-----+---- Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y ):,EA: 6002065 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 PAGE: 13 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARYS CHOOL I GRADEi I TOTAL I I M WHITE F BLACK M F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC IPACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 561 121 41 231 151 21 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 11 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 501 111 111 171 101 01 11 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----~-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 411 61 61 131 161 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 551 101 101 201 141 01 01 11 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLLI 641 91 111 211 201 01 21 11 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 451 71 121 111 141 11 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 6 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 3111 551 541 1051 891 31 31 21 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 11 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+----/-\n1--+---:\nw--+-----~---+---~~\u0026gt;=--+-----+-----+---- Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y t'EA: 6002069 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: SEVENTH STREET ELEM. SCHOOL PAGE: 14 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 I GRADEi I TOTAL I I M WHITE F BLACK M F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC IPACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 4 2 I 0 I 0 I 21 I 21 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 441 01 11 231 201 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 501 01 11 261 231 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 481 21 11 211 241 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLLI 53 I 2 I 2 I 25 I 24 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 571 61 41 271 201 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 6 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 2941 101 91 1431 1321 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- / 1 _\n\u0026gt;?5 0 9-Y' Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y -r. 0 -1,o 95 .LEA: 6002070 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOL FORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: LAKEWOODM IDDLE SCHOOL PAGE: 15 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 I GRADEi I TOTAL I I WHITE M I F BLACK ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+--. --+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 6 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 2741 771 881 581 471 11 11 11 11 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 711 261 421 01 11 01 11 11 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLL! 3021 901 1011 621 431 21 21 11 11 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 61 21 31 01 01 11 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 5761 1671 1891 1201 901 31 31 21 21 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- +-----+---- +-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 771 281 451 01 11 11 11 11 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ~~ ~10 /0 ~ts,?, Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y RECEIVED JAN2 7 2003 OFFIOCFE DESEGREGMAOTNIOITNO RING EA: 6002072 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: RIDGEROAD MIDDLE SCHOOL PAGE: 16 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 I GRADEi I TOTAL I I WHITE F BLACK M ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC IPACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 3 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 4 ENROLLI O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 288 I 381 381 104 I 90 I 111 7 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLL! 3011 471 381 1101 951 61 41 11 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 11 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 5891 851 761 2141 1851 171 111 11 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 1 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+--- / ~ r --+-- ~9...-.-+,- -- ~ 1---+- c:8. '?-----+-----+-----+---- Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y ,LEA: 600207 5 PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM PAGE: 17 COUNTY: PULASKI SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 SIS: rpt404 ~~~~~~~~~~1@:~\n,/4:?~,\n,t:a,:.1.D ___________ RuN~Yi~~~s\n~~~\n/~~~~1 I GRADEi ITOTALI I M WHITE F BLACK M F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI /$~I /ll ~I \u0026amp;-'/6'1 4,01 ~I ~I 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 4 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLl/34'1 /-(fl -..e-1 ~~I ~I ~1-1 ~0'1 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+--- -5' ----+--- /~?---+--?----+ ,9..d/4 ----+-----+-----+---- Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y LEA: 6002077 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOL FORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: ROSE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL PAGE: 19 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 I GRADEi I TOTAL I I WHITE F BLACK ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M M F M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 6 ENROLLI 3 I 11 0 I 1 I 11 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 11 7 I 7 I 7 I 54 I 4 7 I 0 I 0 I 11 11 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLLI 1221 101 111 591 421 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 o9\n~\n~~~7--\n~---~:7---~,7--~~~7---\n7----\n7----\n7----~7----~7----\n------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ~-5 3 8 .\n?05 d).-' ?i-.Yi\".. Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y LEA: 6002077 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: ROSE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL-(7,::-,,J-,f. PAGE: 38 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 I GRADEi I TOTAL I I M WHITE F BLACK M F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC IPACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 0 9 ENROLLI 3 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 10 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 11 ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 12 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0i 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 13 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- EE ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I  0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- SM ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ss ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 31 11 11 11 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ******************************************************************************** NUMBERO F GRADUATESF OR PREVIOUS SCHOOLY EAR TOTAL ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- GRADUATEIS 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ******************************************************************************** ~EA: 6002075 PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOL FORM PAGE: 36 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 COUNTY: PULASKI SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: NLR HIGH SCHOOL-EAST CAMPUS !GRADEi I TOTAL! I M WHITE F M BLACK F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 09 ENROLL! 7121 1561 1611 1941 1741 151 lll 01 01 01 1 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 61 31 21 01 11 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 10 ENROLL! 609! 1451 1341 1711 139! 71 61 31 21 11 1 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! lll Si Si 11 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 11 ENROLLI O I OI OI OI OI O I OI O I OI OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 12 ENROLLI O I OI OI O I O I OI OI O I OI OI 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 13 ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- EE ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- SM ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ss ENROLL! Oi 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLL! 13211 301! 295! 365! 313! 221 171 31 21 11 2 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 1 7 I 8 I 7 I 11 11 0 I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- d59\u0026lt;\no ?75\" ~7 d/?. ******************************************************************************** NUMBERO F GRADUATESF OR PREVIOUS SCHOOLY EAR TOTAL ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- GRADUATES! 01 01 01 01 01 OJ 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ******************************************************************************** LEA: 6002076 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y SCHOOLF ORM SCHOOL CHOICE BY SCHOOL ON OCT. 1 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: NLR HIGH SCHOOL-WEST CAMPUS PAGE: 37 SIS: rpt404 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:41 I GRADEi I TOTAL I I M WHITE F BLACK M F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ HISPANIC !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 09 ENROLL! 251 41 11 131 51 11 11 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 10 ENROLLI 1301 211 121 561 351 21 41 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 11 ENROLL! 5721 1291 1691 1211 1421 21 61 21 11 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 261 81 171 01 01 01 11 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 12 ENROLLI 5841 1511 1461 1121 1631 31 31 11 31 01 2 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 31 11 21 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 13 ENROLLI O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+----.+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- EE ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- SM ENROLLI O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ss ENROLLI OJ O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 13111 3051 3281 3021 3451 81 141 31 41 01 2 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 291 91 191 01 01 01 11 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- \u0026amp;33- \u0026lt;\n4,7 ~/ -Y'??.. ****************************************************************************** NUMBERO F GRADUATESF OR PREVIOUS SCHOOLY EAR TOTAL ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-- GRADUATEIS 508 I 1391 1221 94 I 128 I 51 91 31 61 11 1 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-- ****************************************************************************** 0, -t7ol LEA: 6002000 PUPIL ENROLLMENT BY DISTRICT PAGE: 1 COUNTY: PULASKI SCHOOL CHOICE BY DISTRICT ON OCT. 1 SIS: rpt304 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CYCLE: 10/15/2002 :=~~~~~---~.\u0026amp;-/ ------------------------------------~~~~-=~~==~~~~~-~=~~~ I GRADEi I TOTAL I I M WHITE F BLACK M F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ I HISPANIC IPACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- PK ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- K ENROLLI 6291 1241 1061 1951 1811 71 151 01 11 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 261 121 111 11 11 01 11 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 01 ENROLLI 6711 1261 1241 1891 2061 141 101 11 11 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 2 I 0 I 2 I O I 0 I O I O I O I O I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 02 ENROLLI 6481 1101 1021 2061 2041 111 81 41 21 01 1 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 6 I 2 I 2 I 2 I 0 I O I O I 0 I 0 I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 03 ENROLLI 6331 1111 1021 1941 1921 191 131 11 01 11 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 21 01 11 01 11 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 04 ENROLLI 6791 1221 1161 2131 1991 131 111 21 31 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 21 11 11 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 05 ENROLLI 6591 1201 1271 2011 1911 121 61 11 01 11 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 2 I 2 I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 06 ENROLLI 6631 1161 1121 1931 2151 111 131 11 01 21 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 11 0 I O I O I 1 I O I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 07 ENROLLI 6791 1221 1331 2161 1841 121 81 21 21 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 711 261 421 01 11 01 11 11 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 08 ENROLLI 7251 1471 1501 2311 1801 81 61 21 11 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 7 I 3 I . 3 J O I O I 1 I O I O I O I O I 0 ---------~36--~9+-~+-4\u0026amp;8\"+-~+--~+--_:jt+---4,-+---(\n.+----l-+----+---- ~~~~~~!-::~!-=~=}1-=~~.-\n=, 12 1:~!- 1=-~---=-=~\n1,l-!- --~1----=+---- ---=~~=1.=.\n~\n~~--t-li~i--1-7---~-ti~~1----1=~?.-~1----1~----~+---- Has your district voted to participate in School Choice? Y RECEIVED JAN 2 7 2003 OFFIOCEF DESEGREGMAOTNIOITNO ,. LEA: 6002000 COUNTY: PULASKI PUPIL ENROLLMENTB Y DISTRICT SCHOOL CHOICE BY DISTRICT ON OCT. 1 PAGE: 2 DISTRICT: N. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL: SIS: rpt304 CYCLE: 10/15/2002 RUN: 10/15/2002 09:40 !GRADEi I TOTAL I I M WHITE F BLACK M F I I HISPANIC M F ASIAN/ 1AM INDIAN/ !PACIFIC ISLIALASKAN NTV M F M F ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 09 ENROLL! 7401 1611 1631 2081 1791 161 121 01 01 01 1 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 6 I 31 2 I 0 I 11 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 10 ENROLL! 7391 1661 1461 2271 1741 91 101 31 21 11 1 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 111 51 51 11 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 11 ENROLLI 5721 1291 1691 1211 1421 21 61 21 11 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 261 Bl 171 01 01 01 11 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 12 ENROLLI 5841 1511 1461 1121 1631 31 31 11 31 01 2 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 3 I 11 2 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 13 ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- EE ENROLL! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I O I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- SM ENROLLI 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE! 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ss ENROLLI 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ENROLLI 26351 6071 6241 6681 6581 301 311 61 61 11 4 ------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- CHOICE I 461 171 261 11 11 01 11 01 01 01 0 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ******************************************************************************** NUMBER OF GRADUATES FOR PREVIOUS SCHOOL YEAR TOTAL ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- GRADUATEIS 5081 1391 1221 941 1281 51 91 31 61 11 1 ---------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- ******************************************************************************** RECEIVED JAN 2 7 2003 OFFIOCFE DESEGREGMAOTNIOITNO RING ' ..  General Information - Enrollment Data Page 1 of 2 Count results for 2002-2003 for Districts: NORTH LITTLE ROCK (6002) B African African Asian Asian Hispanic Hispanic Native Native White White American American American American ITotall Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female ~II 189 II 206 II=:DI 1 14 10 0 II 0 11~1 124 II~ ~II 206 II 204 11~1 2 11 8 0 II 1 11~1 102 116481 ~I 194 II 192 II=:DI 0 19 13 1 II 0 II :DTII 102 116331 ~JI 213 199 IIJJI 3 13 11 0 II 0 II }fill 116 116191 ~II 201 191 II=:DI 0 12 6 1 II 0 11~1 127 116591 ~II 193 215 II=:DI 0 11 13 2 II 0 ll:DIJI 112 116631 ~II 216 184 IIJJI 2 12 8 0 II 0 ll}fill 133 116791 ~II 231 180 IIJJI 1 8 6 0 II 0 1[2]1 150 111251 ~II 208 I 179 I0:JI 0 16 12 0 II 1 ll2illl 163 11140 I ~II 227 II 174 IOJI 2 9 10 1 II 1 11~1 146 117391 ~II 121 II 142 I1-=:DI 1 2 6 0 II 0 11~1 169 115121 DIii 112 II 163 [TI! 3 3 3 0 II 2 11~1 146 II5s41 ~II 0 II 0 11~1 0 0 0 0 I 0 ll~I 0 10 ~II 195 II 181 11~1 1 7 15 0 0 IIEDI 106 II 629I ~II 0 II 0 11~1 0 0 0 0 0 IL~! 0 II~ ~JI 0 II 0 11~1 0 0 0 0 0 11~1 0 10 I Total JI 2506 II 2410 lc:fill 16 I 137 121 5 5 111105111 696 1is6211 ,I Nov 22 02 U9:05a facsimile1 rans111ittal ,o: Margie Powell Fax: From: Hobby J. Acklin Date: Re: 2002-2003 Buiiding Capi1eities Pages: CC: 0 Urgent 0 FocReview D Please Comment Notes: 5017718001 Bobhy J. Acl.1111 Norlh Little Rock School D1stnct 21U\\l Popiar Slrcei l'.O.B-m\\6\u0026amp;1 North Little Rock, AR 72 I 15-0687 501-77180S0 Fax: 501-771-8001 371-0100 J 1/22/02 3 D Please Reply 0 Please Recyci p. 1  .. ,.~,,. , Nov 22 02 U9:U~a NLRSD Student AFFa1rs Building Capacities 2002-2003 5017718001 I Location I Building Capacity I West j 1354 I East 11254 1-akewood Middie 1583 , R1dgeroad Middle j 638 i Rose City tvfiddle ! 4 34 I Poplar Street Middle i 752 I Argenta Academy I 1 iO i I Amboy Elementary 1379 j Belwood Elementary I 227 I I Boone Park Eiementary 1 468 i1c_r_e__smrn__o~_ d_E__e_l_e _tn_--m~ _ ry-:_~._-_-_-_-_-_-_-\n1_3-=_s-=_o-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_-=_~-=Gienview Elementary ! 225 I II Indian Hills Elementary j 457 I _ Lakewood Elementary 1319 I I Lvnch Drive Elementary I 455 I I rvieadow Park Elementary 1208 I ! North Heights Elementary -f ?_0___4_ ______ ----1 I n~-1- U~ll Cl,-m-=-n+\u0026lt;\u0026gt;n, ? 0 2 11 ail'.. .1UU .l...,J.\"J. \u0026lt;vu~..._.J 1 _\u0026lt;'.'\\ I Pike View Elementary I 362 ~ I Seventh Street Elem_,en_,__t__ ary -+!-4__3__ ~0 ---=-==-------p-:0--,~-. p.2 ' Nov 22 02 0S:0ba NLRSD Student RFFa1rs 5017718001 p.3 2002-2003 School Building Capacity REDWOOD (without portable) CURRENT USE ONLY-ACTUAL CAPACITY NOT CALCULATED STEP 1- Identity each room by use and capacity. 6 Pre K X 18 = 108 RECEIVED  North Little Rock School District Employees 0~~2 2 2002 Pupil Enrollment by School October 1, 2002 Amboy Elementary Belwood Elen:-ientary 1 Boone Park Elementary  Crestwood Elementary Glenview Elementary Indian Hills Elementary IIL akewood Elementary IL ynch Drive Elementary Meadow Park Elementary I !North Heights Elementary 1 j Park Hill Elementary I Pike View Elementary I Seventh Street Fine Arts 11 Poplar Street Middle JJLakewood Middle jjR1dgeroad Middle I 1 Rose City Middle I Argenta Academy I I NLRHS-EasCt ampus I INLRHS-West~ ampus I DISTRICT2 003 TOTALS I District 2002 Totals II District 2001 To~ ~ I 0 v (' 7 North Little Rock Public Schools (Return to top of page) I October 1, 2002 Pupil Enrollment as reported to the State Department of Education October 15, 2002 District Totals White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Am Ind/A/a Ntv Grade Totals M Fl Ml Fl Ml F M F M F K 6] 128 110 I 1991 188 8 15 0 1 1 0 01 68 130 128 193 210 14 10 1 1 0 0 02 66 112 I 1041 212 I 2oall 1111 811 41 21 011 1 03 64l 115 104 197 198 19 131 1 II 011 1 II 0 04 691 125 117 219 201 13 11 2 3 0 0 05 673 124 129 205 195 12 1 6 1 0 1 0 06 679 119 116 198 219 11 131 1 II 011 21 0 07 697 127 134 222 190 12 al 211 21 0 0 08 46 152 243 183 8 6 2 1 0 0 \" http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar. us/intranet/enrollment_ 2000.htm 11/20/02 09 755 164 I 16811 2121 181 I 1611 13 0 0 0 1 10 . 772 1751 15111 2391 181 Bl 101 3 2 1 1 11 i::nn 132 176 ~ 147 I 61 2 1 0 0 12 609 159 149 I 16911 311 31 1 3 0 2 Totals 8859 1761 1738 I 258311 2470~ 13811 12211 201 16 6 5 -- f39.5o% l 157.04% I 2.93% I I o.41% I 0.12% -  I I I I I I I I lI I I I I I I I I  OCTOBER 1, 2001 DISTRICT TOTALS. (Return to top of page) CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:DISTRICT TOTALS GRADE SPAN: K-12 WHITE BLACK HISPANIC EffiEESIAN/PI IND/ALS NAT GRADE TOTAL ~~I M I F M F I K 706 138 126 203 211 13 12 2 0 0 01 655 114 105 195 220 8 9 4 0 0 0 02 661 ~ 101 204 204 11 10 1 2 1 0 03 711 132 127 211 218 10 10 1 2 0 0 04 693 ~ 131 228 194 12 7 0 1 l 0 05 682 123 117 199 221 10 9 l 0 2 0 ' 06 664 110 104 226 205 10 6 0 2 1 0 I 07 765 165 153 236 188 10 9 3 1 0 0 08 682 ~ 151 199 170 13 5 0 0 0 I 0 I 09 660 155 128 210 152 9 4 1 0 0 I 1 I 10 877 194 194 242 218 6 13 3 5 0 2 11 668 158 156 154 187 9 3 0 l 0 I 0 I 12 625 156,~ 123 165 5 Bo 1 6 coEB TOTALS 9059 1845 7 2630 2553 126 107 ~DJ 4 Percentage 39.68% 57.21% 2.57% 0.42% 0.11% -C I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I  http://www.nlrsd.k12.ar.us/intranet/enrol1ment_2000.htm 11/20/02 OCTOBER 2, 2000 DISTRICT TOTALS (Return to top of page) CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:POLASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:DISTRICT TOTALS GRADE SPAN: K-12 I WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN/PI AM IND/ALS NAT 11 GRADE TOTAL IGJ F M F M F ~ M F 11 J II 164 [~ 8 71 76 3 2 G:J~ 0 0 I K II 669 I 117 100 I 213 221 9 3 ~ EB 647 124 105 I 194 209 7 6 EB 0 2 711 138 117 216 218 11 6 2 03 659 124 127 I 205 188 5 0 ~ 0 04 675 107 126 I 201 220 8 ~ 0 2 05 627 101 0 CJ:J 06 658 0 07 656 08 610 09 756 I 0 10 I 854 0 11 621 2 12 529 0 EX 0 0 SCHOOLS 8836 2574 2559 TOTALS 58.1% W/0 8003 16 09 2290 2262 91 8 6 7 GRD J/K 40.6% 56.9% 2.1% .3% .2% '--14~_B_s_ck_~l lJ Home I Fl Next To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.k12.ar.u~ http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us/intranet/enrollment_2000.htm 11/20/02 North Little Rock School District Employees Only ~'\n.l?.1' : ,?(t OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA 16002-054 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT:NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:BOONE PARK ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 65 4 2 30 27 1 1 0 0 0 0 01 77 3 2 33 37 1 1 0 0 0 0 02 77 3 0 25 48 0 0 0 0 0 1 03 59 3 ,~ 25 29 0 1 0 0 0 0 04 53 1 1 26 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 75 4 3 35 31 2 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 406 18 9 ,\n,l. 174 197 4 3 0 0 0 1 7.39% 91.38% 1.72% 0.00% 0.25% ~1: 371 v ~1:-:J~_Bfa$j_ ck_~I \"\"' Home 7 I t I Up I b-:1 Next To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsq.k12.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us/intranet/boone _park_ elementary.htm 11/20/02 t' :\n$:\nL 7 C,, _\n)/ I ~ / 0 t::\u0026gt; 0 ~ -I ~ 7' -I 0 0 0 0 -I\n)'y I 0 '9 ~ 1-1 '/ 0 0 I C: ~I ~ 3 13 /7 6 tr) 0 C? e.\u0026gt; {,~ ~ (, ~ 4, 0 I 0 ~f\n? 9 // C, 0 ~7 (,, ~4, ~/ I 0 0 I 0 \u0026lt;g' a- I (b 0 1'1 19 I I 1.3 ? cO --II C. // /0 /\ni5 0 I r, 0 ) 1 /0 I .:\no /~ p\n:\n. I\nP '\" 0 -- -- ~ II lcf'/ 197 Ii I\nI~ I 0 I fc', -f~o- -r-,I /,o t ~? /I~ /0 /91 //ff' /\") /a I 0 /  North Little Rock School District Employees Only OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-050 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COONTY:POLASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:AMBOY ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/A/a Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 58 9 4 19 25 1 0 0 0 0 0 01 56 9 9 16 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 55 6 6 27 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 52 7 6 21 15 2 1 0 0 0 0 04 64 14 9 17 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 52 10 9 22 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 !Totals II 33711 5511 4311 12211 1131 3 1 0 ole]JC] I29.oa I 169.73% I 1.19% 0.00% 10.00%1 I fj Home lit! Up I Fl Next To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us/intranet/amboy _ elementary.htm 11/20/02 North Little Rock School District Employees Only \"\"\"'\"'\" OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-053 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:BELWOOD ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 30 3 4 12 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 26 6 2 6 11 0 1 0 0 0 0 02 22 6 3 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 22 4 5 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 38 8 4 13 11 0 2 0 0 0 0 05 20 5 4 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 159 32 22 54 48 0 3 0 0 0 0 33.96% 64.15% 1.89% 0.00% 0.00% .'o/\nCl~ ..3. j~ Back I l$j Home 1t1 I Up I t+I Next To place information here, contact webmoster@moil.nlrsd.k12.