{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_323","title":"Compliance court filings","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2002-08/2002-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","School administrators"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance court filings"],"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/323"],"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\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. NO.4:82CV00866 WRW/JRT PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL RECEIVED MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL JUL 5\" - 2002 KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL desegregation monitoring EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS AUG 0 2 2002 JAMEa w By: z* PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS ORDER The parties appeared before the Court by telephone in the absence of a court reporter on August 1, 2002 at 11:15 a.m. at which time the Court considered, upon the Joshua Intervenors request, concerns they had with respect to Plaintiff LRSDs Motion to Strike. After hearing the position of the parties counsel regarding the matter, the Court determined that the Plaintiff would have unitl August 9,2002 in which to designate the specific testimony in the record which it wishes to have stricken, and that the Joshua Intervenors would have until Wednesday, August 14, 2002 at 5:00 p.m. in which to respond thereto IT IS SO ORDERED thi: day of ,2002. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WIT 68 AND/OR 7' ON. RCP 6 2 RECEIVFO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ^UG 1 9 2*502 OFFICE OF OeSGQRSGATlOH UOjiiTDiyiMI LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ET AL received MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS DESIGNATION OF TESTIMONY TO BE STRICKEN Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") hereby designates the following testimony to be stricken from the record for the reasons set forth in the LRSDs Motion to Strike and accompanying brief: WITNESS PAGE LINES EXPLANATION C. Norman 45 1-25 Concerns 2001-02 curriculum audit dated March 2002 (CX 785). C. Norman 46 1-12 Same as above. C. Norman 53 6-25 Complaints about Pickering occurred during the 2001-02 school year (See Testimony of Chris Payne). C. Norman 54 1-25 Same as above. C. Norman 55 1-25 Same as above. C. Norman 56 1-25 Same as above. C. Norman 57 1-25 Same as above C. Norman 58 1-25 C. Norman 59 1-25 Complaints about Norman by the BCC occurred during the 2001-02 school year (See Norman, p. 71-72). Complaints about Pickering and about Norman by the BCC occurred during the 2001-02 school year.WITNESS PAGE LINES EXPLANATION C. Norman 60 1-25 C. Norman 61 1-20 Complaints about Rutherford occurred during the 2001-02 school year (See testimony of Avis and D.J. Thames). Same as above. C. Norman 62 1-25 C. Norman 63 1-25 C. Norman 64 1-21 C. Norman 65 11-25 C. Norman 66 1-25 BCCs support of Ross and Klais occurrred during the 2001-02 school year. BCC action against Norman and disciplinary action against Rutherford occurred during the 2001-02 school year. Rutherford disciplinary action occurred during 2001-02 school year. Teacher refusal to give recommendation occurred during 2001-02 school year (See testimony of Chris Payne). Same as above. C. Norman 70 17-25 C. Norman 71 1-25 BCC action against Mr. Norman occurred during the 2001-02 school year. Same as above. C. Norman 72 1-18 C. Norman 91 15-25 C. Norman 92 1-14 C. Norman 92 8-23 C. Norman 93 1-14 P. Watson 105 10-11 P. Watson no 14-25 P. Watson 122 11-19 M. Faucette 196 12-25 Same as above. Cross concerning Rutherford.' Cross concerning BCC.^ Redirect concerning Rutherford. Concerns Chris Payne and 2001-02 school year. Concerns 2001-02 school year. Concerns 2002-03 school year. Concerns 2001-02 school year (see p. 105) Concerns 2001-02 school year (see p. 197, line 13) ^Plaintiffs designation of cross-examination testimony is contingent upon the direct examination being stricken. If the designated direct testimony is not stricken, Plaintiff does not want the cross-examination testimony stricken. ^See Footnote 1. 2WITNESS PAGE LINES EXPLANATION M. Faucette 197 1-25 Same as above. M. Faucette 198 1-25 Same as above. M. Faucette 199 116 Same as above. J. Mercer 329 20-25 Concerns 2001-02 school year (see p. 329, lines 14-16) J. Mercer 330 1-24 Same as above. J. Mercer 338 21-25 Concerns his experience during his senior year, 2001-02, in Brooks English IV-AP class. J. Mercer 340 18-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 341 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 342 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 343 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 344 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 345 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 346 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 347 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 347 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 348 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 349 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 350 1-10 Same as above. J. Mercer 350 11-25 Concerns his experience during his senior year, 2001-02, in Art History-AP. J. Mercer 351 1-21 Same as above. J. Mercer 379 10-25 Cross regarding Brooks. J. Mercer 380 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 381 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 382 1-25 Same as above. ^See Footnote 1. 3WITNESS PAGE LINES EXPLANATION J. Mercer 383 1-5 Same as above. J. Mercer 394 24-25 Concerns his graduation in 2002. J. Mercer 395 1-10 Same as above. J. Mercer 395 11-25 Redirect regarding Brooks. J. Mercer 396 1-9 Same as above. J. Mercer 398 8-25 Re-cross regarding Brooks.** J. Mercer 399 1-9 Same as above. C. Payne 400 15-25 Concerns his senior year, 2001-02. C. Payne 401 1-25 Same as above. C. Payne 402 1-25 Same as above. C. Payne 403 1-25 Same as above. C. Payne 404 1-25 Same as above. C. Payne 405 1-25 Same as above. C. Payne 406 1-25 Same as above. C. Payne 407 1-25 Same as above. C. Payne 408 1-10 Same as above. C. Payne 408 11-25 Cross concerning his senior year, 2001- 02.5 C. Payne 409 1-25 Same as above. C. Payne 410 1-25 Same as above. C. Payne 411 1-25 Same as above. C. Payne 412 1-25 Same as above. C. Payne 413 1-25 Same as above. C. Payne 414 1-5 Same as above. C. Payne 414 6-25 Redirect concerning his senior year, 2001- 02. 4 See Footnote 1. ^See Footnote 1. 4WITNESS PAGE LINES EXPLANATION C. Payne 415 1-25 Same as above. C. Payne 416 10-13 Same as above. D. Thames 418 15-25 Concerns his senior year, 2001-02. D. Thames 419 1-25 Same as above. D. Thames 420 1-25 Same as above. D. Thames 421 1-25 Same as above. D. Thames 422 1-25 Same as above. D. Thames 423 1-25 Same as above. D. Thames 424 1-25 Same as above. D. Thames 425 1-25 Same as above. D. Thames 428 12-25 Same as above. D. Thames 429 1-17 Same as above. D. Thames 434 9-25 Cross regarding Beta Club and National Honor Society. D. Thames 435 1-9 Same as above. D. Thames 436 10-25 Cross regarding Pickering. 7 D. Thames 437 1-2 Same as above. D. Thames 439 1-5 Redirect regarding Beta Club. P. Mercer 453 20-25 Cross regarding Brooks. P. Mercer 454 1-25 Same as above. P. Mercer 455 1-25 Same as above. P. Mercer 456 1-25 Same as above. P. Mercer 457 1-25 Same as above. P. Mercer 458 1-25 Same as above. See Footnote 1. 7, See Footnote 1. See Footnote 1. This cross relates to Justin Mercers testimony. Pam Mercer only discussed the issue generally without specific reference to Brooks, and Plaintiff has not designated that testimony to be stricken. 5WITNESS PAGE LINES EXPLANATION P. Mercer 459 1-25 Same as above. P. Mercer 460 1-25 Same as above. P. Mercer 461 1-11 Same as above. P. Mercer 461 18-25 Redirect regarding Brooks. P. Mercer 462 1-25 Redirect regarding Brooks. J. Carter 497 21-25 Concerns 2001-02 curriculum audit dated March 2002 (CX 785). J. Carter 498 1-3 Same as above. J. Carter 499 1-16 Same as above. The audit led to recommended staff cuts to be implemented during the 2002-03 school year (see p. 527). J. Carter 501 19-24 Same as above. J. Carter 527 4-11 Cross regarding staff cuts. WHEREFORE, the LRSD prays that the testimony designated herein be stricken from the record for the reasons set forth in its Motion to Strike and accompanying brief. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Regions Center, Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501)376-2011 BY: /I John C. Fendley, Jr. + See Footnote 1. 6CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by U.S. mail on August 9, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 (VIA FAX and MAIL) Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 NationsBank 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 Brown 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 e. C. Fendley, Jr. I L F\n\\HOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD 2001\\des-unitary-mot-strikc-designalions.wpd 7 V FILED is\nhic!' COUR i IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COLDIT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION u.g. Di\nT'l AUG 1 9 2002 JAM vv. RK Ev T ,.\",P\u0026gt;'^\\NSAE R LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO, 4:82CV00866 WW/TTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. LET AL RECEIVED DEFEND.ANTS NIRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL AUG 1 9 2002 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET .AL OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO THE LRSDS REQUEST FOR UNITARY STATUS REGARDING THE PLAN SECTIONS INTRODUCTION This case is before the Court upon the LRSDs motion to be released from Court\nsuperxdsion and to be released from its remedial obligations to African American students. Upon the liability findings of the District Court in 1987 and in earlier proceedings, the first remedial agreement occurred in 1989 and was approved by the Court of Appeals in 1990. Between 1990 and 1998, the District Court, the Honorable Susan Webber Wright, oversaw remedial proceedings and, as directed by the Court of Appeals, appointed and involved an Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) staff to assist with achievement of the objectives of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. After repeated hearings before the Court, and upon the urging of the District Court, in January, 1998 the LRSD and the Joshua Inten-'enors entered into a Revised Desegregation and Education Plan before the Court - the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. The Revised Plan w^as intended to A:''JOSHZ-A.OPP -1-t I implement the orisinai remedy of school desegregation ordered by the Court. The Revised Desegregation Plan was to be a minimum of three (3) years in duration and its terms of expected action were generally set forth therein. It was anticipated that upon compliance the school District would petition, with approval, of the Joshua Intervenors, the Court for release of the District from Court supervision. The predicate for release was substantial compliance with commitments set forth therein and otherwise required by law as well as ancillary agreements entered into on behalf of the Joshua class between the LRSD and the State of Arkansas Department of Education. The District developed a Compliance Committee which consisted ofthe school superintendent and his senior staff of associate superintendents. The Compliance Committee was assisted by District counsel during its deliberations. The Joshua Intervenors were not invited or allowed to participate in Compliance Committee deliberations or activities. The District employed two experts with Joshuas approval to assist the District in devising remedies as set forth in the Revised Plan, Dr. Terrence Roberts and Dr. Steven Ross. The experts were not participants of the Compliance Committee. Ultimately, the Compliance Committee developed the Compliance Report, dated March 15, 2001 which is now before the Court after a second set of hearings before the Honorable William R. Bill Wilson. The first set of hearings occurred in July, August and November of2001 and were overseen by the Honorable Susan Webber Wright, Chief District Judge of the Eastern District of Arkansas. The LRSD moved for her recusal in October, 2001. The Court denied recusal. Ultimately, these proceedings were scheduled for Januaiy-', 2002 but they were delayed upon motion of Joshua. The Honorable Susan \"Webber Wright decided in January, 2002 to withdraw as the judge in this case and the case was assigned to the Honorable William R. Bill Wilson.i _ I 7 Wilson scheduled and held hearings during July. 2002 upon the objections raised by Joshua the Compliance Report of March 15, 2001. After the hearings, the Court required the parties to submit contemporaneous findings of fact and conclusions of law and/or statements in further u of the parties respective positions to the Coun by 11:00 a.m., August 19, 2002. This filing repr nts the Joshua Intervenors compliance with the Courts directive. It also summarizes the rebuttal evidence presented by Joshua through Ms. Ann Marshall. The : -ovisions of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan of 1998 which are now- before the 2 for review' and decision are Sections 2.1., 2.6, 2.6.1, 2.6.2, 2.6.3, 2.11, 2.11.1. These secti idress, among other topics, the obligation to take steps to increase participation of qualified At. an American students in advanced and enriched courses to ensure that there are no barriers to such participation, and to implement programs promoting the success of the students in these courses. These parts of the Plan also address increased participation in extracurricular activities, pre v: on of guidance counseling services in a nondiscriminatory manner and more equity in academic h ..^rs, a.wards and scholarships. The Joshua Intervenors emphasize the importance of giving attention to the overall picture which it portrays regarding the Systems good faith and other matters. Good faith requires conscious intent by the school District to take actions which promote the ultimate j-.\nCTve^ of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. We submit that the ultimate objecti \\ es of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan necessarily include elimination ofthe vestiges of racial discrimination and the replacement of those vestiges with policies, programs, practices and procedures w'hich do not lead to resegregation. Joshua submits that the actions of the school district, a xm in the proceedings before Judge Wright and Judge Wilson, demonstrated that the District not acted in good faith in meeting the obligations which are set forth in the A:'JOSffUA.OPP4 _ I January, 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 1. THE TESTIMONY OF ODM DIRECTOR ANN MARSHALL REBUTS THE LRSDS POSITION REGARDING EVALUATIONS AND OTHER ELEMENTS OF PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Ms. Marshall testified that when the March 15, 2001 Report was presented, the evaluation documents were not available as represented therein. [Tr. at 15] Many of the evaluations are still not locatable, especially the final reports [Tr. at 16-17] and could, not have been approved by the school board. Dr. Lesley, whose Division of Instruction was responsible for program evaluation. complained to Ms. Marshal! about the LRSDs lack of program evaluations as represented in the Report. [Tr. at 18 (Marshall)] She and Lesley agreed that, the quality of the reports was not good. [Tr. at 33] Marshall stated that the District did not make annual evaluations of all programs as LR represented would occur. (Section 2.7.1 of the Revised .Plan. Tr. at 20-22] Nor did LR make annual assessments of all programs or an annual listing of programs by the assistant superintendent to be assessed annually. [Tr. at 37, 39] She further stated that the school district developed a Research Agenda which further unilaterally narrowed the evaluation requirements of the Plan. The programs which were included in the research agenda were not completed. [Tr. at 36] She also stated that the ODM did not any evaluations of programs on behalf of the LRSD. [Tr. at 23] She testified that LRSD staff whom she met with understood the term assessment when used in the Plan to mean evaluations. Joshua reiterates therefore that the LRSD did not comply with the Plan commitments that it evaluate annually all programs from an effectiveness perspective in order A:yOSHUA.OPP -4-I to determine their efficacy in meeting plan objectives. Joshua now proceeds to address the areas on which the Court allowed the development of evidence during the July, 2002 hearings, Joshua now proposed the following facts A. The Good Faith Requirement of the Section 2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. With respect to Section 2.1, good faith, the Interim Compliance Report does not address that subject. The March 15, 2001 Compliance Report purports to state what the District will do upon unitary' status being declared, what has been done by campus leadership teams in the schools\nand awards which the District has received Itnown as the Arkansas Quality Award, It does not in the body of the report address the objective of remedying the effects of past discrimination and ensuring that for the future racially discriminatory practices will not be reinstituted. Moreover, the District, did not develop a policy with respect, to this provision. B. The Obligations to Identify Qualified African American Students and to Promote their Successful Participation in AP and Other Honor and Enriched Courses 1. The Districts March 2000 and 2001 Compliance Reports 1. The Interim Report indicates that the school shall be active in identifying students for placement for Pre-AP and AP courses. (Interim Report, p. 20). At the outset of Revised Plan implementation, the written criteria for enrollment in Pre-AP and AP courses include multiple factors such as 1. High-level reading comprehension and writing skills as evidenced by norm-referenced test data and classroom performance and 4. B average and above in regular-level class. [CX. 719 (Reg. IHCC-R)\n[Tr. at 49 (Norman)]\n[Tr. at 560 (J. Mosby)] However, in approximately Januaiy' 2001, the LRSD revised the criteria so that thereafter there would be, basically, a free choice A:UOSHUA.OPP I assignment into advanced and enriched courses. [Tr. at 86 (Norman)\n[Tr. at 473, 498 (Caner)] 2, The District represents that it approved five new policies which were to ensure that There would be no barriers to African American student participation in advanced courses. (See Interim Report p. 17) Policy IHCC addressed training programs for teachers and counselors in identifying and encouraging increasing percentages of students to participate in advanced placement courses. Policy IHBB addressed assessing gifted potential through program designs that are flexible and varied enough to be adaptable to individual student need and through curricular designed to nurture gifted potential. Policy DCC addressed calculating grade point averages and rank and class. Policy IKF established enhanced course requirements with a total of twenty-four required units and. increased the rigor of the curriculum. Policy IHBEA addressed English as a second language. 3. Joshua submits that none of these policies addressed the subject of identifying and encouraging .African .American students to participate in advanced placement courses other than possibly Policy IHCC, the Professional Development Program for Teachers and Counselors. Even IHCC does not address the matter of identifying and encouraging increasing percentages of African .American students. 4. Policy IHBB is very general. Policy EKC does not address the issue of race. Policy DCF addresses increasing the units required for graduation and stiffens the requirements for honors at graduation time. Policy IHBBA does not apply to African .Americans although the District says that there are several students with .African backgrounds who may profit by the English as a second language program 5. The 2001 Report indicates that Policy DCF raised the bar even higher so that instead of twenty-four units being required to graduate, students were expected to complete twenty-eight units A:-JOSHUA.OPP -6-I including ai least eight Pre-.AP or AP courses. Raising the bar has not been shown by the District as a program, policy, practice or procedure which reasonably could be expected to either identify or encourage African American students to participate in advanced courses, or to assist them in being successful in advanced courses. Instead raising the bar in the manner the LRSD did became a barrier itself for African American children because of their dismal success on the measurem.ent barometers. 6. The 2001. Report content on pp. 30-31 does not demonstrate how African American students are benefitted by these policies 7. The Interim Report identifies Administrative Regulation IHCCR as being written to promote the percentage of African American students who enroll in Pre-AP and AP courses. The 2001 Compliance Report does not address Regulation IHCCR. No data are presented to show how this procedure has worked in practice between October 21 and March 15, 2001. The other regulations are IKC-R, IKF-R2 but they do not address issues relating to African American students in particular. IKC-R addresses rank in class and IKF-R2 relates to general graduation requirements. Both regulations appear to give advantage to white pupils in AP programs. 8. The 2000 Report (CX. 869 at 22-23) that the District will utilize a Quality Index to promote enrollment of African ^American students in advanced courses in order to make data driven decisions. The District further represents that the Quality Indicators are routinely disaggregated so that progress for each group can be derermined. The Quality Indicators for the high schools were not presented in the 2001 Report except for the percentages of students taking the ACT. The percentage of students taking the AP makes no reference at all to the race of-AP examinees [e.g. 43] Moreover, the District did not present the number of minority students earning a score 19\" on the A:'JOSHUA.OPPI ACT as promised in the Interim Report. The average scores' of racial groups are presented, but th number of AA students who score 19\" or above is not presented, [e.g. 4S-49j. 9. Disaggregated racial data were also promised with respect to students who earned at least 3\" on AP exams. The District did not do this. [e.g. 44] The data presented included percentage of students earning a C or above in AP [e.g. 44] and Pre-AP courses in middle and high schools and the University Studies Program for one year only. [e.g. 44-47] 10, The District is also remiss in presenting data promised in the 2000 Report regarding the Quality Indicators set forth on page 23 [CX. 869] in its Report of March 15, 2001. For example, reference is made in the 2000 Report regarding the percentage of students who perform at the Advanced level on the Grade 4 benchmarks examinations in literacy and math, [p, 2.37\nsee also Tr. at 540] The data presented addresses the at or above proficient rather than, as promised, the. advanced level, p. 103 (literacy), p. 131 (math). 11. The data are not disaggregated with respect to gender. The data would allow consideration of the extent to which .African American males students fare within the District. 12. When the District did not present data, regarding Advanced students it prevented the parties from malting judgments regarding the extent to which African .American students were being compared to other students. Being at or above proficient does not disclose the relative relationship between non African .American students in comparison to African American students. Moreover, the 2000 Report promised to disclose the percentage of students who performed in the top quartile on the SAT9 in reading, language and mathematics, [p. 23] The 2001 report does not disclose the top quartile student performances on the SAT9. The District, however, makes judgments regarding achievement for .African .American students without use of this quality indicator.  [e.g. p. 104-105, .4 :'JOSHUA. OPP -8- 133, 144] 13 13. Of the pre grams that were identified in the Interim Report, reference is made by the District to a new middle school curriculum but the District has always had a specific curriculum for each grade level. A\ncurriculum for middle schools v/as required because the District changed from a six-three-three emto a five-three-four system in 1997 The purported new curriculum was neither developed or intended for African American students. The National Science Foundation Project was listed as a program but in the final report no reference is made to the National Science Foundation results. Theie s no showing that it has increased African .American participation in AP courses. 14. The Un, iBS Program at Hall High Schoo! is identified but it does not address African American student.. Rather it seeks to target strong students who have the capacity of doing college work. By its terms, African American students are not targeted! To be eligible for enrollment strong students\nust have either a minimum grade point average of 2.5 on half of their college preparatoiy' course / ' a minimum grade point average of 3.0\nor a minimum score of at least 21 on the ACT. The 2001 * rt with the disaggregated data presented by the District shows the race of the average student with a score of 21 on the ACT to be white or .Asian. Black students are almost four numbers below that score. Moreover, the District did not present any charts which showed the number of studen' a.t Hall who made minimum grade point averages of 2.5 on at least half of their college preparatory irses nor did it enumerate in a chan the number by race of strong students who have the capacity ot doing college work. The University Studies Program, therefore. tended to favor the stronger students with the better grades, the higher test score averages with means which is another wav of sa A g that it favored white students! A:\\JOSHUA.OPP -9-15. Page 15 cf the 2001 Report reflects the enrollment by race in the University Studies Program. What began as a majority Black enrollment evolved in one year to clearly a majority white enrollment taken from within a majority Black school. As is shown throughout these findings, this result could have been anticipated because of the financial costs associated with participation in the University Studies Program. Those costs constitute a barrier to panicipation. We note that now that the program includes most of Halls white children, the plan is for the course grade to be weighted. [Tr. at 110 (P. Watson)]. 2. The Evidence at the Hearing 16 Dr. Steven Ross is one of the two experts approved by the Joshua Intervenors and hired by the Little Rock School District pursuant to Section 2.1.1 of the Revised Plan. Dr. Ross is a Professor of Educational Research and Director for the Center of Research and Educational Policy at the University of Memphis. Dr. Ross is deeply involved in working with school districts, primarily urban school districts, on how to develop and to evaluate programs and how to address the needs of children at-risk. He has worked with the Memphis, Nashville, Detroit, Atlanta and Little Rock school districts. [Tr. at 538-541(Ross)] 17. Dr. Ross identified an educationally reasonable approach to promoting participation by qualified African American students in. advanced placement and other enriched courses and implementing programs to assist these students to be successful. He defined a qualified student as a student, who has a reasonable chance of benefitting, a reasonable chance of success. Identifydng such students would involve use of archival data in Little Rock that would, have shown the success rates of students in advanced placement courses, in honors courses that are at different levels of achievement on the state test, as well as the view's of principals and curriculum specialists A:^JOSHUA.OPP -10-in the District who have had experience with African American students and white students who are at lower or higher ends of the continuum on ability, with suggestions for what type of students... would have a reasonable chance of success if admitted to an advanced class. With this combination of science and reason he would try to help the school system  to develop some selective cutoffs or some systematic approach for deciding which .African American students were, qualified, which were likely to benefit. For students with test scores at the lower end on state mandated standardized tests, his advice would be admit them to advanced classes on a more selective, level, that is., considering factors such as prior grades, family support, and motivation. [Tr. at 542-547 (Ross)] 18. In the context of section 2.6.2 of the Plan, addressing implement[ation] [of] programs to assist African Americans in being successful in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses,  Dr. Ross gave the following testimony [ Tr. at 548]: My approach would be, for students who are entering a course, in advanced course or an honors course, AP course or advanced, course, to ensurethe term we use in educationalpsychology is scaffoldingmeaning support, because the history that that student who is at basic has had. is struggling to succeed in a regular course. Imagine if you struggle to run. a mile, and then all of a sudden you asked to run five miles. Chances are you are not going to do better at that five miles\nyou are going to struggle more. So I would, want, to provide support systems that can do everything possible to ensure that, students who we consider qualified can benefit. Examples -would be Saturday classes, -which are used, in a lot of districts, extended day, peer coaching, smaller class sizes, computer -assisted, instruction that gives exti'a support, programs with families where parents are not taught to tutor, but parents are taught hoyv to help their children get the work done at. home, courses on how to study. There's a range of support systems that can increase the chances that an at risk child or adolescent can do well, in advanced courses. 19. Dr. Ross testified that he wound not advocate placing students at the lowest levels of state test courses into advanced placement courses without the kinds of programs he described. [Tr. A:J0SffU4.0PP -11-1 at 549] 20. The approach described by Dr. Ross grows out ofthe provision in Section 2.6 of the Plan for promoting participation of qualified .African American students in advanced and enriched courses and the provision of Section 2.6.2 of the Plan which requires implementaiion of programs to assist these students in being successful in the enriched and advanced courses. The paragraphs which follow show: (a) the activities required of the LRSD to promote additional participation of African American students in advanced programing were not carried out, or, were cursory in nature. (b) LRSD has not demonstrated an increase in participation in advanced and enriched classes, comparing the totality of such programming prior to and during the Plan period, (c) LRSD adopted, during the Plan period, criteria for admission to Pre-AP and AP classes which allow any student regardless of test scores and. prior performance to select such classes., without an individualized consideration of the students ability to benefit\nand (d) LRSD had, during the Plan period, clearly inadequate scaffolding to assist lower performing students in being successful in advanced and enriched classes. 21. The LRSD asserted that it fulfilled its obligation of a training program during each of the next three years designed to assist teachers and counselors in identifying and encouraging African American students participation.... in advanced placement and honors and enriched courses. [Section 2.6.1] However, there was no evidence of such a training program for  teachers and counselors  during of the... three years of [the Plan.]\n[Tr. at 186-89 (Faucette)] 22. Ms. Patricia Watson has served as a guidance counselor in the LRSD for approximate!}' 28 years, 23 years at Central and 5 years at Hall. She was the lead counselor at Hall during the term ofthe Plan. [Tr. at 100] She did not recall any specific training program each year of the Revised A:'JOSmJA.OPP -12-t Desegregarion and Education Plan which was designed to train counselors in encouraging participation of African American students in Pre-.AP and AP classes. [Tr, at 101] Ms. Watson further testified that although the director of Guidance and Counseling for the LRSD conducted monthly in-service training sessions between 1998 and 2001, she could not recall any training relating to encouraging panicipation of African Americans in Pre-AP and AP classes. [Tr. at 103-04] 23 2j. When the subject matter of encouraging participation of African American students in advanced and enriched courses was raised by a LRSD administrator, the presentation was brief and pro forma. [Tr. at 90 (C. Norman)], [Tr. at 102 (P. Watson), [Tr. at 473, 490 (J. Carter)] 24. Prior to the advent of the Revised Plan, and continuing through the first year of the Plan, the types of advanced and enriched programming offered in the LRSD included advanced placement classes, as well as honors and enriched classes. Effective with the second year of the Plan (1999- 2000), LRSD utilized the categories ofPre-AP  and AP to encompass the prior categories of AP, honors and enriched. [Tr. at. 376, 11/20/01 (Lesley)\nCX. 869, p. 18, 29] An accurate determination of any progress in increasing participation of African American students in advanced and enriched programming requires consideration of this change. Merely reclassifying students who were in honors and enriched classes as advanced classes does not qualify as real progress in attaining the goal of Section 2.6. The District did not cite any actions that it had taken to promote an increase in participation of African American students in advanced programs. The Districts plan is to increase the number of AP courses and Pre-AP courses that are available and to cutout other courses so that the result would be more students would be forced to take Pre-AP and AP courses. 25. As evidenced by p. 38 of the March, 2001 Report, the greatest numerical increase of -African .American pupils in .AP courses, 154, occurred when honors and enriched courses were ended A: 'JOSHUA. OPP -13- after the 1998-99 school year. At the same time, the other numbers increased by 160, from 936 to 1096. This means that the proportion of white students enrolled in AT courses actually increased. The chart on p. 3 8 of the 2001 Report reflects that African .American students assigned to .AP courses fell from 37% in 1997-98 to 35% in 2000-01. The reality therefore is that whatever changes took place in .AP, the disparity which existed in 1998 continued at least through March, 2001. 26. .At the outset of Revised Plan implementation, the written criteria for enrollment in Pre- .AP and AP courses included multiple factors such as 1. High-level reading comprehension and writing skills as evidenced by norm-referenced test data and classroom performance and 4. B average and above in regular-level class. [CX. 719 (Reg. IHCC-R\nTr. at 49 (Norman)\nTr. at 560 (J. Mosby)] However, in approximately January 2001, the LRSD revised the criteria, so that thereafter there would be, basically, a free choice of the more rigorous advanced and enriched courses. [Tr. at 86 (Norman)\nTr. at 473, 498 (Carter)] 27. In 2000-01, 65% of the enrollment in AP courses was white [Tr. at 747 (Lesley)] roughly double the proportion of white enrollment in the LRSD. The free choice approach promoted the attendance of additional white students in classes disproportionately white 28. As indicated, Dr. Ross testified that the availability of a BROAD R.ANGE OF SUPPORT PROGRAM (SCAFFOLDING) IS .AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF .AN INITIATIVE WHiCL PLACES POORLYPERFORMING STUDENTS IN ADVANCED AND ENRICHED COURSES. See par. 18. LRSD WRITTEN STANDARDS -ARE TO THE SAVIE EFFECT [CX. 719, Policy IHBD.A IHBDA-R, IHBD.A-R2]. However, LRSDs implementation fo its standards, required as to advanced and enriched courses by Section 2.6.2 falls short. (a) August 1, 2001 during the hearing conducted by Judge Wright, .Associate A:\\JOSHUA.OPP -14-f Superintendent for Instruction and Bonnie Lesley and Ms. Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent for School Services, could not provide concrete information on the implementation of Student Academic Improvement Plans (SALPs), or other interventions for students requiring additional assistance to satisfy learning standards. [Tr. 8-1-01, at 609, 18 to 611, 23 (Mitchell)\nat 679, 18 to 684, 4 and 736, 17 to 739, 18 (Dr. Lesley)] (b) The LRSD provided no information on the actual availability of SAIPs for poorly performing students entering Pre-,AP and AP courses during the term of the Revised Plan, during the most recent hearing. (c) The support programs actually available for Pre-AP and AP students, identified at the hearing, were well, short of those identified as necessary by Dr Ross and the LRSD in regulation IHBDA-R. [Tr. at 93, 95, (C Norman)\n491-92, 523, 524 (J. Carter), 563-68 (J. Mosby)\n743-44 (Lesley)] C. The Obligation to Address Barriers to Participation In AP and Honors and Enriched Courses 29. During the three-year Plan period, the four Associate Superintendents served as the Districts Compliance Committee with respect to the 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Associate Superintendent Junious Babbs coordinated their efforts. The group was to oversee the overall compliance effort with the terms of the Plan, with each associate retaining primary- responsibility for those aspects of system operations within his/her normal area of responsibility. The compliance committee had the primary responsibility for the identification and removal of barriers to participation in advanced and enriched courses (and extracurricular activities). [Tr. at 130 (Babbs)]\n.4\n'JOSHUA. OPP -15-1 (See also Court Ex. 544, CX. Ex. 869 (March 2000 Report) at 1-2]. 30. The LRSD described the compliance committee and the responsibilities of the associate superintendents as follows in the March 2000 Compliance Report (at 1-2, emphasis added)\nThe Associate Superintendents of Administrative Services, Instruction, Operations, and School Seiwices and the Special Assistant to the Superintendent comprise the \"Compliance and quality Assurance Committee.  The committee has responsibility for the development, implementation, oversignt, review, and revision of the compliance program. The compliance program includes any programs, policies, and/or procedures necessary to ensure that the District fillfills all of its obligations under the Revised Plan. The committee meets weekly to discuss compliance issues and to discuss plan implementation in their respective areas. The compliance philosophy is based on internalizing the Revised Plan through the performance responsibilities of the respective organizational divisions. For example, the instruction division is responsible for integrating the Revised Plan's requirements into development of the curriculum, staff development, and other similar functions of that division. Tne associate superintendent who heads the division is the responsible person for the components of the Revised Plan that are appropriate for his,'her division. Through the internalization ofthe philosophy and. the integration of the Revised Plan into the District A structure, the respective divisions proactively monitor compliance. The associate superintendents are responsiblefor taking appropriate action with respect to incidents of non-compliance and taking steps to prevent future similar incidents of non-compliance. a. The Limited Assignment of Black Teachers to .Advanced and Enriched Courses 31. The LRSD administrators who studied the existence of potential barriers to greater African .American participation in AP classes identified the paucity of .African American teachers as relevant. [Tr. at 71-72, 694-95 (Lesley)]\nSee also [Tr, at 184-86 (Faucette)] .Although significant progress could have been made by the manner in which teachers were assigned to courses by principals, [Tr. at 695 (Lesley)]\n[Tr. at 46 (Norman)]\n[Tr. at 517 (Carter)], little or nothing has been done. 32. In Central High School, the flagship school [Tr. at 612 (Daugherty)] most of the AP ArJGSHUA.OPP -16-f teachers were white. [Tr. at 291-296 (R. Horton)\nTr. at 321, 323, 324 (C. Mercer)\nTr. at 336-37, 338-339, 353,( J. Mercer)] Black teachers were excluded, almost entirely, from advanced English teaching assignments [Tr. at 175-76, 78,179-80 (Faucette)] The LRSD touts its participation in the Teacher of Color program. [Tr. at 671-72 (Lesley)] However, LRSDs evidence shows its participation in this non district sponsored program did not begin until the 2001-2002 school year. [Tr. at 736 (Lesley)] Moreover, the System could have only seven participants per year and the evidence was of high school placement of teachers only at Hall with, significantly, no participation at Central. [Tr, at 736-37 (Lesley)] [Ex. 826] b. The Hostile Treatment of African American Students in Advanced Courses 33. Black students enrolled in Pre-AP and AP classes have been subjected to a variety of forms of harassment and other hostile behaviors by white teachers. [Tr, at 57,, 70 (Norman), Tr. at 102-3, 111-112 (P Watson), Tr. at 291-93, 312 (R. Horton), Tr. at 321-22 (C Mercer)\nTr. at 336- 38 (J. Mercer), Tr. at 401-406 (C. Payne)\nTr. at 427-31 (D.J. Thames)\nTr. at 440-442 (A. Thames)] Dr. Faucette also testified that counselors intentionally did not guide African .American students into higher level classes. [Tr. at 208] 34. The impact of the harassment and hostile behavior identified in paragraph (33), supra. extends beyond the particular black student who is its victim. It is observed by other students in the class. Moreover, such incidents are a topic of discussion among students. [Tr. at 342 (J. Mercer)\nat 576 (J. Mosby)] The inevitable consequence of the harassment is to identify advanced and enriched courses as a hostile environment for black students and one which they should shun. [Tr. at 70 (C. Norman)\nTr. at 632, 651-52 (Roberts)] A:'JOSHUA. OPP -17-r k c. The Multiple Barriers to Access to the University\" Studies Program . The LRSD and the University of Arkansas at Little Rock jointly operate within the Hall High School facility the University Studies Program. Courses are co-taught bv Hall High School teachers and UALR personnel. [CX. 869 (March 2000 Report) at 27] [underlining added for emphasis] This program began functioning in 1999-2000. Students are informed of this option on the course selection sheets distributed by the school system  Grade 11-12 students may take a variety of courses for which they receive both high and college credit. [March 2000 at 27] The program is recognized by the LRSD to provide advanced or enriched courses as described in Section 2.6 of the revised plan. [CX. 870 (March 2001 Report) at 46\n[Tr. at 734 (Lesley)] [Two teachers per course represent a strong commitment to promoting the academic achievements of already high achieving students.] 36. In order to enroll in this program, a student must pay for each course taken one half of the normal tuition charged for the comparable course at UALR and for related expenses. [Tr. at 109- 110 (P, Watson)], [Tr. at 730 (Lesley)] 37, To be eligible to participate [in the University Studies Program], students must have a minimum grade point average of on at least 50% of the college preparatory courses\nor a minimum overall grade average of 3.0, or a minimum score of at least 21 on the ACT. [March 2000 Report at 27] 38. The evidence cited in paragraphs 33 through 37, infra, and 39 through 44, supra, shows that the program operates in a manner which promotes racial segregation within Hall High School, due in large part to the financial barriers created by the tuition and related expenses requirement and by the ACT score requirement. A:'JOSHUA.OPP -18-\u0026lt; 39. The enrollment of Hall High School was approximately 80 to 90% as of 2001-2002 school year. [Tr. at 106 (P. Watson)] The racial makeup of the University studies courses was as follows in the years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001: 99-00 00-01 Total Enrollment 136 162 AA (%) 79(58%) 57(35%) Non AA(%) In Courses 57(42%) 105(65%) 40. These data show: (a) in 2000-2001 the number of .African American students participating declined by 22, 28%\n(b) in 2000-2001 the number of non African American students increased by 48, 60%, (c) in 1999-2000, the percentage of white students in the program exceeded the percentage of white students in Hall High School by two times\n(d) in 2000-2001, the percentage of white students in the program exceeded the percentage of white students in Hall High School by three times, (e) the. in-school segregative effect ofthe program greatly increased in the second year of its operation. [March 2001 Report at 46] 41. TheLRSDreported ACT results by race for the years 1997-1998\n1998-1999\n1999-2000 in the March 15, 2001 Report, [at 48] These data show that the average composite score (on the four sections of the ACT for white students for the three school years was respectively, 22.2, 22.5. and 21.5. In contrast, the average composite score for African .American students for these thre! years was 17.2, 17.2, and 17.3. These data provide some evidence the ACT of the alternative criterion for entry into the University Studies Program had significant racial impact. 42. The LRSD did not include in either the March 2000 or March 2001 Report data on grade point averages at Hall High School which would allow an analysis of the racial impact if any of the GPA standards selected for use in admission to the University Studies Program. A:JOSHVA.OPP -19-r  43. Two types of evidence in the record provide a basis for concluding that the racially segregated enrollment of the University Studies Program is attributed at least in part to the requirement that students pay partial tuition. (a) Poverty Index in LRSD - According to an exhibit offered in this case by the LRSD, in the three years of the Revised Plan, 68% of the Black students enrolled in the District and 22-24% of the white students were eliaible for free or reduced lunch. Court Ex. 731 (b) Many witnesses agreed that the tuition requirement would have a. racial impact in the LRSD in view of the pattern of family income by race. [Tr. 110 at HOP, Watson)]\n[Tr. at 532(J. Carter)]\n[Tr. at 602 (Strickland)]\n[Tr. at 605-6lO(Daughtery)]\n[Tr. at 624-627(Roberts)]\n[Tr. at 732 (Lesley)] 44. The March 2001 Report (at 46) sets forth the racial makeup of the University Studies courses for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. However, neither the March 2000 Report nor the March 2001 Report contain any indication that the LRSD considered or analyzed of or analyzed whether the admission and tuition requirements of the University Studies Program promoted segregation. This silence occurs in the face of Section 2.1 (... 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 and Section 2.6 ... to ensure that there are no barriers to qualified .African Americans...). 45. In the instance of the University Studies Program, there is no evidence of the Compliance Committee, or Associate Superintendent Bonnie Lesley proactively monitor[ing] compliance. d. Other Barriers and Broken Promises as Shown bv the March. 2000 and A:^JOSHUA.OPP -20-i 2001 Reports 46, The 2000 Report addressed the Talent Development Plan as a program to ensure the enrollment high performing students in advanced classes, [Tr, at 28-30] There is no reference made in the final report of the Talent Development Plan. The Talent Development Plan has not been demonstrated to be in existence in practice. The principal of Franklin School. Ethel Dunbar, [Tr, at 588] and Pat Watson, Counselor at Hall High School [Tr, at 104-105], were unaware of this program. This is likely because the Talent Development Plan was repudiated by Dr. Lesley. It involved a commitment to a project called A,VID. Project AVID which was encompassed with the Talent Development Plan but has never been implemented because of its purported high costs and because the District did not get a grant, to fund it, [Tr, at 747 (Lesley)] The 2001 report makes no reference to either the Talent Development Plan or Project AVID, The 2000 Interim Report, in lamenting the fact that it did not get an AVID grant said, these, programs would have assisted the District in its goal of increasing minority participation in higher level courses, including the Pre-AP courses at the middle school level,\" (p, 30) 47, The Interim Report also promised implementation of an .Accelerated Academic Student Academic Program, (AS.AP), a primary purpose of which was to radically narrow the achievement gap between .African .American and white students, (p. 31), The 2001 Report makes no reference to the ASAP program, however, ASAP vanished. On p, 33 of the Interim Report, there is a note that all program components are incorporated in this dr^. Later on the page, the plan was identified as being tentative and dependent upon submitting a proposal for funding from the federal government. On p, 34, it is clear that it is simply a proposal: the District will also investigate other possible sources of funds for the other four middle schools, A:'JOSHUA.OPP -21-( 48. The 2000 Report proposed an English LTI Pre-.AR Workshop on a voluntary basis for teachers. This proposal did not focus upon -African American students in panicular. It allowed high schools the option, for two years, of offering double period English program at both the regular and Pre-AP levels. The 2001 report indicates that the workshop was instituted at several schools during 2000-01 and that as of January, 2001, the optional program would continue at one of the schools through the next school year. Principal Carter of McClellan indicated that his teachers chose not to participate in this program. This was not a required program and cannot be said as a district initiative designed to promote and increase participation in AP and Pre-AP programs. The District presented no data which reflected the benefits of this workshop to African American Students. [Tr. at 525-526 (J. Carter)] 49. The 2001 Report makes reference to a International Baccalaureate Programme at Cloverdale Middle and McClellan High Schools, [p. 34J The IBP was proffered as a program for increasing .African American participation in AP and Pre-.AP courses. According to Principal Carter, the program was designed to promote enrollment of African American children into a more rigorous curriculum and to attract white students to the school. It was dependent upon non district fu.nds for its creation and operation. The District wrote that If this grant is funded . . the International Baccalaureate Programme courses will be another category' of advanced and challenging courses available to students and their enrollment will be tracked and analyzed along with the .AP and Pre-AP and University courses, (p. 34). 50. The IBP program does not operate and was not funded!!. Principal Carter testified that Dr. Bonnie Lesley opposed the program because she thought it was not a good mix for the McClellan student body. [Tr. at 529. 30] Dr. Lesley did not contradict Mr. Carters statement! A:^JOSHUA.OPPi 51. The Districts support for the University Studies Program which favors white students is to be compared the EBP program which in design gave some favor to Black children. The administration strongly supported one with District funds and local college support but it did not support the other one, the IBM, with financial or administrative level support. 52. In the 2001 Report, the District notes that in the 2000-2001 school year it added two -UP courses, Human Geography and Economics in order to promote African American participation in AP course, (p. 33) The Human Geography program which was offered began as a majority white program, nine whites, five Blacks (see p. 38). The Economics program apparently did not make in 2000-2001 because there were no students reported as being in the class. Justin Mercer attempted during the 2000-20001 school term to take the course and was refiised because there was no one to teach it. [Tr. at 352, 357] (See p. 33) When one reviews the .AP courses added, World History, Physics II, Science Pre-AP and Advanced Science/Theoretical II. Moreover, Advanced Science Theoretical II, it is clear they were not being added so as attract and benefit more African American students. These appear college focused, i.e., Central College. [Tr. at 365-66 (J. Mercer)] 53. The LRSD asserted that it. had fLilftUed its obligation of Section 2.6.2 by implementing programs to assist African American students to be successfiil in and advanced placement courses. The Interim Report, (Page 39-40) does not identify any policies that, it developed to assist African American students in being successful. The section speaks only to programs. The programs which are listed are College Preparatory Enrichment Program (CPEP)\nAcademic Enricliment and Gifted in Summer (AEGIS)\nSouth East Consortium for Minorities in Engineering (SECME)\nSMART, a summer program for about 200 students\nSchool Based Student Support Teams\nand English I and II Workshop - Pre-AP, CPEP and AEGIS are not held out as being for the A:VOSHUA.OPP -23-I purpose of assisting African Americans in being successful in advanced courses. SECME was a grant program for the purpose of preparing and motivating students in technical fields. It had a goal of increasing the pool of minorities who were qualified for college studies in engineering, math and science. SIVLART does not identify the students who will be served. The English Pre-AP workshops were optional. The school based support teams had the purpose of monitoring student achievement and providing support and necessary interventions to students at-risk of failure. The District did not present any monitoring reports are results of achievement regarding the school based support teams. 54. The March 15, 2001 Report did not address any of the programs identified in the Interim Report. Instead, it talks about gifted and talented programs specialists and facilitators. These programs are for the teachers who are provided opportunities for professional growth, and receive a publication known as Shcning the Good News. Because of their outlined training those teachers are expected to become resources for other teachers 55. Other possible programs presented in the 2001 Report: are briefly discussed again under this subsection: a) Two courses, Human Geography and Economics were added to the curriculum for 2000-2001, World Historj' and Physics II were added to the curriculum for 2002. Advanced Science/Theortical Research II was added to the curriculum for 2001. There is no showing of how these courses are. directed toward the success in them for AA students. [CX. 870, p. 33] b) The proposed International Baccalaureate Programme (IBP) was contingent upon finding which did not occur between 1998-2001 [e.g. pp. 33-34] (c) Middle School research and writing Pre-AP are not held out as programs to assist A:'JOSHUA.OPP -24-I i .African American students. (d) High School Reading and Writing Workshop I is an optional program which Fair, Hall and McClellan opted to include in their schedules. There is no representation that the workshop was intended to assist .African American students at being successful in advanced courses. (e) Teachers and counselor training has a goal to provide teachers with training to ensure that all students are successful in upper level courses. The funds for this program are provided by the State of Arkansas. This in-service training is required by the Arkansas Department of Education . (0 The 2001 Report refers to revision of Policy IKF/General Ed Graduation Requirements. This policy raised the recommended number of units for graduation to 28\" including at least 8\" Pre-AP or .AP courses. There is no showing ofhow this will benefit African American students in being successful in .AP courses, [e. p.30] (g) The policies, programs and procedures in both the 2000 and 2001 Reports represent recitation of normal school activities, raising the bar for graduation and creating courses that will favor students in advanced courses who are already high achievers. The courses added may substitute for college courses (h) .There are no programs identified in either which are specifically designed to African American students in being successful in advanced placement during the regular school year. (i) The SECME Program operated for one year. [Tr. at 105 (P. Watson)] 0) The other programs either were not implemented or were not supported by use of any A:UOSHUA.OPP -25-i data in either report, [e.g. CX 69, pp. 40-41, CX 870, pp. 31-50] (k) The summer programs CPEP, SMART and .AEGIS have limited enrolled. [Tr. at 738, 747 (Lesley)] (1) The District did not identify and present data which delineated participation in any scaffolding or support programs such as those described by Dr. Ross as being necessary to assist .African .American students in being successful in advanced courses. [Tr. at 548, 549 (Ross)] [See also Tr. at 465, 480, 490, 492, 499, 523, 529 (Carter)\nTr. at 88, 93, 95 (Norman), Tr. at 564, 566, 576 (Mosby)\nTr. at 585 (Dunbar), Tr. at 747 (Lesley)] D. The Obligations to Promote Participation of Qualified African .Americans in Extracurricular Activities 56. With respect to Section 2.6, the March 15, 2001 Report purports to show an increase in African American extracurricular participation between 1997-98 and 1999-00, p. 27. The figures are not broken down by school, activity, race or gender. The general increase represents 122% for African .Americans and 129% for non .African .American students. With respect to the Districts chart on p. 28 regarding co-curricular activity participation, the aggregated data show an African American increase from 2579 to 3988. That reflects a 54.6% increase. Non black participation, however. increased from 1222 to 1864, a percentage increase of 52.5%. The extracurricular activity and co- curricular activity general participation therefore remained steady. 57. By LRSD presenting aggregated data, [ir. at 740 (Lesley)\nCX. 747 [Babbs] the Court is not in a position to effectively determine whether the data reflect actual improvement in African .American participation in the respective schools. Accordingly, the anecdotal testimony of wdtnesses A:\\JOSHUA.OPP -26-becomes more relevant with respect to dererminins whether the policies, programs or procedures which the District developed are working. The policies which the LRSD developed purportedly to meet the requirements of the Plan represent either revision of existing purported policies or codification of practices long in force. The policies which are applicable to the instant proceeding are: a) Policy JJR - Student Co-Curricular Extracurriculai- Activities [CX. Ex. 719] This policy requires that when disparities are identified in co-curricular activities, the principal will work with the school staff to develop a plan for improvement where possible. b) Policy JJIB -R 1- High School Interscholastic Athletics Cheerleading Drill Team/Pep Club [CX. Ex. 719] This policy also requires that when racial disparities are identified in interscholastic athletic or spirit groups, the principal will work with the school staff to develop a plan for improvement where appropriate. It is also requires (5) that transportation will be provided to all students participating in athletic and spirit group activities. [Policy JJTB -R2 applies to the middle schools and essentially repeats the provision in JJIB-Rl] c) Policy JBA-R NonDicrimination in Programs and Activities [CX. Ex. 719] This policy requires each school to develop strategies to promote student participation in programs and activities and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation. It also requires the development and implementation of a plan for nondiscrimination in programs and activities at each school This policy does not include the required improvement plan notes in policies JJR and JJIB-Rl and R-2] d) Policy DFD-R2 Athletic Gate Receipts and Admissions [CX. Ex. 719] .4. JOSHUA.OPP -27- 'oI This policy requires that in cooperation with the Activities Advisory Board (AAB), there will be a comprehensive athletic and activities plan developed by the District to address the needs of the students...  The steering committee will serve as staff providing technical assistance and support to the AAB. 58. The District staff determined that there were disparities which they identified in co- curricular and extracurricular activities.^ The District staff who addressed the subject include the .Associate Superintendent for Student Services, Sadie Mitchell, the zAssistant Superintendent for Secondary Schools, Dr. Marian Lacey, Jodie Carter, Principal of McClellan High School, Ms. Cassandra Norman, Principal of Fair High School, and Mr. Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services. These staff members acknowledged an awareness of racially identifiable activities and of disparities: Ms. Mitchell [Tr. at 261, 262, 268, 269]\nDr. Lacey [Tr. at 790, 791]\nPrincipal Carter [Tr. at 474, 492, 493, 502, 503], Principal Norman [Tr. at 71, 72]\nMr. Babbs [Tr at 13 3 ]. Other witnesses who testified that there were racial disparities with respect to curricular and extracurricular activities were Ramona Horton [Tr. at 312, 313]\nMichael Faucette, [Tr. at 199, 200, 201,203-206]\nCrystal Mercer, a student at Central High School [Tr at 322,323]\nJustin Mercer [Tr. at 386, 387, 388] 59. The March 15, 2001 Report contains (at 28) under the heading Activities Advisory' Board, the following content: \"At. the time of the District's Interim Compliance Report, a steering committee had been formed to organize an Activities Advisory Board. (\"AAB\") for the purpose of Hhe activities identified included, inter alia, baseball, cheerleaders, debate, future problem solvers, odyssey of the mind, student newspaper, mock trial, orchestra, quiz bowl, soccer, swim team, tennis, volleyball and yearbook staff. [Tr. at 136, 133-35 (Babbs)\nTr. at 199-200, 203 (Faucette)\nTr. at 261-262 (Mitchell), Tr. at 358-360, 362-364 (Mercer)] A:'JOSHUA.OPP -28-J 5 promoting, supporting and enhancing extracurricular activities and co-curricular activities at all schools. The AAB, comprised of District staff, parents, student and community' representatives, began monthly meetings in April of2000. Specific areas related to activities have been targeted for discussion and implementation. The focus of these discussion has been on a disproportinate number of African American students -who do not hcre the financial resources to participate in activities. Other areas of discussion and implementation include... funding, accessibility.. Each area has been discussed, in connection with increasing student participation with emphasis on assuring Afi'i can American participation, [underlining added for emphasis] 60. Despite the finding of the AAB, there was no system budget account to assist a student for whom family finances was a barrier for participation in extracurricular activities. [Tr. at 802 (Dr. Lacey).] The system addressed the acknowledged program by a patchwork, of activities, not represented to function in all schools\nmoreover, Dr. Lacey testified that there was no systematic effort to publicize the availability of these funds. Associate Superintendent Babbs, who coordinated the efforts of the Compliance Committee, could identify no substantial activity undertaken by that body. [Tr at 144, 146 (Babbs) - 3 to 5] 61 The District is obliged to address barriers to participation of qualified African Americans in extracurricular activities. Despite the LRSDs consistent emphasis on the differences between family incomes in the systems white and African families , Poverty Income information CX 731], the record reveals a lack of any systematic effort to address financial barriers within the meaning of Section 2.6. 62. Ms. Sadie Mitchell, .Associate Superintendent for School Services, never developed a plan for remedying disparities or imbalances in participation in extra or co-curricular activities. [Tr. at 262] She left this to the discretion of the principals. But she excused their inaction by blaming the victim. They have choice she said. [Tr. at 268] 63. Sadie Mitchell was responsible for proactively monitoring compliance and taking A-VOSHUA.OPP -29-I I appropriate action with respect to incidents of non-compliance. [Tr. at 136, 138 (Babbs)] Ms. Mitchell testified to her shirking this responsibility [Tr. at 262-263, emphasis added]: Q- A. You are aware. Letsjust talk about the reality. You were aware -you ha\\e not heard the testimony. But you are aware, for instance, quiz bowl and debate, Odyssey of the Mind, various activitieswere all white, were you not?] Yes. Q- I see. Did you develop a pleat for changing that? A. 1 did twt develop a plan. The building principal did. Q. Well, in the three years that the plan was in operation before the report seeking release fi'om unitary status, did you have any occasion to prepare any writing reflecting that wa.s shared, with the Joshua Intervenors or the public reflecting what actions you would, take to change those patterns? A. I did not, because Joshua did not request a report through the formal compliance complaint. Q- You. are suggesting that you only prepare requests or reports at Joshua's request, are you? A. I only respond to comolaints from patrons, community, Joshua. ODMs. and anybody else, through formal complaints. Q- So you never made an evaluation or assessment even of those things io determine the extent to which black participation was being minimized? A. 1 did not personally. Staff members did. Q- I see. Was there a plan of action developed by the Compliance Committee for dealing with the lack of black participation in activities like cheerleader and things like that? A. There was no plan developed by the Compliance Committee. The principals developed plans, along with the sponsors. 64. The LRSD presented as part of its case no such plan by a principal or a sponsor. This included testimony that the myriad activities at Central High School had racially disparate A.DOSffDAOPF -30-i 1 participation, a problem not discussed at faculty meetings. [Tr. at 199-200, 207 (Faucette)] 65. The LRSD reported that 90% of African American parents that expressed an opinion reported that they had activities available to their students. [Tr. at 773 (Lacey)] This answer does not address parental views regarding whether racial barriers to participation in school activities exist. African American school board member Mike Daugherty who has disassociated liimself from the petition before the Court was uncomfortable with information being given strictly in percentages rather than in actual numbers regarding the survey. [Tr. at 614] 66. No District witness testified that there was a specific plan, which the District through any representative, developed for addressing the disparities in extracurricular and co-curricular activities. Some ofthe disparities were not the result of financial resources or the lack thereon by students. At McClellan and Fair many activities were not offered because of the lack of teacher sponsors and lack of staff member encouragement to students to participate. [Tr. a.t 477. 478, 492, 533 (Carter)] [Tr, at 74, 92 (Norman)] 67. The District obviously did not follow policies JJR, JJIV and JBA-R because after disparities were identified, it did not develop an improvement plan in any area nor did it. develop strategies to promote student participation in programs and activdties to ensure that there were no barriers to participation. The school district plan commits the District to developing remedies and to promote participation. The school district delegates these responsibilities to the principals. This is contraiy' to the Plan in that compliance is a district administrative obligation. 68. Ray Gillespie, Athletic Director during the 1998-2001 school years addressed the problems which African American students experienced in extracurricular activities. 69. He investigated an incident where a white coach acknowledged that he choked a black A:-JOSHUA.OPP -31-t I student at SW Middle School. [Tr. at 5 73-576 (Mosby) (See also CX 771)]. Ms. Sadie Mitchell, Gillespies supervisor, downplayed the incident saying she didnt think it was a real choking incident, but the coach admitted that he choked the child after he lost his temper. [Tr. at 274-275] Mitchells testimony reveals the attitude of the LR administration regarding compliance She and the Compliance Committee would have profited by use of the experts, especially Dr. Terrence Roberts in addressing plan commitments. See paragraphs 126(a), (b) and (c). 70. Gillespie testified that it was a ven,' severe offense. This occurred during football practice when other students were present. [Pp. 7-11, Deposition ofR. Gillespie] 71 Gillespie cited similar incidents including a coach fighting an .African .American student (pp. 15-17, Deposition of Gillespie) at Hall\nand. a white coach slapping an African American student at. Mann Middle School [Pp. 26-28, Deposition ofR. Gillespie] 72. The same coach involved in the chokina incident at SW Middle Schoo.1 also called an -African American female student a bitch. [ Pp. 11-13, Deposition ofR. Gillespie] 73. Gillespie also testified that parents were upset at the middle school regarding Quiz Bowl, Band, Science Clubs and 9' grade athletics at the Middle Schools. (See CX. 770/772, p. 21, Deposition ofR. Gillespie] 74. Several of the students explained their lack of encouragement with respect to participation in extracurricular activities. D.T Thames, a student at Fair High School, was discouraged by the repeated use of profanity by his Coach, Randy Rutherford [Tr. at 419-20] He also testified about the racially preferential treatment which Rutherford provided to white team players. [Tr. at 421-423, 432] /o. Chris Payne, a student at Fair High School, testified that he was discouraged from A:'JOSHUA.OPPI ( participating in Quiz Bowl by Ms. Pickering, a white teacher, who told him that he could not be on the A team [Tr. at 403-04]. 76. Payne stated that his white Calculus Teacher, Mr. Wilder, refused to write a recommendation for him because he didnt think Payne was smart enough to attend Governors School [ Tr. at 404] 77. Payne also explained that Ms. Klais gave him a recommendation to a college which she wrote on a piece of notebook paper for him. He was aware that she had written recommendations for white students on school letterhead. [Tr. at 407] 78. Payne also testified that he was aware that Coach Rutherford cursed African American players but not white players. [Tr. at 414] 79. Crystal and Justin Mercer testified that they sought to participate in mock trial. They were discouraged from participation. [Tr at 322-23, 386-389] Justin was also discouraged from participating in debate [Tr. at 3 61 -62] and from starting a club, the purpose of which was to promote interracial diversity at Centra! High School by a white teacher named Mr. Meadows. [Tr. at 3 96-3 97] 80. Dr. Faucette sought to receive support for his creating writing club, but did not receive it from the principal. The club had a. previous history of racial diversity. [Tr. at 192-96, 19-30] E. The Obligations to Promote Participation of Qualified African American Students in Extracurricular Activities and to Ensure That There are No Barriers to Such Participation 81. In Section 2.6 of the Revised Plan, the LRSD promised to implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified Mrican Americans in extracurricular activities. . . . The LRSD adopted several regulations identifying activities to promote compliance with Section 2.6 of the Revised Plan A:'JOSHUA.OPP -J j-1 regarding extracurricular activities. 82. There were segregated acrivities and apparent barriers to .African .Americans participation in them. Section 2.6, implementing regulations, and the compliance structure created pursuant to Sections 2.13, 2.13.1, and Section 6 of the Plan called for a practical response to these problems. The system defaulted. F. The Obligation to Provide Transportation to Students for Participation in After School Activities 83. Section 2.6.3 provides that the LRSD shall provide transportation to students. . . to allow those students to participate in after school activities . [CX. 870, p. 29] The 2000 Report does not address this provision. 84. The 2001 Report simply recites the number of extracurricular activity Rins per day for high and middle schools with a notation that no eligible student has been denied, [p. 29] The District does not define eligible. 85. The witnesses who addressed the transportation obligation included Ramona Horton [Tr, at 312-313], Justin Mercer [Tr. at 358], Pam Mercer [ Tr. at 450]\n[Tr. at 532 (J. Carter)] [Tr. at 75 (C. Norman)] They testified that the District did not provide transportation for a number of activities. G. The Obligations to Ensure that There is No Racial Discrimination In the Provision of Guidance and Counseling Services and (H.) To Provide More Equirt in Academic Honors. .Awards and Scholarships 86. The 2000 Report (at pages 81-82) promises that the LRSD will implement programs, policies, and procedures designed to ensure that there will be no racial discrimination in the provision of guidance and counseling services. The report promises at page 81 to continue monitoring of school district equity issues with respect to honors, aw'ards and scholarships. The report states that A:^JOSHUA.OPP -34-I J continued strategies are addressed to increase the number of African Americans who pursue more rigorous academic course work and receive scholarships.\" 87. The report further refers to Section 2.11.1 by referring back to 2.11 88. The 2001 Report (at p. 160) simply recites the scholarships awarded at the high schools by number, at p. 160 and by dollar value, at p. 161. The District does not recite any activities or programs that it engaged in to meet the provisions of Section 2.11 at page 160, other than a survey which purported represented the opinion of 94% of all parents that help and guidance was available to their child.\" There has been no dispute that counseling sendees were available for they have always been. The District did not present any testimony regarding how it planned to modify the delivery of policies or procedures as provided by, and to meet the objectives of, Section 2.11. Nor did it delineate the work that, it did in an effort to provide more equity for African .American students in academic honors, awards and scholarships. Indeed, the District did not present the data which delineated scholarships awarded to African American and non .African American students on an academic basis. 89. With respect to honor graduates, .African American students constitute 66% of the high school enrollment. In 1999-2000, they received 32% of the honors. The only strategy' to improve the number of .African .American honor graduates is to have them elect to take more .AP courses. 90. The Hall High School counselor, Ms. Pat Watson, agreed that counseling sendees were utilized in the 1999-2000 school term in an attempt by school district administrators to place two white students ahead of a Black student with respect to the schools valedictorian position. [Tr. at 115-119 (Watson)] Joshua was instrumental in preventing this intentional racial practice from occurring. A:'JOSHVA.OPP1 91, Junious Babbs, the Associate Superintendent responsible for counseling services, made no findings regarding student access to higher education opportunity being improved by either guidance services or by ,AP courses. He did not review or monitor the annual guidance counselors reports. [Tr. at 148-49] 92. Ramona Horton, an involved parent in the District, testified, that her children did not get help from the counselors. [Tr. at 306] In her opinion, the deliver^' of counseling services was poor. [Tr. at 314] She did not participate in any survey regarding the delivery of counseling services in the District. [Tr. at 314] 93. Crystal Mercer stated that she received no assistance from her counselors nor any encouragement about enrolling or remaining, after being enrolled., in AP classes. [Tr. at 319-320, 324] 94. Justin Mercer stated his counselor suggested that he should not take AP Economics rvhen he wanted to improve his GPA [Tr. at 352] His counselor told, him that he could, not take AP Economics because there was no teacher qualified to teach it and there was not enough student interest for it. He later learned that white students had not been similarly discouraged when he received his next class assignment from a white friend had .AP Economics on his schedule. [Tr. at 352-353] Mercers counselor told him that he could not enroll in .AP Physics because he did not meet the requirements to take it. [Tr. at 354] Mercers counselor was white. [Tr. at 371] 95. The counselors at. Central told Justin Mercer when he arrived at Central that he should not take AP and Pre-AP courses. The reason given was that he had been in regular courses in Junior High School and that the teachers w^ere familiar with his transcript. [Tr. at 377] Mercers counselor also discouraged him from taking AP Physics II because of his background. [Tr. at 384] A:^JOSHUA.OPP -36-I 96. Chris Payne, a student at Fair High School, testified that his counselor informed him that one of his teachers was prejudiced, [Tr. at 403] 97. D.J. Thames, a student at Fair High School, testified that his counselor did not assist him in getting into the College of Wooster. [Tr. at 418] Thames counselor discouraged him from taking zAP English. [Tr. at 426] His counselor also advised him to drop Ms. Pickering after having been in her class. [Tr. at 429] 98. During the 1998-99 and 99-2000 school years, McClellan had larger numbers of African American students than Central High School enrolled in AP courses. Between the 1997-98 and 1998-99 school years, McClellan had the same number of black honors graduates as Central. The dollar value of scholarships for African American students was more than twice as much as the Central students. During the 1999-2000 school year, when the African American numbers favored Central by 2 to 1, the scholarship amounts favored Centra) students by more than 5 to 1. This reflects the second class status/perception of McClellan .High School in comparison to Central. CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL 98a. When African American parents filed the class action lawsuit seeking to desegregate the Little Rock public schools, the school district offered Central High School as the point at which to begin a plan of gradual school desegregation. Aarov v. Coover, 143 F. Supp. 855 (E.D. Ark 1956). The plan was designed to delay the process for as long as possible pursuant to Brown v Board of Education o f Topeka. Kansas, 347 U.S. 483, (1954), and to involve as few minority race students as possible. The Court of Appeals affirmed 243 F2d 361 (8 Cir. 1956). The District was select in choosing the first 17 Black students chosen by the District to attend Central, only nine (the Little Rock Nine) of whom braved the adversity of the opposition and attended Central. A5JOSHUA.OPP -37-1 I 98b, In 1972, fifteen years after Central High School had become a symbol of public resistance to the principle of school desegregation, Michael Faucette, an African .American began his high school education at the school. He completed grades 10 through 12 at the school and graduated in 1975. During his tenure, students were ability grouped for academic purposes into three tracks. There were other academic groupings as well. Michael Faucette was placed in track one, the track for those students said to be the strongest academically.[Tr. at 166 (Facuette}] 99. During Michael Faucettes three years in the school, he was the only .African American male student in his classes. He was often the only African .American in his class. The total enrollment of the school at that time was approximately 65 to 70% African American. There were only eight black faculty members in Central during the period of Michael Faucettes attendance at the school. he had only one black teacher during his three years. There was only one black cheerleader durin\nig Faucettes attendance at Central. [Tr. at 166-67, 204-05 (Faucette)] 100. The school system did not recognize the academic achievements of its black, high school graduates in this period. .After graduating from Central High School, Mr. Faucette entered the University of California at Berkeley. .After one of his classes, during his freshman year, his professor told Faucette it was an honor to have a student in his class who had earned a test score as high as Mr. Faucette had earned on one standardized test. No one from Central High School or the LRSD had complimented Faucette on this achievement prior to his leaving the District, [Tr. at 167-68 (Faucette)] 101. During the course of his post-secondary education, Michael Faucette earned two Bachelors degrees, a Masters degree, and a PhD. He taught at the college level at the University of Washington and the University of Georgia. \\ATiile at the University of Washington, he developed a A:^JOSHUA.OPP -38-1 I program designed to help high school students succeed at the higher education level. [ Tr. at 169 (Faucette)] 102. By 1998, the 40* anniversary of the Central High School \"crisis, Dr. Faucette had determined to return to Little Rock to teach in the community in which he had secured his education. As part of his application process in the LRSD, he visited Central High School in February, 1998. The then principal, Rudolph Howard, accompanied Dr. Faucette to visits to four classrooms in the school. He visited two AP classes in which the students were all white, he visited an honors class in which the students were two-thirds white\nhe visited a regular English class in which there were, in contrast, only two white students. The three all white or identifiably white classes had white teachers and the class with only two white students had an .African .American teacher. Dr. Faucette commented to Principal Howard about the makeup of the classes., observing that the presence of two-all white classes surprised him\nMr. Howard did not reply. [Tr. 169-71 (Faucette)] 103. Dr. Faucette began teaching at Central High School at the start of the 1998-99 school year. He was assigned to teach one remedial class and regular English sections in the 12* grade. In that year, in the 12* grade, there were nineteen (19) English sections, some advanced placement sections, some regular English sections and two sections with a remedial designation. Dr. Faucette obserx'ed that the advanced classes - tracks - were composed almost entirely of white students and. as to location, concentrated on the third floor of the building. In contrast, the regular and remedial sections - tracks - were primarily black in student makeup and located on the second floor of the building. This pattern of the racial make-up of the various categories of sections and their locations continued virtually unchanged during the next two school years (the second and third years of the RevisedPlan). [Tr. at 172-/5, (Faucette)] Other evidence revealed that there were few black students A:^JOSHUA.OPP -39-1 in advanced placement classes during the period of the plan. [Tr, at 303 (R. Horton)\nat 319 (C. Mercer)\nat 330 (J. Mercer)] 104, During the three years of the Plan, the makeup of the cadre of English teachers in the school was eight (8) white and eight (8) .African American persons, however, African .American teachers taught no (98-99) or few (99-00, 00-01) advanced sections of English in the school as shown by the following chart: Total Eng sections Total advanced secs 98-99 99-00 2000-01 69 88 84 36 37 Adv sec taught by Blacks 4 0 9 English teachers 8W/8B 8W/8B 8w/8B [Tr, 175-76, 178, 179-80, (Faucette)] 105. Dr. Faucette, a teacher whose excellent qualifications were obvious, did not teach even one advanced section of English during the three years of the Plan, despite the fact that these sections numbered 23 to 37 during this period. This is not explained by any neutral factor, (a) Dr. Faucette taught. 12\" grade sections in 1998-99\n9\" grade sections in 1999-00\nand 12 sections again in 2000- 01. He was assigned to the respective grade levels by the English department chairperson and the Central High School principal, (b) It is the practice in the LRSD for principals to assign teachers to particular subject areas. [Tr. at 90 (C. Norman)\nat 512 (J. Carter) ] (c) When there was a vacancy in a tenth grade Pre-AP English course at the start of the 1999-2000 school year at Centra! High School, the administration initially assigned a new white teacher to this position rather than assigning one ofthe experienced black staff members. [Tr. at 180 (Faucette)] A:'JOSHUA.OPP -40-I I 106. During Dr. Faucette's first three years of teaching at Central High School which corresponded with the three years of the Revised Plan, there were a total of ten black English teachers in the school (taking account of turnover). Only two of these ten black faculty members taught any advanced sections of English during the period of the Plan. [Tr. at 180 (Faucette)] [This communicates the idea to students and staff alike that Central has racial staff assignment criteria and practices, just as it has for students.] 107. The virtual nonexistence of African American faculty in advanced placement classes was a barrier to the participation of African American students in these programs. See Section 2.6 (... .ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African .Americans in advanced placement courses...). When Dr. Faucette attended, with the encouragement of the school system, a workshop on advanced placement classes, the program staff emphasized that having more teachers of color in advanced placement classes was important to attracting more students of color to these classes. [Tr. at 184(Faucette)] Similarly, Dr. Lesley testified that when LRSD staff considered the problem of low African American participation in advanced placement classes, the lack of African American faculty was recognized to be a barrier to the participation of African .American students in those programs. [ Tr. at 672] 108. The Central High School administration conducted monthly school-wide faculty meetings during the three years of the plan, which Dr. Faucette attended. There was no discussion during those meetings regarding activities to implement Sections 2.6, 2.6.1, and 2.6.2 of the Revised Plan. [Tr. at 186 (Faucette)] During the three years of the Plan, two white females served at various times as the chair of the schools English department. They did not organize any activity designed to implement Sections 2.6. 2.6.1, and 2.6.2 of the Plan. [Tr. at 187-88 (Faucette)] No individual A:''JOSHUA.OPP I 1 came to Central High School from the Systems central ofEceto conduct activities to implement these sections of rhe Plan. [Tr. at 189 (Faucette)] 109. The inaction described in the previous paragraph was in the face of obvious need for a proactive response to the terms of the Plan. As indicated, supra, few or no black staff were assigned to teach sections of advanced students and students were segregated within the school by the tracks or levels of their sections and, therefore, by race. In addition, as evidenced by the Systems data , there was very limited participation of African American students in .AP classes in Central High School. See [Tr. at 705-06 (Lesley)] System Report, Court Exhibit 705, revealed that there were more black .AP students in McClellan High School during 1998-2000. Tliis is so despite the fact that McClellan had fewer black students than Central, and the fact that Centrals black students were, on the average, somewhat stronger academically as evidenced by SAT9 test results for grade 10 for the three years of the Plan. [See Court Ex. 741] 110. Guidance counselors and teachers at Central High School were deficient in terms of encouraging qualified African American students to enroll in AP courses. [Tr. at 207-08 (M. Faucette)\nTr. at 319 (C. Mercer)\nTr at 330-334, 352-354 (J. Mercer)]\nTr. at 299, 307-8,314 (R. Horton)] 111. Tarick Horton entered Central High School during the first year of the Revised Plan, after earning As and Bs in his acadmic subjects and some SAT 9 test scores in the 98' and 99' percentiles. The adverse atmosphere in Pre-AP and .AP classes for black students at Central is evidenced by the fact that Tarick experienced a decline in his academic coursework making Cs, Ds and Fs while enrolled in. Pre-AP and .AP courses. Despite parental involvement and intervention by the administration and counselors, his grades continued to decline in these courses. Tarick went from -4: 'JOSHUA.OPP -42-4 an honor roll student while in elementary' and middle school to a student who graduated with marginal grades. [Tr, at 289-310 (R. Horton)] If Tarick could not be academically successful at Central with grades and test scores more typical of white students, clearly the Districr could not in good faith expect less accomplished Black students to be. 112. Dr. Faucette testified that he received several Black Pre-AP students who move from Pre-AP classes to his regular class during the year. He found these students to be capable of good academic work and by implication that they should have been encouraged to remain in AP. [Tr. at 191-192 (Faucette)] 113. The record contains much evidence of the adverse atmosphere in .AP classes for African American students beyond the disproportionate white faculty in AP courses (a) Falon Horton. Falon Horton, Ramona Hortons daughter., was a cheerleader. .An AP teacher embarassed her by referring to her as a cheerleader when she answered questions. Falons mother complained to Principal Howard who provided no remedy for the situation. [Tr. at 312 (R. Horton)] (b) Tarick Horton. A teacher reported to Tarick Hortons mother that his failing grades were due to missing assignments. Ms. Horton provided personally for submission of the missing work but was told that the work was still missing and he received a failing grade in the class. At times the staff reported that they had lost Taricks homework. In addition, Ms. Horton complained to Principal Howard about Taricks Pre-AP History' teacher is removing Tarick from her class because he raised his hand to ask a question. [Tr. at 291-93 (R. Horton)] Howard took no action regarding the matter and Secondary Assistant Lacey could not believe that would happen. [Tr. at A:JOSffUA.OPP -43-I 804 (Lacey)] (c) Crystal Mercer. In an AP .An History class, a white teacher showed favoritism to white female students, who knew her son, by inviting them to her house to study for scheduled tests. Crystal Mercer did not receive an invitation, which was extended the white students during class time. [Tr. at 321-22 (C. Mercer)] (d) Justin Mercer. In an .AP English class, a white teacher requested the class to choose a discussion leader for a discussion of a book by Ralph Waldo Emerson. The class selected Justin. Mercer. The teacher then ignored the selection by the class and chose a. wliite female student to be the discussion leader. The next day the teacher simply did. not provide for the class to select a discussion leader [Tr. at 336-37 (J. Mercer)] During the discussion about Emerson, Justin Mercer stated that Emersons position was contradictory. The teacher excluded Justin from the class for his comment involving the subject matter of the lesson. His mother had to intervene with the school Principal Howard in order to gain Justins re-entiy into the class. [Tr. at 337- 38 (J. Mercer)] 114. Dr. Faucette participated in. an effort to provide an enrichment opportunity for the Central High School student body by providing an internationally renowned authority from Ireland as speaker at a school-wide assembly about Robert Louis Stevenson. However, when the program occurred, only .AP English students were at first permitted to attend. WTien the number of students in attendance was embarrassingly small, additional students were invited. However, the second group of invitees was limited to .AP Science students who were almost all white. The result w'as that regular English students and the membership of Dr. Faucettes Creative Writing club, which was racially A:'JOSHUA.OPP -44-t 1 diverse, were excluded from the program unless the club members also happened to be in AP programs. [Tr. at 192-96, 229-30 (Faucette)] 115. The assembly incident had a racial impact. AP students who were admitted were disproportionately white\nthe regular English sections and the Creative Writing club which were well represented by black students, were excluded. The incident also evidenced the practice in the school of treating .AP students as elite and thus superior and other students as inferior and of lesser importance. 