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar. us/intranet/belwood _ elementary.htm 11/20/02 North Little Rock School District Employees Only .,  ',. .'.o/i OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-055 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COONTY:POLASKI DISTRICT:NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:CRESTWOOD ELEl-:IENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/A/a Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 57 17 18 15 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 73 25 27 14 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 58 21 18 10 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 49 15 14 11 8 0 0 0 0 1 0 04 49 13 22 8 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 51 16 13 10 11 0 0 1 0 0 0 Totals 337 107 112 68 48 0 0 1 0 1 0 64.99% 34.42% 0.00% 0.30% 0.30% Back j fj /I? ,\n- Home j .-lt,_j--up--j~ F_~NIe _~-~ To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.k12.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar. us/intranet/crestwood _ elementary .htm 11/20/02  North Little Rock School District Employees Only 1,:' -L~\n1 11 OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-056 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS I COUNTY:POLASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK I SCHOOL:GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/A/a Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 24 6 1 8 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 29 5 5 10 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 35 2 3 17 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 31 3 3 13 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 29 1 5 15 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 38 4 2 19 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 186 21 19 82 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 21.51% 78.49% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% -210 1-r~ -r-? ~j.-j~-Ba-ck-f~$I J Home 1t1-1 --up--Fl ~-NIe -xi-~ To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd_,kl2.ar.us http:/ /www.nlrsd.k12.ar. us/intranet/glenview _ elementary.htm 11/20/02  North Little Rock School District Employees Only Grade K 01 02 03 04 05 Totals ~:. ..~. ~.:.t-\" OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-057 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT:NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: INDIAN HILLS ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Totals M F M F M F M 79 27 29 10 11 0 1 0 71 26 25 8 9 0 1 1 75 24 30 7 11 0 0 2 66 25 26 8 6 0 1 0 75 29 25 10 7 0 1 1 66 21 28 6 10 0 1 0 432 152 163 49 54 0 5 4 72.92% 23.84% 1.16% 208% \u0026lt;:PIO / / ~'4~_Ba_ck_~j L.-LfJ~_Ho_me_j1_,' --t'_I _,_1_ U_p _ _,I ..._f--:...N,_eI _xi _ _, To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.k12.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.k12.ar.us/intranet/indian _hills_ elementary.htm Am Ind/Ala Ntv F M F 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0.00% 11/20/02  North Little Rock School District Employees Only OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA ij6002-058 CORRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:LAKEWOOD ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 61 24 26 3 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 01 56 15 20 11 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 02 56 22 14 9 8 1 1 1 0 0 0 03 49 17 9 11 8 2 2 0 0 0 0 04 42 13 12 13 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 05 53 16 15 7 11 1 3 0 0 0 0 Totals 317 107 96 54 45 7 6 1 1 0 0 64.04% 31.23% 4.10% 0.63% 0.00% Back fj Home 1 JI,t--,---1.- ,U. p---,/f.--F-r-1 -N-ext----, To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.k12.ar.M_S http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar. us/intranet/lakewood _ elementary.htm 11/20/02 North Little Rock School District Employees Only -, r - OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-060 I CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:LYNCH DRIVE ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 43 3 2 21 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 59 6 5 17 30 1 0 0 0 0 0 02 53 3 4 27 17 2 0 0 0 0 0 03 67 3 6 26 31 1 0 0 0 0 0 04 63 9 4 25 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 52 6 9 13 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 337 30 30 129 144 4 0 0 0 0 0 17.80% 81.01% 1.19% 0.00% 0.00% ?0 c:\u0026lt;7B -I ~1:--1~-Ba-ck-~@j j Home I J t I Up I ~~~I -Ne_xt_~ To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.k12.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us/intranet/lynch _drive_ elementary.htm 11/20/02 North Little Rock School District Employees Only ..,.s .l OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA lt6002-061 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:MEADOW PARK ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 I Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 30 5 5 12 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 36 3 5 11 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 26 3 3 8 10 0 0 1 1 0 0 03 21 0 0 8 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 04 26 3 3 7 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 25 4 4 10 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 164 18 20 56 67 1 0 1 1 0 0 I 23.17% 75.00% 0.61% 1.22% 0.00% /~3 oB Back If $l Home I ~t~' _lU _p -~' F~-NIe _xt_~ To place information here, contact we~master@mail.nlrsd.k12.gr.us http://www.nlrsd.k12.ar. us/intranet/meadow _park_ elementary.htrn 11/20/02 North Little Rock Sch-oo-l District Employees Only OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA ll6002-063 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN:K-05 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/A/a Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 65 8 7 16 18 3 13 0 0 0 0 01 67 8 7 17 19 10 6 0 0 0 0 02 73 6 12 22 18 8 7 0 0 0 0 03 82 19 12 13 18 13 7 0 0 0 0 04 87 11 12 22 25 11 6 0 0 0 0 05 80 13 13 21 23 7 2 0 0 1 0 Totals 454 65 63 111 121 52 41 0 0 1 0 28.19% 51.10% 20.48% 0.00% 0.22% ~a.,., ?.J , Back I lJ Home II. ---tc-rl--up-'-'----,1.- --F~I_N_e~-~ To place information here, contact webmaster@mall.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar. us/intranet/north _heights_ elementary .htrn 11/20/02  North Little Rock School District Employees Only ) ) Grade K 01 02 03 04 05 Totals :\n})'c~ OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-064 CORRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COONTY:POLASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: PARK HILL ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Totals M F M F M F M 38 10 8 8 11 0 0 0 41 13 8 10 10 0 0 0 39 10 4 14 11 0 0 0 41 6 11 10 13 0 1 0 45 12 7 16 8 2 0 0 58 12 12 18 15 0 1 0 262 63 50 76 68 2 2 0 43.13% 54.96% 1.53% 0.00% 11 a /-3/-1/ s 1.-J Back J f\u0026lt;tj Home J I t J Up J t4: J Next To place Information here, contact webmaster@mai1.nlrsd.k12.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar. us/intranet/park _hill_ elementary.htm Am Ind/Ala Ntv F M F 0 /% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I A' 0 0.00% 11/20/02 c\n.~ ..i:,i 7 iJ 5Y CJ -/ /fj I n r. .., 0 .::3 /.\n,.. // \u0026lt;!J c0 e:\u0026gt; 0 f\u0026gt;') ? /7 /~ /~ ? 0 0 n tX \u0026amp; / y 7 t? c\u0026gt; 0 c-\u0026gt; {\"\") 79 ~7 ~? /0 // 0 / 0 / 0 I _\n)? 7 / 0 0 0 C) 3 ?- /7 0 0 ('\") .,pe\u0026gt; ? ~ /\nl s? 0 0 t:.:\u0026gt; i tt.~ ~ 7 I (,e, If I. 0 f?:JJ. ~ /0 'B' /I 0 0 ~7 /,/ ~ ,\n)-# / ~ 0 0 \u0026lt;:O ) .J/~ I t:\n-\n5 /.\n! //.:\u0026gt; 19\u0026lt;j I '8 0 I :) /4,-,1, ,.JI~ r\n.\n,o /~~ J/D 11? r~)f' '8' 0 I 0 ~f'- eO /~ I North Little Rock School District Employees Only ~,. t OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-065 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 57 12 4 24 15 2 0 0 0 0 0 01 51 11 12 17 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 02 43 6 6 14 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 57 10 10 20 16 0 0 1 0 0 0 04 65 9 11 21 21 0 2 1 0 0 0 05 47 7 13 11 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 320 55 56 107 94 3 3 2 0 0 0 34.69% 62.81% 1.88% 0.63% 0.00% ~lii~-BIa -cfkj- ~I ,dol~--~3 Home 1t1 I Up IF ~-NIe -xt-~ To place information here, contact web__master@mail.nlrsd.k12.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar. us/intranet/pike _view_ elementary .htm 11/20/02  North Little Rock School District Employees Only .,,.~ - -. ,\"1 OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-069 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY GRADE SPAN: K-05 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 43 0 0 21 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 45 0 1 23 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 50 0 1 26 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 52 3 1 22 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 55 2 2 26 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 57 6 4 27 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 302 11 9 145 137 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.62% 93.38% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% .\n?So\u0026gt;- o Back If j Home IIt~~ -UI- p -~, r:~-N--e-,x t-~ To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar. us/intranet/ seventh_ street_ fine_ arts.htm 11/20/02  North Little Rock School District Employees Only ~, '\"\"~-~- OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-070 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTYl:? ULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: LAKEWOOD MIDDLE SCHOOL GRADE Sl?AN: 07-08 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F 07 278 80 88 59 47 1 1 1 1 0 0 08 307 91 102 65 43 2 2 1 1 0 0 Totals 585 171 190 124 90 3 3 2 2 0 0 61.71% 36.58% 1.03% 0.68% 0.00% lil Back I lJ\n?(/~ ___ ........,/()~--~ Home 11t j Up I F... .I. _.N.._.e.x.t. . ___, To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us/intranet/lakewood_midd1e.htm 11/20/02  North Little Rock School District Employees Only i']jc'~ OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-059 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL: POPLAR STREET MIDDLE SCHOOL GRADE SPAN: 06 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F 06 675 118 116 197 217 11 13 1 0 2 0 Totals 675 118 116 197 217 11 13 1 0 2 0 34.67% 61.33% 3.56% 0.15% 0.30% ~~_i/ ../1~ ~7 j, :4'.j.......__B _ac___k, fI $J Home 11 t I Up I b:I Next To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.k12.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us/intranet/poplar _ street_ middle.htm 11/20/02  North Little Rock School District Employees Only Ji:i!. . ,~:\n_. _ .\n_, OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-072 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:RIDGEROAD MIDDLE SCHOOL GRADE SPAN: 07-08 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F 07 299 40 39 109 93 11 7 0 0 0 0 08 315 50 39 118 97 6 4 1 0 0 0 Totals 614 90 78 227 190 17 11 1 0 0 0 27.36% 67.92% 4.56% 0.16% 0.00% 1-il To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar. us/intranet/ridgeroad _ rniddle.htm 11/20/02  North Little Rock School District Employees Only OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA J6002-077 I CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK i SCHOOL:ROSE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL GRA[E SPAN: 07-08 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F 07 123 8 7 55 51 0 0 1 1 0 0 08 127 11 12 61 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 250 19 19 116 94 0 0 1 1 0 0 15.20% 84.00% 0.00% 0.80% 0.00% ~? c:!)/0 ~ 1.--4-r---B-ac~-k-. I ~@l~-H-om-e~~I ,-tI, ..,..1--up---.-.-lF -rl-N-ext-----, To place information here, contact webmaster@m_ail.nJ~d.kl2.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar. us/intranet/rose _city_ middle.htm 11/20/02 North Little Rock School District Employees Only OCTOBER 1, 2001 LEA #6002-07 6 CORRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:ARGENTA ACADEMY GRADE SPAN: 06-12 HISPANIC IND/ALS NAT GRADE TOTAL M F 05 0 0 06 5 0 3 0 0 0 07 21 2 15 2 0 0 0 08 20 4 0 10 6 0 0 0 09 41 3 23 5 CI] 0 0 10 54 20 0 0 11 43 7 16 10 0 12 28 5 5 10 8 0 0 0 TOTALS 213 37 19 100 52 3 ,, 0 Percentage 26.29% 71.36% 1.88% 0.00% 0.00% 9~ /9?- ~ 1--3 Back I k0 Home I llL Up =7 Fl Next To place Information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.k12.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar. us/intranet/argenta _ academy .htin 11/20/02  North Little Rock School District Employees Only 1:1:-s -.l'f:IOIIIP. . ,i,l I OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-075 CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL:NLRHS-EAST CAMPUS GRADF. SPAN: 09-10 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/A/a Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F 09 722 157 164 197 176 15 12 0 0 0 1 10 626 148 138 177 143 7 6 3 2 1 1 Totals 1348 305 302 374 319 22 18 3 2 1 2 45.03% 51.41% 2.97% 0.37% 0.22% Back j @j To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.kl2.ar. us/intranet/nlrhs-east_ campus.htrn 11/20/02  North Little Rock School District Employees Only r:J:.?::~~: :ruw~,-., _\n-'::i-\\'.,~ r=- OCTOBER 1, 2002 LEA #6002-076 I CURRENT SCHOOL ASSIGNMENTS I COUNTY:PULASKI DISTRICT: NORTH LITTLE ROCK I SCHOOL:NLRHS-WEST CAMPUS GRADE SPAN: 11-12 Am White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Ind/Ala Ntv .Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F 09 30 6 3 14 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 10 146 27 13 62 38 2 4 0 0 0 0 11 590 132 176 124 147 2 6 2 1 0 0 12 608 159 149 119 169 3 3 1 3 0 2 Totals 1374 324 341 319 359 8 14 3 4 0 2 48.40% 49.34% 1.60% 0.51% 0.15% ~6 r.,7g' ~'4~_B_ac_k_~I fj Home 11 t I Up To place information here, contact webmaster@mail.nlrsd.k12.ar.us http://www.nlrsd.k12.ar. us/intranet/nlrhs-west_ carnpus.htm 11/20/02 !Grade 103 104 jo5 06 07 08 09 10 12 I Totals North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 2002 Pupil Enrollment as reported to the State Department of Education October 15, 2002 District Totals i!Totals I II 6501 II 6871 II 6621 II 6481 II 6911 Black M F 195 219 190 18311 181 Hispanic 19 13 12 11 12 al 16 18 9 247011 1381 12.93% 1 13 11 6 13 8 6 13 10 6  I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I  0 0 0 0 0 3 0 16 6 0.12% 0 F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 North Little Rock Public Schools j October 1, 2002 Pupil Enrollment as reported to the State Department of Education October 15, 2002 - )'--------\n=========D=is=tr=ic=t=T\n=o=ta=ls=============== /,-----,,~-- 11 Grade I Totals K Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Am Ind/Ala Ntv F M F 18811 81 0 21011 14) 0 20811 111 1 19811 191 0 04 219 20111 131 0 05 205 19511 121 0 06 198 21911 11 1 0 07 222 19011 121 0 08 8 0 09 16 10 9 11 2 0 169 3 1 3 0 2 !Totals 2470 13 1221 2011 161 6 5 39.50% 12.93% 1 I o.41% I 10.12% 1  I I I I I I I I lI I I I I I I I I  I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Plan Provisions Schools will have a racial composition within 25% of the racial composition of the district as a whole. (NLRSD Plan, pg. 8) Findings While the NLRSD desegregation plan makes no reference to organizational level, district officials calculate racial balance for elementary and secondary schools separately each year based on the overall racial composition of each level. For the 1993-94 school year, the district is 52% black at the elementary level and 46% black at the secondary level. Calculations based on these figures yield a target range for elementary schools of 39% to 65% black, and 34% to 58% black for the secondary schools. All but two NLRSD schools fall within the acceptable ranges for racial balance\ntwo special schools both exceed the target range. Enrollment at the secondary alternative school is 70% black, and secondary enrollment at Baring Cross, a school for students who are developmentally disabled, is 71 % black, proportions which far exceed the target limits for black enrollment. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Plan Provisions PCSSD schools are to strive for a minimum black enrollment of 20%. Bayou Meta Elementary school is exempt due to its remote location. (PCSSD Plan, pg. 72) The goal of the plan is to achieve a minimum black student enrollment of 20% by the end of six years in all PCSSD schools. By the end of the implementation period, all PCSSD schools should be within the range of plus or minus 25% of the then prevailing districtwide average of blacks by organizational level. (PCSSD Plan, pg. 84, incorporating the Joshua Agreement, page 9) Findings To determine the upper end of the target racial balance range for PCSSD schools, we used a mathematical formula based on the parties' Joshua Agreement. PCSSD 1993-94 enrollment is 30% black at both the elementary and secondary level, meaning that the maximum black percentage at any PCSSD school this year should be 38%. Because the plan specifies 20% as the minimum black enrollment target, the racial balance range in PCSSD schools this year is between 20% to 38% black. Bates, College Station, Fuller, Harris, and Landmark elementaries exceed the maximum black enrollment. Fuller Junior High and Mills High School, with a 43% and a 48% black enrollment respectively, fail to achieve the 38% maximum limit. Lawson Elementary is the only school (other than the exempt Bayou Meta) with a black enrollment below the 20% Page 5 I I I I I I I I I I Findings While the NLRSD desegregation plan makes no reference to organizational level, district officials calculate racial balance for elementary and secondary schools separately each year based on the overall racial composition of each level. In the last year, the percentage of NLRSD enrollment comprised by blacks grew at both the elementary and secondary levels. For the 1994-95 school year, the district is 54% black at the elementary level and 49% black at the secondary level. Calculations based on these figures yield a target range this year for elementary schools of 40% to 68% black, and 37% to 61 % black for the secondary schools. The target ranges last year were 39% to 65% black at the elementary level and 34% to 58% black for secondary schools. The NLRSD desegregation plan excludes kindergarten children from mandatory bussing to achieve desegregation. The district maintains that the exclusion of these students from the desegregation assignment plan also excludes them from consideration in the racial balance calculations for each elementary school. However, in this report we counted kindergarten and four-year-old children just as we counted all students in the other elementary grades, and we calculated the school's racial balance with those students included. We followed this procedure because enrollment figures maintained by both LRSD and PCSSD include their four-year-old and kindergarten students. By including these grade levels in NLRSD's figures, we are able to produce a more complete and consistent picture of enrollment among all three Pulaski County school districts. All but three NLRSD schools fall within this year's acceptable ranges for racial balance: both the elementary and secondary alternative schools, along with Redwood Elementary School, exceed the target range. While the total enrollment at Redwood is 71 % black, which is three percentage points above the maximum, the school's racial balance would fall within the guidelines if kindergarten and four-year-old students were excluded. Enrollment at the elementary alternative school is 82% black, and 80% of the students at the secondary alternative school are black, proportions far outside the target limits for black enrollment. PULASKI COU TY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCT Plan Provisions PCS SD schools are to strive for a minimum black enrollment of 20%. Bayou Meto Elementary school is exempt due to its remote location. (PCSSD Plan, pg. 72) The goal of the plan is to achieve a minimum black student enrollment of 20% by the end of six years in all PCS SD schools. By the end of the implementation period, all PCS SD schools should be within the range of plus or minus 25% of the then prevailing districtwide average of blacks by organizational level. (PCSSD Plan, pg. 84, incorporating the Joshua Agreement, page 9) Findings To determine the upper end of the target racial balance range for PCS SD schools, we used a mathematical formula based on the parties' Joshua Agreement. This year, black students comprise a larger proportion of the PCSSD enrollment. at both the elementary and secondary levels, than in Page 7 Jan 31 03 04:26p NLRSD Student AFFa1rs 5017718001 Office of Student Affairs North L'tde Rock School District 2 700 Poplar S /reet North l.Jttle Rock. AR 72115-0687 (501) 771-8010 Francicalj. Jackson, Director DATE: I -3J-o3 TO: ___ c/7_!l_~_r~..__,~___'t \u0026gt;7__ _l,,_t__,_ 'uLV.. _ RE: _____________________ _ FAX J 7J-()j()Q ******************* FROM: __ 1-t_,.a1, _-,+_-I~-_ /G:J_t_fa_-_.Y_' _ _ 0 FAX: \"]1 /.-fOu I PHONE: ---------- COMENTS: _______________ _ This fax is o( page {s) including the cover page. If you do not receive all the pages, please call our of.ice at (501) 771-8010. p. 1 ,., (\\J Q.. .... 0 0 .C.X.\u0026gt;. r-r.-.-.. 0 II) Ill .L. . Ill \u0026lt;+- \u0026lt;+- a: ..., C Cl) \"'O .:., ., (/) Q (/) ~ ..J z: Q.. r-- (\\.J . T 0 (T) 0 .... (TJ C fV '7 SCHOOL: GRADE LEVEL PRE-K KINDERGARTEN FIRST SECOND THIRD FOURTH FIFTH TOTAL ~ GRACES 1 -5 \u0026lt; \"- ........ ..,.. .... ..., 0 C) .. ' ,_ 0\ng WHITE M F # ) 6 % 1% 3% # % # % # % # % # % # % # J 6 % t% 3% ELEMENTARY SCHOOELN ROLLMENT TOTAL BLACK TOTAL WHITE M F BLACK 9 tCS 913 203 4% 48% 44% 92% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 lCS\ne 203 4% 48% 44\".4 92% 2002-2003 OTHER TOTAL M F OTHER TOTAL 7 2 9 221 3% 1% 4% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '7 2 9 221 3% 1% 4% Pages PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT FOR 1 OCTOBER 2002 WHITE BLACK OTHER GRADE SCHOOL/GRADE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE TOTAL 01 Adkins Elementary 6003090 PK* 6 4 5 3 3 ~ 0\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1432","title":"Program correspondence and reports","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["2002-10/2004-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational planning","School enrollment","School improvement programs","School integration","School management and organization","Student assistance programs","Educational innovations"],"dcterms_title":["Program correspondence and reports"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1432"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["54 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1463","title":"Program correspondence and reports","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["2002-10/2004-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Standards","Educational innovations","Educational planning","School administrators","School superintendents","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Program correspondence and reports"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1463"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["75 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"gsu_ggdp_5507","title":"John L. Cromartie oral history interview, 2002 September 18","collection_id":"gsu_ggdp","collection_title":"Georgia Government Documentation Project","dcterms_contributor":["Kuhn, Cliff"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Cromartie, John L."],"dc_date":["2002-09-18"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["audio/mpeg","application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Georgia State University Library"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Georgia Government Documentation Project","https://archivesspace.library.gsu.edu/repositories/2/resources/1508"],"dcterms_subject":["Legal aid","Lawyers","Clergy","Civil rights movements","Georgia Legal Services Program","United States. Supreme Court"],"dcterms_title":["John L. Cromartie oral history interview, 2002 September 18"],"dcterms_type":["Sound","Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Georgia State University. Special Collections"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digitalcollections.library.gsu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/ggdp/id/5507"],"dcterms_temporal":["2000/2009"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["Cromartie, John L., Interviewed by Cliff Kuhn, 18 September 2002, P2002-13, Series Q. Georgia Legal Services, Georgia Government Documentation Project, Special Collection and Archives, Georgia State University Library, Atlanta."],"dlg_local_right":["This Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. 