116 Dr. Faucette complained to the English department chairperson, a white female, about the exclusionary' impact and method for admitting students to the assembly and the message that the exclusion evidenced. He received no response from her. Principal Howard, however, chastised Dr. Faucette for his written protest to the English department chair, telling him that he had no right to upset other teachers. [Tr. at 194-95 (Faucette)] Howards action recognized and reinforced the superior status of white teachers. [CX. 763] 117. The Central High School guidance staff also handled enrollment for Dr. Faucettes Creative writing course in a manner that advantaged white students and disadvantaged African .American students. He found that the staff assigned to the course white students who had not followed the established procedure for seeking admission, wdth the result that AA student who had followed the procedure, were excluded. [Tr. at 196-97 (Faucette)] 118. There were many extracurricular and co-curricular activities at Central High School which were racially identifiable, taking into account the overall racial makeup of the school. Disproportionately white activities included, inter alia, quiz bowl, mock trial, future problem solvers. the cheerleaders, the swim team, tennis, soccer, the Yearbook staff, orchestra, and the schools A:^JOSHUA.OPP -45-t I Newspaper staff. [Tr. at 199-200, 203, (Faucette)\nTr. at 261-62 (Mitchell)\nTr. at 356-58, 360, 362, 364 (J. Mercer)] Zero numbers and relative low numbers over time of-Mrican American participants in programs at Central surely convey an impression to students about race. It is likewise with one race programs in which Black students dominate. See testimony of J. Mercer [Tr. at 396-98] who was referred by the white student council sponsor to a Black oriented program in order to achieve a desegregated activity purpose. 119 Crystal and Justin Mercer each sought to panicipatein the mock trial program at Central High School, an activity which has been historically populated by white students. They each were met by unwelcoming conduct by the white sponsors of the program. [Tr. at 322-23 (C. Mercer), Tr. at 386-88 (J. Mercer)] This response was at odds with Section 2.6 of the Plan calling for actions to promote participation by qualified African Americans in extracurricular activities and LRSD Regulation JJ-R (Para. 5) addressing: strategies [in each school] ... to encourage participation in cocurricular activities. [CX 719] See also Tr. at 361-62 (J. Mercer) (discouraged from participating in debate program). 120. The content of the yearbook illustrated a problem which resulting from its staff being overwhelmingly white. Its content tended to focus on the activities of white to the exclusion of black. students who were the majority of the Central's enrollment. [Tr. at 203 (Faucette)] 121. There was considerable evidence of barriers (Section 2.6) which contributed to the identifiably white makeup of extracurricular and co-curricular activities at Central. These included finances (the considerable cost of cheerleader camp, (see Tr. at 312-313 (R. Horton) Tr. at 790 (Lacey)]), a fee to participate in the troubadors, the cost of purchasing an instrument for the orchestra,), the lack of transportation for an early morning activity (orchestra), the lack of A:'JOSHUA.OPP -46-t t transportation for debate team comperirions, the lack of transponation for cheerleaders to travel to games, and the tradition of an activity long being disproponionately populated by white (yearbook staff). [Tr. at 200-01, 203-06 (Faucette)\nTr. at 312-13(R. Honon)\nTr. at 313, 358 (J. Mercer)] 122. The tradition at Central has been for the football homecoming queen to be a white female and the basketball homecoming queen to be a black female. [Tr. at 205-06 (Faucette)] We note that basketball is a Black sport at Central while football is mixed. 123. Despite the provisions ofthe Revised Plan (Sections 2.1 and 2.6), the problem of racially identifiable activities was not a subject of discussion at any of the monthly faculty meetings at the school. (Tr. at 199-00, 207(Faucette)] This inaction was contrary' to District Regulation JJ-R, which the LRSD cited as evidence ofirs substantial compliance. [(CX 719, March 2000 Report at 17] The regulation reads in paragraph ten:  When racial disparities are identified in co-curricular activities, the principal will work with staff to develop a plan for improvement, where appropriate. [CX 719, Reg. JJ-R] 124. No focused effort to address barriers to participation in extracurricular activities at Central High School is shown by the March 2000 Report [p. 17], the March 2001 Report 9[p. 27-29], or the LRSDs testimony. The LRSD did not call former Principal Howard to show such an effort (or to rebut any evidence.) 125. Another indication of the favoritism directed to white persons within Central High School involves the treatment of white teachers compared to black teachers. As indicated, white teachers are assigned disproportionately to teach advanced sections. White teachers favored position is also evidenced by' the assignment of preparation time, and the principals approval or condonation in matters such as leaving the building, being absent from class without a substitute, nap time, being A:''JOSHUA.OPP -47-t J late to class, and dealing with personal matters during the school day [Tr. at 210 (Faucette)] 126. Dr. Faucettes Creative Writing class produced a magazine, The Labyrinth, which won a national award. Thereafter, the LRSD gifted programs office claimed credit for the award in its newsletter without mentioning him. [Tr. at 212 (Faucette)] This insensitivity to a black faculty member was akin to the situation in 1975 when Faucette had to wait until he left the school system to receive a plaudit for his exemplar} standardized test score. [This also diminishes the accomplishments of regular class students] See also Tr. at 234 (Faucette\nhis classroom which was used for the large, racially diverse Creative Writing club was taken by the administration for use by another class without notice to him). 127. During his Junior year, Justin Mercer wanted to start a club that promoted diversity because one could observe at Central segregation between whites and blacks not only in classes but also during lunch and other activities. The club would have leaders from different races. Mercer approached Principal Howard about starting an organization. Mr. Howard replied that a sponsor would be needed and suggested a white male who was the sponsor of the Student Council. The individual responded that it would not be good for the student council to take on the burden of having another organization with it. The sponsor suggested that Mercer approach the Black Culture Society, an idea which Mercer rejected because that organization promoted separation to some extent, the problem, to which he was trying to combat. At this point, Justin Mercer returned to Principal Howard but the second approach did not yield a successful outcome to his efforts either. Justin viewed his idea, an excellent one given the extent to which Central, at the turn of the century. mirrored the segregated and discriminator}' patterns of the past, as having been shot down. [Tr. at 396-98 (J. Mercer)] A:-'JOSHUA.OPP -48-t I 127a. Testimony of Dr. Terrence Roberts 1) Section 2.1.1. of the Revised Plan called for the retaining of an expert, in part to assist LRSD in devising remedies to problems concerning desegregation or racial discrimination which adversely effect African- American students (emphasis added). However, the LRSD utilized Dr. Roberts almost exclusively to comment on plans that have been develop, to offer suggestions, change, that sort of thing. [Tr, at 620 (Roberts)] 2) In the course of his many contacts with the system, Dr. Roberts concluded that the objective of LRSD efforts was not helping the intended beneficiaries of the Plan, but to be released from Court supervision. And it seemed to be a matter of whatever it took to achieve that goal, and it didnt really have an3n:hing to do with the students or the plan. [Tr. at 629 (Roberts)] 3) Compliance with Section 2.1 of the Revised Plan requires consideration of attitudes toward people who are diflferent [Tr. at 631 (Roberts)], here the .African American students, and whether there are peer relationship(s) between . . [students], and [whether] you have a relationship between all those students and the teacher where there are no differentiations based on race. [Tr. at 632 (Roberts)] the evidence reveals many attitudinal problems and differentiations based on race, in the context of advanced courses, extracurricular activities and guidance services. 128. Dr. Faucette testified that Central enjoys a reputation of being a beacon, being a A:-JOSHUA.OPP -49-t standard bearer for integration and serving all students but thats not the truth within the walls of our school. [Tr. at 208-09 ] The basis of this conclusion is apparenx from his testimony summarized above. 129. Justin Mercer gave the following parallel testimony [ Tr. at 365-66]: Q- Now, Mt. Mercer, did yon have cm occasion to form an opinion as whether Central was one or h-vo schools? A. Yes. Personal observation, experience, and yon Icnow, just being there period, you can see that Central is two schools in itself. You have an upper echelon school comprised of mostly AP classes and majority where it is kind of elitist. And you have another Central, where it is relegated to majority blacks and. minorities, where the teachers don 't seem to have a good vibe with the students, and it is not really about the education aspect. Its two different schools, like a term that some of my friends use, . . . you have Central. College and Central. High School. The AP students are like, you are in Central. College and its rigorous, and it. is basically majority white. And you have Central High School, where it is play, not necessarily fun, but its not really an. education. \" [See also CX. 789] 130. In terms of overall, compliance with the Plan, the seriousness of the compliance problems at Central is of heightened or significance because it has come to be known as the flagship school for the District. [Tr. at 612 (Daughtery)] GOOD FAITH AGAIN 131. The Good Faith ofthe District is placed into perspective by the above findings. The failings of the school district began with the Districts conscious effort to develop compliance activities without the legitimate involvement of the Joshua Intervenors or with the experts rather the District sought to present a posture of technical compliance with plan provisions. [Roberts, Tr. at 49, supra. 132. The lack of good faith is further shown by the District Plan to reinforce rather than A:'JOSHUA.OPP -50-t I dismantle programs which have disparate racial effect, by presenting programs that it did not intend to implement, by changing the data that it promised to present, (recall use of proficient rather advanced and aggregated rather than disaggregated data), by passing the buck to lower level administrators, by promising serious evaluations similar to the ESL evaluation and not performing them, by falsifying the existence of evaluation reports, by misrepresenting the role of ODM in preparing reports, and by creating programs which it knew had means tests associated with them which had disparate racial impact 133. The staff recognized the many barriers to assignment and participation of qualified African American students in activities and AP courses but did not develop a plan at the district level by which to address those barriers.\" 134. Bad faith involves misrepresentation and deceit which are evident in this case. (See facts states above) The result ofthe Districts implementation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan has been to effectively reintroduce freedom of Choice and thus racially segregated classroom assignment practices in such a way as to ensure that racially identifiable tracts will exist for years to come in this District. The original resistence of LR reflected by prolonged delay which involves as The barriers include, inter alia, a. (1) too few teachers of color, (2) insufficient backgrounds of,African American students for them to be successful in AP classes, (3) no scholarship monies for University Studies pupils\n(4) lack of parental understanding of advantages of AP class participation and not all AP classes being offered at each school. (Testimony ofLesley, Tr. 672, 695, 728, 735, 736, 732, 747)\nb. (1) relatively low achievement of African American [ Tr. at 51-52 (Norman)\nTr. at 472, 490, 492, 493, 496, 498-99, 512, 524 (Carter)]\n(2) failure to follow through on the International Baccalaureate Programme [r. At 529-30 (Carter)], (3) elimination of SECME [Tr. at 104 (Watson)], and (4) hostility of sponsors for racially inclusive clubs and activities [Tr. at 492 (Carter), Tr. at 57, 70 (Norman)\nTr. at 111-112 (Watson)] .4: JOSHUA.OPP -51-t I few .African .Ajuerican students as possible is continued. The idea of racial superiority and racial inferiority remain alive in the manner in which the District has implemented the 1998 agreement. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan contemplated is valid when the terms and expectations are mutually understood. There is no showing that the parties mutually understood the terms of the Plan with respect to the panicipation of Joshuas involvement in the developmem of policies, programs and procedures on the front end or of the role of the experts regarding that subject. This material misunderstanding led the parties unnecessarily to their adversary status unless it can be determined that the decisions to exclude Joshua from the process were intentional and thus in bad faith. 2. Bad faith is a basis for reviewing and for rejecting facts presented in support\nof compliance. Good faith takes into account the Districts cooperation and conduct in its interactions with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, the Court and the parties. Good faith also is to be measured by the Districts instituting practices which the District reasonably should have known would result in racial impact, such as programs where means tests had to be met in order for student participation to occur. Good faith is contradicted where raising the bar of student achievement doesnot fully take into account the disparate circumstances ofthe majority group whose educational attainments lag far behind those of their minority counterparts. Good faith is absent when programs are promised and represented as occurring when in fact they are not being delivered nor are they occurring. Good faith is measured by the support - scaffolding, - essential to African American success in .AP courses which the District has not provided. It is measured by competent, timely written annual evaluations of all programs which it committed to perform and make use of in AyJOSHUA.OPP -52-t * The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Good faith is measured funher by an analysis of whether planned programs or remedy reinstitute and/or reinforce practices which tend to segregate rather than integrate programs and activities in the LRSD schools. Good faith recognizes the import of the law of the case concept which includes the desegregation objective of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. For the schools which are undeniably racially identifiable, good faith requires that they be provided the necessary support to enable them to provide their students with equal educational opportunities, despite their racial composition, as contemplated by Brown v Board of Education, supra. The text of the relevant sections of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan involved in the current hearing, rather than constitutional standards, provides the benchmark for determining whether the Court, should terminate its involvement regarding these sections. In Sections . . . of the Revised. Plan, the LRSD voluntarily assumed obligations which require adequate implementation of the identified activity, independent of the intent of the representative(s) of the LRSD involved. The performance of the LRSD with regard to extracurricular activities (Section 2.6) did not approach substantial compliance. Rather, the evidence shows default\nthere w^as a shirking or ignoring of the obligations assumed in Section 2.6 of the Revised Plan, as reinforced in th epolicies adopted by the School Board and the creation of the Compliance and Quality Assurance Committee and the specifying of its duties. The Supreme Court has expressly rejected the notion that a person can not be found to be discriminated against his/her own minority group. Each of the two Court Opinions in support of the judgment in the case recognize that a person functioning in a discriminatory context may A:'JOSHUA.OPP -53-* judgmem in the case recognize that a person functioning in a discriminatory context may accommodate himself or herself to it. Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U.S. 482, 499-500, 503-04 (1977.) Therefore, the presence of an African American, principal at Central High School in recent years is of no moment in view of Intervenors' evidence, largely unrebutted, regarding that school. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the petition of the LRSD to be declared unitary and therefore released from Court supervision shall be and is hereby denied. Ui kobert Pressman,* Mass Bar No. 405900 A 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 / A.JOSffCM.OP? Respectfullv submitted? 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) 'kickey Hie] I / Attorney^ L\n.aw Evergreen Place 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rock, Arkansas 72207-6358 -54- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent by fax arid U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to the following counsel of record, on this /%:^day of 2002: Mr. Chris Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3472 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL LAW FIRM 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 A T' Jbhn W, Walker A .4.CCSffC-i.(W -55-CtA.Cu/t^^ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Q'f: \\i\\/ i Q 2SU2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR plS^ts^ PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. LET AL RECEIVED DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL AUG 1 9 2002 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO FILE RESPONSE The Joshua Intervenors respectfolly request an extension until August 26, 2002 to file their Proposed Findings of Fact and Argument in Opposition to the LRSDs Request for Unitary Status Regarding the Plan Sections addressed in the hearings conducted from July 22 to July 24,2002. The grounds for this motion are as follows: 1) Under the schedule established by the Court, the parties had from July 25,2002 until August 19, 2002 (26 days) to file their responses. 2) The Joshua Intervenors did not receive the transcript of the hearing until the 13'*' day of this period, on August 6,2002, at approximately 5:30 p.m. The transcript contains almost all of the evidence offered during the hearings. 3) In view of the timing of receipt of the transcript, additional time is necessary to address the issues presented in this matter, issues of the highest importance for the City of Little Rock and its residents. 4) The requested extension would cause no apparent harm to the LRSD and theDistricts counsel have stated that they do not object to the Courts granting the requested extension. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that tire Court extend the time for their submission in this matter until not later than August 26, 2002. 7 Respectfully submitted, / // C' Robert Pressm^, Mass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 Joflh'W. Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 / z  ,4ohn w. walker, p.a. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) 1 ! rCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ,2002: I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sentj?y fax and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to the following counsel of record, on this 2^day of \nMr. Chris Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3472 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL LAW FIRM 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 I y // 7./ Joj0''W. Walker i 4C\u0026lt;- RECEIVED AUG 2 0 2002 FILED S. DISTRICT COUI U.COURT OFRCEOF desegregation monitoring IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS AUG 1 9 2002 JAMES By: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. 4:82CV00866-WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. Let al DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al INTERVENORS ORDER Joshuas motion for an extension of time to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law (filed today, August 16) is denied. While a short post-trial brief is certainly acceptable, I did not ask the parties for briefs. So that the preparation of a brief will not interfere with the timely filing of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, the brief can be filed by 11:00 a.m. on Monday, August 26, 2002. I feel certain that I made it quite clear, that absent highly unusual circumstances, the August 19 deadline would not be extended. In fact, I believe I backed up the deadline from 5:00 p.m. on August 19 to 11:00 a.m. I hate to ruin this weekend for counsel, but this is my ruling-request denied, except as it pertains to a post-trial brief. IT IS SO ORDERED this 16\"' day of August, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE WiTH/RULE 53 AND/OR 79 FRCP ON 6 6 0filed IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ^tern district wkansa.s EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 1 9 2002 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JAMES W. McCO.-.....clerk ----------------PLAINTIFF____ Dtp ClERK V. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVED PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL AUG 2 0 2002 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Introduction. The issue before the Court is whether the Little Rock School District ( LRSD ) has substantially complied with its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1998 (Revised Plan) and should be declared unitary and released from federal court supervision. This Court approved the Revised Plan on April 10,1998 on the joint motion ofthe LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors (Joshua). See Docket Nos. 3107, 3136 and 3144. Section 11 ofthe Revised Plan provided: At the conclusion ofthe 2000-01 school year, the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding LRSD unitary with reg^d to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has subst^tially complied with Its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release. Willi llo UUllKttVlVllO ovv XVA W1 I* i X 'DCnc LRSD shall issue a report on March 15,2001 indicating the state of LRSD s comphX S thilevised Plan. Any party challenging LRSDs compliance T/*_______*... T \"DCT^c tnft anOV bears the burden of proof. If no party challenges LRSDs compliance, the abovedescribed order shall be entered without further proceedings. The LRSD reported on March 15, 2001, that it had substantially complied with the Revised Plan. See Docket No. 3410. Joshua challenged the LRSDs compliance with a limited number of Revised Plan sections and bore the burden of proof. See Docket No. 3447. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that the LRSD substantially complied with the Revised Plan.Accordingly, the LRSD is hereby granted unitary status and released from federal court supervision. n. History. A. 1954 Through 1972. On May 20, 1954, three days after the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education. 347 U.S. 483 (1954), the LRSD released a public statement declaring its intent to comply with the Constitution and to integrate the LRSD. See Aaron v. Coopgr, 156 F. Supp. 220, 222-23 (E.D. Ark. 1957). The first LRSD desegregation plan was adopted in 1956 and was approved by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in 1957. See Cooper v. Aaron, 243 F.2d 361 (8th Cir. 1957). That plan called for gradual desegregation based on geographic attendance zones and was to be fully implemented by 1963. Id. Governor Orval Faubus' attempt to block implementation of this plan resulted in the infamous \"crisis\" at Central High School in 1957. However, as noted by the Supreme Court in Cooper v, Aaron. 358 U.S. 1, 9 (1958), \"the Governor's action had not been requested by the school authorities, and was entirely unheralded. In 1966, the Eighth Circuit approved, with two minor modifications, a \"freedom of choice\" desegregation plan for the LRSD. See Clark v. Little Rock School District, 369 F.2d 661 (Sth Cir. 1966). The Eighth Circuit noted the LRSDs good faith commitment to desegregation: Many of the problems encountered are not of the Board's making or choosing and, we believe, the Board has evidenced a genuine desire to follow the commands of the Brown case to ultimately place into effect a non-racially operated school system. Id., at 666. The freedom of choice plan was in effect through the 1968-69 school year. In 1968, the Supreme Court held that \"freedom of choice\" plans, standing alone, failed to satisfy the constitutional obligation of school districts formerly segregated by law. See Green v. County Sch. Bd. of New Kent County. 391 U.S. 430,439-440 (1968). Accordingly, the LRSD developed a new desegregation plan based on geographic attendance zones for the 1969-70 school year. See Clark v. Little Rock School District. 426 F.2d 1035 (8th Cir. 1970). Due to segregated housing patterns within Little Rock, however, a number of racially identifiable 2schools remained under this plan, and the Eighth Circuit found this plan to be \"constitutionally infirm.\" Clark. 426 F.2d at 1044. The LRSD began crosstown busing of students to achieve racial balance in grades 6 through 12 in the 1971-72 school year. See Clark v. Little Rock School District. 328 F. Supp. 1205, 1209 and 1214 (E.D. Ark. 1971). Racial balance was achieved in grades 4 and 5 by means of crosstown busing in the 1972-73 school year. See Clark v. Little Rock School District. 465 F.2d. 1044, 1046 (8th Cir. 1972). By the 1973-74 school year, all LRSD schools and all LRSD grade levels were racially balanced. See Clark v. Little Rock School District, Memorandum and Order filed July 9, 1982, p. 16. B. 1973 Through 1982. The LRSD maintained almost perfect racial balance in its schools from 1973 through 1982 by way of voluntary periodic adjustments of attendance zones. The district court in ClaA noted that \"the Little Rock School District has operated in compliance with court decrees for nine years as a completely unitary desegregated school system . . . .\" See Clark v. Little Rock School District. Memorandum and Order filed July 9, 1982, p. 16. Despite nine years of successful desegregation, however, the LRSD was on its way to becoming a one race school district. In the fall of 1971, the LRSD was 42% black. In each year from 1971 through 1981, the number of black students increased while the number of white students decreased. In the fall of 1981, 76% of elementary students were black and 55% of high school students were black. See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. 584 F. Supp. 328, 335 (E.D. Ark. 1984)(\"LRSD v. PCSSD\"). If existing trends continued, it was expected that 90% of the students entering the first grade in the LRSD in the fall of 1989 would be black. See LRSD V. PCSSD. 584 F. Supp. 328, 351 (E.D. Ark. 1984)(\"The Little Rock School District in spite of its good faith efforts to comply with orders of this court and to establish a unitary school system will become a segregated all-black district in a few years if present trends continue, which appears highly likely.\"). 3In early 1981, the LRSD commissioned a study of desegregation in the LRSD by the Desegregation Assistance Team from Stephen F. Austin University (the \"Austin Study\"). The Austin Study concluded that the demographic trends which accounted for the decrease in white enrollment in the LRSD were \"long-term\" and \"deeply rooted,\" and as a result, \"[tjhey are not likely to be fundamentally altered by any change in the desegregation plan within the city.... The changes are rooted in migration patterns, housing segregation practices, changing birth rates, factors that determine the location of new private market housing, and decisions on the location of new subsidized housing.\" Austin Study, p. 28. The \"fundamental\" problem, according to the study, \"has been the school board's inability to expand its boundaries in pace with a very rapidly expanding urban area.\" Austin Study, p. 28. Thus, the Austin Study concluded that the LRSD had done all it could do within its borders to desegregate its schools and that, if the LRSD's accomplishments were not to be undone by the \"vast forces of demographic change,\" the LRSD would have to seek an interdistrict remedy. See Austin Study, p. 28. As an initial step to stem the tide of white flight, the LRSD adopted the Partial K-6 Plan on April 26,1982. Under this plan, the LRSD created twelve K-6 neighborhood schools and retained fourteen paired schools with grades K-3 at one site and\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_p1532coll1_16816","title":"Linda Austin interviewed by Grif Stockley","collection_id":"bcas_p1532coll1","collection_title":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Audio Collection","dcterms_contributor":["Stockley, Griffin Jasper, 1944-2023"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Desha County, 33.83333, -91.25395","United States, Arkansas, Desha County, Mitchellville, 33.90566, -91.49901"],"dcterms_creator":["Austin, Linda"],"dc_date":["2002-08-01"],"dcterms_description":["Interview about her working relationship with Daisy Bates during Grif Stockly's research for the book Daisy Bates: Civil Rights Crusader from Arkansas."],"dc_format":["audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Grif Stockley papers (BC.MSS.01.01)","Arkansas African Americans"],"dcterms_subject":["Mitchellville (Ark.)--History--20th century","African American women civil rights workers","Secretaries"],"dcterms_title":["Linda Austin interviewed by Grif Stockley"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p1532coll1/id/16816"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["audiocassettes"],"dcterms_extent":["two tapes, pdf"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Bates, Daisy, 1914-1999"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1757","title":"Plantiff's designation of testimony to be stricken, motion for additional response time, Joshua intervenor's proposed findings against Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) request for unitary status, plaintiff's proposed findings, and notice of ADE project management tool.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2002-08"],"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","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project management","Education--Arkansas","Little Rock School District","Joshua intervenors","School integration","Education--Evaluation","African Americans--Education","Magnet schools","Education--Finance","Teachers","School administrators","School districts"],"dcterms_title":["Plantiff's designation of testimony to be stricken, motion for additional response time, Joshua intervenor's proposed findings against Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) request for unitary status, plaintiff's proposed findings, and notice of ADE project management tool."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1757"],"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":["68 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\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eDistrict Court, order; District Court, plaintiff's designation of testimony to be stricken; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to plaintiff's designation of testimony to be stricken; District Court, motion for additional time to file response; District Court, two orders; District Court, Joshua intervenors' proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in opposition to the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) request for unitary status regarding the plan sections; District Court, plaintiff's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law; 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.    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO.4:82CV00866 WRW/JRT PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED JUL 5 - 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER AUG O 2 2002 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The parties appeared before the Court by telephone in the absence of a court reporter on August 1, 2002 at 11 : 15 a.m. at which time the Court considered, upon the Joshua Intervenors' request, concerns they had with respect to Plaintiff LRSD's Motion to Strike. After hearing the position of the parties' counsel regarding the matter, the Court determined that the Plaintiff would have unit! August 9, 2002 in which to designate the specific testimony in the record which it wishes to have stricken, and that the Joshua Intervenors would have until Wednesday, August 14, 2002 at THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE ,~.~vri fUi 58 ANO/O~RCP .. ,,~~ -~ .P..2::::... BY -7-~r---~..c__:=- - UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT JUDGE 656 RECEIVFD IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION AUG 1 .') 2002 OFFICE Of DlSEGMGATIOH ii.HuHlfu,.G LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF LR-C-82-866 ,,co RECE\\v t ,M) V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PLAINTIFF'S DESIGNATION OF TESTIMONY TO BE STRICKEN Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") hereby designates the following testimony to be stricken from the record for the reasons set forth in the LRSD's Motion to Strike and accompanying brief: WITNESS PAGE LINES EXPLANATION C. Norman 45 1-25 Concerns 2001-02 curriculum audit dated March 2002 (CX 785). C. Norman 46 1-12 Same as above. C. Norman 53 6-25 Complaints about Pickering occurred during the 2001-02 school year (See Testimony of Chris Payne). C. Norman 54 1-25 Same as above. C. Norman 55 1-25 Same as above. C. Norman 56 1-25 Same as above. C. Norman 57 1-25 Same as above C. Norman 58 1-25 Complaints about Norman by the BCC occurred during the 2001-02 school year (See Norman, p. 71-72). C. Norman 59 1-25 Complaints about Pickering and about Norman by the BCC occurred during the 2001-02 school year. WITNESS PAGE LINES EXPLANATION C. Norman 60 1-25 Complaints about Rutherford occurred during the 2001-02 school year (See testimony of Avis and D.J. Thames). C. Norman 61 1-20 Same as above. C. Norman 62 1-25 BCC's support of Ross and Klais occurrred during the 2001-02 school year. C. Norman 63 1-25 BCC action against Norman and disciplinary action against Rutherford occurred during the 2001-02 school year. C. Norman 64 1-21 Rutherford disciplinary action occurred during 2001-02 school year. C. Norman 65 11-25 Teacher refusal to give recommendation occurred during 2001-02 school year (See testimony of Chris Payne). C. Norman 66 1-25 Same as above. C. Norman 70 17-25 BCC action against Mr. Norman occurred during the 2001-02 school year. C. Norman 71 1-25 Same as above. C. Norman 72 1-18 Same as above. C. Norman 91 15-25 Cross concerning Rutherford. 1 C. Norman 92 1-14 Cross concerning BCC.2 C. Norman 92 8-23 Redirect concerning Rutherford. C. Norman 93 1-14 Concerns Chris Payne and 2001-02 school year. P. Watson 105 10-11 Concerns 2001-02 school year. P. Watson 110 14-25 Concerns 2002-03 school year. P. Watson 122 11-19 Concerns 2001-02 school year (seep. 105) M. Faucette 196 12-25 Concerns 2001-02 school year (seep. 197, line 13) 1 Plaintiffs designation of cross-examination testimony is contingent upon the direct examination being stricken. If the designated direct testimony is not stricken, Plaintiff does not want the cross-examination testimony stricken. 2See Footnote 1. 2 WITNESS PAGE LINES EXPLANATION M.Faucette 197 1-25 Same as above. M. Faucette 198 1-25 Same as above. M.Faucette 199 116 Same as above. J. Mercer 329 20-25 Concerns 2001-02 school year (seep. 329, lines 14-16) J. Mercer 330 1-24 Same as above. J. Mercer 338 21-25 Concerns his experience during his senior year, 2001-02, in Brooks' English IV-AP class. J. Mercer 340 18-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 341 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 342 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 343 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 344 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 345 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 346 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 347 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 347 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 348 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 349 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 350 1-10 Same as above. J. Mercer 350 11-25 Concerns his experience during his senior year, 2001-02, in Art History-AP. J. Mercer 351 1-21 Same as above. J. Mercer 379 10-25 Cross regarding Brooks. 3 J. Mercer 380 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 381 1-25 Same as above. J. Mercer 382 1-25 Same as above. 3See Footnote 1. 3 WITNESS J. Mercer J. Mercer J. Mercer J. Mercer J. Mercer J. Mercer -J. Mercer C.Payne C. Payne C. Payne C. Payne C. Payne C. Payne C.Payne C.Payne C. Payne C.Payne C.Payne C. Payne C.Payne C. Payne C.Payne C. Payne C.Payne 4See Footnote 1. 5See Footnote 1. PAGE 383 394 395 395 396 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 414 LINES EXPLANATION 1-5 Same as above. 24-25 Concerns his graduation in 2002. 1-10 Same as above. 11-25 Redirect regarding Brooks. 1-9 Same as above. 8-25 Re-cross regarding Brooks.4 1-9 Same as above. 15-25 Concerns his senior year, 2001-02. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-10 Same as above. 11-25 Cross concerning his senior year, 2001- 02.5 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-5 Same as above. 6-25 Redirect concerning his senior year, 2001- 02. 4 WITNESS C. Payne C. Payne D. Thames D. Thames D. Thames D. Thames -D. Thames D. Thames D. Thames D. Thames D. Thames D. Thames D. Thames D. Thames D. Thames D. Thames D. Thames P. Mercer P. Mercer P. Mercer P. Mercer P. Mercer P. Mercer 6See Footnote 1. 7See Footnote 1. PAGE 415 416 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 428 429 434 435 436 437 439 453 454 455 456 457 458 LINES EXPLANATION 1-25 Same as above. 10-13 Same as above. 15-25 Concerns his senior year, 2001-02. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 12-25 Same as above. 1-17 Same as above. 9-25 Cross regarding Beta Club and National Honor Society.6 1-9 Same as above. 10-25 Cross regarding Pickering. 7 1-2 Same as above. 1-5 Redirect regarding Beta Club. 20-25 Cross regarding Brooks. 8 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 1-25 Same as above. 8See Footnote 1. This cross relates to Justin Mercer's testimony. Pam Mercer only discussed the issue generally without specific reference to Brooks, and Plaintiff has not designated that testimony to be stricken. 5 WITNESS PAGE LINES EXPLANATION P. Mercer 459 1-25 Same as above. P. Mercer 460 1-25 Same as above. P. Mercer 461 1-11 Same as above. P. Mercer 461 18-25 Redirect regarding Brooks. P. Mercer 462 1-25 Redirect regarding Brooks. J. Carter 497 21-25 Concerns 2001-02 curriculum audit dated March 2002 (CX 785). J. Carter 498 1-3 Same as above. J. Carter 499 1-16 Same as above. The audit led to recommended staff cuts to be implemented during the 2002-03 school year (seep. 527). J. Carter 501 19-24 Same as above. J. Carter 527 4-11 Cross regarding staff cuts.9 WHEREFORE, the LRSD prays that the testimony designated herein be stricken from the record for the reasons set forth in its Motion to Strike and accompanying brief. 9See Footnote 1. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Regions Center, Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY:~t.:hJ! 2ft John C. Fendley, Jr. 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by U.S. mail on August 9, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 (VIA FAX and MAIL) Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 NationsBank 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 Brown 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\\FENDLEY\\LRSD 200 I \\des-unitary-mot-strike-designations. wpd ~e.;JrJk~ c.Fendley, Jr. ' 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTER.t\"J DISTRICT OF ARK.i-u\"'\\JSAS WESTER.t\"J DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICTNO.l, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERJNE K.t\"JIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED AUG 1 5 2002 OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS AUG 14 2002 J 8 AMES W. McCORM.A.CK, CLERK y --------:D=E=P-CL-E_R_K PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S DESIGNATION OF TESTIMONY TO BE STRICKEN The Joshua Intervenors respectfully respond to the plaintiffs designation of testimony to be - stricken. 45 No objection to lines 5-25 46 No objection to lines 1-12 53-57 Testimony should not be stricken; testimony is within time frame; this is supported by pp. 56-57, 426-27; discussion continues regarding when Norman first came to McClellan in 1999 58-59 No date; testimony should stay in; the LRSD should have addressed any problem in cross-examination 60 60 61 61 No date; testimony should stay in No objection to lines 24-25 No objection to line 1 Lines 2-20; do not strike; student vvitnesses were on team during plan; no date -1- - 62 63 64 65 66 70 71 72 91 92 92 93 105 110 122 196 197 198 No date; refers to testimony of Ms. Thames who discusses Ross during DJ's 10th grade year; do not strike No objections to lines 16-2 5; 1-15 do not strike; no date No objection to lines 1-21 No date; testimony .should stay in; Governor school is necessarily before Sr. year Same as 65; do not strike No date; testimony should remain; inference that she would have staiied before 4th year Refers to 2000-01; no objection to lines 20-25 No objection to lines 1-18 No objection to lines 15-25 Lines 1-14; no date; testimony should stay in; this is cross examination; simply a general description of BCC doesn't relate to fact Lines 8-23; no reference to Rutherford on p. 92; typographical error' No reference to Cluis Payne on this page Testimony within time period No objection to lines 14-25 being disregarded This is cross examination mentioning SCEME not being active this year; this testimony stays because it refers to testimony given earlier Relates to testimony within time period; this took place during 2000-2001 school year; signing up for course to be taken during next year No objection to lines 12-25; other testimony should remain; always refers to Dr. Faucette full time as a teacher at Central Testimony should remain because it refers to last year (during relevant time period); 'Assuming that the Plaintiff was referring to page 93, lines 8-23, no objection -2- - 199 329 330 338 340-350 course was clearly taught during 2000-2001 school year; offerings took place in the Spring prior to March 15, 2001 Same as page 198 No date; testimony should remain Statement of background fact information - this includes Jr. year Background information; establishes she was white AP teacher The LRSD's objection should be rejected; had the district made timely objections as contemplated by the rules, Intervenors would have had the opport1mity to consider offering other evidence 3 5 0, lines 1 1-1 5 351 379-380 381 382-383 394 395 395-99 400 401-408 409 410 411-415 416 No date; testimony should remain Same caveat as 340-350 Inference that students over the years, including during plan years, talked about Ms. Brooks Only information on 2001 test should be stricken No objection to lines 24-25 No objection to lines 1-10 Mixed evidence (includes years during plan); deny objection Background information No date; testimony should remain; identifies pattern with Coach Rutherford (407) No date; remain in No date; testimony should remain No date; testimony should remain Background information -, -.)