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. In addition, no permission is required from the rights-holder(s) for educational uses. For other uses, you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s)."],"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["1 hour, 25 minutes, 11 seconds of audio spread over 2 sides of 1 tape, and a 53 page transcript."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Cromartie, John L."],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1747","title":"District Court, memorandum opinion.","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":["2002-09-13"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","School districts","Little Rock School District","Joshua intervenors","African Americans--Education","School integration","School discipline","Student activities","Education--Evaluation","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dcterms_title":["District Court, memorandum opinion."],"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/1747"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["43 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eThis transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    R;~l~f!~O EAsr~~lkf~s,s OFFICE OF ' ' . Sf p l ,a :zooz  DESEGREGATION MONITORING . J~MES . By, IN THE UNITED. STATES DISTRICT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DNISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKJ COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MEMORANDUM OPINION ---- - ------------ PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS . __ ., INTERVENORS I. II. ill. N . A072A INDEX Page Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 The Long History Of Desegregation Litigation .In Pulaski County .............. 11 A. 1956 Through 1973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 B. 1973 Through 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 C. Interdistrict Litigation And Interdistrict Relief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 D. The 1990 Settlement Agreement And Settlement Plans . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 20 E. LRSD's Implementation Oflts Desegregation Obligations Between 1991 And F. G. H. I. J. K. 1995 .... ..... ......................... .... ........ . ..... . . .. 24 Joshua's Request For An Interim Award Of Attorney's Fees For Performing Monitoring Activities After The 1990 Settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 LRSD's First Attempt To End Federal Court Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 The Pexplexing Final Resolution Of Joshua's Request For Still More Attorneys' Fees From LRSD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Final Approval Of Revised Desegregation And Education Plan . . . . . . . . . . 45 LRSD's Implementation Oflts Obligations Under The Revised Plan . . . . . 46 LRSD Seeks Unitary Status Based Upon Its Substantial Compliance With The Revised Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Relevant Provisions Of Revised Plan ......................... . .... ... ... 52 A. LRSD's Obligation Of Good Faith ................. ... . ... .. . ..... 55 B. LRSD's Obligations Regarding Student Disciplip.e ............ : .. ... .. 55 C. LRSD's Obligations To hnprove And Remediate The Academic Achievement Of African-American Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 D. E. F. G. 11. I. LRSD's Obligations Regarding Extracurricular Activities, Advanced Placement Courses, And Guidance Counselors ................... ; . . . 56 LRSD's Obligations To Develop Remedies, Where Appropriate, For Racial Disparities In Programs And Activities ............ , , .... , . , . . . . . . . . . 57 Procedure For Raising Compliance Jssues ............... : . .. . . . . . . . . . 57 Duration Of Revised Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 rrocc:;uure ror ;::;eeKlllg Urutary ;::;rams ............................. . Effect OfLRSD's Failure To Meet \"Specific Goals\" In The Revised Plan 59 60 Controlling Principles Of Law .......................................... 60 A. The Evolving Concept of Unitary Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 B. Applicable Standard For Determining IfLRSD Is Unitary ........ ... . .. 69 C. Burden Of Proof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 D. Meaning Of\"Substantial Compliance\" ............................. 75 E. The Metaphysics Of Using The \"Achievement Gap\" As A Factor In Deciding Unitary Status ..... .. ... .. ..... .........................  ....... 77 -1- A072A V. Findings Of Fact .............. . ..... . .. _ ............. , .... . ........ . .. 85 A.  Good Faith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 B. Student Discipline . . .. . .................. . ... . ................. 95 C. Extracurricular Activities . . . . .... . . . ............ ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 D. Advanced Placement Courses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Promote Participation and Remove Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Identify and Encourage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 Assist . . .................. . ... . ............ . .. .. . ; . . . . . . . . . . 135 E. Guidance And Counseling ........... . ......... : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 F, Academic Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 G. Program Assessment/Program Evaluation ................. . ........ 150 VI. Conclusions Of Law ... . .. . ........ . .. . .......... . .. . .... ... . .. ; ..... . 160 A. Unitary Status .. . ....... . . . .  .... . .......... . ..............  .... 160  B. Burden Of Proof . . . . .... . .... . ............... . ...... . ...... . .. 160 C. Substantial Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 D. Good Faith . .. .. . .. ...... . . .. . . ......... . .........  ... .. . . .. . . 161 E. Student Discipline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 F. Academic Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 G. Partial Unitary Status . .... .. . .. .... . ... . .... ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 H. Tune To Fly .... . . . . . ......... . .... . ...... . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 VII. Compliance Remedy ......... .. .. .. ........ . ..................... . '. . 170 VIll. Conclusion . .. : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 -ii- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MEMORANDUM OPINION1 I. Introduction2 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On December 12, 1990, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals approved the \"Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement,\" as revised September 28, 1989; separate Settlement Plans for the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), the North Little Rock School District (''NLRSD\"), and the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD''), dated 11t was my good fortune to have The Honorable Joe Thomas Ray, U.S. Magistrate Judge, assigned to this case with me. I would be sorely remiss ifl did not acknowledge, here and now, the prodigious effort and talent he has brought to this project. As authors. are wont to say, \"any errors, however, are mine alone.\" 2As a Bryan Garner disciple (beginners' class), I generally favor putting all substantive legal analysis in the text and citing the supporting cases in footnotes. However, so many issues in this case beg for digressions that I have been unable to resist the temptation to include substantive legal analysis in some of the footnotes. A07?A .  .  . . --~ - ---- -- -- ..  ... - ........ . ... ... ~ ........ - - .. , . - - ------- ---  -  . -----------~-  ... - -  - ---- ~ - - - - . .... . . . . . ---  -  .. January 31, 1989; and a separate Interdistrict Settlement Plan.3 LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990). At that time, both the district court and the Eighth Circuit believed that this historic settlement created the \"benchmark for the future path of this case,\" Appeal of LRSD, 949 F.2d 253,255 (8th Cir.1991), and \"a sure guide for ending this dispute and getting the parties out of court.\" LRSDv. PCSSD, 769F. Supp. 1491, 1494 (E.D; Ark. 1991), order vacated, 949 F.2d 253 (8th Cir. 1991). In the years following the Eighth Circuit's approval of the parties' final settlement of this case, all three Pulaski County school districts implemented their respective Settlement Plans under the supervision of the district court and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\"). 4 Subsequently, the district court and Eighth Circuit established guidelines for allowing the parties 3 Each of the Settlement Plans for the individual school districts contained their respective desegregation obligations. In addition, the Interdistrict Settlement Plan contained the interdistrict desegregation obligations for all three school districts. These Settlement Plans had been agreed to by the parties and approved by the Court, making them \"consent decrees.\" In their pleadings, the parties sometimes refer to these Settlement Plans as \"desegregation plans.\"  The three individual Settlement Plans for LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD, and the Interdistrict Settlement Plan were submitted to the district court for approval during early 1989. However, becausethey were not approved by the Eighth Circuit until December 12, 1990, LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F .2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990),. the parties and the district court generally have referred to these settlement documents as the 1990 Settlement Agreement, the 1990 Settl.ement Plans, and the 1990 Intei-district Settlement Plan. In contrast, the Eighth Circuit has usually referred to these settlement documents as the 1989 settlement agreement and 1989 settlement plan or plans. Appeal of LRSD, 949 F .2d 253, 254 (8th Cir. 1991) (\"We recognized, however, that the approved plans, which we shall call the 1989 plan or plans, would need some modification because of the passage of time\"). Regardless of the terminology used, the parties, the qistrict court, and the Eighth Circuit are all referring to the same settlement documents. In the interest of consistency, I will refer to those documents in this opinion as the 1990 Settlement Agreement, the 1990 Settlement Plan or Plans, and the 1990 Interdistrict Settlement Plan. \"The Eighth Circuit directed the district court to create and staff the ODM with the personnel it \"shall deem appropriate\" to help ensure compliance with all aspects of the 1990 Settlement Agreeinent and the four separate Settlement Plans. LRSD, 921 F .2d at 1388. -2- A072A to make agreed changes to the details of the Settlement Plans, as fong as they did not affect the \"major substantive commitments to desegregation\" embodied in those Plans. Appeal ofLRSD, 949 F.2d at256; see also LRSD, 769 F. Supp. 1491; LRSD v.. PCSSD, 769 F. Supp. 1483 (E.D. Ark. 1991), order vacated, 949 F.2d 253 (8th Cir. 1991). Between 1991 and 1996, LRSD worked toward implementing its desegregation obligations under the settlement documents. On May 1, 1992, the district court entered an Order ( docket no. 1587) approving certain changes to LRSD' s 1990 Settlement Plan and the Interdistrict Settlement Plan. A copy ofLRSD's modified settlement plan and interdistrict plan, referred to as \"LRSD' s May 1992 Desegregation Plan\" and the \"May 1992 Interdistrict Desegregation Plan,\" were attached to the court's May 1, 1992 Order. By 1996, it had become apparent to the parties and the district court that some of the desegregation obligations imposed on LRSD by the settlement documents might never be successfully implemented, regardless ofLRSD's best efforts .. Accordingly, on September 25, 1996, Judge Wright entered a Memorandum Opinion ( docket no. 2821) in which she \"invite[ d] the parties to modify the parts of the [ settlement] plan that are ineffective or unworkable.\" As a result, in late 1996 and 1997, LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\")5 entered into vu.1,11uu11,1.:1,17u\"T,111111u1..- ~,  _c:1 61 uu.l'u11\\ 1 .. ~ -f\\lller,.......u.puouc school children enrolled in the three Pulaski County school districts, filed a \"Petition io Intervene\" ( docket no. 452). The Petitioners sought intervenor status ''for themselves and the other Black public school children of Pulaski County through their parents and next of friends .... \" Mrs. Lorene Joshua was the lead named parent and next of friend for her three minor school children. On May 24, 1984, the Eighth Circuit entered an Order (docket no. 565) that, in effect, granted the Petition to Intervene. Thereafter, the district court and the parties began referring to these intervenors simply as \"Joshua\" Because the intervenors represent the group of all AfricanAmerican school children in the Pulaski County public schools, I will sometimes use the plural pronoun ''they'' to refer to Joshua On occasion, the Eighth Circuit has elected to consider -3- . . , . .. -\"'-  -  -    ---..,-- ......   ..   - --- - ---  .. . protracted negotiations to modify various aspects ofLRSD 's Settlement Plan. These negotiations bore fruit in the January 16, 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (the \"Revised Plan\"); which LRSD and Joshua jointly submitted to the district court for approval on January 21, 1998 ( docket nos. 31 o7 and 3136), 6 On April 10, 1998, the district court entered an Order ( docket no. 3144) approving the Revised Plan,7 which it viewed as \"an entirely new consent decree or settlement agreement between LRSD and Joshua.\"8 Unlike LRSD's 1990 Settlement Plan, as modified by the May 1992 Desegregation Plan, the Revised Plan included a section establishing a specific procedure \"Joshua\" to be only the first named intervenor, Mrs. Lorene Joshua, and properly used the singular pronoun \"she\" to refer to \"Joshua\" LRSD v. PCSSD, 56 F.3d 904, 914 (8th Cir. 1995). Either pronoun usage is correct, as long as the reader understands how the Court is  defining \"Joshua;\" 6 According to the explicit language of the Revised Plan, it \"shall supersede and extinguish all prior agreements and orders\" in this case \"and all consolidated cases related to the desegregation\" of the LRSD with the following exceptions: a . The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989 (\"Settlement Agreement\"); b. The Magnet School Stipulation dated February 27, 1987; c. Order dated September 3, 1986, pertaining to the Magnet Review Committee;  d: The M-to-M Stipulation dated August 26, 1986; and, a eals int retin and enforcin sections a through d. above to the extent not inconsistent with this Revised Plan. 7buring the hearings on unitary status, the Revised Plan was introduced into evidence as ex 871. 8In its April 10 Order, the district court concluded, in the alternative, that, even if the Revised Plan was considered to be a \"modification\" ofLRSD's May 1992 Desegregation Plan, rather than \"an entirely new consent decree,\" it still should be approved under the test for seeking modification of a consent decree established by the Court in Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 393 (1992). See also LRSD v. PCSSD, 56 F.3d at 914; LRSD, 921 F.2d at 1387. -4- A072A and time schedule under which LR.SD might achieve unitary status: SECTION 11: Unitary Status. At the conclusion of the 2000'-01 school year, the district court shall eriter ail 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 above-described order shall be entered without farther proceedings. (Emphasis added.) Because none of the parties appealed the district court's April 10 Order approving the Revised Plan, it became a final consent decree, which now governs LRSD's desegregation obligations and establishes the path tha~ LRSD must follow to achieve unitary status and release from federal court supervision.9 On March 15, 2001, LR.SD filed a Request for Scheduling Order and Compliance Report 91n most school desegregation cases, a federal court's jurisdiction depends on the existence of constitutional violations by the school district Once the school district complies with all of its obligations under the Constitution, it achieves \"unitary status,\" and the federal court's jurisdiction ends. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1971). .   1 .   In Green v. County School Bd. of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430, 4~5-38 (1968), the Court identified the following areas of a school district's operations that must be carefully exannncu m oetemnnmg wnemer 1t.nas successtu.lly converteo .. to a unnary system m whlch racial discrimination [has been] eliminated root and branch\": ( 1) student assignment; (2) faculty and staff assignment; (3) transportation; (4) extracurricular activities; and (5) facilities . . These so-called Green factors establish the floor for a school district's compliance with its constitutional obligations under the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, in all school desegregation cases, a school district's compliance with the Green factors is a condition precedent to unitary status. Importantly, the Revised Plan required LRSD to comply with not only the Green factors, but also a host of other desegregation obligations that went well beyond the constitutional floor established by the Court in Green. Thus, in this case, the question of unitary status turns on whether LRSD has substantially complied with its desegregation obligations under the Revised Plan. -5- A072A ( docket no. 3410), 10 pursuant to Section 11 of the Revised Plan, seeking \"an order finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations.\" On June 25, 2001, Joshua filed an Opposition to LRSD's Compliance Report (docket no. 3447), which vigorously challenged LRSD's contention that it was entitled to a declaration of unitary status and argued that LRSD was not in \"substantial complian?e\" with certain of its desegregation obligations under the Revised Plan. On July 5 and 6, August 1 and 2, and November 19 and 20, 2001, my colleague and predecessor in this case,United States CbiefDistrict Judge Susan Webber Wright, conducted five and one-half days of evidentiary hearings to develop the facts surrounding what Joshua believed were their three strongest grounds11 for challenging LRSD's request for unitary status: first, that LRSD had not acted in good faith in implementing its desegregation obligations( 2.1 of the Revised Plan); second, that LRSD was not in substantial compliance with its obligations regarding student discipline (  2.5 through 2.5 .4 of the Revised Plan); and third, that LRSD was not in substantial compliance with its obligations to implement programs, policies, and procedures designed to improve the academic achievement of African-American students ( 2.7, 2.7.1, and 5.1-5.8 of the Revised Plan). In a scheduling conference on December 11, 2001, Judge Wright desi~ated the week of , . January 28, 2002, to hear no more than five additional days of testimony regarding the last three 10During the hearings on unitary status, the Final March 15, 200 l Compliance Report was introduced into evidence as CX 870. 111n a telephone conference with counsel on June 29, 2001; Judge Wright made it clear that counsel for Joshua should present his strongest arguments and evidence first, followed by subsidiary arguments and evidence (docket no. 3461 at 54-55). -6- areas of the Revised Plan in which Joshua claimed LRSD had :failed to substantially comply with its obligations: advanced placement courses ( 2.6 and 2.6.2 of the Revised Plan); extracurricular activities( 2.6 and 2.6.3 of the Revised Plan); ~d guidance counseling (.2.6.1 of the Revised Plan) ( docket no. 3597 at 31-37).12 Judge Wright made it clear tha~ after she had heard the testimony concerning these last three areas of LRSD's alleged noncompliance, she  would decide the question of unitary status. Id. at 36-37. On January 3, 2002, after presiding over this case with great perseverance and distinction for eleven years, 13 Judge Wright determined that it was the \"appropriate tiine to reassign this case to another judge with minimal disruption to the parties and to allow a smooth transition\" ( docket no. 3569). That same day, the case was assigned to me by random selection ( docket no. 3570).14 On March 15, 2002, one year to the day after submitting its Request for Scheduling Order and Compliance Report, LRSD filed a Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status 12Judge Wright also ruled that Joshua could present non-curi:mlative evidence regarding: (a) LRSD's lack of good faith in implementing its obligations regarding. advanced placement courses, extracurricular activities, and guidance counseling; and (b) the ways in which LRSD's failure to substantially comply with its obligations regarding advanced placement courses and guidance counseling adversely impacted the academic achievement of African-American students . . 