- 418 419 420 421 422 424 425 428 429 434 435 436 437 439 453 454-457 458 459 No date; testimony should remain; this deals with cotmseling; plaintiff utilizes presumption that counselors only deal vvith students their Sr. year regarding college Three years necessarily go back to 1999; used during 3 years No date; testimony should remain; (plaintiff argues in effect that Rutherford did this DJ's Sr. year only) Lines 17-18 clearly include the relevant time period; no way to asse11 all evidence omside period; testimony should remain No date; testimony should remain; reference to earlier years No date; testimony should remain; reference to earlier years (10th \u0026amp; 1 l th grades) Same as 423 Lines 1-2; no date; should remain; line 25 , clearly related to proper period No date; testimony should remain Same as 428; refer pp. to 426-27; counselor told him while in J.O'h grade not to go into Pickering's class; he got out in 11 th grade; this occurred during relevant time period No date; testimony should remain Same as 434 See response top. 429; do not strike Background information; description of counselor No date; testimony should remain No objection to lines 20-25 No objection Testimony within relevant time period Same as 458 -4- - 460 461 Same as above except no objection to lines 6-25 No objection to lines 1-11 461 No objection to lines 18-25 462 No objection 1-25 497 Should remain; audit report confirmed his view 498 No objection to lines 1-3 499 501 Declining enrollment based upon testimony of Carter No objection to lines -19-24 527, lines 4-11 No objection to lines 4-11 Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 JolmiW. Walker. AR Bar N~. 64046 I/ ~ JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 3 7 4-3 758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) -5- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby ce1iify that a copy of the foregoing t1'ts been senroY/ax and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to the following counsel ofrecord, on this ~A,- day of ( ,Ll-{t, , 2002: Mr. Clay Fendley FRlDA Y, 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 WRJGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Wo1ihen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l - /\\ I ) L/ Mr. Dermis 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 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell ROA CHELL LAW FIFJv1 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Robert Pressman -6- u::.~~ (1- . I,! -~ ll ,,,.,., ti\"\"\u0026gt; Us ~-- -, v1 ~ i::AsTE. . Ol~!Rity~ ,!._C\u0026amp;.~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Rr.,o,.::.TRicr ~#~SAs EASTER.l\"J DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS AUG 7 p 2nn-, WESTER.i\"J DIVISION JAMES 1 ~ v J,;L By: IV. ,\\lfcc0Rr~1A'\"'1r ,..,. - \\..o \\, vLc:i~r( LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866 vVRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICTN0.1 , ET Al RECEIVED DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL AUG 1 9 2002 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO FILE RESPONSE The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request an extension 1mtil August 26, 2002 to file their Proposed Findings of Fact and lugument in Opposition to the LRSD's Request for Unitary Stah1s Regarding the Plan Sections addressed in the hearings conducted from July 22 to July 24, 2002. The grounds for this motion are as follows: 1) Under the schedule established by the Court, the parties had from July 25, 2002 until August 19, 2002 (26 days) to file their responses. 2) The Joshua Intervenors did not receive the transcript of the hearing until the 13th day of this period, on August 6,2002, at approximately 5 :30 p.m. The transcript contains almost all of the evidence offered dming the hearings. 3) In view of the timing of receipt of the transcript, additional time is necessary to address the issues presented in this matter, issues of the highest importance for the City of Little Rock and its residents. 4) The requested extension would cause no apparent harm to the LRSD and the District's counsel have stated that they do not object to the Coun' s granting the requested extension. \\VHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that the Court extend the time for their submission in this matter until not later than August '.:6, 2002. Riob~-iPressma'r{,' Mass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 ~0\"~\\v~ Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 ' / ,1OHNW. WALKER,P.A. -1723 Broadway Little Rocle Arkansas 7'.2206 (501) 374-3 758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing ha~ been sent) ?Y fax and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to the following counsel of record, on th.is / t., day of //t,. i . 2002: , C  / \\ Ivfr. Chris 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 . / j Mr. De1m1s R. H.a:risen 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 72201-34 72 Mr. Richard Roachell ROA CHELL LAW FIRM 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Jolu{W. Walker /  RECEIVED AUG 2 0 2002 A OFFICE.OF ~ ESEGREGATIOU,WONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRJCT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. 4: 82CV00866-WR W /JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCTNO. 1, et al MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al ORDER ;~~E AUG 1 9 2002 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS Joshua's motion for an extension ohime to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law (filed today, August 16) is denied. While a short post-trial brief is certainly acceptable, I did not ask the parties for briefs. So that the preparation of a brief will not interfere with the timely filing of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, the brief can be filed by 11 :00 a.m. on Monday, August 26, 2002. I feel certain that I made it quite clear, that absent highly unusual circumstances, the August 19 deadline would not be extended. In fact, I believe I backed up the deadline from 5 :00 p.m. on August 19 to 11 :00 a.m. I hate to ruin this weekend for counsel, but this is my ruling-request denied, except as it pertains to a post-trial brief. IT IS SO ORDERED this J61h day of August, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE V\\/i lf/RU1-ft 58 A~D/OR~. 7FR9CP ON t l1L!? ?-- . bY__7, ,~c......,,..;....,....- ~\u0026lt;L - 660 u.sfo1{Jm~CQRT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRJCT OF ARKANSAS AUG r 9 2002 WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT vs. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCT NO. I, et al MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al KATHERJNE KNIGHT, et al RECEIVED AUG 2 O 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC\") for approval of the interdistrict magnet schools' final budget for the 2001-2002 school year. Also before the Court is the MRC's request for approval of the interdistrict magnet schools' proposed budget for the 2002- 2003 school year. The MRC communicated both budgets to the Court in a letter dated July 31 , 2002 ( attached). The Court will allow the parties ten days from the date of entry of this Order to object to the MRC' s final budget for 2001-2002. The Court will also allow the parties ten days from entry of this Order to object to the MRC's proposed budget for 2002-2003. Ifno objections are filed within the time allowed, the Court will enter an Order approving the final budget for the 2001-2002 school year. If there are no objections, the Court will also enter an Order approving the MRC's proposed budget for 2002-2003 in anticipation that the MRC will file its final (actual) budget for the Court's review at the appropriate time. IT IS SO ORDERED this J.'i_ day of Augus~~~ - - THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON __j .Y-------~---;----~-- ---7\"\"--'--~- ---===-=-- DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE UNMED :AJp \"''\" - CT JUDGE W!L~RUyE 58ANO/OR~~ /\" , m~1Lf~,- BY~7,,c.~_.....- , 6 6 1 Magnet Review Committee 1920 North Main. Street, Suite 1 01  North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 (501) 758-0156 {Phone}  (501) 758-5366 {Fax}  magnet@magnetschool.com {E-mail} July 31 , 2002 The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. Judge, U. S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wilson: At its July 16, 2002 regular meeting, the Magnet Review Committee listened to a presentation by Little Rock School District and then discussed the interdistrict magnet schools' budget information for the Stipulation magnet schools. The presentation included the final figures for the 2001-02 budget, as well as the proposed budget for the 2002-03 school year. The information is contained in the attachment (Draft 1). No vote was taken at the meeting, and Magnet Review Committee representatives provided the information to their party for vote. A telephone poll was then taken, and the budgets were approved by the Magnet Review Committee by all parties with the exception of the Joshua Intervenors whose representative was hospitalized during budget discussions. FINAL 2001-2002 STIPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGET The total amount originally budgeted, $24,802,473.00, is based on a per-pupil expenditure of $6,473.00, calculated from the three quarter average enrollment of 3,831.65 students. Actual attendance records of 3,809.89 students set the final budget figure at $24,621,107.00, and the final budget's per pupil expenditure reduced to $6,462.00, or $11.00 less per pupil than originally budgeted. This final budget reflects an increase of $612.00 per student over the 2000-2001 actual expenditures, and includes the first year of the two-year improvement plan which was approved by the Magnet Review Committee on June 5, 2001. This final 2001-2002 budget also reflects actual figures and takes into account the variables (teacher retirement and health insurance changes) that were uncertain when the proposed budget was submitted in July, 2001. Included in the Summary portion of the budget information are the cost breakdowns for each school district and the State during this time period. \"Pursue the Possibilities of ,Uagnet School Enrollment\" The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. -2- July 31 , 2002 PROPOSED 2002-2003 STIPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGET The total proposed budget for the 2002-2003 school year is $25,065,942.00, which results in a per-pupil expenditure of $6,579.00 and an increase of $117.00 over the 2001-2002 actual expenditures. The increase in the per pupil expenditure includes the costs for the second year of the two-year improvement plan for the Stipulation magnet schools which was approved by the Magnet Review Committee in their meeting on June 5, 2001. Since Little Rock School District is in their third year of teacher contracts, the salaries, fringe benefits, insurance and other employee variables have already been calculated into this proposed budget. Again. included in the Summary portion of Draft 1 are the cost breakdowns for each school district and the State. The Magnet Review Committee respectfully requests the Court's review and approval of the 2001-2002 :finalized budget in the amount of$24,621,107.00, with a per pupil expenditure of $6,462.00, as well as the proposed 2002-2003 budget, both attached herewith. The Magnet Review Committee is committed to maintaining the quality of the Stipulation magnet schools. We will continue to work with the host district as we exercise stringent oversight of the magnet schools' budget in an effort to achieve and ensure efficient management and cost containment to the greatest extent possible. Sincerely, Ll~LlJ?pldh ~di~ Mitchell,~~ Magnet Review Committee SM'DGC:sl Attachments: Actual 2001-2002 Original Magnet Schools Budget (Draft 1) Proposed 2002-2003 Original Magnet Schools Budget (Draft 1) cc: Ann Marshall, Federal Monitor - Office of Desegregation Monitoring CERTIFIED 01 Principal 6.0 $466,336 $466 ,336 6.0 $488,260 STAFF 02 Asst.Prin . 10.0 $596,703 $648,136 9.0 $538,289 03 Specialists 40.2 $1 ,792,248 $1,753,532 40.2 $1,745 ,253 04 Counselors 13.4 $596,823 $580,713 13.4 $634,117 05 Media Spec. 6.5 $296,379 $293,841 6.5 $305,577 06 Art-Perf./Prod . 3.0 $106 ,264 $108,116 3.0 $112,502 07 Music 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 7.6 $427,544 $432,970 7.6 $392,782 10 Special Education 9.2 $405 ,041 $396,336 9.2 $433 ,925 11 Gifted 5.4 $250,741 $250,731 5.4 $262,294 12 Classroom 191.8 $8,213 ,397 $8,313 ,748 191 .8 $8,639 ,729 13 Substitutes 0.0 $206,000 $238,047 0.0 $230,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 15.0 $616,631 $657,519 15.0 $658,501 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 308.1 $13,974,107 $14 ,140,023 307.1 $14.441 ,229 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 21.4 $603,031 $603,030 20.4 $538,805 STAFF 16 Nurses 6.0 $245,615 $226.301 6.0 $238,020 17 Custodians 30.0 $462,045 $469,891 30.0 $494,072 18 Information Services 1.0 $54,348 $54,766 1.0 $56,503 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 6.0 $180,971 $180,193 6.0 $184,840 20 Other-Aides 37.0 $414,622 $460,578 22.8 $439,521 21 Frinqe Benefits(20) xxlCi\u0026lt;xx;i\u0026lt;i( $3,964,711 $3,777,239 xxxxxxxk $4,209,662 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 101.4 $5,925,343 $5,771,997 86.1 $6,161,422 TOTAL (10-20) XXXXXX:l\u0026lt;ii' $19,899.450 $19 ,912.021 xxxxxxi6( $20,602.651 PURCHASED 22 Utilities xiooixxxii' $533,877 $484.737 xxxxiooo( $409,472 SERVICES 23 Travel xxxxxxxx' $40,600 $50,141 xxxxxxxi( $39.500 (30) 24 Maintenance Aqreements xxixi\u0026lt;xxi $0 $0 xxxi(iooo( $0 25 Other XXXXX~l( $219,556 $211,221 xxxxi6ocx $146,581 TOTAL (30) xxxxxioo( $794,033 $746,099 xXXJiicxxx $595.553 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office xx:\u0026amp;io\u0026amp;ii $2,000 $265 XXXi\u0026lt;i\u0026lt;*.x $1 ,200 SUPPLIES 27 Reoular Classroom xxxxio6o( $554,178 $561,699 xxxxx,~k $556.304 (40) 28 Media xxx:xx.i6oi: $44,100 $42,523 xxxxmot $49. 025 29 Other ~ : $240,368 $265,400 ;xx~; $256,463 TOTAL (40) ,- .. :--. -: -.- .-: 'XXJO\u0026lt;X)00t  $840,646 $869,887 'xxxioooo( $862,992 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xx~xxxk $1,340,925 $1,278.872 i\u0026lt;ioooooix: $1,079,371 OUTLAY 31 Buildinq Repair, etc. 'xxx:iooo6( $0 $0 XXJOQ\u0026lt;xxX $0 (50) 32 Other xi\u0026lt;xxi\u0026lt;xxX $0 $0 TOTAL (50) xxxxxxxx $1 ,340,925 $1,278,872 xxxiixxxi( $1 ,079,371 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees xxxxxxxx:  $18,400 $7,782 xxxxx\u0026gt;ii:xic $1 o,9oo (60) 34 Other :xxxxxioo{ $0 $0 xxxxxxxi( so TOTAL (60) xxxxxxxi $18 ,400 $7,782 xxxxxxxx $10,900 TOTAL (30-60) xxxxxioo( $2,994,004 $2,902,639 xxxxxioot $2,548 .816 TOTAL (10-60) 409.5 $22,893,454 $22,814,660 393.2 $23,151,467 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxi6ot $1 ,909.289 $1,806,447 xxxxxxxX $1,914.474 xxxxxxxx: . . $24,802;743 $24,621,107 xxxxxxxx \u0026lt;\u0026lt; $25,065,942 Magnet8udget0203MAGBKOJ.xls summ~rv/H/UH i// :::::: 2001-02 2001-02 2002-03 Stipends $146,503 $62,736 $96,083 Other Objects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $1,639 ,927 $1,630,271 $1 ,664,438 Vocational $32,800 $23,494 $32,800 Athletics $51,559 $51,532 $82,653 Gifted Proorams $500 $500 $500 Plant Services $32,000 $32,000 $32,000 Reading $500 $415 $500 Science $0 $0 $0 English $1 ,500 $1,500 $1,500 Special Education $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $1 ,909,289 $1,806,447 $1,914,474 Per.Pupil'CostT 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 3,831 .65 3,809.89 3,809.89 Total Costs $24,802,743 $24,621 ,107 $25,065,942 Fu~ding sv soiirce 2001-02 2001-02 2002-03 State of Arkansas $12,401 ,371 $12,309,755 $12,532,971 LRSO $7,778,140 $7,722,783 $7,860,679 PCSSD $3,013,533 $2,990,129 $3,045,512 NLRSD $1 ,609,698 $1 ,598 ,440 $1 ,626,780 Total Costs $24,802,743 $24,621,107 $25,065,942 MagnetBudget0203MAGBK03.xls ~Wi'r~1~~i?t~~m0m~17(PRf'sD),:::: 'i\\0t;:02\u0026lt; :. 01~02::c :: n: :n:01~02 :'  02,03\\  \u0026lt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt; 02.:as:::::::::: iET;' H \\Proposed :n :.:::JAdua1 :)ET:E) :  { LPf.i:fpose'd  \u0026lt; CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $ 78,368 $ 78,368 1.0 $ 82,856 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $ 60 ,653 $ 60,653 1.0 $ 62,345 03 Specialists 7.0 $ 325,990 $ 314,857 7.0 $ 326,629 04 Counselors 2.0 $ 90,561 $ 92,869 2.0 $ 98,060 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $ 50,698 $ 32,178 1.0 $ 34,151 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 3.0 $ 106,264 $ 108.116 3.0 $ 112,502 07 Music 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreign Lang . 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 10 Special Education 1.3 $ 104,959 $ 104,959 1.3 $ 107,932 11 Gifted 1.0 $ 47,078 $ 47,078 1.0 $ 48,389 12 Classroom 31 .6 $ 1,310,270 s 1,301,316 31.6 $ 1,449,702 13 Substitutes 0.0 $ 21,000 $ 33,493 0.0 $ 35,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 5.0 $ 167,761 $ 228,076 5.0 $ 209,935 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 53 .9 $2.363 ,602 $2.401 .963 53 .9 $2,567,501 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $ 39,512 $ 38,583 2.0 $ 40,328 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $ 40.205 $ 40.205 1.0 $ 41,318 17 Custodians 4.0 $ 65.834 $ 62.444 4.0 $ 67,078 18 Information Services 0.2 $ 9.058 $ 9.130 0.2 $ 9,419 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 0.0 $0 so 0.0 $0 20 Other-Aides 8.0 $ 97.920 $ 112,878 6.0 $ 111,922 21 Fringe Benefits(20) XXX)()(XJ\u0026lt;X S658.313 s 643 ,030  ~  $ 721 ,388 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.2 $9 10,842 $906.269 13.2 $991,453 TOTAL (10-20) ~  $3 ,274,444 $3,308,232 xx,dcxixxx $3,558,954  URCHASED 22 Utilities xx;iixxxxx: $ 70 ,544 $ 65 ,320 lxxxxx:boC: $ 65,379 SERVICES 23 Travel ~ $ 10,000 $ 4,688 x~ $ 10,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements i\u0026amp;xfubJl $0 $0 ~~ $0 25 !Other .XJ0()()00(X. s 15.275 $ 23 .320 xxxXJ00ix $ 17.012 TOTAL (30) .iooooooo\u0026lt;i S95.819 $93.327 xxxxxxxl( $92.391 MATERIALS, 26 Princioal's Office xxxxxxi\u0026lt;.X $0 so X)()O(XXiO( $0 SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom i\u0026lt;)Ci()O(XXX $ 74.740 s 64 .777 xxxxxxxi( $ 77.236 (40) 28 Media io\u0026lt;xxxxi\u0026amp; $ 7.500 $ 6,160 xxxxxxxx $ 8,000 29 Other xxxxxxxx  $ 51.113 $ 48 .359 io6ooci:xX $ 23 ,250 TOTAL (40) liooixx:io\u0026amp; $133 .353 $119 ,296 xfuxxi\u0026lt;if $108 ,486 CAPITAL 30 Equipment XXX)(){XXX. $ 192.083 $ 189.148 xxxxxxi\u0026lt;it $ 374,000 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. xxxxxxxxi so so : ~ . $0 (50) 32 Other xxxxxxxx $0 so XXXXX)OO(' so TOTAL (50) xxxxxxxx $192.083 $189 ,148 xxxxx:xxx: $374.000 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees xxxi\u0026lt;xxxx . $ 2,500 $ 195 XXXXJ00()('  $ 2.500 (60) 34 Other :xxxxxxxxi so so xxxxxxxx  so TOTAL (60) :xxxiooooC:: S2.500 $195 xxxxxx,6( $2.500 TOTAL (30-60) xxxxxxxx  $423.755 S401 .966 xxxxioixx  $577.377 TOTAL (10-60) 69.1 $3 .698 .199 $3.710 .198 67 .1 $4,136.331 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxx~xx: S272.051 S287,129 XXXJO\u0026lt;XXXi $270,748      .: GRANDTOTAL \u0026gt;\u0026lt; xxxxxxx: !::\\! ) $3 ,970,25-0 ... ; \u0026gt;\u0026lt; S3;997';327 xxxxxxxx ,  ,: / $4;407;; 07 : Stipends $30,500 $31,625 $10,000 Other Objects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $235,932 $249,542 $254,772 Vocational $0 $0 $0 Athletics $0 $0 $0 Gifted Programs $152 $159 $159 Plant Services $4,604 $4,898 $4,898 Reading $72 $64 $77 Science $0 $0 $0 English $216 $230 $230 Special Education $575 $612 $612 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $272,051 $287,129 $270,748 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 551 .25 583.17 583.17 Total Costs $3,970,250 $3,997,327 $4,407,078 20.02-03:BUOGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT1)  ,  \u0026lt; 01-0-2\\ .- :  :: 01~02: . :-:- : -: :/H /i//01~02+\u0026lt;'  02~0.3\\  /?/)12~03,  //: c~rii,~ Miit.inet Sctfool .,   .. : :    '  F,T:E,) .  / proposed)) r::\u0026gt;:Actua1,.: :.i:: F,T\\ \u0026lt;P.l'opo~~dH:. CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $ 74,672 $ 74,672 1.0 $ 79,028 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $ 55 ,733 $ 55.733 1.0 $ 59,057 03 Specialists 8.0 $ 341 ,075 $ 335,274 8.0 $ 338.469 04 Counselors 2.0 $ 83 .122 $ 81 ,009 2.0 $ 87,538 05 Media Spec. 1.5 $ 51 ,594 $ 68,943 1.5 $ 70,859 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 so 07 Music 0.0 so $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreiqn Lanq. 0.0 so so 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 0.0 so $0 0.0 so 10 Special Education 1.5 $ 57,166 $ 63 ,805 1.5 $ 67,474 11 Gifted 1.4 $ 63.368 $ 63,358 1.4 $ 67,099 12 Classroom 21 .3 $ 776.272 $ 771 ,194 21 .3 $ 849,791 13 Substitutes 0.0 $ 30 .000 $ 30 ,216 0.0 $ 32,000 14 Other-Kinderqarten 5.0 $ 213,563 $ 213.563 5.0 $ 224,222 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 42.7 $1 ,746 ,565 $1,757,767 42.7 $1,875 .537 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 $ 64.212 $ 65,786 3.0 $ 76,090 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $ 38 ,705 $ 30.717 1.0 $ 32.672 17 Custodians 4.0 $ 60 .923 $ 56 .233 4.0 $ 63.439 18 Information Services 0.2 $ 9,058 $ 9,130 0.2 $ 9,419 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 20 Other-Aides 11 .0 $ 127,929 $ 131 ,568 4.4 $ 98,392 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxfu\u0026amp;i $ 531,481 $ 506,792 )C(X)()~)()t $ 568,219 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 19.2 $832 ,308 $800,225 12.6 $848,231 TOTAL (10-20) xxxi\u0026lt;XX)O(:' SZ.578.873 52,557,992 xxxxioo\u0026lt;. $2,723,768 PURCHASED 22 Utilities XJO(X)OO(X , $ 57,257 $ 49.267 -xxxiooooc $ 52,173 SERVICES 23 Travel l0000\u0026lt;XXX $ 12.000 s 9.350 XXXJOO\u0026lt;:i\u0026lt;)( $ 7,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Aqreements xxxxxxxx $0 so -~  $0 25 Other ~ s 10 .803 $ 14,385 l0000(;l(io( $ 13,320 TOTAL (30) xJOixxxxx S80.060 $73,002 xxx\u0026gt;ooixk $ 72.493 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office xxxxx,oo( $0 $0 xxxxxiexx  $0 SUPPLIES 27 Reoular Classroom i\u0026lt;io\u0026amp;xxxx s 74.280 $ 79.393 l\u0026lt;JOO\u0026lt;X:XXX: $ 73 ,941 (40) 28 Media ')()000()()0(' $ 9.000 $ 8,968 ~iot $ 13.100 29 Other )OOQ()(XXX  $ 27 ,901 $ 30.062 . .X l0()()00(X. $ 24.033 TOTAL (40) XJOO()()()(X. S 111 ,181 S118.424 xxxxxxxi $ 111 ,074 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xxxxxxxx $ 253.800 $ 261 .853 .xiaooo:xx $ 65 .200 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. xio:xxxxx i $0 so xxxlOO(xxi $0 (50) 32 Other xxxxxi(xx so $0 xxxxxxxii:  $0 TOTAL (50) xxxxxxxx : S253.800 $261 ,853 XXXX)OO(X;' $ 65 .200 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees )OO{)()()(j()( $ 2,000 $ 3,295 xxxroxX: $ 2.000 (60) 34 Other )00()00:;;,o( $0 so xxxJ\u0026lt;XXioi.,  50 TOTAL (60) xxxxxxxx S2.000 $3 .295 xxxxxxxx $ 2.000 TOTAL (30-60) xxxxxix,( S457.041 S456.574 XJOO\u0026lt;X:XXi( S250,767 TOTAL (10-60) 61 .9 $3 .035 .914 $3,014 ,566 55.3 $2,974,535 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxxx S249.080 $233,435 xxxxxx\u0026gt;ixi $236.409 ..  '\u0026lt;..GRANDTOTAL   . -... :: xxxxxxx  ::::: ) S3.284;994 )\\::: ' $3,248;00:1 :xx:xxxxxxi' :::: : ::: $3~210,944 c~rv.~r.H /\\/)? '\\ 2001-02 2001-02 2002-03 Stipends $26.463 $17,107 $15,643 Other Objects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $217,439 $211 ,279 $215,707 Vocational $0 $0 $0 Athletics $0 $0 $0 Gifted Proorams $140 $135 $135 Plant Services $4,243 $4,147 $4,147 Readino $66 $54 $65 Science $0 $0 $0 Enolish $199 $194 $194 Special Education $530 $518 $518 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $249,080 $233,435 $236.409 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proi. 508.04 493.75 493.75 Total Costs $3,284,994 $3,248,001 $3,210,944 CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $ 73 ,036 $ 73,036 1.0 $ 77,260 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $ 55 ,601 $ 55.601 0.0 $0 SUPPORT STAFF 03 Specialists 6.8 $ 266.044 $ 251 ,648 6.8 $ 276,900 04 Counselors 1.0 $ 31 ,000 $ 40.343 1.0 $ 42,524 05 Media Soec. 1.0 $ 53 ,116 $ 52 .307 1.0 $ 54,599 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 07 Music 0.0 $0 SO 0.0 so 08 Foreiqn Lanq. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 0.0 SO SO 0.0 $0 10 Special Education 2.0 $ 89 .448 $ 87,264 2.0 $ 90,833 11 Gifted 1.0 $ 40 .616 $ 40 ,616 1.0 $ 42,805 12 Classroom 16.5 $ 70 1.377 $ 709,180 16.5 $ 724,169 13 Substitutes 0.0 $ 14,000 $ 11 .094 0.0 $ 15,000 14 Other-Kinderqarten 2.0 $ 87.050 $ 86.769 2.0 $ 90,530 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 32.3 $1,411 ,289 $1 ,407,858 31 .3 $1,414,619 15 Secretaries 1.4 $ 35,431 $ 28 .978 1.4 $ 32.000 16 Nurses 1.0 $ 37,713 $ 37 .517 1.0 $ 39,818 17 Custodians 3.0 $ 46,484 $ 48 .280 3.0 $ 49 ,324 18 Information Services 0.2 $ 9,058 $ 9,130 0.2 $ 9,419 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 0.0 $0 so 0.0 $0 20 Other-Aides 6.6 $ 58 ,415 $ 53 ,891 3.2 $ 43,022 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxioiJ\u0026amp; $407,532 $ 364 ,638 )00()()00()( $ 411 ,792 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 12.2 $594,634 $542,434 8.7 $585,374 TOTAL (10-20) XXX)00(XXi $2,005 .922 $1,950 .292 lOOO\u0026lt;x-xxi( $1 ,999.994 PURCHASED 12-2--+U_t_ili_ti_es ________x _ JO_O O \u0026lt;XX _x~_s_ __3 _1.6_3_3-t-$ __2 _4_._16_3--+x-_x.xx_x:xx.x-;~$---2-4~.7-1_5-i SERVICES 23 Travel xxxxioixx:' $ 2.000 $ 10.291 XXXXloixi( $ 2,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Aqreements xxxxio.ixi( $0 $0 :xxxio\u0026amp;i\u0026lt;i( $0 MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) 25 Other xxxxxxi\u0026lt;i( $ 32.568 $ 8.201 xxxiodiio( $ 10,730 TOTAL (30) J0000\u0026lt;Xi\u0026lt;i( $66 .201 $42.655 xx:idoo:xi( $37,445 26 Principal's Office ooxlciiio( $ 1 .500 $0 'XXXXJOOO( S 1,000 27 Reqular Classroom xxxxxixk $ 34 .050 s 51 ,801 xxxxxxio( s 55.284 28 Media XXXJOOO\u0026lt;X;' $ 3,500 s 1. 138 xxxiooi:iod s 3,500 29 Other xxxxxxxx s 75 .1 45 s 79 .004 :~  $ 27.685 TOTAL (40) xxxxxxxi: $114. 195 $131 .943 xio(xioooci $ 87.469 30 Equipment XXXlOOOQ( . $ 254 .554 $ 244,662 XXXJOOOOC. $ 150.341 31 Buildino Repair. etc. xxixxxxx so so xxxx.Jooo( $0 32 Other ~xxxxx $0 $0 x xxxi\u0026amp;xx : $0 TOTAL (50) xxxxxxxx $254,554 $244.662 x xxxiod\u0026lt;x  $ 150,341 33 Dues and Fees xxxxxxxx s 3,ooo s 1.284 xxxxiooix s 1,500 34 Other XXlOOO'.xx $ o $ o xxxxxxx,( $ o TOTAL (60) xxxxxxxx $3 ,000 $1,284 xxxxxxxx $ 1,500 TOTAL (30-60) XJOO\u0026lt;xxi\u0026lt;x $437 .950 $420.544 .XXJ\u0026lt;xx:i(~.i( $276.755 TOTAL (10-60) 44.5 $2,443.872 $2,370 .835 40.0 $2 .276.749 TOTAL LINE ITEMS- (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxxx $198.014 $139.360 XXX)()(Xi\u0026lt;i( $188.118    :  \u0026lt; GRANDT OT:AL' ::.    xxxlOCXJC  / ; $2~641,886i \u0026gt; :  S2;510;1.95 . xx.xxxxxx :/(:$2~464;86.Gi Stipends $65,440 $4,451 $50,440 Other Obiects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $129,490 $131,761 $134,522 Vocational $0 $0 $0 Athletics $0 $0 $0 Gifted Programs $83 $84 $84 Plant Services $2,527 $2,586 $2,586 Rea di no $39 $34 $40 Science $0 $0 $0 English $118 $121 $121 Special Education $316 $323 $323 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $198.014 $139,360 $188,118 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 302.55 307.92 307.92 Total Costs $2.641 ,886 $2,510,195 $2.464.866 2002-:03 BUD\u0026lt;3c~ PROPOSAL(DRAFT:1) -:, ,:: ,  / :.01;;02/ //i\u0026lt; D1 }2 H /\\i :::::H\"Qt~o2.:::::: :=: 02;;03\\ :.=::: = oi:o3 = :: Wllliams.-/v1agnet School  :- .  .-  \u0026gt; . .-, _-. _. .:  ? \u0026lt; ET,E,/ \u0026gt; Priii:idse.d; \\ ::\\\\Acttia:I //. ,;:i:Fff;E/ \u0026gt;::f'r'ooosed:\u0026gt;, CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $ 81,976 $ 81 ,976 1.0 $ 84,256 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $ 52.481 $ 52.981 1.0 $ 60,557 03 Specialists 5.0 $ 244,846 $ 244,683 5.0 $ 251,669 04 Counselors 1.4 $ 38,750 $ 34,304 1.4 s 64,565 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $ 44,260 s 43,702 1.0 $ 46 ,565 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 so $0 0.0 so 07 Music 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreion Lano. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 0.0 so so 0.0 $0 10 Special Education 1.1 $ 43,157 $ 43.432 1 .1 $ 45,183 11 Gifted 2.0 $ 99,679 s 99,679 2.0 $ 104,001 12 Classroom 20.0 $ 840 ,860 $ 858,576 20 .0 s 859,254 13 Substitutes 0.0 $ 28 .000 s 25,614 0.0 $ 28,000 14 Other-Kinderoarten 3.0 $ 148.257 s 129,111 3.0 $ 133,814 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 35.5 S1 .622 .266 $1 ,614,058 35 .5 S1 .677,863 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 $ 65 .041 $ 63,421 3.0 $ 66,364 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $ 50 .775 s 50,775 1.0 $ 52,192 17 Custodians 3.5 s 49,997 $ 48,074 3.5 $ 53,838 18 Information Services 0.2 s 9,058 $ 9,130 0.2 $ 9,419 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 20 Other-Aides 7.0 $ 47,312 $ 42,424 4.8 $ 59,039 21 Fringe Benefits(20) ioooo\u0026lt;xxx $461 ,695 $ 410,932 xxxiodixx $ 469,708 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14.7 $683 ,877 $624,755 12.5 $710,559 TOTAL (10-20) ioooooooc $2.306 .144 S2.238 .814 ioooocxio( $2,388,422 PURCHASED 22 Utilities X)(X)OOO()( $ 49 ,142 s 39,058 xxxxxxxi( $ 45.129 SERVICES 23 Travel X)00()QO(X: $ 3.000 $ 3.902 )00{)()0(){)(. $ 5.000 (30) 24 Maintenance Aoreements ~  $0 $0 XXXXXXXX: $0 25 Other XX:XJOOO\u0026lt;X $ 20 ,780 $ 15.386 -~xi $ 17.849 TOTAL (30) XXXlOOO\u0026lt;Xi'. $72,922 $58.346 :~  $ 67,978 MATERIALS, 26 Princioal's Office xlOOO\u0026lt;XXX $0 $0 XXX)OOO(X : $0 SUPPLIES 27 Reoular Classroom XJOOO:xxx $ 77,415 $ 71 ,709 XXlOOOO\u0026lt;X  $ 76 .100 (40) 28 Media xxxiixxxx.: $ 4,600 $ 6.824 'XXXJOO\u0026amp;x' $ 4.600 29 Other iioooooooc:: $ 61 ,411 $ 67,015 xxxxx:xxx  $ 63.527 TOTAL (40) )()(;X)0000(:. $143,426 $145.548 xxioooixx  $ 144,227 CAPITAL 30 Equipment XX:XXlOOO(  $ 127.050 s 135,292 xxxio\u0026amp;xx: $ 106.800 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. i\u0026lt;ioooooix. $0 $0 xxxxxxxx:: $0 (50) 32 Other :xxx)O(;X)O\u0026lt;'. $0 $0 'xxxi66ooc:: $0 TOTAL (50) i\u0026lt;xxxlo:xx:. $127,050 $135,292 i\u0026lt;xxl\u0026lt;XXi\u0026lt;X j $ 106,800 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees ioooocxxx $ 1,500 $ 1,093 xxxxxxio( $ 1,500 (60) 34 Other xxxxxxxx $0 $0 xxxxxxxx $0 TOTAL (60) xxxxxix;,C: $1 .500 $1 ,093 xioooo\u0026lt;xx $ 1.500 TOTAL (30-60) xxxxxxxx  $344,898 $340,279 xxxxx:xxx  $320,505 TOTAL (10-60) 50.2 $2.651,042 $2.579,093 48.0 $2,708.927 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) XXXX)OO(X:. $210.444 $196.499 xxxxxxxx. $208.875 : \u0026gt;\u0026gt;GRAND TOTAL \u0026gt;  xxxxxxx; .-. : ::$2,861-,48'6:' \u0026lt;:;: -  $2,775;592 XXXXXXXX : , : ---   \u0026lt;: : : $2;9'17;802: 2001-02 2001-02 2002-03 Stipends $10,000 $1 ,623 $10,000 Other Obiects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $195,782 $190,328 $194,317 Vocational $0 $0 $0 Athletics $0 $0 $0 Gifted Proqrams $126 $122 $122 Plant Services $3,820 $3,736 $3,736 Readinq $60 $48 $58 Science $0 $0 $0 Enolish $179 $175 $175 Special Education $4 78 $467 $467 xxxxxx x.xxxxx Total Line Items $210.444 $196.499 $208,875 Per P.t.iowcostH\u0026lt; 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proi. 457.44 444.79 444.79 Total Costs $2,861.486 $2,775,592 $2,917,802 Q1sQ2 :;:;:-:: \\ 02:-03/ J\\i:\\02~03\u0026lt;:// ..,=: Adliiit: :: \u0026lt; F;T:E\u0026gt;i H\u0026gt;P.rcip(isid :/: CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $72,676 $72,676 1.0 $76,900 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 3.0 $176,705 $227,638 3.0 $156,888 03 Soecialists 3.6 $163.370 $164,345 3.6 $134,194 04 Counselors 3.0 $149,517 5145,587 3.0 $156,487 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $53,116 $53 ,116 1.0 $54,599 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 so 0.0 $0 07 Music 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreiqn Lang. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 2.6 $132.513 $133,962 2.6 $138,640 10 Special Education 1.3 $63,233 $65.323 1.3 $69,290 11 Gifted 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 12 Classroom 49.8 $2.087,522 $2,170,720 49.8 $2,189,224 13 Substitutes 0.0 555,000 $78,616 0.0 $60,000 14 Other-Kinderqarten 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 65.3 $2,953,651 $3,111,983 65.3 $3,036,222 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 5.0 $132.784 $128,608 5.0 $126.526 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $41,496 $30,366 1.0 $33,222 17 Custodians 6.0 S79,465 $96 ,858 6.0 $93.824 18 Information Services 0.2 $9,058 $9,130 0.2 $9,419 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 1.0 $31,361 $32,113 1.0 $33,284 20 Other-Aides 2.4 $32,502 $49,399 2.4 $52,900 21 Fringe Benefits(20) ~  $797,21 3 $837,646 x~ $878,574 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.6 $1,123,879 $1,184,120 15.6 $1 ,227,749 TOTAL (10-20) xxxxxxxi( $4.077.530 S4,296, 103 -~ . $4,263.970 PURCHASED 22 Utilities .xxxi\u0026lt;xxxi( S150,786 $149.815 xx:xi\u0026lt;icoo::: $48,500 SERVICES 23 Travel xxxxioooc: ' 53.000 $9.496 x~ S4.000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements xxxxxxi\u0026lt;x $0 $0 i\u0026lt;xxxloiio( $0 25 Other xxxxxm  S63.345 $73,793 XXJ()(J(XXi( $50,160 TOTAL (30) xxxxx,oo\u0026lt;' S217.131 $233 ,104 .xxxio\u0026amp;xx $102.660 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office l\u0026lt;.XXXXX)(k. $0 $0 XXlOO(;)O(X. $0 SUPPLIES 27 Reqular Classroom xxxxx:ioo( S100.988 $107.387 XXXXJ\u0026lt;XXX: $79,505 (40) 28 Media $7,500 $6.399 ~ ' $4,425 29 Other Xl\u0026lt;XXJ000f $16,016 $21.443 joooo\u0026lt;xxx: $108,888 TOTAL (40) $124.504 $135.228 XXlO\u0026lt;XXXx-: $192.818 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xxxxxxi\u0026lt;x'' S238,607 $209.170 xx.xxxxxx S291.430 OUTLAY 31 Buildino Repair. etc. :xxi\u0026lt;xxxxit $0 $0 xxxxxxi\u0026lt;x: $0 (50) 32 Other xxxxxxxx: $0 so xxxxxxxx : $0 TOTAL (50) ,xxxxxxxxi $238.607 $209,170 -XJ00000()(: 5291,430 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees XXXXXXXX': $2.000 $870 .)()()()(XXXX: $1 .000 (60) 34 Other $0 $0 xxxxxxxx: $0 TOTAL (60) xxxxxx,o( S2.000 $870 XXJ\u0026lt;XXJ(io( $1 .000 TOTAL (30-60) XXXJOQOO( S582.242 $578,372 xxxxxxxx. $587.908 TOTAL (10-60) 80.9 $4.659.772 $4.874,475 80.9 $4,851 ,878 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) ,XXXXX:XXJC $417.384 $399,312 xxxxxxxx $427.346 xxxxxxic   \"  S5,077; 1.S6': )\u0026gt; SS;273;787 icicxxx:xx !\\:/ i SS,279,225 1 Stipends $8 ,100 $1 ,508 $4,000 Other Objects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $365,944 $358,611 $366,127 Vocational $13,936 $9,943 $13,881 . Athletics $20,924 $20,910 $34,980 Gifted Proorams SO $0 $0 Plant Services $7,141 $7,039 $7,039 Reading $112 $91 $110 Science $0 $0 $0 Enolish $335 $330 $330 Soecial Education $893 $880 $880 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $417,384 $399,312 $427,346 Per Pifoii cost 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 855.02 838.06 838.06 Total Costs $5 ,077.156 $5 .273,787 $5 .279,225 Per Pupil Ci:isti'/ 200203 BUDGET PROPOSAL(DRAFT1) ': :    01~02i ' /(; Ot--02\u0026lt;\\/ ///01~02 / , \\ 02~03,i ,, \\:!02~3: // Pa~kview.-Magnet Sch'ool    : :. ., '  -F~T;E/ :}/Pr:oposed / \u0026lt;\u0026gt; Actual \u0026gt;  :. F.T;E., //Proposed\\( CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $85,608 $85,608 1.0 $87,960 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 3.0 $195,530 $195,530 3.0 $199,442 03 Specialists 9.8 $450,923 $442,725 9.8 $417,393 04 Counselors 4.0 $203,873 $186,601 4.0 $184,944 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $43,594 $43 ,594 1.0 $44,804 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 07 Music 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreion Lano. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 5.0 $295,031 $299,008 5.0 $254,142 10 Special Education 2.0 $47,078 $31 ,553 2.0 $53,213 11 Gifted 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 12 Classroom 52.6 $2,497,097 $2,502,762 52.6 $2,567,589 13 Substitutes b.O $58,000 $59,013 0.0 $60,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 78.4 $3,876,734 $3,846,394 78.4 $3 ,869,487 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 7.0 $266,050 $277,654 6.0 $197.498 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $36,721 $36,721 1.0 $38,798 17 Custodians 9.5 $159,341 $158,002 9.5 $166,569 18 Information Services 0.2 $9,058 $9,119 0.2 $9,408 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 5.0 $149,610 $148,080 5.0 $151,556 20 Other-Aides 2.0 $50,544 $70,418 2.0 $74,246 21 Fringe Benefits(20) ~ i $1 ,108,477 $1 ,014,201 ~  $1,159,982 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 24.7 $1 ,779,802 $1,714,194 23.7 $1 ,798,057 TOTAL (10-20) x~ $5,656,536 $5,560,589 ~  $5 ,667,544 PURCHASED 22 Utilities ~  $174,515 $157,114 ~  $173,576 SERVICES 23 Travel ~  $10,600 $12,415 ~  $11 ,500 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other ~  $76,785 $76,136 ~: $37,510 TOTAL (30) ~  $261 ,900 $245,665 ~  $222,586 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office i6oo\u0026lt;l\u0026amp;x $500 $265 ~  $200 SUPPLIES 27 Reqular Classroom ~ : $192,705 $186 ,632 ~  $194,238 (40) 28 Media i\u0026lt;xi\u0026lt;ic\u0026amp;x $12,000 $13,033 xiooooo\u0026lt;X' $15,400 29 Other ~ : $8,782 $19 ,516 ~ . $9,080 TOTAL (40) ~ s213,987 s219,447 xx~ s218,918 CAPITAL 30 Equipment x;ioooooc: $264,831 $238 ,747 ~  $91 ,600 OUTLAY 31 Buildinq Repair, etc. i\u0026lt;XxxxxX: $0 $0 ~ : $0 (50) 32 Other ~ $0 $0 ~ : $0 TOTAL (50) JOCXi\u0026lt;)i;Xif $264,831 $238,747 ~  $91,600 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees XXXJ(X)(X s7,4oo $1 .045 x.xxxxioo\u0026lt; s2.400 (60) 34 Other xxxxioof so so xioo6ooo\u0026lt;, so TOTAL (60) xxxx.xxx $7,400 $1 ,045 XXXJQOO(X $2,400 TOTAL (30-60) xxxxxxx $748,118 $704,904 XXX~XXX: $535.504 TOTAL (10-60) 103.1 $6,404,654 $6,265,493 102.1 $6,203,048 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxx S562,317 s5so,712 xxxxxxxx $582,978 ' _._.,_,,,, 'G.RAND TOTAL!''\" : \u0026gt; . 2001-02 2002-03 Stioends $6,000 $6,423 $6,000 Other Obiects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $495,340 $488,750 $498,993 Vocational $18,864 $13,551 $18,919 Athletics $30,635 $30,621 $47,673 Gifted Programs $0 $0 $0 Plant Services $9,666 $9,594 $9,594 Readinq $151 $124 $150 Science $0 $0 $0 Enalish $453 $450 $450 Soecial Education $1 ,208 $1 ,199 $1 ,199 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $562,317 $550,712 $582,978 PerPli:pi!Cost): 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proi. 1,1 57.35 1,142.19 1,142.19 Total Costs $6 ,966,971 $6,816,205 $6,786,026 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT EA.STER.\"J\\i DISTRJCT OF ARK.A_N\"SAS '\\VESTEfu\"J DIVISION I,.JTTLE ROCK SCI;IOOL DISTRJCT V. NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCT NO. l, ET AL :tvffi.S. LORENE JOSHU.~ ET AL KATHERil\\TE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED AUG 1 9 2002 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFEND.ANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VENO RS JOSHUA INTERVENORS' PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO THE LRSD'S REQUEST FOR UNITARY STATUS REGARDING THE PLAN SECTIONS INTRODUCTION This case is before the Court upon the LRSD' s motion to be released fi:~m Court supervision and to be released from its remedial obligations to African American students. Upon the liability findings of the District Court in 1987 and in earlier proceedings, the first remedial agreement occurred in 198 9 and was approved by the Court of Appeals in 1990. Between 1990 and 1998, the District Court, the Honorable Susan Webber Wright, oversaw remedial proceedings and, as directed by the Court of Appeals, appointed and involved an Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) staff to assist with achievement of the objectives of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. After  repeated hearings before the Court, and upon the urging of the District Court, in January, 1998 the LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors entered into a Revised Desegregation and Education Plan before the Court - the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. The Revised Plan was intended to A: 1JOSHUA..OPP -1- implement the original remedy of school desegregation ordered by the Court. The Revisep Desegregation Plan was to be a minimum of three (3) years in duration and its terms of expected action were generally set forth therein. It was amicipated that upon compliance the school District would petition, with approval of the Joshua Imervenors, the Court for release of the District from Court supervision. The predicate for release was substantial compliance with commitments set forth therein andotherwise required by law as well as ancillary agreements entered into on behalf of the Joshua class between the LRSD and the State of Arkansas Department of Education. The District developed a Compliance Committee which consisted of the school superintendent and his senior staff of associate superintendents. The Compliance Committee was assisted by District counsel during its deliberations. The Joshua. Intervenors were not invited or allowed to participate in Compliance Committee deliberations or activities. The District employed two experts with - Joshua's. approval to assist the District in devising remedies as set forth in the Revised Plan, Dr. Terrence Roberts and Dr. Steven Ross. The experts were not participants of the Compliance Committee. Ultimately, the Compliance Committee developed the Compliance Report dated March 1:5, 2001 which is now before the Court after a second set of hearings before the Honorable William R. \"Bill\" Wilson. The first set of hearings occurred in Juiy, August and November of2001 and were overseen by the Honorable Susan Webber Wright, Chief District Judge of the Eastern District of Arkansas. The LRSD moved for her recusal in October, 2001. The Court denied recusal. l.Jltirnately, these proceedings were scheduled for January, 2002 but they were delayed upon motion ofJoshua. The Honorable Susan Webber Wright decided in January, 2002 to withdraw as the judge in this case and the case was assigned to the Honorable William R. \"Bill\" Wilson. A:1JOSHUA.OPP -2- l L !, : .J~t Wilson scheduled and held hearings during July, 2002 upon the objections raised by Joshua IC the Compliance Report of March 15, 2001. After the hearings, the Court required the parties to 3ubmit contemporaneous findings of fact and conclusions of law and/or statements in further ~-t'!--'u --.: of the parties ' respective positions to the Coun by 1100 a.m., August 19, 2002. This filing repr ,nts the Joshua Intervenors' compliance with the Court's directive. It also summarizes the rebuttal evidence presented byJ oshua through Ms. Ann 11larshall. The ; -ovisions of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan of 1998 wl1.ich are now before the ..:.,,:.:: for review and decision are Sections 2.1, 2.6, 2.6.1, 2.6.2, 2.6.3, 2.11, 2.11.1. These sect1 ~dress, among other topics, the obligation to take steps to increase participation of qualified Ai.. an American students in advanced and enriched courses to ensure that there are no barriers to such participation, and to implement programs promoting the success of the students in these courses. These parts of the Plan also address increased participation in extracurricular activities, pn i ion of guidance counseling services in a nondiscriminatory manner and \"more equity in academic h _.-.,rs, awards and scholarships.\" The Joshua Intervenors emphasize the importance of giving attention to the overall picture ,vhich it portrays regarding the System's good faith and other matters. Good faith requires conscious intent by the school District to take actions which promote the ultimate . t,-...,,~ve:-- of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plari. We submit that the ultimate object1 ves of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan necessarily include elimination of the vestiges of rc.cial discrimination and the replacement of those vestiges with policies, programs, practices and procedures which do not lead to resegregation. Joshua submits that the actions of the school district, 2  __  vn in the proceedings before Judge Wright and Judge vVilson, demonstrated that the District -;.1ot acted in good faith in meeting the obligations which are set forth in the A: 1JOSHU4.. OPP January, 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. I. THE TESTIMO:NY OFODMDIRECTORA1\"i\"NlVLI\\.RSHALLREBU.TS THE LRSD'S POSITION REGARDING EVALUATIONS Al~ OTHER ELEMENTS OF PLAN IMPLEMENTATION :tvis. Marshall testified that when the March 15, 2001 Report was presented, the evaluation documents were not available as r~presented therein. [Tr. at 15] Many of the evaluations are still not locatable, especially the final reports [Tr. at 16-17] and could not have been approved by the school board. Dr. Lesley, whose Division of Instruction was responsible for program evaluation, complained to Ms. Marshall about the LRSD  s lack of program evaluations as represented in the Report. [Tr. at 18 (Marshall)] She and Lesley agreed that the quality of the reports was not good. [Tr. at 33] Marshall stated that the District did not mal,;:e \"annual evaluations\" of all programs as LR represented would occur. (Section 2. 7.1 of the Revised Plan. Tr. at 20-22] Nor did LR make \"annual assessments\" of all programs or an annual \"listing of programs\" by the assistant superintendent to be assessed annually. [Tr. at 3 7, 39] She further stated that the school district developed a \"Research Agenda\" which further unilaterally narrowed the evaluation requirements of the Plan. The programs which were included in the research agenda were not completed. [Tr. at 3 6] She also stated that the ODM did not any evaluations of programs on behalf of the LRSD. [Tr. at She testified that LRSD staff whom she met with understood the term \"assessment:' when used in the Plan to mean evaluations. Joshua reiterates therefore that the LRSD did not comply with the Plan commitments that it evaluate annually all programs from an effectiveness perspective in order A:\\JOSII'c.JA OPP -4- to determine their efficacy in meeting plan objectives. Joshua now. proceeds to address the areas on which the Court allowed the development of evidence duri_ng the July, 2002 hearings. Joshua now proposed the following facts : A. The Good Faith Requirement of the Section 2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. With respect to Section 2.1 , good faith, the Interim Compliance Report does not address that subject The March 15, 2001 Compliance Report purports to state what the District will do upon unitary status being declared; what has been done by campus leadership teams in the schools; and awards which the District has received known as the Arkansas Quality Award. It does not in the body of the report address the objective ofremedyingthe effects of past discrimination and ensuring that for the future racially discriminatory practices will not be reinstituted. Moreover, the District did not develop a policy with respect to this provision. B. The Obligations to Identify Qualified African American Students and to Promote their Successful Participation in AP and Other Honor and Enriched Courses I. The District's March 2000 and 2001 Compliance Reports 1. The Interim Report indicates that the school shall be active in identifying students for placement for Pre-AP and AP courses. (Interim Report, p. 20). At the outset of Revised Plan implementation, the written criteria for enrollment in Pre-AP and AP courses include multiple factors such as \"l. High-level reading comprehension and wTiting skills as evidenced by norm-referenced test data and classroom performa.i.'lce\" and \"4. 'B' average and above in regular-level class.\" [CX. 719 (Reg. IHCC-R); [Tr. at 49 (Norman)]; [Tr. at 560 (l Mosby)] However, in approximately January 2001, the LRSD revised the criteria so that ther:eafter there would be, basically, a free choice A: lJQSh.u...4. OPP -5- assignment into advanced and enriched courses. [Tr. at 86 (Norman); [Tr. at 473 , 498 (Carter)] 2. The District represents that it approved five new policies which were to ensure that there would be no barriers to African American student participation in advanced courses. (See Interim Report p. 17) Policy IHCC addressed training programs for teachers and counselors in identifying and encouraging increasing \"percentages\" of students to participate in advanced placement courses. Policy IHBB addressed \"assessing gifted potential through program designs that are flexible and varied enough to be adaptable to individual student need and through curricular designed to nurture gifted potential. Policy IKC addressed calculating grade point averages and rank and class. Policy IKF established enhanced course requirements with a total of twenty-four required units and increased the rigor of the curriculum Policy IHBEA addressed English as a second language. 3. Joshua submits that none of these policies addressed the subject of identifying and encouraging African ivnerican students to participate in advanced placement courses other than possibly Policy IHCC, the Professional Development Program for Teachers and Counselors. Even IHCC does not address the matter ofidentifying and encouraging increasing \"percentages\" of African A... merican students . 4. Policy IHBB is very general. Policy IKC does not address the issue ofrace. Policy IKF addresses increasing the units required for graduation and stiffens the requirements for honors at graduation time. Policy IHBBA does not apply to African .Americans although the District says that there are several students with African backgrounds who may profit by the English as a second language pro gram. 5. The 2001 Report indicates that Policy IKF \"raised the bar\" even higher so that instead of twenty-four units being required to graduate, students were expected to complete twenty-eight units A: ;JOSHUA.OPP -6- r :i including at least eight Pre-.AP or AP courses. \"Raising the bar\" has not been shown by the District as a program, policy, practice or procedure which reasonably could be expected to either identify or encourage African American students to participate in advanced courses, or to assist them in being successful in advanced courses. Instead \"raising the bar\" in the manner the LRSD did became a \"barrier'; itself for African American children because of their dismal success on the measurement barometers. 6.  The 2001 Report content on pp. 3 0-31 does not demonstrate how .A..frican .American students are benefitted by these policies. 7. The Interim Report identifies Administrative Regulation IHCCR as being ,witten to promote the \"percenta2:e\" of African .A.rn.erican students who enroll in Pre-AP and AP courses. The 2001 Compliance Report does not address Regulation IHCCR. No data are presented to show how this procedure has worked in practice between October 2 l and March 15, 2001. The other regulations are IKC-R, IKF-R2 but they do not address issues relating to African American students in particular. IKC-R addresses rank in class and IKF-R2 relates to general graduation requirements. Both regulations appear to give advantage to white pupils in AP programs. 8. The 2000 Report (CX. 869 at 22-23) that the District v1ill utilize a Quality Index to promote enrollment of African American students in advanced courses in order to make \"data driven\" decisions. The District further represents that the Quality Indicators are routinely disaggregated \"so that progress for each group can be determined.\" The Quality Indicators for the high schools were not presented in the 2001 Report except for the percentages of students taking the ACT The percentage of students taking the .AP makes no reference at all to the race of AP examinees [e.g. 4 3] Moreover, the District did not present the number of minority students earning a score \"19\" on the A: \\JOSJ:FUA. OPP -7- ACT as promised in the Interim Report. The \"average scores\" of racial groups are presented; but the number of A.!,.,. stuqents who score \"19\" or above is not presented. [e.g. 48-49] 9. Disaggregated racial data were also promised with respect to students who earned at least \"3\" on AP exams. The District did not do this. [ e.g. 44] The data presented included \"percentage\" of students earning a \"C\" or above in AP [ e.g. 44] and Pre-.A.P courses in middle and high schools and the University Studies Progra.i:n for one year only. [ e.g. 44-4 7] 10. The District is also remiss in presenting data promised in the 2000 Report regarding the Quality Indicators set forth on page 23 [CX. 869] in its Report of March 15, 2001. For example; reference is made in the 2000 Report regarding the \"percentage\" of students who perform at the \"Advanced\" level on the Grade 4 benchmarks examinations in literacy and math. [p . 237; see also Tr. at 540] The data presented addresses the \"at or above proficient rather than, as promised, the \"advanced\" level, p. 103 (literacy); p. 131 (math). 11 . The data are not disaggregated with respect to gender. The data would allow consideration of the e)ctent to which African American males students fare within the District. 12. Vfhen the District did not present data regarding Advanced students it prevented the parties from malcingjudgments regarding the e)..'ient to which African .American students were being compared to other students. Being \"at or above proficient\" does not disclose the relative relationship benveen non African .American students in comparison to African American students. Moreover, the 2000 Report promised to disclose the \"percentage\" of students who performed in the top ouartile on the SAT9 in reading, language and mathematics. [p. 23] The 2001 report does not disclose the top quartile student performances on the SAT9. The District, however, makes judgments regarding achievement for African A.mericrui students withot use of this \"quality indicator.\" [ e.g. p. 104-105; A:'JOSHUA.OPP -8- t 1...,,, lLli::!.] .J .J ' ' ' 13. Of the. pre grams that were identified in the Interim Report, reference is made by the District to a new middle' school curriculum but the District has always had a specific curriculum for , each grade level. A  ,,. curriculum for middle schools was required because the District changed from a six-three-three em to a five-three-four system in 1997. The purported new curriculum was neither developed or intc1ded for, _African American students. The National Science Foundation Project was listed as a program but in the final report no reference is made to the National Science Foundation results. There 'S no showing that it has increased .African .tvnerican participation in AP courses. 14. The Un;,,0 r~; ..... \" ies Program at Hall High School is identified but it does not address African American student:... Rather it seeks to \"target\" strong students who have the capacity of doing \"college work.\" By its terms, African American students are not targeted I To be eligible for enrollment \"strong\" students 1 ust have either a minimum grade point average of 2. 5 on half of their college preparatory course_ - 2 minimum grade point average of3 . O; or a minimum score of at least 21 on the ACT. The 2001 , rt with the disaggregated data presented by the District shows the race of the average student with a score of21 on the ACT to be white or Asian. Black students are almost four numbers below tha, score. Moreover, the District did not present any charts which showed the number of studen- ~ at 3all who made minimum grade point averages of 2. 5 on at least half of their college preparator, 1rses nor did it enumerate in a chart the number by race of\"strong students who have the capacity o doing college work.\" The Universitv Studies Program_ therefore. tended to favor the stronger sti;,:ients with the better grades. the higher test score averages with means which is another wav of sa .11.: 2: that it favored white students! A:VOSHUA.OPP -9- 15. Page 15 of the 2001 Report reflects the enrollmem by race in the University Studies Program. What began as a majority Black enrollment evolved in one year to clearly a majority white enrollment taken from within a majority Black school. As is shown throughout these :findings, this result could have been anticipated because of the financial costs associated with participation in the University Studies Program. Those costs constitute a barrier to participation. We note that now that the program includes most of Hall'~ white children, the plan is for the course grade to be weighted. [Tr. at 110 (P. Watson)]. 2. The Evidence at the Hearing 16. Dr. Steven Ross is one of the two experts approved by the Joshua Intervenors and hired by the Little Rock School District pursuant to Section 2.1.1 of the Revised Plan. Dr. Ross is a Professor of Educational Research and Director for the Center of Research and Educational Policy at the University of Memphis. Dr. Ross is deeply involved in working with school districts, primarily urban school districts, on how to develop and to evaluate programs and how to address the needs of children at-risk. He has worked with the Memphis, Nashville, Detroit, Atlanta and Little Rock school districts. [Tr. at 538-54l(Ross)] 1 7. Dr. Ross identified an educationally reasonable approach to promoting participation by qualified African American students in advanced placement and other enriched courses and implementing programs to assist these students to be successful. He defined a \"qualified\" student as \"a student who has a reasonable chance of benefitting, a reasonable chance of success.\" Identifying such students would involve use of \"archival data in Little Rock that would have shov.,n the success rates of students in advanced placement courses, in honors courses that are at different levels of achievement on the state test,\" as well as 1;be views of principals and curriculum specialists A: 1JOSHUA.OPP -10- in the District \"who have had experience with African American students and white students who are at lower or higher ynds of the continuum on ability, with suggestions for what type of students ... \" would have a reasonable chance of success if admitted to an advanced class. With this \"combination of science and reason\" he would try to help the school system\" to develop some selective cutoffs or some systematic approach for decidingwhichAfrican_American students were, \"qualified, which were likely to benefit\". For students with test scores at the lower end on statema11dated standardized tests, his advice would be admit them to advanced classes ''on a more selective level,\" that is .. considering factors such as prior grades, family support, and motivation. [Tr. at 542-547 (Ross)] 18 . In the context of section 2. 6.2 of the Plan, addressing \"implement[ ation] [ of] programs to assist African Americans in being successful in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses, \" Dr. Ross gave the following testimony [ Tr. at 548]: My approach would be, for students who are entering a course, in advanced course or an honors course, AP course or advanced course, to ensure=-the J(!rm ]Ve use in educational psychology is scaffolding meaning support, because the histmy th.at that student who is at basic hash.ad is struggling to succeed in a regular course. Imagine if you struggle to run a mile, and then all of a sudden you asked to run five miles. Chances are you are not going to do better at that five mi !es; you are going to struggle more. So I would want to provide support systems that can do everything possible to ensure that students who we consider qual~fied can benefit. Examples would be Saturday classes, which cn'e used in a lot cf districts, extended day, peer coaching, smaller class sizes, computer -assisted instruction that gives extra support, programs with families where parents are not taught to tutor, but parents are taught how to help their children get the work done at home, courses on how to study. Th.ere 's a range of support systems that can increase the chances that  an at risk child or adolescent can do well in advanced courses. 19. Dr. Ross testified that he wound not advocate placing students at the lowest leveis of state test courses into advanced placement courses without the kinds of programs he described. [Tr. A: VOSHUA. OPP -11 - at 549] 20. The approach described by Dr. Ross grows out of the provision in Section2.6 of the Plan for promoting participation of \"qualified\" African American students in advanced and .enriched courses a.rid the provision of Section 2.6.2 of the Plan which requires implementation of programs to assist these students \"in being successful\" in the enriched and advanced courses. The paragraphs which follow show: (a) the activiti~s required of the LRSD to promote additional participation of African American students in advanced programing were not carried out, or, were cursory in nature; (b) LRSD has not demonstrated an .increase in participation in advanced and enriched classes, comparing the totality of such programming prior to and during the Plan period; ( c) LRSD adopted, during the Plan period, criteria for admission to Pre-.4.P and AP classes which allow any student regardless of test scores and prior performance to select such classes, without an individualized consideration of the student's ability to benefit; and (d) LRSD had, during the Plan period, clearly inadequate \"scaffolding\" to assist lower performing students \"in being successful\" in advanced and enriched classes. 21 . The LRSD asserted that it fulfilled its obligation of \"a training program during each of the neA'1 three years designed to assist teachers and counselors in identifying and encouraging African American students participation .... \" in advanced placement and honors and enriched courses. [Section 2.6.1] However, there was no evidence of such \"a training program\" for\" teachers and counselors\" \"during of the .. three years of [the Plan.]\"; [Tr. at 186-89 (Faucette)] 22. Ms. Patricia Watson has served as a guidarice counselor in the LRSD for approximately 28 years, 23 years at Central and 5 years at Hall. She was the lead counselor at Hall during the term of the Plan. [Tr. at 100] She did not recall any specific \"training program\" each year of the Revised A. 1JOSHUA. OPP -12- 1') f. -  Desegregation and Education Plan which was designed to train \"counselors in encouragmg pa.i.--ricipation of African American students\" in Pre-AP and AP classes. [Tr. at 101] Ms. Watson further testified that although the director of Guidance and Counseling for the LRSD conducted monthly in-service training sessions between 1998 and 2001 , she could not recall any training relating to encouraging participation of African Americans in Pre-AP and AP classes. [Tr. at 103 -04] 23. When the subject matter of encouraging participation of i\\frican American students in advanced and enriched courses was raised by a LRSD administrator, the presentation was brief and proforma [Tr. at 90 (C. Norman)]; [Tr. at 102 (P . Watson); [Tr. at 473 , 490 (J. Carter)] 24. Prior to the advent of the Revised Plan, and continuing through the first year of the Plan, the types of advanced and enriched programming offered in the LRSD included advanced placement classes, as well as honors and enriched classes. Effective with the second year of the Plan (1999- 2000), LRSD utilized the categories of\"Pre-AP\" and \"AP\"_to encompass the prior categories of AP, honors and enriched. [Tr. at 3 76, 11/20/01 (Lesley); CX. 869, p. 18, 29] An accurate determination of any progress in increasing participation of .African American students in advanced and enriched programming requires consideration of this change. Merely reclassifying students who were in honors and enriched classes as advanced classes does not qualify as real progress in attaining the goal of Section 2.6. The District did not cite any actions that it had taken to promote an increase in participation of .African .American students in advanced programs. The District's plan is to increase the number of AP courses and Pre-.41' courses that are available and to cutout other courses so that the result would be more students would be forced to take Pre-AP and AP courses. 25. As evidenced by p. 3 8 of the March, 2001 Report, the greatest numerical increase of African .A.merican pupils in .41' courses, 154, ocqmed when honors and enriched courses were ended A:'JOSHUA.OPP -13 - after the 1998-99 school year. At the same time, the \"other\" numbers increased by 160, from 936 to 1096. This mefil!S that the proportion of white students enrolled in .AP courses actually increased. The chart on p. 38 of the 2001 Report reflects that African American students assigned to .AP courses fell from 37% in 1997-98 to 35% in 2000-01. The reality therefore is that whatever changes took place in AP, the disparity which existed in 1998 continued at least through Ivfarch, 2001 . ' 26. At the outset of Revised Plan implementation, the written criteria for enrollment in Pre- .AP and AP courses included multiple factors such as \"1. High-level reading comprehension and writing skills as evidenced by norm-referenced test data and classroom performance\" and \"4. 'B ' average and above in regular-level class.\" [CX 719 (Reg. IHCC-R; Tr. at 49 (Norman); Tr. at 560 (J. Mosby)] However, in approximately January 2001, the LRSD revised the criteria so that thereafter there would be, basically, a free choice of the more rigorous advanced and enriched courses. [Tr. at 86 (Norman); Tr. at 473 , 498 (Carter)] 27. In 2000-01 , 65% of the enrollment in AP courses was white [Tr. at 74 7 (Lesley)] roughly double the proportion of white enrollment in the LRSD. The free choice approach promoted the attendance of additional white students in classes disproportionately white. 28. As indicated, Dr. Ross testified that the availability of a BROAD RANGE OF Sl.JPPORT PROGRAM (\"SCAFFOLDING\") IS A.N ESSENTIAL ELElVlENT OF AN INl:TIATIVE WHICH PLACES POORL YPERFORMING STUDENTS IN ADV A.\"NCED Ai\"'i-U ENRICHED COURSES. See par. 18. LRSD vVRITTEN STA.l\"IDARDS A.RE TO THE SAlvlE EFFECT [CX. 719, Policy IHBDi\\., IHBDA-R, TIIBDA-R2]. However, LRSD's implementation fo its standards, required as to advanced and enriched courses by Section 2.6.2 falls short. (a) August 1, 2001 during the hearing conducted by Judge Wright, Associate A-VOSHUA.OPP -14-   Superintendent for Instruction and Bonnie Lesley and Ms. Sadie Mitchell, Associate Sup.erintendent for School Services, could not provide concrete information on the implementation of Student Academic Improvement Plans (Si\\IPs), or other . . interventions for students requiring additional assistance to satisfy learning standards. [Tr. 8-1-01 , at 609, 18 to 611, 23 (lviitchell); at 679, 18 to 684, 4 and 736, 17 to 739, 18 (Dr. Lesley)] (b) The LRSD provided no information on the actual availability of SAIPs for poorly performing students entering .Pre-_A.P and AP courses during the term of the Revised Plan, during the most recent hearing. ( c) The support programs actually available for Pre-_A.P and AP students, identified at the hearing, were well short of those identified as necessary by Dr. Ross and the LRSD in regulation IHBDA-R. [Tr. at 93, 95, (C Norman); 49 1-92, .523, 524 (J. Carter); 563-68 (J. Mosby); 743-44 (Lesley)] C. The Obligation to Address Barriers to Participation In AP and Honors and Enriched Courses 29. During the .three-year Plan period, the four Associate Superintendents served as the District's Compliance Committee with respect to the 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Associate Superintendent Junious Babbs coordinated their efforts. The group was to oversee the overall compliance effort with the terms of the Plan, with each associate retaining primary- responsibility for those aspects of system operations within his/her normal area of responsibility. The compliance committee had the primary responsibility for the identification and removal ofbarriers to participation in advanced and enriched courses (and extracurricular activities). [Tr. at 130 (Babbs)]; A: \\.JOSHUA. OPP -15- (See also Court Ex. 544; CX. Ex. 869 (March 2000 Report) at 1-2]. 3 0. The LRSD described the compliance committee and the responsibilities of the associate superintendents as follows in the March 2000 Compliance Report (at 1-2, emphasis added): The Associate Superintendents of Administrative Sen1ices, Instruction, Operations, and School Services and the Special Assistant to the Superintendent comprise the \"Compliance cmd quality Assurance Committee. \" The committee has responsibility for the development, implementation, oversig,1t, review, and revision of the compliance program. The compliance program includes any programs, policies, and/or procedures iiecessmy to ensure that the District.f11[fills all of its obligations under the Revised Plan. n1e committee meets weekly to discuss compliance issues and to discuss plan implementation in their respective areas. The compliance philosophy is based cm internalizing the Revised Plan through the performance responsibilities of the respective organizational divisions. For exmnple, the instruction division is responsible for integrating the Revised Plan's requirements into development of the curriculum, staff development, and other similar junctions of that division. 171e associate superintendent who heads the division is the responsible person for the components of the Revised Plan that me appropriate.for his/her division. Through the internalization of the philosophy and the integration of the Revised Plan into the District's structure, the respective divisions proactively monitor compliance. The associa~e superintenrjents are responsible for ta!ci.ng appropriate action with re.spect to incidents of non-compliance and taking steps to prevent.future similar incidents of non-compliance. a. The Limited Assignment of Black Teachers to Advanced and Enriched Courses 3 1. The LRSD administrators who studied the existence of potential barriers to greater African American participation in AP classes identified the paucity of African American teachers as relevant. [Tr. at 71-72, 694-95 (Lesley)]; See also [Tr. at 184-86 (Faucette)] .Although significant progress could have been made by the manner in which teachers were assigned to courses by principals, [Tr. at 695 (Lesley)]; [Tr. at 46 (Norman)]; [Tr. at 517 (Carter)], little or nothing has been done. In Central High School, the \"flagship school\" [Tr. at 612 (Daugherty)] most of the .AP A:iJOSHUA.OPP -16- teachers were white. [Tr. at 291-296 (R. Horton); Tr. at 321,323 , 324 (C. Mercer); Tr. at 336-37, 338-339, 3.53~( J. fyforcer)] Black teachers were excluded, almost entirely, from advanced English teaching assignments [Tr. at 175-76, 78, 179-80 (Faucette)] The LRSD touts its participation in the \"Teacher of Color program.\" [Tr. at 671-72 (Lesley)] However, LRSD's evidence shows its participation in this non disuict sponsored program did not begin until the 2001-2002 school year. [Tr. at 736 (Lesley)] Moreover, the System could have only seven participants per year and the evidence was of high school placement of teachers only at Hall with, significantly, no participation at Central. [Tr. at 736-3 7 (Lesley)] [Ex. 826] . b. The Hostile Treatment of African American Students in Advanced Courses I 3 3. Black students emolled in Pre-AP and AP classes have been subjected to a variety of forms of harassment and other hostile behaviors by white teachers. [Tr. at 57., 70 (Norman); Tr. at - 102-3, 111-112 (P. Watson); Tr. at 291-93, 312 (R. Horton); Tr. at 321 -22 (C. Mercer)_; Tr. at 336- 38 (J. Mercer); Tr. at 401-406 (C. Payne); Tr. at 427-31 (D.J. Thames); Tr. at 440-442 (A. Thames)] Dr. Faucette also testified that counselors intentionally did not guide African American students into higher level classes. [Tr. at 208] 34. The impact of the harassment and hostile behavior identified in paragraph (33), supra, extends beyond the particular black student who is its victim. It is observed by other students in the class. Moreover, such incidents are a topic of discussion among students. [Tr. at 342 (J. Mercer); at 5 7 6 (J. Mosby)] The inevitable consequence of the harassment is to identify advanced and emiched courses as a hostile environment for black students and one which they should shun. [Tr. at 70 (C. Norm.an); Tr. at 632, 651-52 (Roberts)] A. 1JOSHUA.OPP -17- c. The Multiple Barriers to Access to the University Studies Prozram 3 5. The L~D and the university of _Arkansas at Little Rock jointly operate within the Hall High School facility the University Studies Program. Courses are \"co-tau!Zht bv Hall Hi!Zh School teachers\" and UALR personnel. [CX 869 (March 2000 Report) at 27] [underlining added for emphasis] This program began functioning in 1999-2000. Students are informed of this option on the course selection sheets distributed by the school system\" Grade 11-12 students may take a variety of courses for which they receive both high and college credit.\" [March 2000 at 27] The program is recognized by the LRSD to provide advanced or enriched courses as described in Section 2.6 of the revised plan. [CX 870 (March 2001 Report) at 46; [Tr. at 734 (Lesley)] [Two teachers per course represent a strong commitment to promoting the academic achievements of already high achieving students.] 36. In order to emoll in this program, a student must pay for each course taken one half of the nonnal tuition charged for the comparable course at UALR and for related expenses. [Tr . at l 09- 110 (P . Watson)]; [Tr. at 730 (Lesley)] 37. \"To be eligible to participate [in the University Studies Program], students must have a minimum grade point average of 2.5 on at least 50% of the college preparatory courses; or a minimum overall grade average of 3. 0; or a minimum score of at least 21 on the ACT.\" [March 2000 Report at 2 7] 38. The evidence cited in paragraphs 3~ through 37, infra, and 39 through 44, supra, shows that the program operates in a manner which promotes racial segregation within Hall High School, due in large part to the financial barriers created by the tuition and related expenses requirement and by the ACT score requirement. A. \\JOSHUA.. OPP -18- 39. The enrollment of Hall High School was approximately 80 to 90% as of 2001 -2002 school year. [Tr. at 106 (P Wat son)] The racial makeup of the University studies courses was as follows in the years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 : 99-00 00-01 Total Enrollment 136 162 AA(%) 79(58%) 57(35%) Non A.A.(%) In Cour ses 57(42%) 105(65%) 40. These data show ( a) in 2000-2001 the number of African American students participating declined by 22, 28%; (b) in 2000-2001 the number of non A.frican American students increased by 48, 60%; (c) in 1999-2000, the percentage of white students in the program exceeded the percentage of white students in Hall High School by two times; ( d) in 2000-2001, the percentage of white students in the program exceeded the percentage of white students in Hall High School by three times; ( e) the in-school segregative effect of the program greatly increased in the second year of its operation. [March 2001 Report at 46] 41. TheLRSD reported ACT results by race for the years l. 997-1998; 1998-1999; 1999-2000 in the March 15, 2001 Report. [at 48] These data show that the average \"composite score\" (on the four sections of the ACT for white students for the three school years was respectively; 22.2, 22.5. and 21. 5. In contrast, the average \"composite score\" for African American students for these three years was 17.2, 17.2, and 17.3. These data provide some evidence the ACT of the alternative criterion for entry into the University Studies Program had significant racial impact. 42. The LRSD did not include in either the March 2000 or March 2001 Report data on grade point averages at Hall High School which would allow an analysis of the racial impact if any of the GPA standards selected for use in admission to the University Studies Program. A:JOSHUA .. OPP -19- 43 . Two types of evidence in the record provide a basis for concluding that the racially - segregated enro~ent of the University Studies Program is attributed at least in part to the requirement that students pay partial tuition. (a) Povehy Index in LRSD - According to an exhibit offered in this case by the LRSD, in the three years of the Revised Plan, 68% of the Black students enrolled in the District and 22-24% of the white students were eligible for free or reduced lunch. Court Ex. 73 l (b) Many witnesses agree9 that the tuition requirement would have a racial impact in the LRSD in view of the pattern of family income by race. [Tr.110 at 110 P. Watson)]; [Tr. at 532(J. Carter)]; [Tr. at 602 (Strickland)]; [Tr. at 605-610(Daughtery)]; [Tr. at 624-627(Roberts)]; [Tr. at 732 (Lesley)] 44. The March 200 l Report ( at 46) sets forth the racial makeup of the University Studies courses for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 . However, neither the March 2000 Report nor the March 2001 Report contain any indication that the LRSD considered or analyzed of or analyzed vvhether the admission and tuition requirements of the University Studies Program promoted segregation. This silence occurs in the face of Section 2.1 (\" .. 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\" and Section 2.6 \" .. to ensure that there are no barriers to qualified African A,.mericans .. '} 45 . In the instance of the University Studies Program, there is no evidence of the Compliance Committee, or Associate Superintendent Bonnie Lesley \"proactively monitor[ing] compliance.\" d. Other Barriers and Broken Promises as Shown bv the March. 2000 and A: IJOSH[h!... OPP -20- 2001 Reports 46. The 2qoo Report addressed the Talent Development Plan as a program to ensure the enrollment \"high performing students in advanced classes.\" [Tr. at 28-30] There is no reference .made in the final rep6rt of the Talent Development Plan. The Talent Development Plan has not been demonstrated to be in existence in practice. The principal of Franklin School, Ethel Dunbar, [Tr. at 588] and Pcl-t Watson, Counselor-at Hall High School [Tr at 104-105], were unaware of this program. This is likely because the Talent Development Plan was repudiated by Dr. Lesley. It involved a commitment to a project called AVID. Project AVID which was encompassed with the Talent Development Plan but has never been implemented because of its purported high costs and because the District did not get a grant to fund it [Tr. at 7 4 7 (Lesley)] The 2001 report makes no reference to either the Talent Development Plan or Project AVID . The 2000 Interim Report, in lamenting the fact that it did not get an AVID grant said, \"these programs would have assisted the . . District in its goal of increasing minority participation in higher level courses, including the Pre-AP courses at the middle school level.\" (p. 30) 4 7. The Interim Report also promised implementation of an Accelerated Academic Student Academic Program (AS.A.P), a prin1ary purpose of which was to radicallv narrow the achievement i;rap between Afucan American and white students. (p. 31). The 2001 Report makes no reference to the ASAP program, hov,rever, ASAP vanished. On p. 33 of the Interim Report, there is a note that \"all program components are incorporated in t4is draft.\" Later on the page, the olan was identified as beini;r tentative and dependent uoon submittirnr a oroposal for fundini;r from the federal i;rovernment. On p. 34, it is clear that it is simply a proposal: \"the District will also investigate other possible sources of funds for the other four middle schools.\" A:\\JOSHUA.OPP -21 - 48. The 2000 Report proposed an English I/II Pre-AP Workshop on a voluntary basis for teachers. This prop~sal did not focus uoon African American students in oarticular. It allowed high schools the option, for two vears. of offering double period English program at both the regular and Pre-AP levels. The 2001 report indicates that the workshop was instituted at several schools during 2000-01' and that as ofJanuary, 2001 , the optional program would continue at one of the schools through the ne;,.1: school year. Principal Carter of McClellan indicated that his teachers chose not to participate in this program. This was not a required program and cannot be said as a district initiative designed to promote and increase partjcipation in Al' and Pre-Al' programs. The District presented no data which reflected the benefits of this workshop to African .American Students. [Tr. at 525-526 (J. Carter)] 49. The 2001 Report mal\u0026lt;:es reference to a \"International Baccalaureate Programme\" at Cloverdale lvliddle and McClellan High Schools. [p. 34] The IBP was proffered as a program for increasing African .American participation in AP and Pre-Al' courses. According to Principal Carter, the program was designed to promote enrollment of African American children into a more rigorous curriculum and to attract white students to the school. It was dependent upon non district funds for its creation and operation. The District wrote that \"If this grant is funded . . the International Baccalaureate Programme courses will be another category of advanced and challenging courses available to students and their enrollment will be tracked and analyzed along with the AP and Pre-.A.P and University courses. (p. 34). 50. The IBP proITTam does not overate and was not funded I 1. Principal Carter testified that Dr. Bonnie Lesley opposed the program because she thought it was not a \"good mix\" for the McClellan student body. [Tr. at 529, 530] Dr. Lesley did not contradict :i\\1r. Carter's statement! A: ;JOSHUA.OPP -22- 51. The District's support for the University Studies Program whi~h favors white students is to be compared, the .IBP program which in design gave some favor to Black children. The administration strongly supported one with District funds and local college support but it did not support the other one, the IBM, with financial or administrative level support. 52. In the 2001 Report, the District notes that in the 2000-2001 school year it added two AP courses, Human Geography and Economics in order to promote African _American participation in AP course. (p. 33) The Human Geography program which was offered began as a majority white program, nine whites, five Blacks (se~ p. 38). The Economics program apparently did not \"make\" in 2000-2001 because there were no students reported as being in the class. Justin Mercer attempted during the 2000-20001 school term to take the course and was refused because there was no one to teach it. [Tr. at 352, 357] (Seep. 33) When one reviews the AP courses added, World History, Physics II, Science Pre-AP and Advanced Science/Theoretical II. Moreover, Advanced Science - Theoretical II, it is clear they were not being added so as attract and benefit more African American students. These appear college focused, i e, \"Central College.\" [Tr. at 365-66 (J. Iviercer)] 53. The LRSD asserted that it had fulfilled its obligation of Section 2.6.2 by \"imolementim2: programs to assist African American students to be successful in . and advanced placement courses. The Interim Report, (Page 39-40) does not identify any policies that it developed to assist African American students in being successful. The section speaks only to \"proQ:rams.\" The programs which are listed are College Preparatory Enrichment Program (CPEP); Academic Enrichment and Gified in Summer (AEGIS); South East Consortium for Minorities in Engineering (SECME); SMART, a summer program for about 200 students; School Based Student Support Teams; and English I and II Workshop - Pre-AP, CPEP and _I\\EGIS are not held out as being for the A:\\JOSHUA.OPP -23- purpose of assisting _African Americans in being successful in advanced courses. SECJ:vlE was a grant program for the purpose of preparing and motivating students in technical fields It had a goal of increasing the pool of minorities who were qualified for college studies in engineering, math and science. S:tvlART does not identify the students who will be served. The English Pre-AP workshops were optional. The school based support teams had the purpose of monitoring student achievement and providing support and necessary interventions to students at-risk of failure. The District did not present any monitoring reports are results of achievement regarding the school based support teams. 54. The March 15, 2001 Report did not address any of the programs identified in the Interim Report. Instead, it talks about gifted and talented programs specialists and facilitators. These programs are for the teachers who are provided opportunities for professional growth, and receive a publication known as Sharing the Good News. Because of their outlined training those teachers are expected to become resources for other teachers. 55. Other possible programs presented in the 2001 Report are briefly discussed again under this subsection a) Two courses, Human Geography and Economics were added to the curriculum for 2000-2001. World History and Physics II were added to the curriculum for 2002. Advanced Science/Theortical Research II was added to the curriculum for 2001. There is no showing of how these courses are directed toward the success in them for iLA. students. [CX 870, p. 33] b) The proposed International Baccalaureate Programme (IBP) ,;vas contingent upon finding which did not occur between 1998-2001 [e.g. pp. 33-34] (c) Middle School research and writing Pre-AP are not held out as programs to assist A:\\JOSHUA.OPP -24- (d) African A.merican students. Fiigl:). School Reading and Wri1ingWorksho-p Iis an optional program which Fair, Hall and McClellan opted to include in their schedules. There is no representation that the workshop was intended to assist A... frican American students at being successful in advanced courses. ( e) Teachers and couns~lor training has a goal to provide teachers with training to ensure that all students are successful in upper level courses. The funds for this program are provided by the State of Arkansas. This in-sen:ice training is required by the Arkansas Department of Education. (f) The 2001 Report refers to revision of Policy IKF/General Ed Graduation Requirements. This policy raised the recommended number of units for graduation to \"28\" including at least \"8 11 Pre-.A.P or A.P courses. There is no showing of how this (g) - will benefit African American students in being successful in AP courses. [ e.g. p. 30] The policies, programs and procedures in both the 2000 and 2001 Reports represent recitation of normal school activities, \"raising the bar\" for graduation and creating courses that will favor students in advanced courses who are already high achievers. The courses added may substitute for college courses. (h) ,There are no programs identified in either which are specifically designed to African iunerican students in being successful in advanced placement during the regular school year. (i) The SEC:ME Program operated for one year. [Tr. at 105 (P. Watson)] G) The other programs either were not implememed or were not supported by use of any A:\\JOSHUA.OPP -25- I data in either report. [e.g. ex 869, pp. 40-41 , ex 870, pp. 31-50] (k) The_ summer programs CPEP, SMART and .AEGIS have limi,ed enrolled. [Tr. at 73 8, 747 (Lesley)] (1) The District did not identify and present data which delineated participation in any \"scaffolding\" or \"support\" programs such as those described by Dr. Ross as being necessary to assist African .American students in being successful in advanced courses. [Tr. at 548,549 (Ross)] [See also Tr. at 465, 480 .. 490,492,499, 523,529 (Carter); Tr. at 88, 93, 95 (Non:nan); Tr. at 564, 566, 576 (Mosby); Tr. at 585 (Dunbar); Tr. at 747 (Lesley)] D. The Obligations to Promote Participation of Qualified African Americans in Extracurricular Activities 56. With respect to Section 2. 6, the lVIarcb 15, 2001 Report purports to show an increase in African American extracurricular participation between l. 997-98 and 1999-00, p. 2 7. The figures are not broken down by school, activity, race or gender. The general increase represents 122% for African Americans and 129% for non African American students. With respect to the District's chart on p. 28 regarding co-curricular acti,,ity participation, the aggregated data show an African American increase from 2579 to 3988. That reflects a 54.6~o increase. Non black participation, however, increased from 1222 to 1864, a percentage increase of 52.5%. The extracurricular activity and co-curricular activity general panici.pation therefore remained steady. 57. By LRSD presenting aggregated data, [Tr. at 740 (Lesley); CX. 747 [Babbs] the Court is not in a position to effectively determine whether the data reflect actual improvement in African .American participation in the respective schools. Accordingly, the anecdotal testimony of witnesses A: \\JOSHUA. OPP -26- d' becomes more relevant ,vi.th respect to determining whether the policies, programs or procedures which the District ~eveloped are working. The policies which the LRSD developed purportedly to meet the requirements of the Plan represent either revision of existing purported policies or codification of practices long in force. The policies which are applicable to the instant proceeding are: a) Policy JJR - Student Co-Curricular Exnacurricular Activities [CX Ex. 719] This policy requires that \"when disparities are identified in co-curricular activities, the principal will work with the school staff to develop a plan for improvement where possible.