13JnLRSD v. NLRSD, 148 F .3d 956,967 (8th Cir.1998), the Court recognized the expertise Judge Wright had gained during her many years of service in this case: In reaching this conclusion, we are mindful that Judge Wright has been responsible for administering and interpreting the settlement agreement for some time now, ever since 1990, when she took over this case. Our review of the District Court's interpretation of the settlement agreement is, as a formal matter, de novo. But we still think it appropriate to pay some heed to the reasoned determinations of the experienced District Judge, who faces decisions in this case every month, if not every week. 14Of course, the five days of evidentiary hearings that Judge Wright had scheduled for the week of January 28, 2002, were cancelled. -7- (docket no. 3580) and Supporting Memorandum Brief_(docket no. 3581). On May 9, 2002, I entered a fourteen-page Order ( docket no. 3598) explaining to the parties my understanding of the current status of the case. Because the passing of the baton is a key factor in any relay race, the May 9 Order noted: Judge Wright, my immediate predecessor in this case, has done an outstandingjob of narrowing the issues and establishing a schedule that should allow nie to conduct no more than five additional days of evidentiary hearings on the four remaining issues and then be in a position to decide the LRSD's Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status. For that reason, the Court intends to pick up where Judge Wright left off, without disturbing the schedule that was established and agreed to by the parties and the Court during the December 11, 2001 hearing. May 9, 2002 Order at 12 (docket no. 3598) (footnote omitted). In a telephone conference with counsel on May 14, 2002, I rescheduled for July 22-26, 2002, the last five days of evidentiary hearings on the question of whether LRSD had substantially complied with its obligations under the Revised Plan . . In an Order (docket no. 3600) entered the next day, I set forth the schedule adopted during the May 14 telephone conference. On May 30, 2002, Joshua filed their Response in Opposition-to LRSD's Motion for an hnmediate Declaration ofUnitary Status ( docket no. 3604). On June 7, 2002, LRSD filed a Reply i Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status ( do.cket no. 3607). relevant to the determination of whether LRSD is entitled to a declaration of unitary status. Thus, the record is now complete, and the issue of unitary status is ready for decision. During the last eight months, I have spent many an hour trying to educate myself on the significant rulings and agreements that have shaped the current contours of this twenty-year-old -8-  A072A case.15 I have also read a ground-slide load of cases to gain an understanding of the evolution of school desegregation litigation during the last five decades and to grasp the issues a court must resolve in deciding whether a . school district has achieved unitary status. I have learned that desegregation cases are invariably complex, involve difficult-to-understand jargon, and frequently generate book-length appellate decisions, with seemingly obligatory concurring and dissenting opinions. Of course, I have found none of these discoveries to be surprising. After all, the issue of desegregation goes to both the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment's promise of \"equal protection\" and the dark soul of what was, in many parts of the country in the I 950's, a de jure segregated public school system that only grudgingly gave ground to integration-after most school districts had exhausted all available means of delay. In 1954, the Supreme Court rendered its landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 495 (I 954) (\"Brown I\"), holding that \"in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place\" and that segregation of public education is a denial of\"equal protection of the laws.\"16 Three years later, Little Rock suddenly found itself at the epicenter of this country's first major school desegregation effort. In early August  of 1957, LRSD school officials (including the school board) were prepared to implement a plan to admit a small number of African-American students to Central High School. Arkansas's Governor, Orval Faubus, ostensibly supported that plan, which, if 15This action was filed on November 30, 1982, as the last in a long line of desegregation cases, dating back to 1956. See infra, note 18. The pleadings in this case alone now occupy hundreds of feet of file space in the Clerk's office. 16The next year; the Court explicitly directed the lower federal courts to accomplish desegregation ''with all deliberate speed.\" Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 301 (1955) (\"Brown II\"). -9- _ A072A ' . . .. .. ~ . implemented with the support of the State, may well have led to the peaceful integration of Central. As it turned out, however, just as school started, Faubus called out the Arkansas National Guard to prevent the \"Little'Rock Nine\" :froin entering Central. 17 Faubus, who was known as somewhat of a moderate up to that time, shamelessly fanned  the flames of racism under the rubric of \"state' s rights,\" \"interposition,\" and the like. Thus, Little Rock became the first great legal .battleground in the long struggle to desegregate this country's public school system, a distinction that has left lasting wounds in this community. One can only wonder how the history of school desegregation might have been different if the first southern governor to squarely face the dictates of Brown I had done his plain, sworn constitutional duty. In view of the historical importance of this case, I believe I should review the long and winding path trod by LRSD in carrying out its constitutional duty, under Brown I and its progeny, to rid the Little Rock school system, to the extent practicable, of the vestiges of de jure segregation. Withoutatleast some understanding of that history, it is impossible to appreciate the deep passions this case still. stirs iii the litigants, lawyers, and judges who have been involved in almost five decades of continuous, unremitting school desegregation litigation in Pulaski County.18 17Faubus, of course, cited public safety concerns as bis reason for mobilizing the National Guard. He claimed \"secret intelligence reports\" indicated that dangerous outside agitators were at work in Little Rock, but these reports were never substantiated. In fact, the evidence now available suggests that the white mob which confronted the \"Little Rock Nine\" was mobilized by Faubus' own demagoguery, rather than by unidentified \"outside agitators.\" And, of course, other demagogues of a like mind were quick to pitch in. R. Reed, Faubus: The Life And Times Of An American Prodigal (1997). 18Jn 1956, the plaintiffs inAaron v. Cooper, 143 F. Supp. 855 (E.D. Ark.1956), filed suit against LRSD to force it to desegregate pursuant to the Court's holding in Brown I. In 1964, the plaintiffs filed Clark v. Board of Educ. of LRSD as a continuation of the desegregation action -10-   .  . . _ ..... - .,: ' - - - - . -  .. 1- ..   ., ... ... ,_ .. . .. --. ... ; .  ~ . . ....  - .... -  . .. '   A. II. The Long History Of Desegregation Litigation In Pulaski County 1956 Through 1973 mLRSDv. PCSSD, 584F. Supp. 328, 331-32 (E.D. Ark. 1984), the late and distinguished United States District Judge Henry Woods, the first judge to preside over this case, chronicled  in great detail the history of desegregation in Pulaski County. m bis scholarly decision, Judge Woods descnbed: the operation of LRSD m 1930, when it was a dejure segregated school district operating under the \"separate but equal\" doctrine;19 the Court's decision in Brown I, which overturned Plessy v. Ferguson; the court-ordered implementation of a plan to admit a small number of African-American students to Little Rock Central High School in September of1957;20 Governor Faubus' use of Arkansas National Guard troops at Central to place it \"off limits\" to African-American students and the subsequent removal of those troops after the issuance of an injunction by United States District Judge Ronald Davies in Aaron v. Cooper, 156 F. Supp. 220 commenced against LRSD in Aaron v. Cooper. See Judge William Overton's July 9, 1982 Memorandum and Order in Clark, a copy of which, marked Exhibit 1, is attached to LRSD's Memorandum Brief in Support ofMotion for an Immediate Declaration ofUnitary Status (docket no. 3581 ). On Noveinber 30, 1982, LRSD initiated this action against the PCS SD, NLRSD, and thP ,\\ -1 Roard nfPnnr\u0026lt;itinn ., .... v;no the consolidation of all three school districts in Pulaski County as the appropriate interdistrict desegregation remedy.  Thus, LRSD has been involved continually in federal desegregation litigation for forty-six years. 19Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), overruled by Brown I, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). 20See Aaron v. Cooper, 143 F. Supp. 855 (E.D. Ark. 1956). As discussed supra at note 18, Aaron was filed in 1956 to force LRSD to desegregate pursuant to the Court's holding in Brown. United States District Judge John E. Miller entered a decree on August 27, 1956, approving LRSD's plan of gradual school integration beginning with senior high school classes in the fall term of 1957. The Eighth Circuit subsequently affirmed that decision. Aaron v. Cooper, 243 F .2d 361 (8th Cir. 1957). -11- AQ_7~_ (E.D. Ark. 1957);21 the nine courageous African-American students entering Central on September 23, 1957, in the face of a large, threatening mob of whites; and, finally, President Eisenhower dispatching troops to Central to ensure the safety of the African-American students and to enforce Judge Davies' desegregation order.22 Judge Woods also traced desegregation plans advanced by LRSD in \"the decade of 1960 in a good faith effort to provide a solution to continuous litigation\" and the failure of those plans m \"the hysterical political atmosphere of that period.\" LRSD, 584 F. Supp. at 334. In 1966, the Eighth Circuit approved LRSD.'s \"freedom of choice\" desegregation pl~, which remained in effect through the 1968-69 school year. Clarkv. Board of Education ofLRSD, 369 F.2d 661 (8th Cir. 1966). Significantly, in its decision, the Court noted 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._ 21In 1957, the Eighth Circuit assignedJudge Davies, of Fargo, North Dakota, to preside over Aaron. On September 21, 1957, Judge Davies issued an injunction ordering Governor au us, e ~utant ener o e tate o ansas, an 1eutenant_ o one anon . Johnson of the Arkansas National Guard, and their officers, agents, and employees to cease and desist \"obstructing or preventing, by means of the Arkansas National Guard, or otherwise, Negro students, eligible under said plan of school integration to attend the Little Ro~k Central High School, from attending said school .... \" Aaron v. Cooper, 156 F. Supp. at 222. See also Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 9-10 (1958). 22Scenes of angry mobs of white protesters confronting the nine African-American students as they entered Central and, later, troops of the 101 st Airborne Division rolling across the Broadway Bridge to restore order in Little Rock are still deeply etched in the minds of many Arkansans. -12- l A072A Id. at 666.23 In Green v. County School Board ofNe',11 Kerit County, 391 U.S. 430, 439-40 (1968), the . . Court held that school districts such as LRSD, which were the product ofde jure segregation, could not satisfy their constitutional obligations under \"freedom of choice\" plans. Therefore, LRSD formulated a new desegregation plan for the 1969-70 school year that was based on geographic attendance zones. However', because segregated housing patterns created a number of racially identifiable schools under the plan, the Eighth Circuit found it to be unconstitutional. Clarkv. Board of Education ofLRSD, 426 F.2d 1035, 1043 (8th Cir. 1970). In the 1971-72 school year, LRSD began crosstown busing to achieve racial balance in grades 6 through 12. Clarkv. Board of Directors ofLRSD, 328 F. Supp. 1205, 1209, 1214 (E.D. Ark. 1971, rev'd in part, 449 F.2d 493 (8th Cir. 1971). The following school year, crosstown busing was used to achieve racial balance in grades 4 and 5. Clark v. Board of Education of LRSD, 465 F.2d 1044, 1046 (8th Cir .. 1972). Finally, during the 1972-73 school year, all LRSD schools and all LRSD grade levels were racially balanced. B. Events Leading To Initiation Of This Action On July 9, 1982, United States District Judge WiUiam R. Overton entered a Memorandum and Order in Clark which contained many of the findings that underpinned LRSD's subsequent 23Likewise, in Cooper, 358 U.S. at 9, the Supreme Court acknowledged that LRSD was prepared to implement the plan, approved by Judge Miller in Aaron, 156 F. Supp. 220, to gradually integrate senior high school classes in the fall term of 1957. However, LRSD was prevented from following that plan by the flagrantly unlawful actions of Governor Faubus, which the Supreme Court noted \"had not been requested by the school authorities, and [were] entirely unheralded.\" Cooper, 358 U.S. at 9. -13- A072A decision to file this action.24 In many respects, Judge Overton's decision was a ringing endorsement of LRSD for successfully implementing its school desegregation plan over the last nine years. For example, Judge Overton explicitly found: (1) \"no evidence of vestiges of discrimination in the district policies or practices\"; (2) ''the district has done an admirable job in the task of desegregation\"; and (3) \"the Little Rock School District has operated in compliance with court decrees for nine years as a completely unitary desegregated school system and isolated complaints of discrimination without persuasive specific evidence to the contrary do not detract from that record.\" July 9, 1982 Memorandum and Order at 16 (docket no. 3581) ( emphasis added). 25 Although Judge Overton found that LRSD was operating \"as a completely unitary desegregated school system,\" he made a number of findings that raised serious questions about the future prospects for LRSD remaining an integrated school district. For' example, Judge Overton found that: ( 1) in the years after the desegregation ofLRSD elementary schools in 1973- 7 4, \"there has been a steady trend ofincreasing black enrollment and decreasing white enrollment 24As indicated previously, a copy of Judge Overton's July 9, 1982 Memorandum and Order is attached as Exhibit 1 to LRSD's Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status (docket no. 3581). 25Eleven years later, Judge Wright, in describing the operation of LRSD in the years before it filed this action, observed that many believed desegregation litigation in the LRSD \"[had] been brought to a successful conclusion and the Little Rock school system seemed to have entered a period of relative tranquility and complete self-management.\" See Judge Wright's Statement to LRSD Board of Directors and Counsel on March 19, 1993, attached as Exhibit 1 to Joshua's August l, 1996 Memorandum in Opposition to LRSD's Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction ( docket no. 2730). -14- A072A ~-- in the elementary schools ... and [to a lesser extent] in the upper grades\";26 (2) despite LRSD's efforts to modify student assignment plans to correct the growing disparity in the black-white student ratio in elementary schools,\"[ a ]11 of the persuasive evidence indicates the school district will have enrollment which is essentially all black, particularly in the elementary grades, within the next few years\"; and (3) by the fall of 1981, LRSD faced a host of problems surrounding the school attendance plan, including a \"significant disparity in the black-white ratio at the various elementary schools,\" complaints ofblack parents \"that their children were being bused across the city to attend all black classes,\" and the defeat of \"the last two millage increase proposals ... by the electorate ... [ creating] severe financial problems and an eroding financial base.\" July 9, 1982 Memorandum and Order at 1-6, attached as Exhibit 1 to LRSD's Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status (docket no. 3581). In an effort to retain and supplement the shrinking pool of white students, Judge Overton approved the Partial K-6 Plan,27 which 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 twelve neighborhood schools were racially balanced, and four were virtually all black. Under the plan, 26In the fall of 1971, 42% of the students in LRSD were black. In each year from 1971 through 1981, the number of black students increased, while the number of white students decreased. In the fall of 1981, 76% of elementary students and 55% ofhigh school students were black. See LRSD, 584 F. Supp. at 335. In the December 16, 1981 Report prepared by the Desegregation Assistance Team from Stephen F. Austin University, the authors concluded that, if existing trends continued, 90% of the students entering the first grade in LRSD in the fall of 1989 would be black. See Stephen F. Austin Report at 19, attached as Exhibit 2 to LRSD's Memorandum Briefin Support ofMotion for an Immediate Declaration ofUnitary Status ( docket no. 3581). 27This was a shorthand reference for LRSD's desegregation plan for children attending kindergarten through the sixth grade. -15- A072A Booker Junior High School became an intermediate school; a magnet school was to be created west ofUniversity Avenue; and a committee was appointed to ensure that the four virtually all black schools would be treated equally. See July 9, 1982 Memorandum and Order at 6-11.28 Finally, Judge Overton noted that LRSD had taken a number of steps to address the problems that confronted it. First, LRSD had commissioned a study and report by a ' \"Desegregation Assistance Team\" at Stephen F. Austin University on its desegregation efforts and the challenges it faced in the future.29 Second, LRSD had begun investigating \"the possibility of seeking an interdistrict remedy through legal proceedings against the adjacent County School District and [had] hired a law firm to pursue that remedy.\" See July 9, 1982 Memorandum and Order at 6. C. Interdistrict Litigation And Interdistrict Relief On November 30, 1982, LRSD filed this action-a new case30--against PCSSD, NLRSD, the State of Arkansas, and the Arkansas Department ofEducation (\"ADE\") seeking consolidation of the three Pulaski County School Districts as the most appropriate and effective desegregation remedy for all three school districts. In its Complaint ( docket no. 10), LRSD alleged that PCS SD 28Judge Overton's July 9 decision approved LRSD's Partial K-:6 plan as a \"stop gap\" student assignment plan for elementary grades. The Eighth Circuit later affirmed that decision in Clarkv. Board of Educ. of LRSD, 705 F.2d 265 (8th Cir. 1983). 29 As indicated, supra at note 26, this report, entitled \"Building on a Generation of Accomplishment Maintaining and Strengthening Desegregation in Little Rock\" (hereinafter referred to as the \"Austin Report\"), is attached as Exhibit 2 to LRSD's Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status (docket no. 3581). 3Because this action involved claims for relief and remedies that were different from those involved in Clark, it was considered to be a new case and was randomly assigned to the Honorable Henry Woods. -16- A072A and NLRSD engaged in \"a series of intradistrict constitutional violations with interdistrict effects\" and that the State of Arkansas and Arkansas Department of Education (hereinafter referred to collectively as the \"State/ADE\"), through funding and other state action, \"operated, maintained and/or condoned a racially segregated structure of public education under color of state law.\" After conducting a trial on the merits of the claims asserted in LRSD's Complaint, Judge Woods entered a Memorandum Opinion setting forth detailed findings of fact and conclusions oflaw to support his detennination that each of the three Defendants had violated the Constitution by creating \"racial isolation between and among the districts\" that had caused six specific \"interdistrict effects.\" LRSD, 584 F. Supp. at 349-51.31 Judge Woods noted that, at a later date, he would conduct a hearing to take evidence regarding the precise nature of the remedy that should be fashioned to cure the interdistrict effects of \"substantial interdistrict segregation.\" Id. at 352-53. During the subsequent remedial hearings, PCSSD advanced a plan that retained the three autonomous school districts and relied on the development of specialty or magnet schools to attract students from one district to another. LRSD v. PCSSD, 597 F. Supp. 1220, 1222-23 (E.D. Ark. 1984). NLRSD advanced a plan that retained the three autonomous school districts, transferred certain geographic areas from PCSSD to LRSD and from LRSD to PCSSD, and depended heavily on the use of majority to minority transfers (\"M to M transfers\") to achieve racial balance. Id. at 1223. Although not advancing a specific plan, Joshua used testimony from 31 Judge Woods made 105 specific findings of fact and drew 14 conclusions oflaw to support his determination of the issue of liability. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed all of those findings of fact and conclusions oflaw. LRSD v. PCSSD, 778 F.2d 404, 429-34 (8th Cir. 1985). -17- i! A072A ,c--o,a,,, two expert witnesses to suggest three options: (1) altering boundary lines in accordance with the NLRSD plan; (2) altering boundary lines to transfer other geographic areas among all three districts; or (3) transferring certain geographic areas to LRSD and having all of the remaining area of PCSSD consolidated with NLRSD. Id. at 1223-24. LRSD advanced a plan that involved the county-wide consolidation of all three school districts. Id. at 1224-25. After considering all of the evidence, Judge Woods concluded that \"a countywide interdistrict remedy must be utilized to correct the countywide interdistrict violation found to exist and that this is the only manner of placing the victims of this discrimination in the position they would have occupied absent the discrimination.\" Id. at 1225. 32 Judge Woods also concluded that the State/ ADE: (a) failed to discharge its affirmative duty to encourage desegregation, which had an interdistrict effect on LRSD, PCS SD, and NLRSD; and (b) had \"remedial responsibilities with respect to this case.\" Judge Woods noted that the \"precise nature of [the State/ADE's] financial and oversight responsibilities must await further refinement of the consolidation plan and development of a budget for such consolidated district.\" Id. at 1228. PCSSD, NLRSD, and the State/ADE appealed Judge Woods' decisions inLRSD, 584 F. Supp. 328, and LRSD, 597 F. Supp. 1220. The Eighth Circuit, sitting en bane, affirmed Judge Woods' finding on liability for interdistrict constitutional violations by PCSSD,'NLRSD, and the State/ ADE, but reversed his remedy of consolidation33 on the ground that, while the interdistrict violations of the Constitution called for an interdistrict remedy, consolidation of the three school 32Tous, the cat had been belled--for the time being. 33Toe cat was not long belled. -18- A0 7 ?A districts was not required. LRSD v. PCSSD, 778 F.2d 404, 429-34 (8th Cir. 1985).34 Rather than remanding the case to the district court for further findings and a detailed remedial decree, the Court spelled out its own interdistrictremedy.35 Id. at 434-36. Although this interdistrict remedy allowed LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD to remain autonomous, it called for, among other things: changing boundaries between PCS SD and LRSD; revising attendance zones so that each school would reasonably reflect the racial composition of its district within a permitted variance of plus or minus 25% of the minority race; encouraging intradistrict and interdistrict M to M transfers; and creating a limited number of magnet or specialty schools. Id. at 435-36. The principles of the interdistrict remedy outlined in the majority opinion later became the basis for the desegregation plans that were implemented in each of the three Pulaski County school districts. LRSD proceeded to develop a \"controlled choice\" desegregation plan, which was approved by Judge Woods on February 27, 1987 (docket no. 739). Under this plan, 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 34Judge Woods later wrote an article in the Arkansas Law Review critiquing the Eighth Circuit's decision. Judge Henry Woods and Beth Deere, Reflections on the Little Rock School Case, 44 Ark. L. Rev. 971 (1991). 35In a separate opinion, Judge Richard S. Arnold made the following observation about the remedy fashioned by the majority: The District Court (though we are today disagreeing with some ofits conclusions) is presided over by a scholarly and distinguished judge. That court, not this one, is in the best position to write a decree. Instead, a decree today springs full-grown from the brow of this Court, a decree that will, I dare say, startle all the parties to this case, including even those (if there are any) who like what they see. LRSD, 778 F.2d at 437 (Arnold, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). -19- l\\07?A zone. After a student was assigned to a 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 12.5% of the black student population at the school. The plan also provided for eight magnet schools (four elementary, two 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%. Finally, the plan established a Magnet Review Committee, with representatives of each of the three districts, along with a non-voting member representing Joshua and the Knight Intervenors.36 The controlled choice plan was implemented beginning with the 1987-88 school year (docket no. 670). While the controlled choice plan was intended to create racial balance, it resulted in many central and east Little Rock schools having fewer than fifty white students. For that reason and others, Judge Woods later found the plan to be \"ill-conceived.