\" b) Policy JJIB -R 1- High Schooi Interscholastic Athletics  Cheerleading Drill TeanvPep Club [CX Ex. 719] This policy also requires that \"when racial disparities are identified in interscholastic athletic or spirit groups, the principal will work with the school staff to develop a plan for improvement where appropriate. It is also requires (5) that transportation will be provided to all students participating in athletic and spirit group activities.\" [Policy JJIB -R2 applies to the middle schools and essentially repeats the provision 111 JJIB-Rl] c) Policy JBA.-R NonDicrimination in Programs and Activities [CX Ex. 719] This policy requires each school to develop strategies to promote student participation in programs and activities and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation.\" It also requires the development and implementation of \"a plan for nondiscrimination in programs and activities at each school\" This policy does not include the required \"improvement plan\" notes in policies JJR and JJIB-Rl and R-2] d) Policy DFD-R2 Athletic Gate Rec~ipts cmd Admissions [ CX Ex 719] . A:'JOSHUA.OPP -27- This policy requires that \"in cooperation with the Activities Advisory Board (AAB ), there will be a compr~hensive athletic and activities plan developed by the District to address the needs of the students .... \" The steering committee will serve as staff providing technical assistance and support to the A.AB .\" 58. The District staff determined that there were disparities which they identified in cocurricular and e\".1:racurricular activities.1 The District staff who addressed the subject include the Associate Superintendent for Student Services, Sadie lviitchell, the Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Schools, Dr. Marian Lacey, Jodie Carter, Principal of McClellan High School, 1'1ls. Cassandra Norman, Principal ofFair High School, and Mr. Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services. These staff members acknowledged an awareness of racially identifiable activities and of disparities: Ms. Mitchell [Tr. at 261 , 262, 268, 269]; Dr. Lacey [Tr. at 790, 791]; Principal Carter [Tr. at 474,492, 493 , 502, 503]; Principal Norman [Tr. at 71, 72]; Mr. Babbs [Tr. at 13 3] . Other witnesses who testified that there were racial disparities with respect to curricular and ex\"1:racurricular activities were Ramona Horton [Tr. at 312, 313]; Michael Faucette, [Tr. at 199, 200, 201 , 203-206]; Crystal Mercer, a student at Central High School [Tr. at 322, 323]; Justin Mercer [Tr. at 386, 387, 388]. 59. The March 15, 2001 Report contains (at 28) under the heading Activities Advisory Board, the following content: \"At the ti.me of the District 's Interim Complicmce Report, a steering committee had been formed to organize an Activities Advis01y Board ('A.AB ') for the pwpose of 1The activities identified included, inter alia, baseball, cheerleaders, debate, future problem solvers, odyssey of the mind, student newspaper, mock trial, orchestra, quiz bowl, soccer, swim team, tennis, volleyball and yearbook staff. [Tr. at 136, 133-35 (Babbs); Tr. at 199-200, 203 (Faucette); Tr. at 261 -262 (Mitchell); Tr. at 358-360, 362-364 (Mercer)] A:\\JOSHUA.OPP -28- I} promoting, supporting and enhancing extracurricular activities cmd co-curricular activities at all schools. Th.e _A_,4B, comprised of District staff, pca-ents, student and convnzmi-ty representatives, be gem monthly meetings in April of 2000. Specific areas related to activities have been targeted for discussion and implementation. Th.e focus of these discussion has been on a disvropordnate number of African American students who do not hm,e the financial resoUJ-ces to participate in activities. Other areas of discussion and imvlementation include ... fun din'\u0026lt;!. accessibilitv~. Each caea has been discussed in connection with incl'easing swdentpca-ti.cipation with emphasis on assuring African American participation. [underlining added for emphasis J 60. Despite the finding of ~he AAB, there was no system budget account to assist a student for whom family finances was a barrier for participation in extracurricular activities. [Tr. at 802 (Dr. Lacey).] The system addressed the. acknowledged program by a patchwork of activities, not represented to function in all schools; moreover, Dr. Lacey testified that there was no systematic effort to publicize the availability of these funds. Associate Superintendent Babbs, who coordinated the efforts of the Compliance Committee, could identify no substantial activity undertaken by that body. [Tr. at 144, 146 (Babbs) - 3 to 5] 61. The District is obliged to address barriers to participation of qualified African Americans in extracurricular activities. Despite the LRSD's consistent emphasis on the differences between family incomes in the system's white and African families [e. 2: ., Poverty Income information CX 731], the record reveals a lack of any systematic effort to address financial barriers within the meaning of Section 2.6. 62. Ms. Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent for School Services, never developed a plan for remedying disparities Oi imbalances in participation in exirn or co-curricular activities. [Tr. at 262] She left this to the discretion of the principals. But she excused their inaction by \"blaming the victim.\" They have \"choice\" she said. [Tr. at 268]. 63. Sadie Iviitchell was responsible for \"proactively monitoring compliance\" and \"taking A.\\JOSHUA.OPP -29- - appropriate action with respect to incidents ofnon-compliance . ... \" [Tr. a1 136, 138 (Babbs)] Ms. I:vlitchell testified to her shirking this responsibility [Tr. at 262-263 , emphasis added]: Q. You are awm-e. Let's just talk about the reality You were cnvare -you have , not heard the testimony. But you are cnvme, for instance, quiz bowl and debate, Odyssey of the 1vfind, vm-ious activities were all white, were you not? J A. Yes. Q. I see. Did you develop aplcmfor changing that? .. A. I did not develop a plan. The buildh1g principal did Q. Well, in the three years that the plan was in operation before the report seeking release from unitary status, did you have any occasion to prepare any writing reflecting that was shared with the Joshua lntervenors or the public reflecting what actions you would take to change those patt.ems? A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. I did not, because Joshua did not request a report through the formal compliance complcrint. You are suggesting that you only prepare requests or reports at Joshua's request, are you? I onlv respond to complaints from patrons, community, Joshua. ODA1s. and anvbodv else throu'?h formal complaints. So you never made an evaluation or assessment even of those things to determine the extent to which black participation was being minimized? I did not personally Staff members did. I see. Was there a plan of action developed by the Compliance Committee for dealing with the lack of black participation in acrivities like cheerleader and things like that? A. There was no plan developed by the Compliance Committee. The principals developed plans, along with the sponsors. 64. The LRSD presented as part of its case no such plai.-i by a principal or a sponsor. This included testimony that the myriad activities at Central High School had racially disparate A:iJOSHUA.OPP -30- participation, a problem not discussed at faculty meetings. [Tr. at 199-200, 207 (Faucette)] 65 . The LRSD reported that 90% of African American parents \"that expressed an opinion\" reported that they had activities available to their students. [Tr. at 773 (Lacey)] This answer does not address parental views regarding whether racial barriers to participation in school activities exist. African American school board member Iv.like Daugherty who has disassociated himself from the petition before the Court was unc?.mfortable with information being given strictly in percentages rather than in actual numbers regarding the survey. [Tr. at 614] 66. No District witness testifie.d that there was a specific plan, which the District through any representative, developed for addressing the disparities in e)rtracurricular and co-curricular activities. Some of the disparities were not the result of financial resources or the lack thereon by students. At McClellan and Fair many activities were not offered because of the lack of teacher sponsors and lack of staff member encouragement to students to participate. [Tr. at 477, 478, 49'.2, 533 (Carter)] [Tr. at 74, 92 (Norman)] 67. The District obviously did not follow policies JJR, JJIV and JBA-R because after disparities were identified, it did not develop an improvement plan in any area nor did it develop strategies to promote student participation in programs and activities to ensure that there were no barriers to participation. The school district plan commits the District to developing remedies and to promote participation. The school district delegates these responsibilities to the principals. This is contrary to the Plan in that compliance is a district administrative obligation. 68. Ray Gillespie, Athletic Director during the 1998-2001 school years addressed the problems which African _American students experienced in e\"\"'tracurricular activities. 69. He investigated an incident where a white coach acknowledged that he choked a black A: \\JOSHUA. OPP -31- Tl student at SW lYiiddle School. [Tr. at 573-576 (Mosby) (See also CX 771)]. Ms. Sadie Mitchell, - Gillespie's supervis9r, downplayed the incident saying she didn't think it was a real choking incident, but the coach admitted that he choked the child after he lost his temper. [Tr at 274-275] Mitchell's testimony reveals the attitude of the LR administration regarding compliance. She and the Compliance Committee would have profited by use of the experts, especially Dr. Terrence Roberts in addressing plan commitments. See paragraphs 126(a), (b) and (c). 70. Gillespie testified that it was a very severe offense. This occurred during football practice when other students were present. [Pp. 7-11 , Deposition ofR Gillespie] 71 . Gillespie cited similar incidents including a coach fighting an .African American student (pp. 15-17, Deposition of Gillespie) at Hall; and a white coach slapping an African American student at Mann 1v1iddle SchooL [Pp. 26-28, Deposition ofR. Gillespie] 72 . The same coach involved in the choking incident at SW Middle School also called an African American female student a \"bitch.\" [ Pp. 11-13, Deposition ofR Gillespie] 73 . Gillespie also testified that parents were upset at the middle school regarding Quiz Bowl, Band, Science Clubs and 9th grade athletics at the Middle Schools. (See CX. 770/772, p. 21 , Deposition ofR. Gillespie] 74. Several of the students explained their lack of encouragement with respect to participation in extracurricular activities. D.J Thames, a student at Fair High School, was discouraged by the repeated use of profanity by his Coach, Randy Rutherford [Tr. at 419-20] He also testified about the racially preferential treatment which Rutherford provided to white team players. [Tr. at 421-423 , 432] 75. Chris Payne, a student at Fair High School, testified that he was discouraged from A:VOSHC4..0PP -32- participating in Quiz Bowl by Ms. Pickering, a white teacher, who told him that he could not be on the \"A\" team [Tr. -~t 403-04]. 76 . Payne stated that his white Calculus Teacher, rvir. Wilder, refused to write a recommendation for him because he didn't think Payne was \"smart enough\" to attend Governor's School [ Tr. at 404] 77 . Payne also explained that Ms. Klais gave him a recommendation to a college which she wrote on a piece of notebook paper for him. He was aware that she had written recommendations for white students on school letterhead. [Tr. at 407] 78. Payne also testified that he was aware that Coach Rutherford \"cursed\" African American players but not white players. [Tr. at 414] 79. Crystal and Justin Mercer testified that they sought to participate in mock trial. They were discouraged from participation. [Tr. at 322-23 ; 386-389] Justin was also discouraged from participating in debate [Tr. at 3 61-62] and from starting a club, the purpose ofvvhich ,vas to promote interracial diversity at Central High School by a white teacher named :t'vfr. Meadows. [Tr. at 3.96-3 97] 80. Dr. Faucette sought to receive support for his creating writing club, but did not receive it from the principal. The club had a previous history ofracial diversity. [Tr. at 192-96, 229-30] E. The Obligations to Promote Participation of \"Qualified\" African American Students in Extracurricular Activities and to Ensure That There are No Barriers to Such Participation 81. In Section 2.6 of the Revised Plan, the LRSD promised 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 e)rtracurricular activities .. . . \" The LRSD adopted several regulations identifying activities to promote compliance with Section 2. 6 of the Revised Pian A. :;JOSHUA.OPP ..,.., - .).)- ff .. regarding e:;,._'iracurricular activities. 82. There were segregated activities and apparent barriers to /tlrican .Americans participation in them. Section 2.6, implememing regulations, and the compliance structure created pursuant to Sections 2.13 , 2.13 .'l, and Section 6 of the Plan called for a practical response to these problems. The system defaulted. F. The Obligation to Provide Transportation to Students for Participation in After School Activities  83 . Section 2. 6.3 provides that the LRSD shall provide transportation to students ... to allow those students to participate in after school activities . . [CX. 870, p. 29] The 2000 Report does not address this provision. 84. The 2001 Report simply recites the number of extracurricular activity runs per day for high and middle schools with a notation that no \"elig:ible\" student has been denied. [p. 29] The - District does not define \"eligible.\" 85. The witnesses who addressed the transportation obligation included Ramona Horton [Tr. at 312-31 3]; Justin Mercer [Tr. at 358]; Pam Mercer [Tr.at 450]; [Tr. at 532 (l Carter)] [Tr. at 75 (C. Norman)] They testified that the District did not provide transportation for a number ofactivities. G. The Obligations to Ensure that There is No Racial Discrimination In the Provision of Guida.nee and Counseling Services and (H.) To Provide More Eguitv in Academic Honors, Awards and Scholarships 86. The 2000 Report (at pages 81-82) promises that the LRSD will implement programs, policies, and procedures designed to ensure that there will be no racial discrimination in the provision of guidance and counseling services. The report promises at page 81 to continue monitoring of school district equity issues with respect to honors, awards and scholarships. The report states that A:VOSHUA.OPP -34- \u0026lt;I, \"continued strategies are addressed to increase the number of African Americans who pursue more rigorous academic course work and receive scholarships.\" 87. The report further refers to Section 2.11.1 by referring back to 2.11. 88. The 200i Report (at p. 160) simply recites the scholarships awarded at the high schools by numb.er, at p. 160 and by dollar value, at p. 161. The District does not recite any activities or programs that it engaged in to mee! the provisions of Section 2.11 at page 160, other than a survey which purported represented the opinion of94% of all parents \"that help and f!uidance was available to their child.\" There has been no dispute that counseling services were \"available\" for they have always been. The District did not present any testimony regarding how it planned to modify the delivery of policies or procedures as provided by, and to meet the objectives of, Section 2.11. Nor did it delineate the work that it did in an effort to provide more equity for African American students in academic honors, awards and scholarships. Indeed, the District did not present the data which delineated scholarships awarded to African American an_d non African American students on an academic basis. 89. \\Nith respect to honor graduates, .African American students constitute 66% of the high school emollment. In 1999-2000, they received 32% of the honors. The only strategy to improve the number of African American honor graduates is to have them elect to take more AP courses. 90. The Hall High School counselor, Ms. Pat Watson, agreed that counseling services were utilized in the 1999-2000 school term in an attempt by school district administrators to place two white students ahead of a Black student ,1/ith respect to the school's valedictorian position. [Tr. at 115-li9 (Watson)] Joshua .vas instrumental in preventing this intentional racial practice from occurring. A:VOSHE4..0PP -3 5- 91 . Junious Babbs, the Associate Superintendent responsible for counseling services, made no findings regarding student access to higher education opportunity being improved by either guidance services or by A.P courses. He did not review or monitor the annual guidance counselor's reports. [Tr. at 148-'49] 92. Ramona Horton, an involved parent in the District, testified that her children did not get help from the counselors. [Tr. at 30?] In her opinion, the delivery of counseling services was \"QQQL\" [Tr. at 314] She did not participate in any survey regarding the delivery of counseling services in the District. [Tr. at 314] 93 . Crystal Mercer stated that she received no assistance from her counselors nor any encouragement about enrolling or remaining, after being enrolled .. in AJ\u0026gt; classes. [Tr. at 319-320, 324] 94. Justin Mercer stated his counselor suggested that he should not take AP Economics when he wanted to in1prove his GPA [Tr. at 3 52] His counselor told him that he could not take AP Economics because there was no teacher qualified to teach it and there was not enough student interest for it. He later learned that white students had not been similarly discouraged when he received his ne:;,,,'i: class assignment from a white friend had AP Economics on his schedule. [Tr. at 352-353] Mercer's counselor told him that he could not enroll in AP Physics because he did not meet the requirements to take it. [Tr. at 3 54] Mercer's counselor was white. [Tr. at 3 71] 95. The counselors at Central told Justin Mercer when he arrived at Central that he should not take A.P and Pre-A.P courses. The reason given was that he had been in regular courses in Junior High School and that the teachers were familiar with his transcript. [Tr. at 377] Mercer's counselor also discouraged him from taking . L\u0026gt;J\u0026gt; Physics II because of his background. [Tr. at 384] A: 1JOSI-TU..4.. OPP -36- 96. Chris Payne, a student at Fair High School, testified that his counselor informed him that one of his teachers ;was prejudiced. [Tr. at 403] 97. D.J. Thames, a student at Fair High School, testified that his counselor did not assist him in getting into the College of Wooster. [Tr. at 418] Thames' counselor discouraged him from taking AP English. [Tr. at 426] His counselor also advised him to drop Ms. Pickering a.fcer having been in her class. [Tr. at 429] 98. During the 1998-99 and 99-2000 school years, McClellan had larger numbers of African American students than Central High School enrolled in AP courses. Benveen the 1997-98 and 1998-99 school years, McClellan had the same number of black honors graduates as Central. The dollar value of scholarships for African American students was more than twice as much as the Central students. During the 1999-2000 school year, when the African American numbers favored Central by 2 to 1, the scholarship an1ounts favored Central students by more than 5 to 1. ThiSTeflects the second class status/perception of McClellan High School in comparison to Central. CENTR4.L HIGH SCHOOL 98a. when i\\frican American parents filed the class action lawsuit seeking to desegregate the Little Rock public schools, the school district offered Central High School as the point at which to begin a plan of gradual school desegregation. Aaron v. Coover. 1-13 F. Supp. 855 (ED. Ark 1956). The plan was designed to delay the process for as long as possible pursuant to Brown v Board of Education of Toueka. Kansas 347 US. -183, (195-1), and to involve as few minority race students as possible. The Court of Appeals affirmed 243 F2d 361 (8th Cir. 1956). The District was select in choosing the first 1 7 Black students chosen by the District to attend Central, only nine (the Little Rock Nine) of whom braved the adversity of the opposition and attended Central. A: 'J0Sffi.L4..0PP -,~ -.J / - .98b. In 1972, :5fteen years after Central High School had become a symbol of public resistance to the p.rip.ciple of school desegregation, :lvlichael Faucette, an African American began his high school education at the school. He completed grades 10 through 12 at the school and graduated in 1975 . During his fenure, students were ability grouped for academic purposes into three \"tracks.\" There were other academic groupings as well. Michael Faucette was placed in track one, the track for those students said to be the strongest academically. [Tr. at 166 (Facuette}] ,, 99. During Michael Faucette's three years in the school, he was the only African American male student in his classes. He was oft.en the only African ivnerican in his class. The total enrollment of the school at that time was approximately 65 to 70% African American. There were only eight black faculty members in Central during the period of Michael Faucette's attendance at the school; he had only one black teacher during his three years. There was only one black cheerleader during Faucette's attendance at Central. [Tr. at 166-67, 204-05 (Faucette)] 100. The school system did not recognize the academic achievements of its black high school graduates in this period. After graduating from Central High School, Mr. Faucette entered the University of California at Berkeley. After one of his classes, during his freshman year, his professor told Faucette it was an honor to have a student in his class who had earned a test score as high as 11r. Faucette had earned on one standardized test. No one from Central High School or the LRSD had complimented Faucette on this achievement prior to his leaving the District. [Tr. at 167-68 (Faucette)] 101. During the course of his post-secondary education, Michael Faucette earned two Bachelors degrees, a Masters degree, and a PhD. He taught at the college level at the University of Washington and the University of Georgia. Vlhile.at the University of Washington, he developed a A:1JOSHl.L4.0PP -38- 11 program designed to help high school students succeed at the higher education level. [ Tr. at i69 (Faucette)] 102. By 1998, the 40th anniversary of the Central High School \"crisis\", Dr. Faucette had determined to return to Little Rock to teach in the community in which he had secured his education. _t,,.s part of his application process in the LRSD, he visited Central High School in February, 1998. The then principal, Rudolph Howo/d, accompanied Dr. Faucette to visits to four classrooms in the school. He visited two AP classes in which the students were all white; he visited an honors class in which the students were two-thirds white; he visited a. regular English class in which there were, in contrast, only tw,o white students. The three all white or identifiably white classes had white teachers and the class with only two white students had an African .American teacher. Dr. Faucette commented to Principal Howard about the makeup of the classes. observing that the presence of two-all white classes surprised him; Mr. Howard did not reply. [Tr. 169-71 (Faucette)] 103. Dr. Faucette began teaching at Central High School at the start of the 1998-99 school year. He was assigned to teach one remedial class and regular English sections in the 12th grade. In that year, in the 12u1 grade, there were nineteen (19) English sections, some advanced placement sections, some regular English sections and two sections with a remedial designation. Dr. Faucette observed that the advanced classes - tracks - were composed almost entirely of white students and, as to location, concentrated on the third floor of the building. In contrast, the regular and remedial sections - tracks - were \"primarily black\" in student makeup and located on the second floor of the building. This pattern of the racial make-up of the various categories of sections and their locations continued \"virtually unchanged\" during the nex\"t two school years (the second and third years of the Revised Plan) . [Tr. at 172-75, (Faucette)] Other evidence revealed that there were few black students A.\\JOSHUA.OPP -39- 11,l in advanced placement classes during the period of the plan. [Tr. at 303 (R. Horton); at 319 (C. Mercer); at 330 CJ.Mercer)] 104. During the three years of the Plan, the makeup of the cadre of English teachers in the school was eight (8) white and eight (8) A,frican American persons, however, African American teachers taught no (98-99) or few (99-00, 00-01) advanced sections ofEnglish in the school as shown by the following chart: 98-99 99-00 2000-01 Total Eng sections 69 88 84 Total advanced secs 23 36 37 Adv sec taught by Blacks 0 2 4 English teachers 8W/8B 8'W/8B 8w/8B [Tr. 1 75-76, 178, 179-80, (Faucette)] 105. Dr. Faucette, a teacher whose excellent qualifications were obvious, did not teach even one advanced section of English during the three years of the Plan, despite the fact that these sections nu    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":"gsu_ggdp_5485","title":"Lisa J. Krisher oral history interview, 2002 July 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":["Krisher, Lisa J."],"dc_date":["2002-07-18"],"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","Voter registration--Corrupt practices","School integration","Georgia Legal Services Program","NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund"],"dcterms_title":["Lisa J. Krisher oral history interview, 2002 July 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/5485"],"dcterms_temporal":["2000/2009"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["Krisher, Lisa L., Interviewed by Cliff Kuhn, 18 July 2002, P2002-10, 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, 23 minutes, 47 seconds of audio spread over 2 sides of 1 tape, and 48 page transcript."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Reagan, Ronald","Krisher, Lisa J."],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1737","title":"District Court, order and transcript.","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":["2002-07-16"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","Little Rock School District","Joshua intervenors","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","School discipline","Education--Evaluation","School integration","Student activities","African Americans--Education"],"dcterms_title":["District Court, order and transcript."],"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/1737"],"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":["73 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eThis transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    RECEIVED JUL J 8 2002 OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. 4:82CV00866-WR W PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al KATHERINE.KNIGHT, et al ORDER FILED U S DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS Attached is a transcript of the hearing held Friday, last (July 12). Since time is short (the evidentiary hearing will commence next Monday, July 22), this transcript, rather than a detailed, separate order, is adopted as the order of the court (court solecisms and all).  IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of July, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE WIT~ f U/4 58 AND/OR~ ON /f7i\"),,- BY~7,,...~...-~~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., No. 4:82CV00866WRW Friday, July 12, 2002 Little Rock, Arkansas 8:30 a.rn. 8 Intervenors. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE WILLIAM R. WILSON, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE APPEARANCES: On Behalf of Little Rock School District: MR. CHRISTOPHER HELLER, Attorney at Law MR. JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR., Attorney at Law Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Regions Center, Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 On Behalf of Pulaski County Special School District: MR. M. SAMUEL JONES, III, Attorney at Law Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 NationsBank Building 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter [Continued) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 APPEARANCES CONTINUED: On Behalf of North Little Rock School District: MR. STEPHEN W. JONES, Attorney at Law MR . GUY W. MURPHY, JR ., Attorney at Law Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3472 On Behalf of the Joshua Intervenors : MR . JOHN W. WALKER, Attorney at Law John W. Walker, P.A . 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206; and MR. ROBERT PRESSMAN, Attorney at Law 22 Locust Avenue Lexington , Massachusetts 02421 On Behalf of the Knight Intervenors: MR. RICHARD W. ROACHELL, Attorney at Law Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 RECEIVED JUL J 8 2002 OFFICEOF OESEGREGATION MONITORING Proceedings reported by machine stenography and displayed in realtime; transcript prepared utilizing computer -aided transcription. Christa R. Newburg , RMR , CRR , CCR United States Court Reporter 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Proceeding at 8:30 a .m. , as follows:) THE COURT : We ' re here this morning for a short hearing in the Little Rock School District against the Pulaski County Special School , et al . It's Case No . LR-C-82-866. I might first introduce counsel and the people present to Ms. Christy Conrad . Would you stand up, please , ma ' am? 3 She is my new lawyer on this case, commenced to work this morning. She will be the law clerk especially assigned to this case. That ' s Ms. Christy Conrad. We might start with Mr . Walker. I got my letter off late yesterday, and if you don't mind outlining for me briefly what your two rebuttal witnesses will say . Ms . Marshall -- go ahead . If you don ' t mind , come to the lectern . When we start the trial next week , week after next , we'll have mikes on the table , but I don ' t have them now . MR. WALKER: Your Honor , my I inquire whether you received my letter? Apparently our letters -- THE COURT : I did get a letter from you. I've got it right here, as a matter of fact. I don ' t believe it addressed that issue. If it did, I overlooked it . Like I say, my letter got out later than I thought. MR . WALKER : Your Honor, it does attempt to address it on page 2, paragr aph four , sub six . THE COURT : Paragraph four? MR. WALKER: Sub six, the bottom of the second page. Christa R. Newburg , RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 - 25 It begins, ttplaintiff suggests that if nottt -- THE COURT: All right. Let me read that. I do have this letter, and I've read it. That's another one of my lawyers. We're all working on this case, and she needs t o be able to hear us back in chambers, and she has just announced, Mr. Walker, she couldn't hear you . So both of us need to speak right into the mike. MR. WALKER: Yes, sir. THE COURT: I have read that. Can you be a little more specific with us? MR. WALKER: Dr. Lesley in her testimony indicated that the evaluation process was not flawed , in part because it was -- it involved the ODM, Mr. Gene Jones specifically, and Ms. Ann Marshall to some extent. And she submitted an exhibit that relates to or was attempting to relate to the participation of the ODM, in order to demonstrate that involvement. We wanted to establish what ODM's role was and also the fact that ODM at all times through Mr. Jones had expressed difficulty and problems with the evaluation approach that was being used by the district and the lack of evaluations. THE COURT: And Ms. Marshall and Gene Jones are both going to address that issue? MR. WALKER: There were two separate points where -which differ. Ms. Marshall can only relate to an exhibit that Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Dr. Lesley introduced where she made reference to, if I understand to be correct, where she made reference to the comments and the like that had been made about in criticism or critique of a document which she had prepared, and it would be our intention to show that that was misrepresentative of the involvement of ODM. THE COURT: All right . Thank you. MR. WALKER: And the other will be Mr. Gene Jones, and Mr. Jones was sometimes invited to some of the sessions 5 that dealt with the subject. And his -- the way his participation was presented, we would address, and also the comments and the like that he made or his observations from the perspective from which he sits we thought would be useful to the Court in explaining the overall evaluation. The ODM was supposed to have a special role in relationship to the whole process , and we would like to at least take that time to put that in. THE COURT: All right. I'll hear from Mr. Heller, see if he continues his objection in view of that. MR. HELLER: Good morning, your Honor. We do continue our objection. Mr. Walker didn't identify any of the exhibits he's talking about. Dr. Lesley's testimony , which, as we've said, could have been anticipated in its entirety because it didn't concern anything other than the compliance reports which were filed by the district, her testimony regarding ODM Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 was minimal. As I recall, all she did was point out that an ODM monitoring report which is in the record did not require anything other than what Dr. Lesley was doing. That report is in the record. Mr. Walker had a chance to question Dr. Lesley about it, and there shouldn't be any issue about that. With regard to Mr. Jones , all that was said about him was that he was a participant in several meetings. I think that's 6 undisputed. Dr. Lesley didn't say that she thought Mr. Jones' position on a particular issue would be X or Y. The only thing in the record that I recall is that Mr . Jones participated in a meeting, and I think that's undisputed. With respect to Mr. Walker's comment about Mr. Jones' perspective would be helpful on the evaluation process, which really, as the Court is aware, was a requirement for assessments rather than evaluations, that's something that clearly could have been presented in Mr. Walker's case in chief , if he believed that someone from ODM had a perspective about the assessment process that was important, because Mr . Walker knew that's exactly what Dr. Lesley was going to testify about. THE COURT: Let me say this before you leave the lectern, if you will, because I may ask you another question: I generally take a pretty dim view of rebuttal evidence because I've found that most of it -- I've found in practice over the years that most of it is not true rebuttal . And I point that Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR , CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7 out in some of my letters or orders, and, as a matter of fact, in my standard scheduling order or letter with that scheduling order, one or the other, I point out that rebuttal witnesses must be identified if known. Well, that's almost by definition that if they're known, they're not rebuttal witnesses. So I've always had a hard time with that. But this case was tried by Judge Wright, the first roughly half of evidentiary hearing on the issues before the Court now. She did reserve 30 minutes' rebuttal time. Truthfully, I'm inclined to agree that this doesn't sound like rebuttal, but out of an abundance of caution, since it's only 30 minutes, I'm going to allow these witnesses to be called, with these requirements: Number one, I'm going to require Mr. Walker to identify the documents -- are you prepared to do that now, Mr. Walker, exhibits, or would you rather do this by a pleading in the next -- by, say, Monday afternoon? MR. WALKER: A letter , your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Then by 4 p.m. Monday. MR. WALKER: Your Honor, before you finish, could you -- THE COURT: Let me finish, and then I'm going to let you have the floor again, Mr. Walker. MR . WALKER: All right. Thank you. THE COURT: By 4 p.m. Monday, identify the exhibits that you plan to address with Jones or Marshall. Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8 Number two , Mr. Heller , if you want to -- you can interview these people, I assume. If you can't interview them, I'll allow you to take a telephone deposition of them next week to prepare you to meet this rebuttal testimony. If you want to do that, notify Mr . Walker and me by 11 a.m. Monday , if you want to take their depositions as opposed to interviewing them. All right. If you don't have any other comments , Mr. Heller, Mr. Walker looks like he's going to swell up and burst if he doesn't get to say something else on this. MR. HELLER : There is just one thing , your Honor. think it's at least implicit in all of the orders, but we'll certainly have an opportunity for cross-examination. I' m not sure how that counts against our time in the overall process, but -- THE COURT: I'm going to be somewhere between Judge Woods and Judge Eisele on timing. I MR . HELLER: I think we'll have plenty left from our 20 hours, even if the cross-examination counts against us. THE COURT : All right. MR. WALKER : Well, your Honor, I have no objection to them interviewing these people, but Ms. Brown has always -- and the ODM , for the Court's benefit, has always taken the position that it's available to speak with either or both of the parties about any matter that they are related to. THE COURT : It looks to me like, Mr. Walker, you've Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 9 just won. Are you piling on now? MR. WALKER: No, sir. No, sir. All I'm saying no, sir. All I'm saying is that it's not an order that's necessary. I mean, they have that as a standing -- that's been longstanding in the district, as long as the ODM has been in the process. THE COURT: I 'm going to enter the order even if it ' s pure surplusage. MR. WALKER: All right. Now, with respect to the testimony, we will provide that. THE COURT : You mean the exhibits? MR. WALKER: The exhibits. THE COURT: Right. MR. WALKER: Your Honor, by way of background THE COURT : Let me - - I want to change that. If you want to depose them, I don't think you would, Mr . Heller, but if you do, let me know by -- let Mr. Walker and me know by 9 or 9:30, by 9:30 Tuesday morning, because you may not know until you see the exhibits. Go ahead, Mr. Walker. MR. WALKER: Your Honor, I hate to say this. The Court -- you indicated you were going to follow much of Judge Wright's process that she followed. She steadfastly refused to allow us to depose the ODM , which was part of her staff, as she said it, because that would, in effect, in a way be like Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 deposing an arm of the Court. And I would ask that the Court not enter an order requiring depositions but allowing instead for them to just have the interviews. Once you start doing that, then -- THE COURT: You know, that's a pretty good point. Let me hear from Mr. Heller on that. MR. WALKER: Okay. 10 MR. HELLER: Your Honor, as I'm sure the Court is aware, we raised an issue with Judge Wright concerning the role of the monitors in this case. THE COURT: Let me say something on that, and I'll try not to interrupt you too much, but I probably won't do a very good job since I have -- I'm a type A. When I assumed the case, I met with Ms. -- or was assigned the case, I met with Ms. Marshall, and we exchanged pleasantries right after I was appointed. We did not talk about the substance of the case in any way. After that, after thinking about it and after reviewing the file some and seeing what had been discussed, I asked a member of my staff to contact Ms. Marshall and advise her that all of our communications would be in writing. And I have had no further conversations with her, do not intend to. Everything will be in writing. And I can't imagine that I wouldn't share the whatever writings I send to her or she sends to me with counsel. So there will be no just out of an abundance of caution -- and I see the ODM as a fact- Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 11 gathering institution, and I'm going to use ODM in a different way than Judge Wright used the ODM, although I'm not criticizing or passing judgment on the way she used it. But if that helps you , that's -- I hope it does. But at any rate, that will be the relationship. MR. HELLER: And I think, your Honor, that addresses Mr. Walker's argument, because our position with Judge Wright is, the monitor's office is either more like a law clerk and cannot be deposed but can't testify either, or more of a fact gatherer and not so closely related to the Court that testimony would be prohibited. And Judge Wright allowed us to take Ann Marshall's deposition. We've done it once in anticipation of her testimony. So your ruling is entirely consistent with what Judge Wright had previously ordered . And in any event, I can say right now that if interviews can be arranged, I won't be asking for a deposition. I will be perfectly satisfied with an interview. But only in the event that we couldn't reach an agreement about arranging an interview THE COURT: Let me ask you this, Mr. Heller: Assuming you wanted to discuss conversations, you or Mr. Walker, either one, that Ms. Marshall had had with Judge Wright, I don't see how that would be relevant now that I'm the trier of fact. So that's something that I want to avoid being delved into if a deposition is allowed. MR . HELLER: I agree that would not be relevant. Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 - 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12 THE COURT: All right. Well, I'm going to flip-flop again. Y'all are going to give me a nervous breakdown. MR. WALKER: Don't do it yet. THE COURT : All right. I'll give Mr . Walker one last shot. MR. WALKER: This is not a subject that I asked that should be dealt with perhaps today. I think that the Court of Appeals was very clear about what it wanted monitoring to do. There was a special concurrence from Judge Wollman in the THE COURT: I'm familiar with that concurrence. MR. WALKER: -- that anticipated that monitoring would be conducted in a certain manner, and the manner t hat it was being conducted has, in effect, been approved by the Court of Appeals. Now , if it's to be changed, then I would certainly think that the Court ought to at least invite the positions of the parties in writing and a brief on the subject so that we -- THE COURT: On what subject? MR. WALKER: On the subject of the way the monitors should react or act with the Court. Recall in this situation, your Honor , there is a situation where once when Little Rock came to court and demonstrated that it was not aware of all the employees they had, even the total number and what t hey were doing and things like that, Judge Wright then gave the monitor's office a function that was to do an investigation a nd to do things, and then she had hearings on those things . The Christa R. Newburg , RMR, CRR , CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 13 role of the monitor is distinctly different from that of a party where orders are given and things -- so what we'd like to do is at least preserve that . In the field of desegregation law, monitors THE COURT : I'm not understanding what you're asking me to do. MR. WALKER: I'm asking that you do nothing to change the way that that office operates. Because if you say that you're going to -- THE COURT: I'm not changing the way, as far as I know. MR. WALKER: Even if you communicate with them and communicate with them each time in writing, I think that that's not something that should be necessarily -- THE COURT: Your objection is noted . Your exception is saved. You can file a motion for reconsideration if you want to, but I've made my mind up on that at this point, and you can file a motion and -- but don't do it with a great deal of optimism. But feel free to do it. MR. WALKER: Here's the reason I raise the issue -- THE COURT: I've decided on that issue, Mr. Walker. Put whatever objection you have in your motion for reconsideration. We need to move on to some other issues. MR. WALKER: Half a minute, please? THE COURT: Yes. Christa R. Newburg , RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 14 MR. WALKER: We have the matter of -- the ruling here necessarily has to apply to the other districts as well. THE COURT: Absolutely. MR. WALKER: We have the matters of Pulaski County that are still pending. There is no motion before the Court. The role of the monitor there would seem to be being limited by the Court's ruling now because THE COURT: Put that in your motion. MR. WALKER: All right, your Honor. All right. THE COURT: Thank you. All right. I want to remind the parties, I've said it several times in writing, and Judge Wright said it, but I want to remind you at the outset of that, we have three discrete issues left, and one of them is advanced placement courses, another is extracurricular activities, the third is guidance and counseling. And then, of course, we have good faith, but only as good faith applies to those one, two, three things that I just mentioned. And we have academic achievement on the table, but only as it relates to those three -- one, two, three issues. As Mr. Walker just noted, this applies to both sides with equal force. Now, as I have read the transcript, the issues tried to conclusion, and I emphasize the phrase \"to conclusion,\" by Judge Wright were lack of good faith under Section 2.1; two, improving African-American achievement, lack of good faith by the Little Rock School District; and, three, student Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 15 discipline. Now, those issues are closed. They've been tried to conclusion, save and except the 30 minutes for rebuttal which we will start the hearing a week from Monday with. All right. Now, I want to turn to Mr. Fendley's letter which was in response to the letter I got out about one o'clock yesterday. Let me find Mr. Fendley's letter. 11. It's dated July Now, on the first page, there's a reference to Joshua's witness list and a reference to Ms. Sharon Brooks. It appears to me that Mr. Walker's testimony would go to student discipline there. If that's true, I think it would be appropriate to object at the trial , but I don't know that I need to deal with it now. If anybody thinks I do, I'll hear from you. But if it does go to student discipline, I'm likely to exclude it at the trial. MR. WALKER: Your Honor, may I be heard? THE COURT: You may. MR. WALKER: Some of these matters overlap. A matter that may be related to student discipline may also relate to counseling. And I would say in this situation , the discipline part of this THE COURT: Related to guidance and counseling? MR. WALKER: Yes, sir. And the first part of it, where students collectively are punished for ringing an alarm by putting them in a room with an aide for two months where Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter -- --- - - - - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 there's no record of the discipline appears to be disciplinary. But at the same time, it certainly goes to the educational experience and the need for there to have been at least some counseling with respect to what those -- the educational needs of those children were and how they were being addressed. So we say that it has two purposes. The first, on discipline, though, has to relate -- you remember, you've seen the records. They have disciplinary records showing students who are suspended for this, this, and this. Normal discipline relations, those kinds of things. But putting kids in a room where they -- where there's no record of it clearly is discipline, but it is also something else. THE COURT: I'm going to think about that issue. I'm inclined to think that relates directly to discipline, but I'll think about it and we'll take it up at the trial. I'll let Mr. Heller address it right now, briefly, if he wishes to. MR. HELLER: Thank you, your Honor. I would just like to point out that at the last hearing, Mr. Walker argued that this was a discipline issue, and he presented evidence about it and argued about it and argued precisely what he just told the Court, that this is -- this situation, he alleges, was a way to avoid the recorded discipline statistics but was nonetheless discipline. I think it's going to be easy for him to say anytime something happened to any student at any time in the district, whether it relates to academic achievement or Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 some issue that's already been litigated, oh, by the way, they missed some counseling or could have been counseled otherwise. But I don't think that draws it into the scope of any legitimate objection he might have about guidance and counseling. THE COURT: Mr. Walker, you're on the downside of this issue. If you want to submit a trial brief to me to try to get me in a right frame of mind, in your view, by trial day, do a - - and this applies to either side. If you want to do another trial brief, get it to me by noon Wednesday of next week. By noon Wednesday. And I will guarantee you I will if it's not too long, I will have read your brief and your citations of authorities, if you will avoid string cites. string cites, I read only the first one and sometimes the second one. On Now we come to exhibits not directly related. And I think some of them have been withdrawn and so forth, but -- all right. Let's go to No. 746. MR. HELLER: Your Honor, there was one other witness mentioned in Mr. Fendley's letter, and that's Ethel Dunbar. THE COURT: Yes . Yes. I don't believe that -- it's my opinion, and, again , you can put this in the trial brief, Mr. Walker, if you think I am wrong-headed on this issue, that what -- it looks like what Ethel Dunbar would testify to goes to the gifted and talented issue, as far as I'm concerned. Christa R. Newburg , RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18 That's not on the table. If you want to persuade me otherwise, you can put it in the trial brief. Let's go to the exhibits now. 746. I'm having a hard time reading my -- what is 746, Mr. Walker? Why don't you just hand me a copy of it so I can look at it? MR. WALKER: Your Honor -- THE COURT: Does the school district have a copy you can hand me? MR. HELLER: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: If you've got any of your inked annotations on there, I don't want to see them. MR. HELLER: I've got a circle and an underline. THE COURT: I promise not to accept your emphasis. MR. WALKER: Your Honor, we have given you our copy, a copy of it. THE COURT: I just don't have it out here with me, and I just -- I need to look at something. MR. WALKER: This one has been MR. FENDLEY: Here you go. MR. HELLER: We'll give you Mr. Fendley's copy, which is merely highlighted. sure. MR. WALKER: Is this the new number given by your -THE COURT: I think this is the old number. I'm not MR. HELLER: That's correct, your Honor. Our Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 objections use the old numbers. THE COURT: 746. All right. I'm working my way over. Mr. Walker, if you'll approach the lectern. Are you telling me you don't have a copy either, Mr. Walker? MR. WALKER: No, no. We have a copy, but we have taken the old exhibits -- after your courtroom deputy told us the new numbers, we changed them. 19 THE COURT: Okay. I'll give you time to get your sea legs. MR. WALKER: What is now 747 was 746. I don't understand the objection. THE COURT: All right. I'll have him state his objection then. Mr. Heller -- why don't you stand aside, Mr. Walker, and let him state his objection. MR. WALKER: All right. MR. HELLER: Your Honor, our objection is that Exhibit 746, using the old number, relates to ALT testing and not to any of the issues before the Court for next week. MR. WALKER: Your Honor, if you look at that exhibit, we're looking at the way the district has referred to the numbers that are related -- I don't see anything in 746 in the middle of the page which happens to be -- and I stand to be corrected, the e-mail from Babbs to Kathy Lease. THE COURT: You're going to have to I'm computer illiterate, Mr. Walker. You're going to have to quote the Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 language. I can't tell on e-mails from who to what unless it's written on there. MR. WALKER: Mr. Babbs, your Honor, is the person responsible for monitoring desegregation compliance. THE COURT: And he sent something to Kathy Lease. MR. WALKER: It apparently comes from Babbs to Lease. THE COURT: Right. MR. WALKER: And the third paragraph says, \"It would be appropriate to list current data that is available. Be reminded that when writing materials for our report submission, we will include district-wide numbers. We may not be there yet , but this will help serve as an indicator of established baseline information from which we will jump off.\" Now, this relates to, your Honor, the data that relates to pre-AP and AP courses, along with some other data, but it will be related to testimony regarding advanced placement. It also will be related to extracurricular activities. So you' 11 understand the concept, when you've got two black schools, McClellan and Fair, for all practical purposes, when you lump the extracurricular participation from those schools with the other schools, it gives a picture of real inclusivity. If you take it out, it may not. When you lump the -- when you do a lumping process, we're saying that it gives a false picture. There was an intent here, and this goes -- this is an intent, it goes to good faith, an intent to make a presentation Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 of a reality that did not exist. THE COURT: All right . Mr. Heller? MR. HELLER: Your Honor, Mr. Walker's explanation shows why this exhibit should be excluded. When we objected to it, their response was that it was related to extracurricular activities. Now the first thing that he said was that it's related to advanced placement and pre-advanced placement. It's not related to any of those things. It's related to testing and the compilation of documents. It doesn't have anything specifically to do with any of the issues before the Court. Mr. Walker has now given the Court two different explanations of how it relates, none of which can be shown from the face of the exhibit. THE COURT: All right. I don't believe I need briefs on this one . I will do a letter order ruling on that forthwith. Mark No. 746 down and remind me so I don't -- with the other issues involved so I get right on it. I think it's already been noted, but I want to re-note it. It's now 747 under the new numbering system. All right. 754. Mr. Walker, will you comment on 754? MR. WALKER: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Which now is what? MR. WALKER: It should be 755, if I'm not mistaken. MR. PRESSMAN: Sarne number. Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT : Ms. Johnson? THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: 754 is an e-mail dated April 18, '01. Is that the one you're 22 MR. WALKER: Yes . That's at the bottom of the page, your Honor, on that document. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: It is still 754. That number did not change. THE COURT: All right . 754 is the same. All right. What's your explanation as to why this is admissible? MR. WALKER: This relates to AP and other subjects, and the last paragraph of it says, and this is from Kathy Lease to Bonnie Lesley: \"High school preliminary results have been returned to Parkview and Fair.\" THE COURT: Wait just a minute. I'm not with you. Where are you reading from? MR. WALKER: Bottom paragraph. THE COURT: Bottom paragraph. All right. Now I'm with you. MR. WALKER: \"McClellan's results are here and are being scored. Central and Hall have not turned in their answer sheets yet. All makeups were to have been completed by this past Monday. Retests for high schools are due back on Friday. The first page of the parent report can be printed, but we can't print the longitudinal report for parents unless all high schools are in.\" Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And this relates to AP courses. This, your Honor, is relevant in part because the date is noted, April 18. The report that was submitted that is before the Court is dated March 15 of the next -- of the same year. So this was less than 30 days, and they don't have the data in that related to AP courses on the longitudinal basis. THE COURT: On what basis? MR. WALKER: Longitudinal. THE COURT: You know, I've seen longitudinal basis throughout this thing. What does that mean? MR. WALKER: Over time. Looking at things in a broader perspective rather than in a single snapshot year. THE COURT: I'm pleased to be informed. Mr. Heller? 23 MR. HELLER: Your Honor, in the same way, anything that has to do with discipline can be said to relate to counseling; anything that has to do with any testing in the district can be said to relate to advanced placement because some of the students tested, obviously, will be advanced placement students. But the exhibit doesn't say anything about how the district implemented its obligations under the revised plan concerning advanced placement . to do with that at all. It doesn't have anything THE COURT: later than Monday. I'll rule by letter perhaps today, no Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 All right. Let's go to 771. MR. WALKER: Your Honor THE COURT: That is the letter to Mr . James Washington from Ms. Springer, is it not? MR. WALKER: Yes. Your Honor, this is from Ms. Springer to Mr. James yes. This is now Exhibit 769. THE COURT: Let me check that. 771? Not that I doubt your veracity, but you could make a mistake on numbers, so I want to check it with Ms. Johnson. 2/28? THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Yes. 769 is a letter dated MR. WALKER: Yes. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Yes. 769. THE COURT: Thank you . MR. WALKER: Your Honor, this deals with extracurricular activities, and it's pretty clear, and the issue here relates to the district -- whether Little Rock has any responsibility THE COURT: In other words, you're offering this in rebuttal only? 24 MR. WALKER: No, this goes to extracurricular activities and good faith, because here we have a child who is in the Little Rock School District but who under M to M goes to Oak Grove. The child was not allowed to participate, we contend, in the activities at that school for racial reasons or Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 for retaliatory reasons. And I think the letter sort of speaks for itself . THE COURT: Well, why would -- on what ground would it be admissible? Is Ms . Springer going to be a witness? MR. WALKER: Well, your Honor, it shows, first of all , Mr. Washington, Mr. Washington is an agent of the district. THE COURT : I think that's a fair assessment , but he didn ' t write the letter. MR . WALKER: Well, there will be a person who will testify regarding that, who is Mr. Junious Babbs. Mr. Babbs was Mr. Washington's supervisor. The letter went to Mr . Babbs as well, so Mr. Babbs will be in a position to address the issue. THE COURT: What will he say? MR. WALKER : He will say what the district did in response to this , which was basically to do nothing. Just a moment . Let me make sure. Yes. He will basically say that the district did nothing . And remember, your Honor , the M to Ms from Little Rock going out are black. The ones coming in from the county are mostly white . THE COURT: All right. Mr. Heller? MR. HELLER : We have two points about 769, your Honor . The first is that it clearly involves, quote, Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR , CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 retaliatory treatment by Pulaski County School District officials, not Little Rock officials, and, secondly, that it's among the exhibits Joshua listed as being offered, although hearsay, as notice to the Little Rock School District. I think it might fall within the Court's ruling when we deal with the notice argument. But if you look at Joshua's response, I think this exhibit is among those that they say is being offered solely to show notice to somebody . Of course, we're going to argue when the time comes that that's not relevant. THE COURT: All right . Mr. Walker, what about the fact that this is not the LRSD? MR. WALKER: That it's not what? THE COURT: Concerning the -- he just said -- MR . WALKER: Well, it is concerning the LRSD. This is a student from the Little Rock School District. They don't lose responsibility for their students merely because they go to the county. THE COURT: Wait a minute. Wait a minute . The student was in the Pulaski County -- Oak Grove High School is in the Pulaski County Special School District. MR . WALKER: Your Honor, there is or was an agreement between the county and the city district as to how the desegregation plan would be operated . And the M to M provisions also have special rules . We would not have written this letter to Mr. Washington without a purpose. Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter It may not be 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 independent, but when we talked to Mr . Babbs about the way Little Rock students are treated in terms of extracurricular activities in general, we think that it is appropriate for us to be able to make reference to this in refreshi ng his recollection about the manner in which they have done . I acknowledge to you that it is not direct proof . I mean, a letter from Ms. Springer, who is not a witness, who is not THE COURT: I'm dubious, Mr. Walker, but I'll study it . MR. WALKER: All right. MR. HELLER: May I say one more thing? THE COURT: Surely . MR . HELLER : I ' d like to address Mr. Walker's 27 argument about the majority to minority transfer provisions. This student was a Little Rock student in the Pulaski County School District on an M to M transfer. The M to M stipulation clearly states that when a student transfers, he becomes a student of the receiving district for all purposes. So I don't want the Court to be left with an impression that there ' s some lingering responsibility or that the M to M stipulation is not clear about that . THE COURT : Thank you . All right . Let's go to 77 -what was 773 . Ms. Johnson, tell us what 773 is now . THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: 773 is a letter dated 10/10/2000 to Les Carnine from Joy Springer. Christa R. Newburg , RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT : No, 773 under the old numbering system was an August 28, 2000, letter from Ms. Springer to Mr. Ray Gillespie. THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: All right. Then that is 771 now. THE COURT: It's now 771. All right. Mr. Walker, tell me about this one . 28 MR. WALKER: This one regards a child who was choked by a teacher, by a coach. This relates to extracurricular activity. It also, in our opinion, relates to -- when we present Mr. Gillespie, it will also relate to the district's good faith in the manner in which they address the issue. THE COURT: Mr. Heller? MR. HELLER: Your Honor, one of the things that's always been excluded from this case is any individual issue concerning a personnel matter or a student matter. THE with that in MR. MR. Overton? THE MR. THE MR. COURT: I believe Judge Overton kind his decision several years ago. HELLER: Yes, your Honor. WALKER: Just a moment, your Honor. COURT: Yes . WALKER: In this case? COURT: No, I believe - - WALKER: Judge Overton hasn't been Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR , CCR United States Court Reporter in of dealt Judge this case. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29 THE COURT: Beg your pardon? No, Judge Woods and Judge Wright. Judge Overton dealt with the issue of isolated instances of misconduct. Go ahead. MR. HELLER: Your Honor, here it's just clearly not related to the district's implementation of the extracurricular requirements. If it were a teacher, it would obviously be totally outside the scope of this hearing, and just the fact that someone who happens to be a coach was involved in this incident doesn't bring it within the scope, since it's simply an isolated incident concerning an individual complaint. THE COURT: I'm inclined to agree. I agree it's bad, but I'll decide later and put it in my letter. MR. WALKER: Just a minute. Just a minute. We've only highlighted a few things, and we intend to show through either Mrs . Lacey or Mr. Babbs that there were numbers of these cases that suggested it's simply not an isolated incidence. This is extracurricular activity, and we're seeking to show how black kids are treated, and this is simply there to remind Mrs. Lacey or others of what has taken place. Now, in terms of -- as I understand desegregation law, you're not likely to have the same situation repeated with respect to children, but when you put together a number or at least a sufficient number of similar situations, then the -- at least the response of the district to those similar situations Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 is instructive as to whether the district is in compliance and in good faith. THE COURT: It may boil down to how many you have. If you had 10,000 of them -- and I realize that's extreme, but it may boil down to how many you have. And I'll rule by letter. MR. WALKER: All right. Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. And, incidentally, if I exclude any of these, I want the record to reflect here and now that you have a continuing objection to excluding them. They'll be made a part of the record, and your objection will be noted and your exception saved. All right. Let's go to 775 under the old system. What is it now? THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: It is now 773. A letter dated 10/10/2000 to Les Carnine from Joy Springer? THE COURT: Yes. Mr. Walker, don't we have the same thing here? MR. WALKER: Well, it's different, your Honor. Here the history of the school district has been that if a child was in the ninth grade, even though in junior high school, he or she could participate in the varsity athletic programs at the senior high school . So if a child happened to be enrolled at Forest Heights in the ninth grade, that child was eligible to participate in, say, the football program at Hall or wherever Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 31 he would be attending. When the school district converted to a middle school program, the school district decided not to let ninth graders continue to participate in sports programs in the same way it had in the past, and this had a discriminatory impact because most of the children who participated in football and basketball were black. Now, those children could -- those children could still participate in other activities, but some of the other academic-type activities were differently constituted. So this letter, if you look at the middle of it, you'll see Ms. Springer's comment to Dr. Carnine. Mr. Gillespie reported to Mr. Winston and me that there existed documentation which communicated to all parents the district's position regarding ninth grade participation on varsity teams for the 2000-2001 school year. Now, this is again not direct evidence -- and I think that much of this comes from experience, not direct evidence, but we have a witness, your Honor, that we have identified that will be discussing the issue. THE COURT: Who is that? MR. WALKER: That would be Mr. Gillespie. It could also be Mrs. Lacey, Dr . Lacey, or Mr. Babbs, because each of them had responsibility for extracurricular activity. THE COURT: All right. Mr. Heller? Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 32 MR. HELLER: Your Honor, the Little Rock School District is a majority black school district, and everything we do is going to affect more African-American kids than other kids. This situation, according to Mr. Walker's argument, is something that affected all students . It wasn't something that targeted black students or targeted this particular student. But, again , it looks like an individual complaint, but the complaint is about something that had general application and doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the Little Rock School District is ensuring there aren't any barriers to participation by qualified African-American students in extracurricular activities. THE COURT: You know, I was just thinking, I wish the rules of ninth graders participating in senior high athletics had applied in 1954 when I was in the ninth grade. We finished the junior high year and they moved three or four of us up to the senior high team, and we had some young teenagers competing against grown men, to our physical detriment. prohibited it back in those days. I wish they had MR. HELLER: That brings up another point. It's really the Arkansas Activities Association that determines who is eligible to participate in this, rather than the school district. THE COURT: What I would prefer for my bones I don't think would have a bearing on the constitutional issues here. Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 - 25 I will rule on this one , too. MR. additional on WALKER: that. Your Honor, let me say something The plan before you -- 33 THE COURT: You're still referring to what ' s old 775? MR. WALKER : Yes, sir. THE COURT : All right. MR. WALKER: The plan before you commits the school district to encouraging participation by African-American students . THE COURT: It does. MR. WALKER: All right . THE COURT : All right. 780 . Old 780 . Ms . Johnson , what is that under our new system? THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: 775. An e-mail dated 5/25/01 from Bonnie Lesley to Debbie Barry, page 258? THE COURT: A letter from Ms . Springer to Mr. Washington? No. Hang on just a minute. I've got the wrong -- what did you say it is, Ms. Johnson? THE COURTROOM DEPUTY : The old 780? THE COURT : Yes . THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Is now 775 , an e-mail dated 05/25/01 from Bonnie Lesley to Debbie Barry. THE COURT: Hum. From who? THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: From Bonnie Lesley. THE COURT: To whom? Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 34 THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Debbie Barry. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Mr. Walker? MR. WALKER: All right. Just a moment. Now, this is May 25, 2001, after the report of March 15. This is submitted -- it relates to something beyond middle school evaluation. All right. Well, let me explain. We may have misspoken about this one. I think that Mr. Jodie Carter will be talking about the Plato labs. It would be our position that the Plato labs were working to try to at least help students at McClellan, where they needed the most. So the first part of this exhibit, your Honor, and we may have misspoken there, relates to the Plato labs. Now, it's not presented here as an exhibit that we plan to introduce . It is one that we will make use of when Dr. Lesley testifies, and also when Mr. Jodie Carter testifies. THE COURT: Tell me how, for example, when Lesley testifies, how you will make use of it. MR. WALKER: Well, I may not even use it. If she talks about the Plato labs and gives the Court some idea of what the Plato labs were intended to accomplish and whether they were stopped, and if the testimony does not reflect a need to use this, then we won't. This is basically to refresh one's recollection more than anything else, but if I understood the Court's directive, if we plan to make almost any kind of use of any of these things, we should at least let the other side know Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 about it in advance . These are not -- hopefully not putting things in to be admitted because not everything that we put here will necessarily be admitted, your Honor. We may make some reference to them. THE COURT: Well, I'm not going to require you to offer evidence, Mr. Walker. I'm going to absent unusual 35 circumstances, if you offer evidence, I'll rule on it if there's an objection . But I'm not requiring you, just because you list something as an exhibit or a witness, I'm not requiring you to call a witness or to put an exhibit in. I'll see if Mr. Heller wants to respond t o that. Mr . Heller, do you have any response to that? So MR. HELLER: Your Honor, Mr. Walker listed this as something for -- related to guidance and counseling. He said he may have misspoken. Maybe that's what he was referring to. But his explanation didn't say anything about guidance and counseling. In the Plato labs, Dr. Lesley's testimony will be about advanced placement courses and THE COURT: You're talking faster than I'm hearing. MR. HELLER: I'm sorry. Dr. Lesley's testimony will be about advanced placement, and the Plato labs don't have anything to do with that. That's a self-paced program that was being used to help students do some makeup work. Mr. Walker said Jodie Carter will testify about what happened at McClellan. This exhibit has to do with Dr. Lesley's knowledge Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 - 25 36 of the existence of a Plato lab at Central. So it doesn't even tie in with that. THE COURT: Well, you know, I've only got so many rulings in me, so I think I'll wait and see if this comes up before I rule. Mr. Walker has indicated that it may not be tendered. I don't want to waste a ruling. MR. WALKER: Your Honor, part of what we have here is Dr. Lesley's testimony that they're trying to get all these kids into pre-AP and AP courses, and the Plato lab is one of those things where -- which they put into place to get these kids who are way behind into a status where they may be able to succeed in AP courses, once placed there. That's why we wanted to address it. But I think, your Honor, if you could just defer on this, it would probably serve, as many of them, your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Let's go, I believe, 786, the old 786. What is that now, Ms. Johnson? THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: 778, a memo dated 2/24/99 to Gayle Bradford from James Washington. THE COURT: All right. Mr. Walker, I'll hear from you on that. MR. HELLER: Your Honor, if I may be heard first, we'd like to withdraw our objection to that exhibit. what? THE COURT: All right. Let's go to 802, which is now Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 37 THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: 794-A, deposition of school board member Sue Strickland. THE COURT: All right. Here is what I'm -- 794-A, I'm going to require designations, Mr. Walker, on what portions of those depositions you intend to use, and I'm going to require counterdesignations by the -- in response to those by LRSD. How long do you need to get the designations in? MR. WALKER: Just a moment, your Honor. Your Honor, we have listed Ms. Strickland as a witness as well. We've submitted her deposition in part so that if it becomes necessary, it can be used to refresh her recollection on a matter that she addressed regarding the three subjects that she is related to. It may not be necessary to put it in. Now, I expect, among other things, for her to say that she did not find the superintendent of schools, Dr. Carnine, to be a credible person. And also I intend to show either a knowledge or lack of knowledge regarding the plan as it relates to those sections, especially AP courses and things like that. THE COURT: In other words, you're not going to use the deposition as evidence by getting up and saying, I'm going to read now from the deposition of someone? MR. WALKER: No, sir . THE COURT: You're not? MR. WALKER: That's not my intent. The depositions that we have identified are depositions of persons that we have Christa R. Newburg , RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 also identified as witnesses. THE COURT: All right. MR. WALKER: We took more depositions and did not identify all those persons. 38 THE COURT: Let me say this: I would likely exclude the reading from a deposition if there haven't been designations done, if you do it without -- I realize for impeachment or refreshing memory, I don't see anything wrong with that, but just to get up cold and read them, as you normally can do if a party or principal of a party is -- you have a deposition of one of those people under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as the Rules of Evidence, but I think I understand you to say that these depositions that are referenced in 802, which is now 794-A, you're not going to offer them outright, but you're going to use them for impeachment or refreshing recollection, if necessary. a fair statement? Is that MR. WALKER: If necessary, or will designate at some time in sufficient time for the district to be on notice the portions THE COURT : Designate by 5 p.m. on Monday. MR. WALKER: Let us have until Wednesday, your Honor. You ' re giving us different dates. If you give us until Wednesday on everything, I think that would -- THE COURT: They've got to counterdesignate, I think Christa R. Newburg, RMR , CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 39 is the problem. MR. WALKER: Well, in terms of that, it's not -- it's only 15 or -- this deposition in substance is only 30 pages. THE COURT: I'll compromise with you. 5 p.m. on Tuesday. MR. WALKER: Maybe we can get everything in by Tuesday on our side, and then the district would have a day or two. THE COURT: I'll have them do it by Thursday. Anything you plan to read, have your designations in by 5 p.m. Tuesday. MR. WALKER: That's fine, your Honor. THE COURT: And counterdesignations by LRSD should be in by 5 p.m. Thursday of next week. All right. Let's take about a ten- or 15-minute recess. I'm going to borrow these exhibits, if you don't mind, during the recess. I'm going to take another look at them. We're in recess. Be at ease . (Recess at 9:26 a.m. , until 9:50 a.m.) THE COURT: I appreciate y'all's patience, if you had any. You're dealing with a slow learner, so it may take a little longer for me to studify. Put a \"sic\" after the \"studify\" so the Eighth Circuit won't think I didn't know any better. Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 40 All right. Let's -- by the way, there's been several references to ALP testing. Mr. Walker, can you explain that to me? Come to the lectern here. MR. WALKER: Your Honor, it's ALT. THE COURT : ALT . Okay. MR. WALKER: Alternative learning tests. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. MR. WALKER: Wait a minute. Achievement learning -- level test. Okay. I'm sorry. Achievement level test. I'm sorry. THE COURT: Thank you. I can't resist telling a story. When my law students would finish class over at the law school here, I'd give them a certificate certifying they were a WTP, a Wilson-trained person. And I had one of my former students on the stand one time before Judge Eisele, and I asked, \"Is it true you are a certified WTP?\" And Judge Eisele immediately said, \"What's that? 11 Well, I had one before another judge whose name I won't mention, and I said, \"Are you a certified WTP?\" And that person said, \"I certainly am,\" and that judge never asked a question, just went on. I was kind of that way about ALT. I was kind of embarrassed because it had been referred to, but I now know and I'm glad. Let's talk about No. 791. Mr. Walker? MR. WALKER: Yes, sir. Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 41 THE COURT: What is that number now , Ms . Johnson? THE COURTROOM DEPUTY : The old 791 is now 783, a memo dated 5/3/99 regarding visit -- THE COURT: No, I'm looking at an agenda dated May 4, 1998. Is that what -- MR. HELLER: Your Honor, that ' s the second page of the exhibit, as I've got it. THE COURT: Oh , that's right. Okay. So 791 is now what? 783? THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Yes, yes. THE COURT: Mr. Walker, I assume you read my letter of yesterday. MR. WALKER: Yes. THE COURT : In which I , in effect, said I was impressed with what you said, but uninformed . So you need to tell me what you meant there . Do you want to authenticate pages 2 and 3? MR. WALKER: Let's see. The first page is the agenda of a meeting that took place on May 4 , 1998, and the second page are the notes of Ms . Springer regarding the meeting with Mrs. Elston before that meeting . THE COURT : If you will, keep your voice up a little. I'm a little hard of hearing . MR . WALKER: I'm sorry, your Honor. THE COURT : I don't -- my second page is entitled -- Christa R. Newburg , RMR , CRR , CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 also entitled \"agenda ,\" got \"secondary counselors' workshop,\" and I don't see any notes here by anybody. MR. WALKER: Just a moment. Let me visit with Mr. Heller a moment. THE COURT: Surely. 42 MR. WALKER: All right. Your Honor, I understand we may have them out of order . We have the same pages. The first page will be -- THE COURT: You'll need to get to the lectern here so my secret agents can hear you. MR. WALKER: The first page would be the May 3, 1999, visit to Little Rock School District's Administration and Pupil Services Building by Ms. Springer. THE COURT: All right. MR. WALKER: And the second would be the agenda. THE COURT: All right. MR. WALKER: And the third would be -- it would have time lines and pre-college counseling. THE COURT: All right. MR. WALKER: And conclusions and recommendations. And these exhibits will go to the counseling subject that Mrs. Elston will be testifying about. THE COURT: Mr. Heller, let me hear from you. MR. HELLER: Your Honor, our objection goes to the first page, which is dated May 3, 1999, Ms. Springer's notes. Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 43 They're hearsay. And she is now listed as a witness to testify in this proceeding. THE COURT: What's your replication to that, Mr. Walker? MR. WALKER: This is not an evidentiary exhibit. only becomes one in the event that Mrs. Elston testifies a It particular way. But I think that what we're using, what we're showing here, your Honor, is that there are certain things that we were informed of with respect to the counseling program. The counseling -- and that preceded the meeting regarding counseling by one day. And then there is another exhibit that relates to it. So when we examine Mrs. Elston or when anyone examines Mrs. Elston, we'll be able to demonstrate that at least some of these things that she said were in place to enhance counseling services were at least discussed at some point or another. She should have good information or at least she ought to be able to give competent information regarding these subjects because she will acknowledge, we believe, that she did have this meeting with Ms. Springer. THE COURT: I'll rule on that if it becomes relevant during the trial. MR. WALKER: Thank you. THE COURT: Let's look -- well, as a matter of fact, let me say this about the documents: I had indicated I was Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 44 going to rule by a letter. I'm going to remind y'all of that judge that we all hear about that had a seven-year-old son that he hadn't named yet because he couldn't make up his mind. I will try not to be that way, but I'm going to flip-flop. I'm not going to rule pretrial on the exhibits we've covered. I'm going to wait until we get to the trial. There may be some nuances in the testimony that might cause me to go a different direction, so I'm going to all those exhibits we covered earlier, I'm going to wait until the trial to rule on them when they're offered, and I'll allow you at the trial to make rifle-shot arguments for or against the admission, depending on which side you're on. Let's move now I need to find Mr. Walker's letter here. Refer, if you will, to paragraph seven of Mr. Walker's letter. By the way, if you send letters to me, please also send the original to the clerk, all of you. The clerk has a rule that they don't like filing copies. I don't understand that rule, but who am I to argue with the clerk? All right. Paragraph seven, Mr. Walker, you don't need to address that because I'm on your side. You don't want to turn me around. Mr. Heller, as I recall, Judge Wright said that anything post March 15 wouldn't be admissible. As a matter of fact, I think she gave you an A and B option, and you didn't like either one of them, objected to both of them, but said if you Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 45 had to choose between the devil and the deep blue sea, that you'd take B. So I'm not going to exclude these witnesses, but I caution you that I'm going to stand by Judge Wright's ruling that unless there's some powerful reason not to do so, that March 15 is the cutoff. Because that's when you said, we're unitary. MR. HELLER: Your Honor, that's an issue I'd like to address briefly. Judge Wright's ruling, and I've got the October 2 transcript where she made the ruling, which was followed by an order the following day, was based on Judge Wright's decision that the issue in the case was only whether or not our March 15 compliance report was accurate. And for that reason, she said we' ve got to show her -- since we said we complied as of March 15, that we've got to show her whether or not that ' s true and that that's the issue. But I think there's a somewhat broader issue in the case, and that's whether or not we substantially complied with the plan, the term of which ran through the end of that school year, beyond March 15. And there could also certainly be evidence that substantial compliance was had even if some aspects of it came even after the school year, let alone after March 15. So we had understood and hoped, your Honor, that the issues in the proceeding would be actually the Little Rock School District's substantial compliance with its desegregation plan and not limited to whether or not the March 15 compliance Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 46 report was accurate . I would like to tell the Court one thing about that compliance report. We could have and perhaps THE COURT: I don't see the issue as being whether that report is accurate in the sense of whether you've got a typo in it or not; it's whether or not you were in compliance as of that date. MR. HELLER: Well, but, your Honor, the plan requires substantial compliance , and the term of the plan ran through at least June. THE COURT : Three years. MR. HELLER: Right. So, you know, we could end up in a situation -- if we don't consider the entire term of the plan, we could end up in a situation where we could determine compliance as of March 15 and then come back and have to have another proceeding about whether we came into compliance by June or July. THE COURT: That's a distinct possibility, and I'll run that risk. I'm going to put what you've said just now under the heading of going down hard, but I'm going to stick with the March 15 deadline. Your objection to my ruling is noted and your exception is saved. Anything else we need to take up? I appreciate y'all's time. Apparently there is. MR. HELLER: I'm sorry, your Honor. With respect to your ruling that you would decide the exhibits at trial, did Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 47 that include the exhibits that are listed as rebuttal exhibits? Because we're still -- we've still got an argument that none of those relate to the rebuttal testimony. THE COURT: It does include those. I realize you object to them and say they're not rebuttal. It does not apply to the deposition designation, though. That's 80 -- whatever it is. I want designations and counterdesignations on the depositions. All right. Mr. Jones? You're familiar with the old adage that the quacking duck gets shot, aren't you? MR. SAM JONES: Absolutely, your Honor, so I'll try to bob and weave. I just wondered if the Court had a sense or a preference, having listened to the Court narrow down the issues, as to whether or not the Court desires my presence during Little Rock's unitary hearings, Mr. Steve Jones or anyone else, perhaps even including Mr. Roachell, who certainly can speak for himself. THE COURT: Well, you know, I'm highly reluctant to give an advisory opinion on that because what if some witness gets up and just volunteers something that's highly damaging to your client and you're not here? I mean, I'm a little bit at a loss to -- I would like to excuse you and tell you to go about your way because that will narrow the number of lawyers as well as the issues. But I'm a little chary of doing that. Let me hear from the other lawyers whether they think they Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 need to be here, and then I'll hear from Mr. Heller and ; Mr. Walker, whether they want you here or not, and then I'll answer your question. How is that for a deal? MR. SAM JONES: That's a deal, your Honor. THE COURT: All right. MR. STEVE JONES: Well, your Honor, I don't know about need, but I do plan on being here. My experience has been that your concern is sometimes warranted, that issues arise that affect the other school districts when the basic issue before the Court at that point in time has not -- THE COURT: You're going to be here. That's fine. MR. STEVE JONES: So I plan on being here. 48 MR. ROACHELL: Your Honor, quack. I will also be here. The testimony -- I just need to keep up with the case, and the testimony occasionally presents an opportunity to cross-examine within the scope of my intervention. Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. All right. Mr. Walker or Mr. Heller, do y'all have a position? If you don't, you're not required to speak. I take it by your failing to rise that you do not. All right. What says -- MR. SAM JONES: If the Court could give me the latitude, your Honor, to kind of feel my way along, be here at the beginning, and if the Court wouldn't be offended if I sense that my time could be best served elsewhere for particular Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 parts of the proceeding, I guess if I could go in and out and not offend the Court, that would be my preference. THE COURT: I won't make a commitment to you that I won't get offended , but I won't get offended by that. I will make that commitment. MR. SAM JONES: All right. 