\" LRSD v. PCSSD, 716 F. Supp. 1162, 1188 (E.D. Ark. 1989), rev'd., 921 F.2d 1371 (1990). LRSD submitted a new desegregation plan for the 1988-89 school year, which all parties agreed would be a \"stabilizing year'' to allow LRSD to carefully plan for the 1989-90 school year and beyond. Id. With that understanding, Judge Woods approved LRSD's proposed desegregation plan for the 1988-89 school year. Id. D. The 1990 Settlement Agreement And Settlement Plans After long and difficult negotiations that began in 1988, LRSD, PCSSD, NLRSD, Joshua, and the State/ADE agreed to a global settlement of all aspects of this case. In the spring of 1989, 36The Knight Intervenors are members of the LRSD Classroom Teachers Association. -20- ii A072A the parties submitted the following final settlement documents37 to Judge Woods: (a) The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement,38 which, among other things, fixed the State/ADE's total financial liability to the three school districts to be an amount \"not to exceed $129, 750,000\";39 and (b) separate comprehensive \"Settlement Plans\" for LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD and a comprehensive \"lnterdistrict Settlement Plan.'\"'0 Judge Woods rejected each of the four separate Settlement Plans41 and the 1990 Settlement Agreement,42 as submitted; 31See footnote 3, supra, for an explanation of the terminology I will use in referring to these settlement documents. 38A copy of the 1990 Settlement Agreement is attached to LRSD's and Joshua's \"Joint Motion\" seeking approval of that agreement (docket no. 1174). 39The 1990 Settlement Agreement contained detailed prov1s1ons governing the State/ADE's role in funding and implementing the separate LRSD, NLRSD, PCSSD, and Interdistrict Settlement Plans. Among other things, the State agreed to pay the three school districts a total of not more than $129,750,000. All of the parties agreed to release all claims against each other and to dismiss this case, with prejudice, as to each party. 40 As indicated previously, these four Settlement Plans contained the detailed desegregation obligations that LRSD, PCS SD, and NLRSD contractually agreed to implement under the district court's supervision. See footnote 3, supra. 41 Judge Woods refused to approve the Settlement Plans because he believed they were \"facially unconstitutional\" and outside the mandate of the Eighth Circuit: In LRSD 's proposed plan almost one-fourth of the elementary schools are contemplated to be all black. The entire mandatory busing burden at the elementary level for desegregation purposes falls on black children. . . . All of the historically \"black\" schools lie east ofUniversity A venue, and all are proposed to be all-black incentive schools. Double funding is promised for the all-black schools. Yet it is impossible to determine from the submissions how the funds will be spent. LRSD, 716 F. Supp. at 1169. 42Judge Woods refused to approve the 1990 Settlement Agreement because it was \"contingent upon legislative approval and a legislative appropriation to fund it. I cannot in good conscience accept this bill as having passed.\" LRSD, 716 F. Supp. at 1 164. -21- ~-0 72A ordered the parties to implement a more comprehensive plan known as the Tri-District Plan; appointed Eugene Reville to the position of Metropolitan Supervisor; and conferred upon Mr. Reville a wide array of powers over all three school districts that, in many respects, closely resembled consolidation--the remedy the Eighth Circuit had previously rejected. LRSD, 716 F. Supp. at 1164-69. Shortly after Judge Woods entered his decision, the Arkansas Legislature passed a bill funding the over $100,000,000 that the State/ADE was obligated to pay to the three school districts under the 1990 Settlement Agreement. Based on this new development, the parties resubmitted the Settlement Agreement to Judge Woods for approval. On December 11, 1989, Judge Woods entered an Order which added certain new conditions to the Settlement Agreement; approved it, as modified; and directed the parties to carry out its terms. LRSD v. PCSSD, 726 F. Supp. 1544, 1549-51 (E.D. Ark. 1989). Judge Woods' December 11 Order also specifically disapproved that portion of the Settlement Agreement which called for LRSD to pay $2,000,000 of the $3,150,000 in attorneys' fees that the parties had agreed to pay to Joshua's counsel. Id. at 1554-56.43 Each of the school districts and Joshua appealed the district court's decisions to the Eighth Circuit, which reversed and remanded the case with instructions to approve the 1990 Settlement Agreement and the four Settlement Plans, as submitted by the parties. LRSD, 921 F.2d 1371. In reaching that decision, the Court made a number of important rulings that have had a profound 43Under the terms of the 1990 Settlement Agreement, Joshua's counsel was to be paid attorneys' fees of $3,150,000, which the parties agreed should be allocated as follows: LRSD: $2,000,000; the State/ADE: $750,000; PCSSD: $300,000; and NLRSD: $100,000. LRSD, 921 F.2d at 1390. -22- influence on future developments in the case. First, the Court noted that the appeal arose from settlements agreed to by all the parties (a \"most important fact\") and that \"[t]he law strongly favors settlements\" which should be \"hospitably'' received: This may be especially true in the present context--a protracted, highly divisive, even bitter litigation, any lasting solution to which necessarily depends on the good faith and cooperation of all the parties, especially the defendants. Id. at 1383. As further support for that conclusion, the Court made the following observation: This is, after all, no ordinary litigation. The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, its lawyers and its predecessors, have vigorously prosecuted this case and its ancestors for more than 30 years. Absent an extremely good reason--and we have been given none--we are reluctant to disregard their judgment as to what is best for their own clients. Id. at 1386. Second, the Court explicitly recognized theimportantroleof futuremonitoringin the case and the need for it to continue \"for a long time\": \"In the present case, for example, any remedy will necessarily require some judicial supervision--monitoring, at least--for a long time.\" Id. at 13 83 ( emphasis added). The Court also emphasized the importance of the district court ensuring that \"the settlement plans [are] scrupulously adhered to,\" that monitoring is done effectively, and that appropriate action is taken if the parties do not live up to their commitments.\" Id. at 1386. Third, the Court recognized that \"a necessary condition of our holding that the plans are not facially unconstitutional is that the parties' compliance with them will be carefully monitored.\" Id. at 1388. Therefore, the Court directed the creation of the ODM ''to be headed by a Monitor appointed by the District Court, with such additional personnel as the District Court shall deem appropriate.\" Id. -23- A07.2A_ Finally, the Court reversed Judge Woods' decision on attorneys ' fees and awarded counsel for Joshua $3,150,000, the full amount of attorneys' fees provided for under the Settlement Agreement. These attorneys' fees were allocated and payable among the parties as follows: LRSD ($2,000,000);44 State/ ADE ($750,000); PCS SD ($300,000); and NLRSD ($100,000). Id. at 1390. In an Order entered July 6, 1990, Judge Woods concluded that, because he was \"unable to successfully implement a plan to bring equity to the children of this county under the restrictions imposed by the Court of Appeals,\" the time had come \"for another judge to assume the burden of this litigation since it is my unalterable decision to recuse.\" LRSD v. PCSSD, 740 F. Supp. 632, 636 (E.D. Ark. 1990). Later that day, the case was reassigned, by random selection, to the Honorable Susan Webber Wright (docket no. 1373). E. LRSD's Implementation Oflts Desegregation Obligations Between 1991 And 1995 Section IV of the Settlement Agreement explicitly provided that the State/ADE \"conditions this settlement upon its dismissal from this Litigation with prejudice in accordance with the terms of Attachment A.\" Attachment A was a \"Release of All Claims Against the State,\" pursuant to which all parties to this litigation released all claims they might have against the State/ ADE relating \"to racial discrimination or segregation in public education in the three school districts in Pulaski County, Arkansas or to the violation of constitutional or other rights of school children based on race or color in the three school districts in Pulaski County, Arkansas.\" Attachments B, C, and D were identical releases that ran in favor of LRSD, PCSSD, and \"\"The State/ADE agreed to advance LRSD's share of these attorneys' fees, which were to be deducted from payments the State/ADE owed LRSD under Section VI of the Settlement Agreement. LRSD, 921 F.2d at 1390. -24- A072A /gp-'L8Ja2}__ NLRSD. Finally, Attachments A, B, C, and D each contained the same language providing that this action (LR-C-82-866) \"is to be dismissed with prejudice\" as to the State/ ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD. Thus, the Settlement Agreement expressly provided for the dismissal of this case, with prejudice, \"except that the Court may retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding implementation of the Plans. \" Attachments A, B, C, and D to the Settlement Agreement (docket no. 1174) (emphasis added). On the date the Eighth Circuit entered its decision approving the 1990 Settlement Agreement and Settlement Plans, only the State/ ADE had moved to be dismissed, with prejudice, as a party to this action.45 Thus, one of Judge Wright's first rulings in this case was a January 18, 1991 Order that: (1) dismissed the State/ADE as a party to this action \"pursuant to the terms of the parties' settlement agreement\"; and (2) converted the Office of Metropolitan Supervisor to the ODM, which she \"vested with the authority to monitor the school districts' compliance with the settlement plans and settlement agreement, including any future modification of, or addition to, such plans and agreements\" ( docket no. 1418). Ann Marshall, Anna Hart, Polly Ramer, and Linda Bryant, all of whom previously worked for Mr. Reville in the Office of Metropolitan Supervisor, were allowed to \"continue in their present positions subject to the later approval of 45ln its December 12, 1990 decision approving the 1990 Settlement Agreement and four separate Settlement Plans, the Eighth Circuit directed the district court to \"enter a fresh order dismissing the State as a party pursuant to the terms of the parties' settlement agreement.\" LRSD, 921 F .2d at 1394. Under the explicit language of the Settlement Agreement, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD were each entitled to the entry of a similar order dismissing them, with prejudice, as parties to this action. Forreasons that are not apparent from a review of the record, LRSD waited until November 30, 1995, to move for an order dismissing this case with prejudice (docket no. 2573). See discussion infra at pp. 31-32. On January 26, 1998, Judge Wright entered an Order ( docket no. 3109) pursuant to which LRSD was dismissed, with prejudice, as a party to this action and the case was administratively terminated ( docket no. 3110). -25- An\"'\"\" the court-appointed monitor.\" In a Memorandum Opinion entered February 28, 1991 ( docket no. 1442), the district court made it clear that, even though the State had now been dismissed as a party, it remained obligated to comply with its settlement obligations, which \"when understood in conjunction with the language in both the Eighth Circuit's order of December 12, 1990, and this Court's order of January 18, 1991, also obligate the State to continue funding the ODM\" by making the annual contribution of $200,000 required in Judge Woods' June 27, 1989 Order.46 Likewise, LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD were required to continue their annual funding of the ODM on a per pupil pro-rated basis. On April 5, 1991, Judge Wright entered a Memorandum and Order(docket no. 1459) that appointed Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor, at an annual salary of$98,000.47 46In an Order entered August 18, 1993 ( docket no. 194 7), Judge Wright emphasized that, while the State/ ADE was no longer a formal party in this action, \"it is the law of the case that the Court retains jurisdiction to ensure that the parties, including the State, comply with the terms of the settlement agreement as well as the settlement plans.\" In an Order entered December 10, I 993 ( docket no. 2045), Judge Wright held that the State agreed not only to the obligations contained in the 1990 Settlement Agreement, but also to the obligations contained in.the May 31, 1989 letter from its counsel, H. William Allen, which is referred to in Secti0n III of the 1990 Settlement Agreement as the \"Arkansas Department of Education monitoring plan.\" In their pleadings, the parties often refer to this latter document as \"the Allen letter.\"  47The first budget Judge Woods approved for the Office of Metropolitan Supervisor was for fiscal year July 1, 1989, to June 30, 1990. That budget totaled $353,710.24 and included Mr. Reville's salary of $98,500, plus the salary and overhead for four other employees (docket no. 1246). Over the next ten years, the budget for the ODM more than doubled to reach $784,188 for fiscal year 2000-01. The staffing of the ODM also more than doubled to reach ten employees. As indicated previously, under the 1990 Settlement Agreement, the State/ADE was required to pay $200,000, annually, as its share of the cost of the ODM. The balance of the ODM budget was paid by LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD on a pro-rata basis that was calculated based upon the percentage of students in Pulaski County who attended each of the three school districts. For example, the ODM's 2000-01 fiscal year budget of$784,188 was allocated among the parties as follows: -26- A072A During the first few months of 1991 , LRSD, PCSSD, NLRSD, and Joshua entered into negotiations that resulted in numerous modifications to the 1990 Settlement Plans. It was the parties' position that they were authorized to make those changes based upon language in the Eighth Circuit's December 12, 1990 decision providing that the parties were \"free, by agreement, to modify the settlement plans .. . subject, of course, to the approval of the District Court.\" LRSD, 921 F.2dat 1393 n. 15. Subsequently, the parties submitted the modified Settlement Plans to the district court for approval. On June 21, 1991 , Judge Wright entered a Memorandum and Order rejecting all of the $784,188 - 200,000 (State/ADE payment) $584,188 LRSD's share (47.64% of total Pulaski County enrollment) PCSSD's share (35 .36% of total Pulaski County enrollment) NLRSD's share (I 7.00% of total Pulaski County enrollment) $278,307.16 206,568.88 99,311.96 $584, I 88.00 On September 28, 2001 , Judge Wright entered an Order ( docket no. 3 522) approving the ODM's budget for the current fiscal year, which is $707,071, This budget included a 5% pay raise for all employees, which totaled $21,042. Ms. Marshall's salary increased from $111,131 to $116,688 (docket no. 3509). Since the creation of the ODM, the district court has approved the following budgets: I. 1989-90 $353,710.24 (docket no. 1246) 2. 1990-91 $293,833.74 (docket nos. 1391 \u0026amp; 1405) 3. 1991-92 $591,557.52 (docket no. 1497) 4. 1992-93 $578,060.81 (docket nos. 1822 \u0026amp; 1836) 5. 1993-94 $646,617.00 (docket nos. 2055 \u0026amp; 2155) 6. 1994-95 $661 ,768.00 (docket nos. 2359 \u0026amp; 2380) 7. 1995-96 $631 ,273.00 (docket nos. 2567 \u0026amp; 2599) 8. 1996-97 $730,756.00 (docket nos. 2852 \u0026amp; 3001) 9. 1997-98 $730,716.00 (docket nos. 3158 \u0026amp; 3167) 10. 1998-99 $751 ,639.00 (docket nos. 3158 \u0026amp; 3167) 11. 1999-00 $764,872.00 (docket nos. 3361 \u0026amp; 3364) 12. 2000-01 $784,188.00 (docket nos. 3361 \u0026amp; 3364) 13. 2001-02 $707,071.00 (docket nos. 3509 \u0026amp; 3522) Thus, in the twelve years since its creation, the ODM has requested that LRSD, PCS SD, NLRSD, and the State/ADE pay for budgets totaling $7,932,228.57. As the largest of the three school districts, LRSD has been required to pay approximately 35% of the total cost of the ODM. -27- \"legion of proposed modifications\" to the Settlement Plans on the ground that they fell \"outside the narrow realm of modifications and adjustments deemed permissible by the Eighth Circuit [in its December 12, 1990 decision].\" LRSD, 769 F. Supp. at 1483, 1489.48 On July 15, 1991, the district court entered a lengthy Memorandum and Order denying the parties' motion to reconsider its rejection of their proposed modifications to the 1990 Settlement Plans. LRSD, 769 F. Supp. 1491. In doing so, Judge Wright made it clear that: (a) she disagreed with the parties' position that the Settlement Plans are \"fluid, open to continual and considerable revision as long as the parties agree and the changes are not facially unconstitutional\"; and (b) she viewed the Eighth Circuit's approval of the Settlement Plans as being \"akin to establishing a benchmark ... a sure guide for ending this dispute and getting the parties out of court.\" Id. at 1494. LRSD, NLRSD, PCSSD, and Joshua appealed on the ground that the district court's decisions \"confined them within limits that are too narrow, and that all of their proposed changes, being constitutional, workable, and fair, should have been approved.\" 48 Among the changes the parties sought to make in the four 1990 settlement plans were the following: (1) deleting from PCSSD's settlement plan major portions of the section on special education, especially concerning handicapped children; (2) eliminating provisions in PCSSD's settlement plan addressing issues related to black students being disciplined disproportionately; (3) removing several programs from PCSSD's settlement plan aimed at improving student achievement; (4) deleting from PCSSD's settlement plan the parties' agreement to abide by fourteen \"guiding principles\" which apply to the \"process of permanent plan development\"; (5) eliminating from LRSD's settlement plan science and social studies as core areas emphasized in remediation programs at the secondary level; (6) changing LRSD's settlement plan to limit the four-year-old program originally scheduled for all schools by 1993-94 to only eleven schools, with a promise that a \"long-range implementation plan will be developed for additional four-year-old classes\"; (7) changing LRSD's settlement plan to delay the development of parent home study guides and computer managed instructional technology for tracking student progress; (8) changing LRSD' s settlement plan by eliminating staff positions for program specialist and specialist for alternative classrooms; and (9) changing the interdistrict plan to reduce from six to four the number of interdistrict schools planned for the future. LRSD, 7 69 F. Supp. at 1484-87. -28-  I A072A / C-uo/oo.\\.. Appeal ofLRSD, 949 F.2d at 255. In affirming in part and reversing in part, the Eighth Circuit noted that \"[t]here is much in the District Court's opinions with which we agree,\" including the observation that the 1989 settlement \"should indeed be a benchmark for the future path of this case.\" Id. However, the Court went on to hold that the district court was \"too strict with itself' in not allowing the parties to modify details of those settlement plans that did not affect the three school districts' \"major substantive commitments to desegregation\": The desegregation obligations undertaken in the 1989 plan are solemn and binding commitments. The essence and core of that plan should not be disturbed . . . . If a question is truly one only of detail, not affecting the major substantive commitments to desegregation, the District Court has the authority to consider it. Id. at 256.49 Finally, to provide guidance to the district court, the Eighth Circuit set forth seven elements that form the \"essence and core\" of the Settlement Plans and from which there can be \"no retreaf': It may be helpful for us to state those elements of the 1989 plan that we consider crucial, and with respect to which no retreat should be approved. They are as follows: (1) double funding for students attending the incentive (virtually all-black) schools; (2) operation of the agreed number of magnet schools according to the agreed timetable; (3) operation of the agreed nlJffiber of interdistrict schools according to the agreed timetable; (4) intradistrict desegregation of PCS SD according to the agreed timetable; (5) the agreed effort to eliminate achievement disparity between the races; ( 6) the agreed elements of early-childhood education, at least in the incentive schools; and (7) appropriate involvement of parents. 49 As indicated supra at footnote 3, the district court and the parties generally have referred to the 1989 settlement documents as the 1990 Settlement Agreement and the 1990 Settlement Plans because the Eighth Circuit did not approve those settlement documents until December 12, 1990. Regardless of the year used to reference these documents, the Eighth Circuit and the district court are referring to the same Settlement Agreement and Settlement Plans. -29- AOZ2A Id. ( emphasis added). On May 1, 1992, Judge Wright entered an Order approving most of the proposed modifications to LRSD's 1990 Settlement Plan and the Interdistrict Settlement Plan, which the parties referred to as \"LRSD's May 1992 Desegregation Plan\" and the \"May 1992 Interdistrict Desegregation Plan.\" Judge Wright attached copies of both of these Plans to her May 1, 1992 Order (docket no. 1587). LRSD's implementation of its obligations under the 1992 Plans did not always go smoothly. For example, on March 19, 1993, Judge Wright delivered a strong statement to LRSD's School Board and attorneys explaining the importance ofLRSD fully and completely implementing its desegregation obligations under the Settlement Plans: Since the time of victory by the Little Rock School District in this case, when the Court of Appeals granted almost every facet of relief requested by Little Rock, the Little Rock School District has shown a tendency to drag its feet and act as if it had lost, rather than won, the litigation which it instituted. The Little Rock School District and the other school districts are in court because the Little Rock School District won its case and won the relief it requested. Yet the major complainer, the chief whiner, the number one barrier to a legitimate declaration of a unitary desegregated school system is the victorious complaining party, the Little Rock School District. The biblical reference, in a different context, is to the effect that if you ask, you will receive. Well, you asked, you got it, and it is the basic job of this Court to see that you receive it in full measure. * * * I have never seen, heard or read of a case in which the victors conducted themselves like the vanquished -- until now. If we have to have two full hearings a month, in which Board members are required to be present, then we will do so. We will do everything that is required to see that you take the medicine to achieve the cure that you asked the Federal Courts to give you. Judge Wright's Statement to LRSD Board members and Counsel at 2-3 and 6, attached as -30- A072A Exhibit I to docket no. 2730.50 Between 1991 and 1996, almost all of the district court's Orders involving LRSD related to the following issues: the approval ofLRSD's annual budgets (docket nos. 1759, 1897, 1958, 2216, 2280, 2319, and 2709); LRSD's closing of certain elementary schools (docket nos. 1926 and 2351); and LRSD's designation and construction of the interdistrict and magnet schools called for under the Settlement Plans ( docket nos. 1550, 1832, 1848, 1895, 2225, and 2329). During this period of time, the Eighth Circuit also entered several important decisions that: ( 1) extended school district millages under the 1990 Settlement Agreement, LRSD v. PCSSD, 971 F .2d 160 (8th Cir. 1992); (2) upheld the new zoning plan for electing school board members for LRSD and PCSSD, LRSD v. PCSSD, 56 F.3d 904 (8th Cir. 1995); and (3) clarified language in the 1990 Settlement Agreement regarding the State's funding obligations to LRSD, PCS SD, and NLRSD, LRSD v. PCSSD, 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996). On November 30, 1995, LRSD filed a Motion for Order of Dismissal ( docket no. 2573), requesting the district court to dismiss this case, with prejudice, pursuant to Attachment B to the 1990 Settlement Agreement.51 Attachment B stated, in pertinent part: It is further understood and agreed that the litigation now pending in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, :Western Division, entitled Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School 50In People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education, 246 F.3d I 073, 1078 (7th Cir. 2001 ), Judge Posner observed that \"state and local officials are under no duty to love the chains that federal judges, however justifiably, fasten upon them.\" In this case, it is more than a little ironic that LRSD has forged each link in the chains that have bound it for the last thirteen years. 51 As indicated previously, Attachment Bis a fully executed Release pursuant to which all parties agreed to release any and all claims they had against LRSD arising from or relating to this litigation. -31- A072A ~  ._a _JOftL.___.. District No. I, et al., No. LR-C-82-866 and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors (including, but not limited to, Cooper v. Aaron, Norwood v. Tucker, and Clark v. Board of Education of Little Rock School District (the \"Litigation\") is to be dismissed with prejudice as to the LRSD 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. Attachment B to the 1990 Settlement Agreement ( docket no. 1174). In seeking that relief, LRSD acknowledged that the dismissal would not affect the district court's jurisdiction to address issues regarding the implementation of its . desegregation obligations or to conduct proceedings to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement or the terms of the Settlement Plans. On March 11 , 1996, the district court entered a Memorandum and Order ( docket no. 2640) denying LRSD's Motion for Order of Dismissal on the ground that: The LRSD has frequently exhibited indifference or outright recalcitrance towards its commitments and has been slow to implement many aspects ofits 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 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. LRSD appealed that decision to the Eighth Circuit. I On December 15, 1997, the Court reversed and retiianded the case to the district court with instructions to enter an order dismissing the case with prejudice, as provided for under the terms of the 1990 Settlement Agreement. LRSD v. PCSSD, 131 F.3d 1255 (8th Cir. 1997). In reaching this decision, the Court stated the following: Although we can well understand the frustration the district court has experienced over the years in carrying out our instructions, we conclude that the District's motion should have been granted. As we held in our 1992 decision, the terms of the settlement agreement became the law of the case. See Little Rock -32- I I : I A072A School District, 971 F.2d at 165. As the agreement specifically provides, the district court is permitted (and indeed must, in order to comply with our instructions), to retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding the implementation of the desegregation plans. Moreover, the desegregation plaintiffs may bring proceedings to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement and the terms of the desegregation plans. In short, the entry of such an order would do nothing to relieve the three districts of their continuing obligation to honor their commitments as set forth in the settlement agreement and the plans. Id. at 1257-58 (footnote omitted). On January 26, 1998, the district court entered an Order ( docket no. 3109) that dismissed this case and \"cases consolidated herein, including, but not limited to, Cooper v. Aaron, Norwood v. Tucker, and Clarkv. Board of Education ofLRSD,\" with prejudice, as to LRSD and \"its current and former board members named in this litigation.\" The district court also entered a Memo to the File ( docket no. 3110) stating that, because the Plaintiff in this case was dismissed with prejudice, \"the Clerk is instructed to administratively terminate this case,\" but to \"keep the case files open and in their current location in the Clerk's office\" so that the Court can continue to perform its ongoing duties regarding the supervision and implementation of the desegregation plans. F. Joshua's Request For An Interim Award Of Attorneys' Fees For Performing Monitoring Activities After The 1990 Settlement On November 22, 1995, counsel for Joshua moved for an interim award ofattomeys' fees and costs in the amount of $805,611.81 for monitoring work performed after the Eighth Circuit approved the settlement of this case on December 12, 1990 ( docket no. 2565). Counsel for Joshua later reduced the amount of this request to $795,301.81 ( docket no. 2791) and argued that it should be apportioned among the three Pulaski County school districts as follows: LRSD: 75% to 80%; NLRSD: 5% to 10%; and PCS SD: 15% to 20%--with the final percentages totaling -33- ~-072A 100% (docket no. 2792). LRSD filed a Response and Supporting Memorandum of Law (docket nos. 2636 and 2637) challenging Joshua's right to be awarded any attorneys' fees or costs for post-settlement monitoring activities. LRSD argued that, as a part of the consideration for LRSD paying Joshua's counsel $2,000,000 in attorneys' fees in connection with the 1990 settlement, Joshua's counsel had specifically agreed, on the record, that they would not seek future fees from LRSD for monitoring activities during the life of the settlement plans. In support of its position, LRSD relied upon the following colloquy between counsel and the Eighth Circuit appellate panel during oral argument in LRSD, 921 F.2d 1371 : NORMAN CHACHKIN, ATTORNEY FOR JOSHUA INTERVENORS: I just want to make one other observation and Mr. Heller can confirm this. Although it is not written into the settlement agreement we are happy to confirm it here and to be bound by it. The agreement between Little Rock and Joshua was that the fee payment from the Little Rock School District would also cover out of the court monitoring activities by the attorneys for Joshua during the life of the settlement plans so long as it wasn't necessary to go back to court. If the settlement plans go forward as Mr. Walker suggested, the parties are committed to a monitoring system and committed to working together to ease any implementation problems and avoid any difficulties. That 's going to take attorney time. We have committed to Little Rock that we will not seek any fees from them for those activities unless it is necessary to go back to court for enforcement purposes and in that instance we '11 simply be free to make an application if we think we 're entitled to it. JUDGE RICHARD S. ARNOLD: Alright, thank you. Now, Mr. Heller, you are recognized. -34- ~ _ AO_Z2A_ CHRIS HELLER, A TIORNEY FOR LRSD: * * * I'd like to confirm what Mr. Chachkin said about the agreement. Because of the responsibilities assigned to the Joshua Intervenors in our settlement plans, there is significant work for them to do over the next six or seven years, and our agreement on the fees did contemplate that there would [be] no further payment for that work. (Emphasis added.) In a Memorandum Opinion and Order (docket no. 2821) filed on September 23, 1996, Judge Wright concluded that LRSD and Joshua contractually agreed that the $2,000,000 in attorneys' fees paid by LRSD in connection with the 1990 settlement also covered all monitoring activities performed by Joshua's counsel during the life of the Settlement Plans. Therefore, Judge Wright ruled that Joshua's counsel was not entitled to recover any attorneys' fees from LRSD for performing monitoring activities. On October 3, 1996, Joshua's counsel filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Fee Petition (docket no. 2833) and supporting Memorandum of Law (docket no. 2834), in which he urged the district court to award attorneys' fees under the \"bad faith\" exception to .the general rule that, absent a statute or enforceable contract, litigants must pay their own attomeys'.fees. On March 24, 1997, Judge Wright entered an Order (docket no. 2959) denying Joshua's Motion for Reconsideration. On April 22, 1997, counsel for Joshua filed a Notice of Appeal (docket no. 2966) of the district court's March 24, 1997 Order denying his request for interim attorneys' fees. I will return to discuss the final resolution of this issue later in this decision. -35- A072A G. LRSD's First Attempt To End Federal Court Jurisdiction On May 17, 1996, LRSD filed a Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction (docket no. 2665) and supporting Brief (docket no. 2666). In these pleadings, LRSD argued that: (1) it was only required to implement its desegregation obligations under its Settlement Plan and the Interdistrict Settlement Plan for six years; (2) it had implemented the Settlement Plan, beginning with the 1990-91 school year, and \"the six year term of the Plans will expire at the end of the 1995-96 school year''; and (3) \"LRSD has implemented in good faith many desegregation plans for more than three decades. LRSD was a substantially unitary school district in 1982, but it nevertheless filed this interdistrict litigation in a good faith effort to maintain a biracial public school system in Little Rock. A recent and exhaustive audit ofLRSD's desegregation obligations shows that LRSD is in substantial compliance with the Plans.\" Docket no. 2665. On August I, 1996, Joshua filed a Memorandum Opposing LRSD's Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction (docket no. 2730) in which they challenged LRSD's contention that the 1990 Settlement Plans called for a six-year implementation period. In support of their position, Joshua pointed out that no provision in any of the settlement documents limited LRSD's implementation of its desegregation obligations to six years. Joshua also argued that LRSD had failed to discharge its burden of establishing \"the requisite implementation of the court-approved settlement.\" On September 23, 1996, Judge Wright entered a Memorandum and Order (docket no. 2821) denying LRSD's Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction on the grounds that: (1) the 1990 Settlement Agreement and Settlement Plans do not contain any provision that allowed LRSD to terminate \"its duty to comply with the settlement plans after ... six years;\" and (2) -36- LRSD failed to provide sufficient evidence that it had \"substantially complied\" with its obligations under the Settlement Plans. The district court went on to urge LRSD and Joshua to modify ''the parts of the plan that are ineffective or unworkable\" so that LRSD could better position itself to argue that it is entitled to unitary status and relief from court supervision: Instead of presenting substantial evidence of its compliance with its goals as set forth in the plan, the LRSD submits arguments that it has achieved unitary status because data from the LRSD compares favorably with data from districts which have been declared unitary. The Court would be inclined to agree with the LRSD with respect to many of these arguments if the LRSD were not contractually bound by the plan which it voluntarily adopted. The Court has encouraged the parties to consider modifying those parts of the plan that are ineffective or unworkable. The Court has provided the parties with the testimony of experts to assist in the modification process. Instead, the LRSD has used the testimony of these experts to ask the Court to end Court jurisdiction without first proceeding with plan modifications. The Court cannot so easily relieve the district of its contractual obligations. Once again the Court invites the parties to follow procedures to modify the parts of the plan that are ineffective or unworkable. Docket no. 2821 at 12 (emphasis in original). On December 6, 1996, LRSD filed a Motion for Approval of Plan Development Period ( docket no. 2878) that requested Judge Wright: (I) to allow a six to nine month period for LRSD to concentrate its efforts to develop plan modifications to improve education and desegregation within the district; (2) to allow LRSD to use the ODM as a consultant to participate in the development of plan modifications in areas such as budget development, staff development, student assignments, and resolution of discipline issues; and (3) to withhold any further monitoring of the LRSD desegregation plan during this six to nine month period. In support of its Motion, LRSD noted that the Knight lntervenors, PCSSD, and NLRSD supported its request. -37- A072A ~ - LB,,_v_ On December 18, 1996, Joshua filed a Response ( docket no. 2891) that did not oppose LRSD's request for an interval of time to develop a new desegregation plan, but expressed reservations about ODM, \"as an ann of the court,\" participating in the negotiations between the parties. Joshua also urged Judge Wright to appoint additional monitors to work on a matter of particular concern to them--the alleged \"ill-treatment of class members.\" On December 27, 1996, Judge Wright entered an Order (docket no. 2901) granting LRSD's Motion. In this Order, Judge Wright held that: (1) LRSD \"will benefit from a temporary hiatus from monitoring and from the expertise of the ODM, in order to develop proposed modifications to the LRSD desegregation plan\"; and (2) ODM can advise LRSD and other parties during the negotiations for plan modifications and ODM can \"participate in negotiations as a facilitator,\" but \"ODM cannot be a negotiator for any party.\" Judge Wright also denied Joshua's request to hire \"additional monitors to handle complaints about mistreatment of class members.\" December 27, 1996 Order at 3 (docket no. 2901). H. The Perplexing Final Resolution Of Joshua's Request For Still More Attorneys' Fees FromLRSD On September 26, 1997, LRSD filed a Motion for Approval of Revised Desegregation and Education Plan ( docket no. 3049) and a supporting Memorandum Brief ( docket 1.10. 3050). After Joshua objected to a number of provisions in the proposed revised plan, LRSD and Joshua engaged in extensive negotiations to develop a revised plan which both parties could support. As part of these negotiations, LRSD and Joshua took up the still unresolved issue of Joshua's request for $795,301 in attorneys' fees for performing post-settlement monitoring -38- : I ' ' A072A activities, which was pending on appeal to the Eighth Circuit. 52 On January 21, 1998, LRSD and Joshua filed a Joint Motion for Approval ofLRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan ( docket no. 3107) in which they admitted that ongoing negotiations were taking place on the attorneys' fees issue: \"Joshua has agreed that they will request that the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit hold their two pending appeals in abeyance, and LRSD and Joshua have further agreed that they will attempt to resolve Joshua's past, present, and future claims for attorneys' fees and costs by mediation.\" January 21, 1998 Joint Motion at 2 ( docket no. 3107). See also Renewed Joint Motion for Approval ofLRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan filed on March 23, 1998 (docket no. 3136). On February 27, 1998, the Eighth Circuit entered a Mandate (docket no. 3125) which granted \"the stipulation of the parties for dismissal of the appeal\" of Judge Wright's March 24, 1997 Order denying Joshua's request for interim attorneys' fees. The entry of this voluntary Judgment dismissing Joshua's appeal of the attorneys' fees issue strongly suggests that, sometime prior to February 27, 1998, LRSD and Joshua arrived at a settlement of that issue. In a letter agreement dated June I 0, 1998, 53 LRSD and Joshua formally documented their 52 As indicated previously, on April 22, 1997, Joshua appealed Judge .Wright's Order denying their requested interim attorneys' fees ( docket no. 2966). At the time the parties entered into these negotiations, that appeal was still pending before the Eighth Circuit. 53The first time this letter agreement became part of the record in this case was on March 15, 2002, when LRSD attached it as Exhibit 7 to its Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status (docket no. 3581). Thus, before her decision to step down in this case, Judge Wright was never made aware of the facts surrounding the agreement that LRSD would pay Joshua's counsel $700,000 in attorneys' fees for past monitoring work, plus $48,333.33 per year for three years of future monitoring work. Furthermore, absent LRSD 's decision to make the June 10, 1998 letter part of the record, I would have very likely missed the troubling implications associated with the confluence of agreements on both the Revised Plan and the issue of Joshua's past and future attorneys' fees. Therefore, my -39- A072A settlement of all past and future claims for attorneys ' fees and costs as follows: LRSD will make the following payments [to counsel for Joshua] for past fees and costs: $100,000.00 on or before June 30, 1998; $100,000.00 on or before August 31, 1998; and $500,000.00 on or before October 31 , 1998. For fees and costs incurred for implementing and monitoring the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, LRSD will reimburse your firm up to $48,333.33 per year for three years beginning July 1, 1998. The payments described in this letter will constitute full and complete payment in satisfaction of all past or future claims for attorney's fees and costs except as specifically set forth in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. June 10, 1998 letter agreement, attached as Exhibit 7 to LRSD's Memorandum Briefin Support of Motion for an hnmediate Declaration of Unitary Status ( docket no. 3581) ( emphasis added). 54 Although not directly relevant to the issue of unitary status, I can think of no good explanation for LRSD's decision to voluntarily pay Joshua's counsel an additional $700,000 in attorneys' fees for performing monitoring work for which Judge Wright had ruled he was not entitled to be paid anything from LRSD. On top of this, one of Joshua's own attorneys, Mr. Chachkin, previously had admitted during oral argument before the Eighth Circuit that the attorneys' fees paid under the 1990 Settlement Agreement included future attorneys' time raising this issue now, based upon facts that were not known to Judge Wright w!Jile she presided over this case, should in no way be construed as a criticism of Judge Wright for not raising this issue earlier. As I have emphasized, it was LRSD's decision to file its counsel's June 10, 1998 letter as an exhibit to its March 15, 2002 Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an hnmediate Declaration of Unitary Status that alerted me to this issue. 54As indicated previously, Joshua's counsel argued to Judge Wright that LRSD should be allocated 75% to 80% of his $795,301 in attorneys' fees associated with performing past monitoring activities ( docket no. 2792). If those attorneys' fees had been allocated on that basis, LRSD would have been responsible forpayingJoshua's counsel between $596,475 and $636,240. I am at a loss to understand why LRSD would agree, in the June l 0, 1998 letter, to voluntarily pay Joshua's counsel $700,000, almost $ I 00,000 more than the median amount Joshua's counsel originally sought to recover from LRSD for his post-settlement monitoring work. -40- A072A 113eYA/ expended in connection with monitoring activities.55 It appears to me that Judge Wright's wellreasoned Memorandum Opinion (docket no. 2821) denying Joshua's Request for an Interim Award of Attorneys' Fees and her subsequent Order (docket no. 2959) denying Joshua's Motion for Reconsideration placed LRSD in an excellent position to prevail on Joshua's appeal of the district court's rulings to the Eighth Circuit. Holding what seemed to be the winning hand on appeal, I find it passing strange that LRSD would voluntarily agree to pay Joshua's counsel an additional $700,000 for post-settlement monitoring work when, as stated above, one of Joshua's other attorneys admitted this work was already included in the $2,000,000 LRSD paid to Joshua's counsel under the 1990 Settlement Agreement. I find it somewhat discomforting that LRSD and Joshua had a meeting of the minds on an essentially new desegregation settlement plan at the same time their attorneys were discussing the settlement of Joshua's counsel's request for a large interim award of attorneys' fees. However, I know of no facts establishing that the simultaneous negotiation of those two unrelated issues did not take place at arms length or involved a quid pro quo. From the inception of this case, Joshua's counsel has fought hard for his clients and has a well-documented record of zealously protecting their interests. I also rec~gnize that Joshua's counsel has manned the barricades of civil rights litigation in Arkansas for over four decades and that he has a reputation for never yielding on matters of principle. Accordingly, while I do not conclude that anything improper occurred in the simultaneous negotiation of these two unrelated issues, I do have a real concern about the public's perception of the timing of these events--which I fear has raised troubling questions and lingering doubts. 55See supra, pp. 34-35. -41- I also find it unsettling that, going forward, LRSD agreed to pay Joshua's counsel ''up to $48,333.33 per year for three years beginning July 1, 1998,\" for \"fees and costs incurred for implementing and monitoring the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan.\" June 10, 1998 letter agreement, attached as Exhibit 7 to docket no. 3581. At a minimum, all of the terms and conditions of such an unusual arrangement should have been spelled out in writing, with a clear statement regarding the duties, if any, that Joshua's counsel owed to LRSD, the party paying his fees formonitoringthe implementation of the Revised Plan, and whether, under this arrangement, LRSD and Joshua's counsel entered into an attorney-client relationship. In any case, at least one thing is clear from the June 10, 1998 letter agreement: In exchange for being paid $4,027.78 per month by LRSD, Joshua's counsel specifically agreed to undertake the obligation of monitoring all aspects ofLRSD's implementation of the Revised Plan. Subsequently, Joshua's counsel submitted to LRSD periodic \"Statements for Legal Services Rendered\" for attorneys' fees incurred in connection with his work \"implementing and monitoring\" the Revised Plan.56 See Exhibit 8 to docket no. 3581. According to Joshua's counsel's periodic statements for legal services, LRSD paid him a total of $124,861.15, which was billed in the following installments: July, 1998, through October, 1998: $16,111.12; November, 1998, through October, 1999: $48,333.33; November, 1999: $4,027.78; December, 1999: $4,027.78; January, 2000, through May, 2000: $20,138.90; June, 2000: $4,027.78; July, 2000: $4,027.78; August, 2000, through September, 2000: $8,055.56; October, 2000: $4,027.78; 56As discussed infra at pp. 57-59, at no point between the district court's approval of the Revised Plan on April 10, 1998, and thefilingofLRSD's Compliance Report on March 15,2001, did Joshua's counsel ever raise any of the compliance issues that are now before me, pursuant to  8.2 through 8.2.5 of the Revised Plan. -42- A072A November, 2000: $4,027.78; December, 2000: $4,027.78; and January, 2001: $4,027.78. See Exhibit 8 to docket no. 3581.57 Thus, for each month between July, 1998, and January, 2001, LRSD paid Joshua's counsel $4,027.78 for attorneys' fees incurred \"monitoring\" LRSD's implementation of the Revised Plan. For good reason, there is a widespread public perception that this case has become a decades-old cottage industry--and a large one at that--for lawyers. Over ten years ago, in Judge Woods' decision to step down from this case, he decried \"the many appeals perfected in this case, some of which have accomplished nothing but enrichment of the participating attorneys,\" and called the lawyer fees paid by the three districts \"grossly exorbitant.\" LRSD, 740 F. Supp. at 635. Since that time, things appear to have changed little, with all three school districts paying substantial annual attorneys' fees to their own lawyers and substantial annual payments to the ODM, whose requested annual budget for the last several years has been in the range of$700,000. At the same time, the threat of paying large future attorneys' fees to Joshua's counsel hangs like the sword of Damocles above the heads of all the parties.58 57The record fails to contain an explanation of why Joshua's counsel did not submit \"Statements for Legal Services Rendered\" for the months of February thr01;igh June, 2001. 58As everyone knows, Arkansas is one of the poorest states in the country and has always had difficulty finding funds for public education. Although LRSD is better off than many school districts in the State, it is by no means affluent. Like other school districts, it struggles each year to make ends meet. For example, during the last few years, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette has reported on the need for the repairorrenovation of the basic infrastructure in many LRSD schools and on school teachers who have been forced to purchase pencils and other basic school supplies for their students. By my calculations, since 1990, counsel for Joshua has been paid $3,974,861 ($3,150,000 + $700,000 + $124,861). Over that same period of time, I would guess LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD have paid their own attorneys a total of at least $4,000,000. If my estimate is correct, that means, since 1990, the attorneys for all parties in this case have been paid at least $8,000,000. As indicated, supra at footnote 47, the ODM has submitted budgets totaling $7,932,228.57. -43- I- A072A ~ /RAV R/R?I All members of the professional group, who have directly benefitted from the perpetuation of this case, are placed on notice that I intend to monitor closely the costs associated with this action. Being born and raised in Scott County, one of the poorest counties in Arkansas, I understand the meaning ofbeing careful with a dollar, and I expect the professional group to keep that important point fixed in their minds from here on out. Thus, since 1990, the \"professional group\" in this case probably has been paid close to $16,000,000. Counsel for LRSD, Joshua, and the staff of the ODM know that LRSD grapples annually with funding and budget issues. They also know that the approximately $16,000,000 paid to them since 1990 has come from funds earmarked for the school children of this district. In making this observation, I in no way mean to imply that lawyers and monitors have not been necessary to ensure that LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD properly implemented and \"scrupulously adhered to\" their desegregation obligations under the Settlement Plans. My only point is that I would have hoped this \"professional group\" would have kept uppermost in their minds that every penny paid to them for their work in this case is one less penny available to help in the education of a child. Thus, I would have also hoped that the \"professional group\" would have been as frugal and judicious as possible in the expenditure of their time or budgeted funds. One of the ways the attorneys could have kept this covenant with the district's school children would have been to discount their normal hourly billing rates. In the case of the ODM, it might have foregone raises and minimized staff and office space requirements in the interest of bringing this case to a close as economically as possible. My review of the pleadings since 1990 has dashed all such utopian hopes. For example, Judge Woods cited the \"grossly exorbitant\" lawyer fees paid by the three school districts as the \"principal reason for [their] poor financial situation\" and noted that LRSD' s attorneys had billed \"31 days in a 30-day month.\" LRSD, 740 F. Supp. at 635. Similarly, Judge Wright noted in her September 23, 1996 Memorandum Opinion denying Joshua's motion for interim attorneys' fees that their counsel was attempting to bill his time at the rate of $250 per hour, which she found was not \"reasonable.\" September 23, 1996 Memorandum Opinion at footnote 6 (docket no. 2821). Likewise, the staff and budget for the ODM has more than doubled since 1989, even though the more streamlined obligations of the Revised Plan approved in early 1998 would seem to have required less monitoring ofLRSD's implementation of those obligations. Similarly, for the last few years, it appears NLRSD has been unitary and has required very little in the way of monitoring by the ODM. Thus, I would have expected annual reductions in the staff and budget for the ODM, beginning in 1998, and continuing through the current fiscal year. That has not happened. -44- A072A I. Final Approval Of Revised Desegregation And Education Plan On April 10, 1998, Judge Wright entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order ( docket no. 3144) approving the Revised Plan. Importantly, Judge Wright held that the Revised Plan constituted a \"new consent decree or settlement agreement\" between LRSD and Joshua: The LRSD and Joshua have agreed that, if approved, the proposed Plan: shall supersede and extinguish all prior agreements and orders in the Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, U .S.D. C. No. LR-C-82- 866, and all consolidated cases related to the desegregation of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") with the following exceptions: a. The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989 (\"Settlement Agreement\"); b. The Magnet School Stipulation dated February 27, 1987; c. Order dated September 3, 1986, pertaining to the Magnet Review Committee; d. The M-to-M Stipulation dated August 26, 1986; and, e. Orders of the district court and court of appeals interpreting and enforcing sections a. through d. above to the extent not inconsistent with this Revised Plan. Based upon this provision, this Court considers the LRSD Proposed Revised Plan an entirely new consent decree or settlement agreement between the LRSD and Joshua. April 10, I 998 Memorandum Opinion and Order at 3 (docket no. 3144) (emphasis added). Alternatively, Judge Wright concluded that, even if the Court considered the Revised Plan as a modification to the 1990 Settlement Plan,59 she would still approve the Revised Plan because 59 As indicated supra atp. 27, LRSD and Joshua agreed to certain changes in LRSD's 1990 Settlement Plan and the Interdistrict Settlement Plan. In a forty-four page Order entered on May 1, 1992 (docket no. 1587), Judge Wright approved most of those proposed modifications which were incorporated in the \"LRSD May 1992 Desegregation Plan\" and the \"May 1992 lnterdistrict Desegregation Plan.\" Judge Wright's April I 0, 1998 Memorandum Opinion fails to mention those Plans, which were the operative consent decrees LRSD was operating under at the time she entered her decision. -45- A072A I D- --- the parties had satisfied the standard for modifying a consent decree established by the Court in Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 393 (1992), and LRSD, 56 F .3d at 914. In reaching this conclusion, Judge Wright noted that LRSD had implemented certain aspects of the 1990 Settlement Plan so successfully that the district court had withdrawn supervision over those areas. 60 However, the court also recognized that some goals in the 1990 Settlement Plan\"[ were] out of date for the current situation that exists in the LRSD and other specific, rigid goals in the 1990 Plan ... may never be met, regardless of the amount of effort and good faith put forth by the LRSD.\" April 10, 1998 Memorandum Opinion and Order at 6 (docket no. 3144) (footnotes omitted). One such group of potentially unreachable goals cited by Judge Wright were the \"goals in the 1990 Plan regarding achievement disparities [which] may never be met regardless of the effort put forth by LRSD.\" Id. See Testimony of Dr. Herbert J. Walberg at 17-25 (docket no. 2692); Testimony of Dr. David J. Armor at 18-39 (docket no. 2693); and Testimony of Dr. Gary Orfield at 25-31 ( docket no. 2768). J. LRSD's Implementation Of Its Obligations Under The Revised Plan Between April 10, 1998, and March 15, 2001, the date LRSD filed its Request for Scheduling Order and Compliance Report seeking unitary status, LRSD and Joshua filed no substantive pleadings addressing any problems arising from LRSD 's implementation of its obligations under the Revised Plan. In fact, only three documents dealing with LRSD's 601n an Order entered on March 27, 1996 ( docket no. 2648), Judge Wright released LRSD from Court supervision and monitoring in the areas of Multicultural Curriculum (LRSD May 1992 Desegregation Plan, docket no. 1587 at 63-80), Vocational Education (LRSD May 1992 Desegregation Plan, docket no. 1587 at 98-105), and Computerized Transportation System (LRSD May 1992 Desegregation Plan, docket no. 1587 at 227-28). See also February 9, 1996, Stipulation for Order (docket no. 2626). -46- implementation of the Revised Plan were filed during that period of time. First, on August 11, 1999, the ODM filed a lengthy Report (docket no. 3289) on LRSD's preparations for implementation of the Revised Plan. This Report reviewed the status ofLRSD's implementation of all aspects of the Revised Plan, including the following areas that have special relevance to Joshua's opposition to LRSD's pending request for unitary status: Extracurricular Enrichment Activities (pp. 12-16); LearningEnvironment(pp. 20-22); Mathematics(pp. 27-31); Program Assessment (pp. 42-43); Reading and Language Arts (pp. 44-48); Remediation (pp. 49- 52); and Student Discipline (pp. 67-71 ). The ODM's \"Summary and Conclusions\" that followed each section of the Report indicated that, overall, LRSD was doing a satisfactory job of implementing the Revised Plan. Second, on April 18, 2000, LRSD filed a 129-page Interim Compliance Report (docket no. 3356 dated March 15, 2000). Although LRSD was not obliged to file this Report, it voluntarily did so for two stated reasons: (1) \"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\"; and (2) \"[t]he District hopes to receive comments and suggestions from interested persons as to the Distric;t's compliance with the Revised Plan and the format and content of this status report.\" Interim Compliance Report at 1 (docket no. 3356). The Interim Compliance Report set forth in detail all of the programs, policies, and procedures that LRSD was implementing in accordance with its obligations under the Revised Plan. The ODM did not file any comments or objections to anything contained in LRSD's Interim Compliance Report. Likewise, nothing contained in that Report caused Joshua's counsel, -47- ! A072A who was being paid $4,027.78 per month by LRSD to monitor its implementation of the Revised Plan, to raise any compliance issues. Finally, no \"interested party'' raised any questions concerning whether, based on the programs, policies, and procedures described in the Interim Compliance Report, LRSD was in substantial compliance with its obligations under the Revised Plan. This silence, it seems to me, speaks rather eloquently. Third, on June 14, 2000, the ODM filed a 127-page Report of Disciplinary Sanctions in the LRSD (docket no. 3366).61 The introduction to this Report contained a broad disclaimer of what was not being evaluated: This document neither evaluates the district's discipline policies and procedures nor determines how the policies are followed at various schools. Moreover, the report does not measure the effectiveness of any program, training or practices the district may have instituted to address the need for all students to be disciplined fairly and equitably, regardless of their race or sex. While the disciplinary procedures are represented by the data are legitimate and important areas of inquiry, we have not examined them here. We do provide some additional information to explain the district's general approach to discipline and to set the context for our findings, but our report focuses on the LRSD's own records and what they reflect. Report of Disciplinary Sanctions at 1 (docket no. 3366).62 Furthermore, because LRSD maintained disciplinary records on only \"suspensions and expulsions,\" the Report was limited to an examination of LRSD's raw data, broken down by race and sex, for students who were 61The ODM prepared this Report as part of its ongoing monitoring of the way all three Pulaski County school districts imposed disciplinary sanctions on students. In previous years, the ODM had prepared similar Reports on NLRSD and PCSSD. Thus, the ODM's June 14 Report was not triggered by or related to anything in LRSD's March 15, 2000 Interim Compliance Report. 62By failing to evaluate and examine the many important areas covered by this disclaimer, the ODM substantially reduced the usefulness of its Report and made it virtually impossible to draw any conclusions from the Report that were not based on pure speculation. -48- I  I A072A ( suspended or expelled from each elementary school, junior high school, and high school during six school years, 1993-94 through 1998-99. While the data compiled in the Report revealed that a disproportionate number of AfricanAmerican male students were suspended or expelled at many schools, the lack of specific facts surrounding each suspension and expulsion (e.g., a description of the conduct giving rise to the disciplinary sanction, race of teacher or administrator issuing disciplinary sanction, socioeconomic background of student, etc.) made it impossible to determine, without speculation, the reason for this disparity. 63 Additionally, because LRSD administrators assigned many of the suspended or expelled students to alternative education programs64 but failed to maintain records documenting which suspended and expelled students were sent to those programs, it was impossible to determine from the Report how many days of school each of the suspended and expelled students actually missed. Finally, because the Report did not include any data for the 1999-00 school year, it was impossible to determine if converting LRSD's junior high schools to middle schools improved behavior problems and reduced the number of suspensions and expulsions. However, the Report made it clear that this change could affect future data: Beginning with the 1999-2000 school year, the district made a fundamental commitment to improving students' performance, both academic~lly and 63The preface to the Report made it clear that the disproportionate number of AfricanAmerican students suspended or expelled from school is a nationwide phenomenon. The Report also pointed out that the way students behaved in school was affected by a host of factors that were beyond the influence of school personnel, \"such as home environment, family values, and the level of socialization prior to starting school. ... \" Report at 6. Finally, the Report observed that: \"Another aspect of discipline that requires note is the tremendous increase in the number of single-parent households in our society. . . . This deficiency is particularly significant for adolescent males who live with only their mothers.\" Report at 7. 64See Report at 10-12. -49- A072A _ IJ3 D_ V A/A?\\ behaviorally, by converting to a middle school system (grades 6-8). Studies have shown that the grade 6-8 configuration is developmentally appropriate. The teaming practiced in middle schools is to provide a nurturing environment in which students can learn and also find help with the physical and emotional changes they are experiencing. Because the discipline data for 1999-2000 were not available at the time we prepared this report, we could not assess whether discipline and sanctions have changed in ways that might be attributable to the middle school approach. Report at 126. In the Report's \"Conclusions,\" the ODM made two primary criticisms of LRSD's disciplinary practices: (1) it had not maintained and compiled \"comprehensive data on all the discipline sanctions [which] may leave some problems uncovered, as well as thwart assessment of the extent to which the district is preventing racial discrimination in disciplinary actions overall\"; and (2) \"[ w ]bile the report data do not reflect overall serious behavior problems in LRSD, African-American males are being disciplined in disproportionately high numbers.\" Report at 125. The ODM also offered seven \"ideas . .. as suggestions for improving disciplinary procedures for all students in LRSD, while also reducing the over-representation ofblack students in disciplinary actions.\" Report at 127. K LRSD Seeks Unitary Status Based Upon Its Substantial Compliance With The Revised Plan On March 15, 200 I, LRSD filed a Request for Scheduling Order and Compliance Report ( docket no. 3410) and requested the court to declare it ''unitary with respect to all aspects of school operations.\" On June 25, 2001, Joshua filed their Opposition to LRSD's Compliance Report ( docket no. 3447) in which they argued LRSD was not entitled to unitary status under the Revised Plan. On March 15, 2002, LRSD filed the pending Motion for an Immediate Declaration of -50- A072A ,~ --- Unitary Status (docket no. 3580) and Supporting Memorandum Brief (docket no. 3581). On May 30, 2002, Joshua filed their Response in Opposition to LRSD's Motion for hnmediate Declaration of Unitary Status (docket no. 3604). On June 7, 2002, LRSD filed its Reply Brief (docket no. 3607). As indicated previously, under  11 of the Revised Plan, LRSD was entitled to the entry of an order declaring it unitary if no party challenged its substantial compliance with th~ Revised Plan. Because Joshua chose to challenge LRSD's \"substantial compliance,\" 11 of the Revised Plan imposed on them the burden of proof on that issue. Joshua's counsel has acknowledged that the Revised Plan imposed on his clients the burden of proving that, as of March 15, 2001, 65 LRSD was not in substantial compliance with its obligations under the Revised Plan. See Transcript of Proceedings on June 29, 2001, at 26 (docket no. 3461), and Transcript of Proceedings on July 9, 2001, at 26 (docket no. 3464). 65In its October 3, 200 I Order ( docket no. 3515), the district court required LRSD to elect between two options: Option!: (A) Present evidence concerning the LRSD's activities with respect to the Revised Plan beyond the date of March 15, 2001; and- (B) Produce the e-mails requested by Joshua beyond that date. Option 2: (A) Present evidence concerning the LRSD's activities with respect to the Revised Plan up to the date of March 15, 2001, and not beyond; and (B) Correspondingly, the LRSD would have no obligation to produce the e-mails requested by Joshua beyond that date. LRSD filed a Response to the October 3, 2001 Order ( docket no. 3517) objecting ''to being forced to select from the two options offered by the Court.\" Subsequently, LRSD advised Judge Wright that, without waiving its objections, it selected \"Option 2.\" Therefore, any evidence ofLRSD's \"compliance activities\" that took place after March 15, 2001, cannot be considered in deciding the question of unitary status. -51- A072A IAou A/0'\u0026gt;\\ rn. Relevant Provisions Of Revised Plan In Joshua's Opposition to LRSD's Compliance Report (docket no. 3447), they include a \"Seriatim Response to District's March 15, 2001 Compliance Report\" in which they list compliance problems or concerns with the following sections of the Revised Plan:  2.1 (LRSD's obligation of good faith);  2.1.1, 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.2.5, and 2.2.7 (LRSD's obligations regarding faculty and sta:fl);  2.3 (LRSD's obligations regarding student assignment);  2.4 (LRSD 's obligations regarding special education and related programs);  2.5, 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5 .3, and 2.5 .4 (LRSD' s obligations regarding student discipline);   2.6, 2.6.1, 2.6.2, and 2.11. l (LRSD's obligations regarding extracurricular activities, advanced placement courses, and guidance counseling); 2. 7 and 5 (LRSD's obligations regarding improving African-American academic achievement);  2.8 (parental involvement); and  3.6 (school construction and closing). Importantly, Joshua's Opposition to LRSD's Compliance Report was careful to note that their concerns regarding LRSD's compliance with faculty and staff, student assignment, special education and related programs, parental involvement, and school construction and closing were based primarily on \"information and belief' or involved \"generalized suspicions\" regarding LRSD's future actions. After filing that Opposition, Joshua conducted consid~ble discovery to develop the facts to support their challenges to LRSD's request for unitary status. As indicated previously, before beginning the evidentiary hearings on Joshua's Opposition to LRSD's request for unitary status, Judge Wright instructed Joshua's counsel to present his argument beginning with his strongest first and proceeding to his weakest ( docket no. 3461 at 54- 55). During a hearing on July 9, 2001, which took place after the completion of the first two days -52- A072A ~ /1=1 ---- of testimony on July 5 and 6, 2001, Joshua's counsel stated that LRSD's three most serious areas of noncompliance under the Revised Plan were its failure to meet its obligations regarding: (1) good faith; (2) improvement of academic achievement for African-American students;66 and (3) improvement of the racial disparity in student discipline (docket no. 3464 at 26-29). During the evidentiary hearings on August 1 and 2, 2001, Joshua completed calling all of their witnesses on the issues ofLRSD's alleged substantial noncompliance with those three areas of the Revised Plan. At the beginning of the fifth day of evidentiary hearings on November 19, 2001, Judge Wright noted, on the record, that counsel for Joshua had \"rested his case\" on the first three areas  of LRSD's alleged noncompliance (docket no. 3558 at 14-15). After Judge Wright denied LRSD's Motion for Directed Verdict, it presented its case on November 19 and 20 (docket nos. 3558 and 3559). On December 11, 2001, Judge Wright conducted a hearing to schedule the remaining days of evidentiary hearings on Joshua's Opposition to LRSD 's request for unitary status ( docket no. 3560). During this hearing, Judge Wright agreed to allow Joshua and LRSD no more than five days to present additional testimony on what Joshua's counsel identified as the last three areas ofLRSD's alleged noncompliance with the Revised Plan: (1) advanced placement courses; (2) .. extracurricular activities; and (3) guidance counseling. Judge Wright also agreed to allow Joshua to present non-cumulative testimony regarding: LRSD's alleged failure to comply with its overall obligation of good faith regarding its implementation of programs, policies, and procedures 66Part of Joshua's argument that LRSD had failed to substantially comply with its obligation to improve the academic achievement of African-American students included the contention that LRSD had failed to make the annual \"assessments\" of the academic programs implemented to improve the achievement of African-American students as required by 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. -53- A,_0 72_A_ _ _ ,. regarding advanced placement courses, extracurricular activities, and guidance counseling-, and how LRSD's programs, policies, and procedures governing advanced placement courses, extracurricular activities, and guidance counseling had adversely affected the academic achievement of Afiican-American students. I conducted the final three days of evidentiary hearings on those issues, beginning on July 22, 2002. At no point during those hearings, or during the six previous days of ev:identiary hearings, did Joshua present any evidence or arguments -to support the contentions in their Opposition to LRSD's Compliance Report (docket no. 3447) that LRSD was not in substantial compliance with its obligations regarding faculty and staff( 2.1.1, 2.2-2.2.5, and 2.2.7); student assignment( 2.3); special education and related programs( 2.4); parental involvement( 2.8); and school construction and closing( 3.6). Joshua's failure to present any evidence to support their contention regarding LRSD's alleged failure to substantially comply with those sections of the Revised Plan requires a finding that they have abandoned those arguments. In any case, Joshua clearly failed to maintain their burden of proving that LRSD failed to substantially comply with any of those particular sections of the Revised Plan. Thus, the detennination of LRSD 's request for unitary status turns on whether Joshua has ,' maintained their burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that LRSD has failed to substantially comply with the following obligations imposed on it under the Revised Plan: (I) good faith as set forth in  2.1; (2) student discipline as set forth in  2.5 through 2.5.4 and 2.12.2; (3) academic achievement of Afiican-American students as set forth in 2.7, 2.7.1, 5.1 through 5.8, and 2.12.2; ( 4) extracurricular activities as set forth in  2.6, 2.6.3, and 2.12.2; (5) advanced placement courses as set forth in 2.6, 2.6.2, and 2.12.2; and (6) guidance counseling -54- I AO~-- as set forth in  2.11.1. The provisions of the Revised Plan containing LRSD's obligations in these six disputed areas, along with other provisions of the Revised Plan that are relevant to the resolution of the issue of unitary status, are summarized below. A. LRSD's Obligation Of Good Faith Toe first obligation imposed on LRSD was to act in \"good faith.\" Because of the importance of this obligation to the question of unitary status, 2.1 of the Revised Plan ought, in fairness, to be quoted in its entirety: 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. B. LRSD's Obligations Regarding Student Discipline Sections 2.5 through 2.5.4 set forth LRSD's obligations regarding student discipline. Section 2.5 obligated LRSD to implement programs, policies, and/or procedures \"designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to discipline.\" Section 2.5.1 required LRSD to \"strictly adhere to the policies set forth in the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook to ensure that all students are disciplined in a fair and equitable manner,\" and 2.5.2 required LRSD to \"purge students discipline records after the fifth and eighth grades of all offenses, except weapons offenses, arson and robbery.\" Section 2.5.3 established the position of \"ombudsman,\" who was responsible for \"acting as an advocate on behalf of students involved in the discipline process, investigating parent and student complaints ofrace-based mistreatment and attempting to achieve equitable solutions.\" Finally,  2.5.4 obligated LRSD to ''work with students and their parents to develop behavior modification plans for students who exhibit -55- A072A IR-\u0026lt;\u0026gt;ID'\u0026gt;\\ frequent misbehavior.\" C. LRSD's Obligations To Improve And Remediate The Academic Achievement Of African-American Students Section 2.7 contained LRSD's core obligation regarding the academic achievement of African-American students: 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. Very significantly, nowhere in this section or any other section of the Revised Plan does LRSD assume any obligation to narrow or close the academic achievement gap between white students and African-American students. In order to detennine the effectiveness of LRSD's academic programs designed to improve African-American achievement, Section 2. 7. l obligated LRSD to \"assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2. 7 after each year.\" If the results of those assessments \"[reveal] 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.\" D. LRSD's Obligations Regarding Extracurricular Activities, Advanced Placement Courses, And Guidance Counselors Section 2.6 required LRSD to \"implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in extracunicular activities, advanced placement courses, honors and enriched courses and the gifted and talented program.\" Section 2.6.1 and 2.11.1 required LRSD to implement training programs to assist teac    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":"nge_ngen_amos-t-akerman-1821-1880","title":"Amos T. Akerman (1821-1880)","collection_id":"nge_ngen","collection_title":"New Georgia Encyclopedia","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018"],"dcterms_creator":["Parker, David B."],"dc_date":["2002-09-12"],"dcterms_description":["Encyclopedia article about Amos Tappan Akerman, a Georgia lawyer who rose to prominence as U.S. attorney general during Reconstruction. He was born in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, on February 23, 1821. He went south to teach after graduating from Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire, in 1842, starting in North Carolina, then in Richmond County, Georgia. In 1846 Akerman accepted a position as tutor in the Savannah home of John Macpherson Berrien, U.S. senator and former attorney general. As he taught the Berrien children, Akerman studied law in the senator's library, and he was admitted to the Georgia bar in 1850. He practiced first in Clarkesville, then in Elberton. In 1864 he married Martha Rebecca Galloway, with whom he had eight children, one of whom died. He participated in drafting the Georgia Constitution of 1868 and supported equal political rights for African Americans.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":null,"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of the New Georgia Encyclopedia."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Forms part of the New Georgia Encyclopedia."],"dcterms_subject":["Lawyers--Georgia","Attorneys general--United States","Civil rights workers--Georgia"],"dcterms_title":["Amos T. Akerman (1821-1880)"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["New Georgia Encyclopedia (Project)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-archaeology/amos-t-akerman-1821-1880/"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["If you wish to use content from the NGE site for commercial use, publication, or any purpose other than fair use as defined by law, you must request and receive written permission from the NGE. Such requests may be directed to: Permissions/NGE, University of Georgia Press, 330 Research Drive, Athens, GA 30602."],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["Cite as: \"Amos T. Akerman (1821-1880),\" New Georgia Encyclopedia. Retrieved [date]: http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org."],"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["articles"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Akerman, Amos Tappan, 1821-1880"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"nge_ngen_camilla-massacre","title":"Camilla Massacre","collection_id":"nge_ngen","collection_title":"New Georgia Encyclopedia","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018"],"dcterms_creator":["Formwalt, Lee W."],"dc_date":["2002-09-05"],"dcterms_description":["Encyclopedia article about the Camilla Massacre in Camilla, Georgia. The Camilla Massacre, which took place on September 19, 1868, was one of the more violent episodes in Reconstruction Georgia. Two months earlier, Georgia had fulfilled the requirements of Congress's Radical Reconstruction plan and had been readmitted to the Union, yet in early September, the state legislature expelled thirty-two newly elected members because they were African American. Among those removed was southwest Georgia representative Philip Joiner. On September 19, Joiner, along with northerners Francis F. Putney and William P. Pierce, led a twenty-five-mile march of several hundred blacks and a few whites from Albany to Camilla, the Mitchell County seat, to attend a Republican political rally.","GSE identifier: SS8H6"],"dc_format":["text/html"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of the New Georgia Encyclopedia."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Forms part of the New Georgia Encyclopedia."],"dcterms_subject":["Camilla Massacre, Camilla, Ga., 1868","Massacres--Georgia--Camilla","Camilla (Ga.)--History--19th century","Reconstruction (U.S. history, 1865-1877)--Southern States","Georgia--Politics and government--1865-1970","Georgia--History--19th century","Race discrimination--Georgia--Camilla","Camilla (Ga.)--Race relations","African Americans--Civil rights--Georgia--Camilla"],"dcterms_title":["Camilla Massacre"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["New Georgia Encyclopedia (Project)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-archaeology/camilla-massacre/"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["Cite as: \"The Camilla Massacre,\" New Georgia Encyclopedia. Retrieved [date]: http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org."],"dlg_local_right":["If you wish to use content from the NGE site for commercial use, publication, or any purpose other than fair use as defined by law, you must request and receive written permission from the NGE. Such requests may be directed to: Permissions/NGE, University of Georgia Press, 330 Research Drive, Athens, GA 30602."],"dcterms_medium":["articles"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"alm_u0008-0000152_91","title":"Interview with Tom Bevill, Louise Prescott and Gerald Colvin, September 5, 2002","collection_id":"alm_u0008-0000152","collection_title":"Tom Bevill Oral Histories","dcterms_contributor":["Bevill, Tom, 1921-2005","Prescott, Louise","Colvin, Gerald"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026"],"dcterms_creator":["Ray, Kevin"],"dc_date":["2002-09-05"],"dcterms_description":["Gift of Bevill family, Don Smith, and Todd Smith"],"dc_format":["audio/mpeg","image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["The University of Alabama Libraries Special Collections"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Tom Bevill oral histories"],"dcterms_subject":["Political science","United States. Congress. House","Alabama. Legislature"],"dcterms_title":["Interview with Tom Bevill, Louise Prescott and Gerald Colvin, September 5, 2002"],"dcterms_type":["Sound","Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["William Stanley Hoole Special Collections Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digitalcollections.libraries.ua.edu/cdm/ref/collection/u0008_0000152/id/91"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Images are in the public domain or protected under U.S. copyright law (Title 17, U.S. Code), and both types may be used for research and private study. For publication, commercial use, or reproduction, in print or digital format, of all images and/or the accompanying data, users are required to secure prior written permission from the copyright holder and from archives@ua.edu. When permission is granted, please credit the images as Courtesy of The University of Alabama Libraries Special Collections."],"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["01:38:44","45 p."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Bevill, Tom, 1921-2005"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":344,"next_page":345,"prev_page":343,"total_pages":6766,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":4116,"total_count":81191,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"lesson plans","hits":319},{"value":"teaching guides","hits":53},{"value":"timelines (chronologies)","hits":43},{"value":"online exhibitions","hits":38},{"value":"bibliographies","hits":15},{"value":"study guides","hits":11},{"value":"annotated bibliographies","hits":9},{"value":"learning modules","hits":6},{"value":"worksheets","hits":6},{"value":"slide shows","hits":4},{"value":"quizzes","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":40200},{"value":"StillImage","hits":35114},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":4552},{"value":"Sound","hits":3248},{"value":"Collection","hits":41},{"value":"InteractiveResource","hits":25}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Peppler, Jim","hits":4965},{"value":"Phay, John E.","hits":4712},{"value":"University of Mississippi. Bureau of Educational Research","hits":4707},{"value":"Baldowski, Clifford H., 1917-1999","hits":2599},{"value":"Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission","hits":2255},{"value":"Thurmond, Strom, 1902-2003","hits":2077},{"value":"WSB-TV (Television station : Atlanta, Ga.)","hits":1475},{"value":"Newman, I. DeQuincey (Isaiah DeQuincey), 1911-1985","hits":1003},{"value":"The State Media Company (Columbia, S.C.)","hits":926},{"value":"Atlanta Journal-Constitution","hits":844},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":778}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"African Americans--Civil rights","hits":9441},{"value":"Civil rights","hits":8347},{"value":"African Americans","hits":5895},{"value":"Mississippi--Race relations","hits":5750},{"value":"Race relations","hits":5607},{"value":"Education, Secondary","hits":5083},{"value":"Education, Elementary","hits":4729},{"value":"Segregation in education--Mississippi","hits":4727},{"value":"Education--Pictorial works","hits":4707},{"value":"Civil rights demonstrations","hits":4436},{"value":"Civil rights workers","hits":3530}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966--Correspondence","hits":1888},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1809},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1709},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1312},{"value":"Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","hits":1282},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1071},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":858},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":814},{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":719},{"value":"Mizell, M. Hayes","hits":674},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":626}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":2598},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1909},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1704},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1331},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1070},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":856},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":806},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":625},{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":605},{"value":"Snelling, Paula","hits":580},{"value":"Williams, Hosea, 1926-2000","hits":431}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":1763},{"value":"Ole Miss Integration","hits":1670},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":965},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":704},{"value":"Memphis Sanitation Workers Strike","hits":366},{"value":"Selma-Montgomery March","hits":337},{"value":"Freedom Summer","hits":306},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":214},{"value":"Poor People's Campaign","hits":180},{"value":"University of Georgia Integration","hits":173},{"value":"University of Alabama Integration","hits":140}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":17820},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798","hits":5428},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Montgomery County, Montgomery, 32.36681, -86.29997","hits":5151},{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":4862},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":4610},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":4177},{"value":"United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026","hits":3943},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","hits":2910},{"value":"United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898","hits":2579},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":2430},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":2387}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Georgia","hits":12843},{"value":"Alabama","hits":11307},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":10219},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":8503},{"value":"Arkansas","hits":4583},{"value":"Texas","hits":4399},{"value":"Tennessee","hits":3770},{"value":"Florida","hits":2601},{"value":"Ohio","hits":2391},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":1893},{"value":"New York","hits":1667}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1966","hits":10514},{"value":"1963","hits":10193},{"value":"1965","hits":10119},{"value":"1956","hits":9832},{"value":"1955","hits":9611},{"value":"1964","hits":9268},{"value":"1968","hits":9243},{"value":"1962","hits":9152},{"value":"1967","hits":8771},{"value":"1957","hits":8460},{"value":"1958","hits":8242},{"value":"1961","hits":8241},{"value":"1959","hits":8046},{"value":"1960","hits":7940},{"value":"1954","hits":7239},{"value":"1969","hits":7235},{"value":"1950","hits":7117},{"value":"1953","hits":6968},{"value":"1970","hits":6743},{"value":"1971","hits":6337},{"value":"1977","hits":6280},{"value":"1952","hits":6161},{"value":"1972","hits":6144},{"value":"1951","hits":6045},{"value":"1975","hits":5806},{"value":"1976","hits":5771},{"value":"1974","hits":5729},{"value":"1973","hits":5591},{"value":"1979","hits":5329},{"value":"1978","hits":5318},{"value":"1980","hits":5279},{"value":"1995","hits":4829},{"value":"1981","hits":4724},{"value":"1994","hits":4654},{"value":"1948","hits":4596},{"value":"1949","hits":4571},{"value":"1996","hits":4486},{"value":"1982","hits":4330},{"value":"1947","hits":4316},{"value":"1985","hits":4226},{"value":"1998","hits":4225},{"value":"1997","hits":4202},{"value":"1983","hits":4174},{"value":"1984","hits":4065},{"value":"1946","hits":4046},{"value":"1999","hits":4018},{"value":"1945","hits":4017},{"value":"1990","hits":3937},{"value":"1986","hits":3919},{"value":"1943","hits":3899},{"value":"1944","hits":3895},{"value":"1942","hits":3867},{"value":"2000","hits":3808},{"value":"2001","hits":3790},{"value":"1940","hits":3764},{"value":"1941","hits":3757},{"value":"1987","hits":3657},{"value":"2002","hits":3538},{"value":"1991","hits":3507},{"value":"1936","hits":3506},{"value":"1939","hits":3500},{"value":"1938","hits":3465},{"value":"1937","hits":3449},{"value":"1992","hits":3444},{"value":"1993","hits":3422},{"value":"2003","hits":3403},{"value":"1930","hits":3377},{"value":"1989","hits":3355},{"value":"1935","hits":3306},{"value":"1933","hits":3270},{"value":"1934","hits":3270},{"value":"1988","hits":3269},{"value":"1932","hits":3254},{"value":"1931","hits":3239},{"value":"2005","hits":3057},{"value":"2004","hits":2909},{"value":"1929","hits":2789},{"value":"2006","hits":2774},{"value":"1928","hits":2271},{"value":"1921","hits":2123},{"value":"1925","hits":2039},{"value":"1927","hits":2025},{"value":"1924","hits":2011},{"value":"1926","hits":2009},{"value":"1920","hits":1975},{"value":"1923","hits":1954},{"value":"1922","hits":1928},{"value":"2016","hits":1925},{"value":"2007","hits":1629},{"value":"2008","hits":1578},{"value":"2011","hits":1575},{"value":"2019","hits":1537},{"value":"1919","hits":1532},{"value":"2009","hits":1532},{"value":"1918","hits":1530},{"value":"2015","hits":1527},{"value":"2013","hits":1518},{"value":"2010","hits":1515},{"value":"2014","hits":1481},{"value":"2012","hits":1467}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"0193","max":"2035","count":500952,"missing":56},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"photographs","hits":10708},{"value":"correspondence","hits":9437},{"value":"black-and-white photographs","hits":7678},{"value":"negatives (photographs)","hits":7513},{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":4462},{"value":"letters (correspondence)","hits":3623},{"value":"oral histories (literary works)","hits":3607},{"value":"black-and-white negatives","hits":2740},{"value":"editorial cartoons","hits":2620},{"value":"newspapers","hits":1955},{"value":"manuscripts (documents)","hits":1692}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":41178},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":17554},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":8828},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":6864},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":2186},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/","hits":1778},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-CR/1.0/","hits":1115},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/","hits":197},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/","hits":60},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-RUU/1.0/","hits":51},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/","hits":27}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Jim Peppler Southern Courier Photograph Collection","hits":4956},{"value":"John E. Phay Collection ","hits":4706},{"value":"John J. Herrera Papers","hits":3288},{"value":"Baldy Editorial Cartoons, 1946-1982, 1997: Clifford H. Baldowski Editorial Cartoons at the Richard B. Russell Library.","hits":2607},{"value":"Sovereignty Commission Online","hits":2335},{"value":"Strom Thurmond Collection, Mss 100","hits":2068},{"value":"Alabama Media Group Collection","hits":2067},{"value":"Black Trailblazers, Leaders, Activists, and Intellectuals in Cleveland","hits":2033},{"value":"Rosa Parks Papers","hits":1948},{"value":"Isaiah DeQuincey Newman, (1911-1985), Papers, 1929-2003","hits":1904},{"value":"Lillian Eugenia Smith Papers (circa 1920-1980)","hits":1887}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"John Davis Williams Library. Department of Archives and Special Collections","hits":8885},{"value":"Alabama. Department of Archives and History","hits":8146},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":4102},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":4024},{"value":"University of North Texas. Libraries","hits":3854},{"value":"Hargrett Library","hits":3292},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":3212},{"value":"Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies","hits":2874},{"value":"Mississippi. Department of Archives and History","hits":2825},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":2633},{"value":"Rhodes College","hits":2264}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":80736},{"value":"Collection","hits":455}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":80994},{"value":"true","hits":197}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}