49 THE COURT: All right. I appreciate y'all being here on short notice. This is an important case. Y'all obviously realize that. We'll get the trial started. You've got deadlines for next week, and we'll get the trial started a week from Monday and conclude it that week, providence being willing, and then we'll have the findings of facts and conclusions of law. Sometime in August has been set for that. And I plan on ruling in the case well before the first killing frost. We're in recess. (Proceedings adjourned at 10:08 a.m.) C E R T I F I C A T E foregoing is a correct transcript from he above-entitled matter. Date: July 16, 2002 rista Newburg, United States Court Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter    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_1380","title":"Proceedings: ''Transcript of Hearing''","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":["2002-07-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School integration","School management and organization","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Transcript of Hearing''"],"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/1380"],"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":["legal documents"],"dcterms_extent":["74 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"nge_ngen_katharine-du-pre-lumpkin-1897-1988","title":"Katharine Du Pre Lumpkin (1897-1988)","collection_id":"nge_ngen","collection_title":"New Georgia Encyclopedia","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["Romine, Scott"],"dc_date":["2002-07-09"],"dcterms_description":["Encyclopedia article about Katharine Du Pre Lumpkin who spent a lifetime studying and combating economic and racial oppression as a sociologist, activist, teacher, and writer. She is best known for her autobiography, The Making of a Southerner. The attended Brenau College in Gainesville, Columbia University in New York, and the University of Wisconsin. She served as the national student secretary for the YWCA's southern region and worked at several colleges throughout the country.","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":["Women social reformers--United States","Women teachers--United States","Women authors--United States"],"dcterms_title":["Katharine Du Pre Lumpkin (1897-1988)"],"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/katharine-du-pre-lumpkin-1897-1988/"],"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: \"Katharine Du Pre Lumpkin (1897-1988),\" New Georgia Encyclopedia. Retrieved [date]: http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org."],"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["articles"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Lumpkin, Katharine Du Pre, 1897-1988"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1336","title":"Proceedings: ''Telephone Conference''","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":["2002-07-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Telephone Conference''"],"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/1336"],"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":["legal documents"],"dcterms_extent":["198 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1742","title":"District Court, plaintiff's motion in Limine.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"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":["2002-07-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock School District","Joshua intervenors","School employees","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","School integration","School administrators"],"dcterms_title":["District Court, plaintiff's motion in Limine."],"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/1742"],"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":["320 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\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eThis transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE RECEIVED JUL - 8 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Motion in Limine states: 1. May 15 Order: Joshua's Witness List. On May 15, 2002, the Court ordered the parties on or before June 21, 2002 to \"identify the name of each of their witnesses, the date and - time each witness will be called, and the anticipated time it will take for direct examination of each witness. A detailed statement must be included of each witnesses anticipated testimony on each issue the witness will address.\" Order filed May 15, 2002, p. 2 ( emphasis in original). Joshua's witness list is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. As can be seen, Joshua failed to comply with the Court's order in every respect. Upon information and belief, Joshua has not even contacted many of the individuals identified to discuss their appearing at the hearing and testifying, and Joshua has no intention of calling all of the witnesses identified. The LRSD moves in limine that Joshua be ordered on or before 5:00 p.m. on July 10, 2002 to identify the date and time on which each witness will be called, to identify the issue(s) on which each witness is expected to testify and to provide a detailed statement of the witnesses' expected testimony on each issue. The LRSD further requests that Joshua be precluded from calling any witness for which it fails to provide this information on or before 5 :00 p.m. on July 10, 2002. Finally, the LRSD asks that Joshua be instructed to only identify witnesses that it has interviewed and confirmed their availability for the hearing. 2. May 15 Order: Joshua's Exhibits. On May 15, 2002, the Court also ordered the parties to exchange pre-marked exhibits on or before June 21 , 2002. The Court further stated that \"[a]ny exhibit not pre-marked and exchanged on or before June 21, 2002 will not be received into evidence during the July 22 hearing, absent highly unusual circumstances. A copy of Joshua's Exhibit list and the exhibits provided to the LRSD are attached hereto as Exhibit 2. Joshua failed to provide the LRSD with copies of Exhibits 793, 794, 799, 800 and 801 stating \"[r]equest is hereby made for those exhibits ... \" This request by Joshua is untimely. See Order filed July 1, 2002, p. 1. To the extent Joshua may be in possession of these documents, the LRSD moves in limine to exclude Joshua Exhibits 793, 794, 799, 800 and 801. 3. May 15 Order: Exhibit 803. The LRSD also moves to exclude any additional documents which Joshua may intend to introduce as Exhibit 803. Joshua identified as Exhibit 803, \"The exhibits filed by the Little Rock School District for this hearing.\" This fails to comply with the Court's May 15, 2002 order, as the LRSD understood it. 4. May 9 Order: Good Faith. The Court stated in its order of May 9, 2002 that Joshua would be permitted to present additional evidence on the issue of the LRSD's good faith \"but only to the extent that: (a) it relates directly to the issues of advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, extracurricular activities and student achievement; and (b) it does not duplicate testimony already presented by Joshua on the issue of good faith.\" Order filed May 9, 2002, p. 14 (emphasis in original). Consistent with the Court's Order, the LRSD moves in limine as follows: a. Sadie Mitchell. Joshua called Mitchell to testify on August 1 and 2, 2001. See Tr. August 1, 2001, pp. 564-570 and August 2, 2001, pp. 848-896. Joshua specifically questioned Mitchell about student achievement (see,~. Tr. August 1, 2001, p. 575) and advance placement courses (see,~. Tr. August 1, 2001 , p. 600). Additional testimony from Mitchell on these issues would be duplicative. Accordingly, the LRSD moves to prohibit Joshua from questioning Mitchell about student achievement and advanced placement courses. 2 b. Junious Babbs. Joshua called Babbs to testify on July 5 and 6, 2001. See Tr. July 5, 2001 (all) and July 6, 2001 , pp. 283-340. Joshua specifically questioned Babbs about advanced placement courses (see,~' Tr. July 5, 2001, p. 219), guidance counseling (see,~. Tr. July 5, 2001, p. 228), extracurricular activities (see,~ Tr. July 5, 2001 , p. 218) and student achievement (see,~ Tr. July 5, 2001 , p. 231 ). Accordingly, the LRSD moves to prohibit Joshua calling Babbs as a witness. c. Exhibits. The LRSD moves to exclude the following exhibits not directly related to the issues of advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, extracurricular activities and student achievement: 743, 746, 747, 749, 750, 752, 754, 755, 756, 757, 758, 759, 760, 761 , 762, 763, 764, 771 , 773, 775, 777, 778, 779, 780, 782, 783, 784, 785, 786, 787, 788, 789 801 and 802. 5. Relevance Generally. The LRSD moves to exclude all evidence and testimony of noncompliance with the Revised Plan that was not brought to the attention of the entire LRSD Board of Directors pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 401,402 and 403. The LRSD's memorandum brief in support of this Motion is hereby incorporated by reference. The LRSD also incorporates by reference its Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status and its Reply Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status. 6. Jim Mosby and Jodie Carter. The LRSD also moves to exclude evidence and testimony related to the removal of Jim Mosby and Jodie Carter as the principals of Southwest Middle School and McClellan High School, respectively, pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 401,402 and 403. Both men are represented by counsel for Joshua, and filed Complaints against the LRSD on July 7, 2002 related to their removal which are now pending before this Court. The July 22 hearing on whether the LRSD should be declared unitary is not the appropriate forum to decide the merit of their Complaints, and this Court has a long-standing practice of not hearing individual claims as a part of this case. See,~' Docket No. 1874, Order filed June 30, 1993. 3 7. Rebuttal Evidence. This Court's order of May 15, 2002 granted Joshua 30 minutes to present rebuttal evidence pertaining to the three issues tried virtually to conclusion during previous hearings before Judge Wright. Joshua failed to identify any witnesses or exhibits for this purpose. Moreover, none of the witnesses or exhibits would reasonably be construed as \"true\" rebuttal, as defined by Judge Wright. Judge Wright defined rebuttal evidence as evidence necessary to respond to evidence presented by the other side which could not have been anticipated. Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, 399. The LRSD submitted no evidence which could not have been anticipated by Joshua because it had all been previously outlined in the LRSD's Interim Report and/or Final Report. Therefore, the LRSD moves in limine that Joshua be prohibited from presenting any rebuttal evidence on July 22, 2002, at 8:30 a.m. 8. Letters from Joy Springer. Joy Springer is counsel for Joshua's paralegal, and she has not been identified as a witness. However, Joshua has identified as Exhibits 767- 776 a series of letters from her to District personnel related to individual student/parent complaints. The LRSD moves to exclude these letters for several reasons. First, the letters are hearsay reporting hearsay, and they fail to fall within any exception to the hearsay rule. See Fed. R. Evid. 801, 802 803 and 804. Second, the letters are irrelevant in that there is no evidence that these complaints were brought to the attention of the Board. See Fed. R. Evid. 401 and 402 and paragraph 5, supra. Third, any relevance is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice where no evidence will be presented that would allow this Court to assess the merit of the complaints made in the letters. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. 9. Joshua Exhibit 791 . Joshua Exhibit 791 appears to be notes from a meeting with Ms. Jo Evelyn Elston, the LRSD's Director of Pupil Services. The LRSD assumes that the notes were prepared by Springer or another Joshua monitor. However, neither Springer nor any other Joshua monitor has been identified as a witness in this case. The LRSD moves to exclude Joshua Exhibit 791 for the same reasons set forth in paragraph 8 above. Joshua Exhibit 791 should also be excluded for an additional reason: the document, standing alone, cannot be 4 authenticated, and Joshua has not identified any witness who will be able to authenticate the document. See Fed. R. Evid. 901. WHEREFORE, the LRSD prays that its Motion in Lirnine be granted; that it be awarded the relief sought herein; and that it be awarded all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRlCT Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Regions Center, Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 37 ----~BY: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by U.S. mail on July 3, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 (VIA z~~~L,l -~ Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 NationsBank 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 F:IHOME\\FENDLEYILRSO 200 I ldes-mot-limine-7-09-02. wpd 5 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown 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 PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKJ COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANT INTERVENORS INTER VENO RS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. JOSHUA INTERVENORS' WITNESS LIST REGARDING JULY 22-26, 2002 HEARINGS The Joshua Intervenors plan to call the following persons during the July 22-26, 2002 hearings: I. Ms. Sadie Mitchell - Associate Superintendent for School Services Will dis~uss guidance counseling and her oversight or lack of it within the schools. She will be called on July 23, 2002, and her testimony will be expected to take approximately ten minutes. 2. Mr. Junious Babbs - Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services Will address extracurricular activities and his oversight of those activities as Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services. His testimony will be approximately ten .... minutes and will occur on July 23, 2002. 3. Dr. Marian Lacey - Asst. Superintendent of Secondary Schools a EXHIBIT g 1 f Will discuss her oversight of the secondary schools with respect to guidance counseling advanced placement courses, and extracurricular activities. Her direct testimony will take approximately fifteen minutes. 4. Mr. Jodie Carter - Principal McClellan High School Will discuss special problems with advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, extracurricular activities and the District 's good faith . His testimony will take approximately two hours and will be presented on July 22, 2002. He will also discuss the support and involvement of school board members or the lack of. 5. Ms. Dorothy McDonald - Teacher Will discuss the District's counseling program and problems which affect A.mean American students which have not been effectively addressed by the District. Her testimony will take approximately fifteen minutes. 6. Dr. Michael Faucette - Teacher Central High School Will discuss in detail the problems with the administration of advanced placement courses, the racial effect of the placements, the manner in which the placements are made, how the placements tend to favor one group of children over another, the problems with scheduling and how those scheduling decisions interact with other decisions of placement and counseling; participation in extracurricular activities; the favor given to white students at Central High School; the disparate effect of advanced placement courses with respect to teaching, awards, and other opportunities; and he will discuss the District's good faith compliance. He testimony will presented on July 22nd and is expected to take approximately four hours on direct examination. 7. Ms. Pat Watson - Counselor at Hall High School 2 Will address the District's counseling program and how they are implemented. Her testimony will take approximately 15 minutes. 8. Mr. Kenneth Moore, Assistant Principal at Hall High S~hool Will discuss extracurricular activities and good faith compliance. His testimony will take approximately ten minutes and will be presented July 23, 2002. 9. Ms. Pam Mercer - Parent of Former Student of Central High School Will discuss her efforts as a parent with respect to securing fair and equitable treatment for her children, Crystal and Justin, while they were at Central and how she was rebuffed along the way. She will also discuss the atmosphere at Central High School as it relates to privilege being extended to white children from middle class families. It will also cover counseling and extracurricular activities. Ms. Mercer's testimony will take approximately twenty minutes on direct examination. l 0. Mr. Justin Mercer - Former Student at Central High School Will address the problems he experienced of a racial nature while at Central High School and his efforts to obtain assistance and help from teachers, counselors and administrators. His testimony will take approximately ten minutes. 11 . Crystal Mercer - Former Student at Central High School Will address the District 's counseling services from a African American student 's perspective. Her testimony will take approximately ten minutes. 12. Ms. Paulette Blevins - Former teacher at Central High School Will discuss how the grading system was manipulated so as to change grades and otherwise provide favor to white children at Central High School. Her testimony will take 3 approximately fifteen minutes on direct examination. 13 . Mr. Jimmy Mosby - Principal of Southwest Middle School Will discuss the efforts of the District to comply with the ~]an with respect to good faith, guidance counseling and extracurricular activities while at Southwest Middle School and Hall High School. His testimony will take approximately twenty minutes on direct examination. 14. Ms. Sharon Brooks - Principal of Stephens Elementary School Will testify regarding good faith compliance and how she avoids it. The specific matter she will address will be unreported punishment without the involvement of a guidance counselor regarding the taking away of educational privileges for black boys for a period of two months while she was principal ofRightsell Elementary School. Her testimony will take ten minutes. I 5. Ms. Susie Davis - LRSD Coordinator of English Will discuss the efforts of the Instruction Department to communicate Instruction Department standards to principals and teachers with respect English and Reading and other subjects which she supervises in her capacity as special assistant to Dr. Bonnie Lesley. Although this is not her title, she was regarded as the agent for Dr. Lesley within the schools. She will also discuss the extent of her and Dr. Lesley's association with respect to principals and counselors. Her testimony will take approximately ten minutes. 16. Ray Gillespie - Fonner Athletic Director Will discuss his role with respect to extracurricular activities and monitoring activities to ensure the absence of racial discrimination. His testimony will take approximately fifteen 4 minutes. 17. Cassandra Norman - Principal at J.A. Fair High School Will discuss the District's good faith compliance and her school;'s disparate treatment of black and white students. She will also discuss the support and involvement of school board members or the lack of 18. Judith Pickering - Teacher - J.A. Fair High Schools Will discuss the racial atmosphere, advanced placement courses and extracurricular activities at J.A. Fair. Her testimony should take approximately fifteen minutes. 19. Foster Allen - Teacher at Central High Will discuss advance placement practices at Central High School and his relationship to those practices. His testimony will take five minutes. 20. Romona Horton and Bennie Horton - Parents of Former Central High Student Will discuss problems with AP placement of their child at Central High School. Their testimony will take five minutes a piece. 21 . Alisha Allmon - Teach er Will discuss advanced placement practices at Central High School and his relationship to those practices. Her testimony will take five minutes. 22. Chris Payne- Former Student at J.A. High School Will discuss his efforts to participate in Quiz Bowl at J. A. Fair. His testimony will take ten minutes. 23 . Ms. Sue Strickland, Dr. Katherine Mitchell, Dr. Michael Daugherty, Mr. Tony Rose Mr. Larry Berkley, Ms. Judy Magness and Mr. H. Baker Kurrus 5 Will each give testimony regarding good faith compliance and their involvement in and knowledge of the development and implementation of guidance and counseling programs, advanced placement courses, regular courses, class sizes of regular courses, pupil teacher ratios between regular , advanced placement, honors and gifted and talented courses. Their testimony together is expected to take one hour on direct examination. 24. Jeanette Carter and Dr. Vertie Carter Will discuss problems which they experience with respect to the AP teachers and administrators and counselors regarding placement, retention and fair treatment in the AP program. Their testimony will take fifteen minutes. 25 . Ms. Ethel Dunbar - Principal Franklin Elementary School Will discuss elementary good faith compliance, gifted and talented courses, guidance counseling and the assistance received with respect to these issues from the Division of Instruction. Her testimony will take approximately thirty minutes. 25. Mazie Phillips - Counselor at Fair High School Will address the District's counseling program and how they are implemented. Her testimony will take approximately 15 minutes. 26. Leon Adams - Director of Federal programs Will discuss efforts to use Title I funds to promote the educational interests of \"all\" children rather than the children who were the intended beneficiaries of those funds; the correlation between counseling services, advanced placement courses and good faith compliance. His testimony will take approximately twenty minutes. 6 e . 27. D.J. Thames and Avis Thames - Student and Parent - Fair High School Will discuss the District's good faith compliance with respect to extracurricular activities. This testimony will take approximately ten minutes on direct examination. 28. Ann Marshall, Gene Jones, and Margie Powell - ODM Monitors Will discuss good faith compliance. Their testimony will take approximately thirty minutes. 29. Ray Simon Will discuss the District 's decision and the reason for it to retreat from the remediation requirement for loan forgiveness. His testimony will address the roles of Drs. Ross and Carnine with respect to discontinuing emphasis upon remediation of Black students relative achievement levels. It will take approximately twenty minutes. The exhibit which he will address is an agreement between the State of Arkansas and the Little Rock School District the description of about which I am not certain. 30. Dr. Terrence Roberts Will address the issue of good faith compliance, guidance counseling and relationship between regular and advanced courses. His testimony will take approximately twenty minutes and will be presented on July 23, 2002. 3 I . Dr. Stephen Ross Will testify about the District 's good faith compliance and advanced placement and honors courses. He will address the need for criteria for placement as will Dr. Roberts (see above). His testimony will take approximately thirty minutes. 7 Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501- 374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) .--, ' (_~?__, .. _./{ John W. Walker - Bar No. 64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby state that a copy of the foregoing witness list has been hand delivered to Counsel for the Little Rock School District on this 24th day of June, 2 02. 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. JOSHUA INTERVENORS' EXHIBIT LIST REGARDING JULY 22-26, 2002 HEARINGS The Joshua Intervenors plan to use the following documents during the July 22-26, 2002 hearings: 743 . E-mail dated July 2, 2001 from Virginia Johnson to Bonnie Lesley (page 182) 744. E-mail dated October 19, 2000 from Gary Smith to Bonnie Lesley (page 290) 745 . E-mail dated June 29, 2001 from Sueellen Mann to Gail Hester and subsequent dated July 2, 2001 (page 167) 746. E-mail dated January 18, 2001 from Junious Babbs to Kathy Lease (page 12) 747. E-mail dated July 2, 2001 from Mona Briggs to Bonnie Lesley (page 191) 748. E-mail dated November 16, 2000 from Les Carnine to Bonnie Lesley 749. E-mail dated November 21 , 2000 from Ken Savage to Kathy Lease (page 38) 750. E-mail dated March 7, 2001 from Kathy Lease to T Rose and subsequent dated March 7, 2001 at 12:44 p.m. (page 7) 751 . E-mail dated July 15, 2001 from Bonnie Lesley to Lionel Ward and subsequent 1  EXHIBIT ~ 752. 753. 754. 755. 756. 757. dated July 16, 2001 (page 88) E-mail dated July 14, 2001, July 15, 2001 and July 16, 2001 from Bonnie Lesley to Ken James (page 96) E-mail dated July 15, 2001 from Bonnie Lesley to Chris Heller (page 102) E-mail dated April 18, 200 I from Bonnie Lesley to Kathy Lease and subsequent response (pages 708 and 709) E-mails dated October 25, 2000 from Bonnie to Irma Truett and Kathy Lease re: Benchmark scores (pages 16 and 17) E-mail dated June 28, 2001 8:00 p.m. from Mona Briggs to Bonnie Lesley (page 192 E-mail dated June 28, 2001 9:08 a.m. from Bonnie Lesley to members of her staff (Page 192 and 193) 758. E-mails dated September 29, 2000 between Bonnie Lesley and Kathy Lease re: Priorities 2000-01 (Page 51) 759. E-mail dated October 3, 2000 between Les Carnine. Bonnie Lesley and Kathy Lease Re: ALT Check-in (Page 50) 760. E-mail dated June 20, 2001 from Bonnie Lesley to Beverly Griffin re: semester test Exemption (Page 351) 761. E-mail dated June 25, 2001 from Bonnie Lesley to Clay Fendley (page 297) 762. F-mails dated June 29, 2001 between Sadie Mitchell, Deanna Eggeston and Bonnie Lesley (pages 2_18 - 219) 763 . E-mails dated February 12 and 13, 2001 Lesley, Ruffins, Lease and Carnine (page 19) 764. Email dated February 13, 2001 from Kathy Lease to Les Carnine (Pages 17 and 18) 765. Memo dated November 17, 2000 from Dr. Faucette to Mrs. Hargis re: exclusion of Regular English students fro Jennie Calder lecture 766. Email dated September 27, 2000 from Sadie Mitchell to Junious Babbs (Page 1) 2 767. Letter dated December 16, 1998 to Les Carnine from Joy Springer 768. Letter dated February 18, 1999 to Sadie Mitchell from Joy Springer 769. Letter dated March 17, 1999 to Rudolph Howard from Joy Springer 770. Letter dated October 14, 1999 to James Washington from Joy Springer 771 . Letter dated February 28, 2000 to James Washington from Joy Springer 772. Letter dated February 28, 2000 to James Washington from Joy Springer re: Scouts 773 . Letter dated August 28, 2000 to Ray Gillespie from Joy Springer 774. Letter dated September 12, 2000 to Les Carnine from Joy Springer 77 5. Letter dated October 10, 2000 to Les Carnine from Joy Springer 776. Letter dated September 13, 2000 to James Washington from Joy Springer 777. E-mail dated June 6, 2000 to Les Carnine from Don Stewart (Pages 100-0 1) 778. E-mail dated April 19, 2001 from Deanna Eggeston to Don Stewart (Page 37) 779. E-mail dated April 25, 2001 from Kathy Lease to Mark Mi!Ihollen 780. E-mail dated May 25, 2001 from Bonnie Lesley to Debbie Berry (Page 358) 781. E-mail dated June 7, 2000 from Clay Fendley to Bonnie Lesley 782. E-mail dated June 7, 2000 from Bonnie Lesley to Mary Paa! (Page 136) 783 . E-mail dated April 17-18, 2001 to Don Stewart from Bonnie Lesley 784. E-mail dated July 12, 2001 to Bonnie Lesley from Don Stewart (240) 785 . E-mail dated February 28, 2001 to Bonnie Lesley from Don Stewart 786. Memo dated February 24, 1999 to Gayle Bradford from James Washington 787. Memo dated March l 1, 1999 to Les Carnine from James Washington 788. Letter dated April 12, 1999 to Gayle Bradford from James Washington 3 789. Letter dated March 22, 1999 to Gayle Bradford from James Washington 790. Letter dated April 26, 1999 to John Walker from Les Carnine 791 . Memo dated May 3, 1999 regarding visit to Pupil Services \u0026amp; Administration buildings  792. Email dated 9/30/300 from Marian Lacey to Sadie Mitchell w/attachments 793 . High School Master Schedule Audit, Little Rock School District 2001-2002 794. School Yearbooks for Central, Hall, McClellan, Fair, Hall and Parkview for school years 1998-99 through 2001-2002 795. Letter dated February 28, 2002 from Dr. Michael Faucette to Jane Welch regarding enrollment in Creative Writing course 796. Little Rock Central - Requests for Course - Creative Writing 797. Essay by Justin Mercer entitled: \"Black at Central: My 45 Years of Struggle\" 798. Memo dated August 4, 1999 from Bonnie Lesley to Ann Marshall 799. Academic awards reports for the period 1998 through 2002. 800. Rank Lists for Hall, Parkview, Central, McClellan and Fair for graduating senior classed for the period 1998 through 2002 801. LRSD Quarterly Status Reports - School Services - 1999 through 2002 802. Deposition of School Board Members - a. Sue Strickland b. Tony Rose c. Judy Magness d. Larry Berkley e. Katherine Mitchell 803 . The exhibits filed by the Little Rock School District for this hearing Joshua notes that some of the foregoing exhibits are in the exclusive possession of the Plaintiff. Request is hereby made for those exhibits which include numbers 793, 794, 799, 800. 801. 4 By: Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 5 / I LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Monday, July 02, 2001 2:24 PM 'heller@fec.net' Latest Fax I had Aniia fax over to you ihe latest-a bunch of stuff on our literacy plan. 743 1. He already has a copy of the PreK-3 Literacy Plan. Other information is in the Interim and Final Compliance Reports. 2. He also has the test results for SAT9, Grade 4 Benchmark, and ORA-so those are the results. 3. I don't know what he means by monitoring reports. A The assessment program is outlined in several pages in the Compliance Report. 5. I can copy those policies and regs for him. Want me to go ahead and send? Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/ 324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) - LESLEY, BONNIE From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 1 :44 PM To: JOHNSON, VIRGINIA Subject: RE: Needed Information-Important! Do you have dates for these three times? --Original Message-- From: JOHNSON, VIRGINIA Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 1 :15 PM To: LESLEY, BONNIE Subject: RE: Needed Information-Important! Three times I sat in on sessions with Steve Ross along with other PRE staff. At no time did we review any NSF documents. The sessions focused on document review of the ESL and Pre-K Literacy reports. I have never \"consulted\" with him. I have never consulted with Dr. Roberts either. -Original Message-- From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 12:07 PM To: ADAMS, LEON; ARNOLD, LAURA BETH; AUSTIN, LINDA; BRANDON, BARBARA; BRIGGS, MONA R.; BROADNAX, KAREN; BUSBEA. PAT; CARR, MARCELLINE; CARSON, RENE': CLEAVER, VANESSA; CLIFFORD, ELIZABETH: CRAWFORD, PAMELA; DAVIS, SUZI; DEBBIE MILAM; DILLINGHAM, YVETTE; DONALDSON, MABLE; FINNEY, ANTONETTE; FLETCHER, DANNY; FREEMAN, ANN; GILLIAM, ANITA; GLASGOW, DENNIS; HARDING, CASSANDRA; HUFFMAN, KRIS; JACKSON, MARION; JOHNSON, VIRGINIA; JONES, DOCIA; JONES, STEPHANIE; KIILSGAARD, SHARON; KILLINGSWORTH, PATRICIA; KOVACH, RENEE; LAJUANA RAINEY; LOYA, STELLA; MARION BALDWIN; MARTIN, PAULETTE: McCOY, EDDIE; McNEAL, MARIE; MILAM, JUDY; NEAL, LUCY; PAAL, MARY M.; PAUL, ANNITA; PERRITT, YORIKO U.; PRICE, PATRICIA; RYNDERS, PAULA; SMITH, GARY; SMITH, PAULA; TEETER, JUDY; WALLS, COLLE::N; WARD, LIONEL; WIWAMS, BARBARA; WILLIAMS, ED: WILSON, LEVANNA; WOODS, MARION Subject: Needed Information-Important! 182 \"\" smmitch@lrsdadm.lrsd.k12.ar.us -Original Message-- A From: CARNINE. L!:::SLIE V. W Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 1:59 PM To: MITC~ELL. SADIE Cc: NEAL, LUCY; LESLEY, BONNIE; L!:::ASE. KATHY R.; SMITH, GARY Subject: RE: Will we have the software available by 2nd Semester? What system(s) are being looked at? -Original Message- From: MITCHELL, SADIE Sent Thursday, October 19, 2000 10:33 AM To: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Subject: FVI/: Sadie Mitchell smmitch@lrsdadm.lrsd.k12.ar.us -Original Message- From: SMITH, GARY Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 10:25 AM To: LESLEY, BONNIE Cc: WARD, LIONEL; GADBERRY, BRADY L.; NEAL. LUCY; MITCHELL, SADIE; CAWTHON, FRANCES H.; LACEY, MARIAN G.; Subject: Dr. Lesley, ADAMS, LEON; AUSTIN, LINDA; BRADFORD, GAYLE; BRIGGS, MONA; BROADNAX, KAREN; CLEAVER, VANESSA; COLFORD, SUSAN: DAVIS. SUZI: DONALDSON, MABLE; Eddie McCoy; ELSTON, JO; FULLERTON, JAMES; GLASGOW, DENNIS; HAWKS. EVERETT; KEOWN, ADA: MARION BALDWIN; NORMAN, CASSANDRA R.; PRICE. PATRICIA; TATUM. KATHY; WYATT-ROSS. JANICE The consensus recommendation of the SAIP committee is for a SAIP be created for students at all grade levels who are not proficient based state mandated benchmark tests and/or District mandated Achievement Level Tests (ALT) - Our specific recommendations to implement this are;  obtain/create the software necessary to identify students not proficient on state benchmarks/district assessment that will also generate/print the adopted SAIP form with student information and test scores printed on the SAIP form  obtain/create the software that will generate/print specific strategies (along with and printed checklists for those who wish not to use computer) developed by a committee made up of teachers and curriculum specialists as a resource available for teachers to use (especially secondary teachers) - this can be attached to the SAIP form as needed  develop an \"instructional\" sheet for the SAIP form that will explain in more detail the information to documented and procedures to follow  provide training on the use of SAIP form directly to teachers (the exact training may have to be determined at a future date based on the development of software noted above) - delivery of training would need to be coordinated with staff development for most effective and comprehensive presentation to all teachers to all of you in Cyber Land - is there anything else I forgot? - thanks Gary 290 LESLEY, BONNIE - From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Message Flag: Due By: Flag Status: BABBS, JUNIOUS Monday, July 02, 2001 8:08 AM ELSTON, JO NEWBURN, LINDA; LESLEY, BONNIE RE: Counseling Program Kit Follow up Monday, July 09, 2001 5:00 PM Flagged It is positive to see that things are moving forward on this \"01 - 02 priority. 745 Prior to coming to closure, I ask that your look to set up a time to fill me in on the \"buy in\" of players called upon (committee members) to develop districtwide literature to be distributed. The connection to Curriculum and Instruction is a biggee that should be run through Dr. Lesley. I will look to give you a call a bit later regarding B/W high school scholarship information and the 3 - 4 year comparisons. To date, this information has not been provided. Junious C Babbs, Jr jcbabbs@stuasn.lrsd.kl2.ar.us Little Rock School District -Original Message- From: VANN, SUELLEN Sent: Friday, June 29. 2001 11 :08 AM To: HESTER. GAIL Cc: ELSTON, JO; BABBS. JUNIOUS Subject Counseling Program Kit Jo Evelyn Elston is in my office, and we're working on a counseling program kit with insert sheets. Mr. Babbs will pay for this out of his budget. I'm going to talk with Kristy Black about the design of the kit and sheets, but I figured we'd better give you the info for the quote since it looks like a pretty good-sized job. The kit will be one-pocket on right side with a business card slot; the kit will print front and back with one pocket. There won't be a separate \"wing\" like the recruitment kit had. Quantity: 25,000 Jo Evelyn likes the paper we used for the recruitment kit and insert sheets, so we could just go with those. The insert sheets: 1. JOBBS sheet - print front only; quantity 30,000 -2. Early college planning sheet - print front only; quantity 20,000 3. PCEP sheet - print front only; quantity 20,000 4. What Does Counselor Do? sheet - print front only; quantity 30,000 5. Counseling program sheet - print front and back; quantity 30,000 6. Couseling fact sheet - print front only; quantity 30,000 The kit and insert sheets would print 4-color. Have I forgotten anything? No bleeds. THANKS! (Mr. Babbs, you might want to set up a lemonade stand on Sherman to pay for this!!!!!) Suellen 5. Vann; APR Director of Communications Little Rock School District (SO 1) 324-2020 167 LESLEY, BONNIE - From: LEASE, KATHY R. Sent: To: Thursday, January 18, 2001 6:06 PM BABBS, JUNIOUS Subject: RE: Section 2 Thanks for the input! We have been with the program evaluation consultant all qi3y, so I just finished editing the report to send to Bonnie. I will incorporate your changes and suggestions, and send it to her again. Do you want the Power Point as an Appendix or the outline for it incorporated into the body of the report? I'm so sorry I am just getting around to my email, but I'll take the heat for sending another correction. Not enough hours in the day!! Kathy PS--Thanks for the encouragement! ---Original Message--- From: BABBS, JUNIOUS Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 10:53 AM To: LEASE, KATHY R. Cc: GADBERRY, BRADY L. Subject: PN: Section 2 Good information. Working with timelines and specific report information submissions for this division, I have not been able to dissect in great detail but my original thinking touches upon 2 - 3 items that may warrant some review. You will note that Brady is also being forwarded who can provide his thinking as well. Future compliance sessions will toss this about for further revision. 1. Inclusion of the power point presentation. ~ -When touching upon Or. Ross - It may be advantageous to refer to \"looks to build or acknowledges\" specific district W'ettorts as opposed to \"praising\". 3. It would be appropriate to list current data that is available. Be reminded that when writing materials for our report submission, we will include \"districtwide\" not be there yet bui this will help to serve as an indicator of established bas Ine information from which we will jump off of. Keep your chin up . . Junious C Babbs, Jr jcbabbs@stuasn.lrsd.kl2.ar.us Little Rock School District -Original Message- Frorn: LEASE. KATHY R. Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 6:14 PM To: LESLEY. BONNIE Cc: BABBS. JUNIOUS; DILLINGHAM. YVETTE; HUFFMAN, MAC; JOHNSON, VIRGINIA; McCOY. EDDIE; SUMMERVILLE, ROSALYN P.; TRUETT, IRMA; WILLIAMS, ED Subject: Section 2  File: Oeseg Report (2.7.1).doc  Bonnie, Here is the first draft of Section 2.7.1. Please let me know what additions or revisions you want made. Thanks, Kathy PS-PRE folks-Look to see what I left out, what typos I have. and what needs tc be edited. Thanks 12 747 Chris, I am in LR this week-end and you can reach me at 868-4289. I can come to your office to help, or I can work from my office. Call if you need me. - Are we having fun yet? Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District  3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) LESLEY, BONNIE From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: To: Monday, July 02, 2001 8:16 AM BRIGGS, MONA R. Subject: RE Thank you, my friend. I \"vegged\" all week-end, seriously \"vegged.\" I know this will be a HARD week. Yes, I hear Kathy is on his witness list. It'll be interesting. -Original Message- F rom: BRIGGS, MONA R. Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 6:53 AM To: LESLEY, BONNIE Subject: RE: I have been thinking a lot about you. You can't let this bring on a stroke or something. You don't need this kind of pressure all by your self!! It is not worth it-no job is worth it. And you can't take on the woes of a district that has been screwing up for a decade or more. I hope Kathy does get called to testify. She needs to have to answer to John Walker and if it bodes ill for the district so be it! She and Carnine just waltzes out of here and leaves everyone else holding the rope. You make time for sleep and food!! /v\\ona R. Briggs Middle Level Specialist Little Rock School District 501-324-2412 \"Seek First to Understand; then to be understood\" (Covey) -----Original Message----- From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 7:55 AM Tc: BRIGGS , MONA R. 191 STEWART, DON.ALO M: . From: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 12:23 PM To: LESLEY, BONNIE Cc: BABBS, JUNIOUS; Mitchell, Sadie; GADBERRY, BRADY L.; STEWART, DONALD M. Subject: Upper Division Cl2sses and Afric2n Americans Were you able to pull together the numbers--l2st year and this year's enrollment? John Walker also has called and is questioning his non involvement in the policy development(IKF). I told him I thought the evidence was so strong for Black kids and that I would send him the information. When was the first time he would have received the policy for comment? He is raising much the same issue-impact on black kids as Katherine ... lKF Subject: L::SL-'Y, BONNIE; CARNINE, LESUE V. RE: C~art Revisions Ken, Th2nks so much for this expl2nation of what happened. The important thing about making a mist2ke is finding a way not to make it again. I think you have done this, and we will all profii from ii. I know you fee! re2lly badly about this, but the most important thing is to correct the process. We all make mistcakes. We are committed to quality in PRE and that includes continuous improvement and continuous learning. This experience has provided us with both. What a bonus!' Thanks for helping with the corrections. I will take care of getting them to the appropriate Cabinet people and getting them redistributed to the Board. -Original Message- F rom: SAVAGE, KEN Sent: Tuesday, November 21 , 2000 10:31 AM To: LEASE. KATHY R. Subject: Chart Revisions Dr Lease, I have reviewed the charts that I created from the benchmark d2t2. When I creaied the charts originally I had encountered a problem simil2r io the one described by Dr. Lesley, but I specifically remember correcting ihe error prior to sending the charts to you. Needless to say, I was more than a little alamned that the charts you received contained errors because the charts I have appe2r to coincide with the data I have. I went on further to investigate by looking at the email I sent you. And there, big as day, the error had reappeared. So the c:-iarts I had sent you were incorrect because they were never updated in the manner that I expected. Here is what I believe happened based on what I remember and what I learned this morning: e: I created the charts in an Excel document that contained the data. I copied the charts only out into another document, creating what is called a linked object. I printed and reviewed the charts and this is when I found the error. I corrected the error and reopened the \"linked\" charts. They appear to have accepted the corrections. I emailed the file wiih the linked charts to you rather than the file containing the charts and data. Here's where the problem arose and information that I have just become aware of this morning. First, when using linked objects, each time you open the file you are given a choice to update the information. Unfortunately, I only sent you the ch2rts and not the daia that drives them. So regard less, you could not have updated the charts. Second, and more importantly, even though a chart has been updated previously, it will always revert back to the original chart that was corrected no matter how many times the data has been updated. Third, if the file with the original data is already open, when the \"linked\" item is opened it automatically updates without intervention. I believe that the second option above is what occurred. The charts were created, an error was encountered and corrected, the link was updated but the chart reverted back to its original when the file was closed. What I propose to do to prevent this kind of fiasco in the future is: 1. Only send charts embedded in files which cont2in the data--no linking. 2. Only create the \"linked\" charts after ALL data h~s been proofed and corrected. \" The erroneous data was only last year's data for black students in the comparison between this year and lasfyear for both) Math and Literacy. I 2m printing and will send ten revised copies of the charts. Ken. 38 LESLEY, BONNIE - From: Sent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Wednesday, March 07, 2001 12:44 PM BABBS, JUNIOUS , RE: Research Committee Meeting 75a Bonnie said that the evaluations weren't part of the court submission. Is that still correct? If so, then it looks like we shoula slow down a bit and do It rigm. Are you In agreement? ----,. KL --Original Message--- From: BAS6S, JUNIOUS Sent: Wecnesday, March 07, 2001 12:36 PM To: L=.\u0026lt;1.SE, KATrlY R. Subject: RE: Research Committee Meeting Original thinking was to get another date scheduled prior to the March 15th couri submission but with iniorm2tion you h2ve nored, considerc::tion of a later date is necessary. I don't see major conflict. Junious C Babbs, Jr jcba bbs@stuasn .lrsd. kl 2.ar. us Little Rock School District - Original Message- F rom: LEASE. KATHY R. Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 12:27 PM To: 'trrose@ualr.edu'; BABBS. JUNIOUS Subject: Researc~ Committee Meeting Importance: High We have had another committee member who will not be able to come to the meeting on the 13th. We now have agenda meeting 2t 5:00, and Steve can only be with us by phone. What do you all think about postponing the meeting until after spring break? That would give John plenty of time to make revisions, and we can schedule a meeting when Steve can be with us. I hope to have the template/program evaluation guidelines completed by then as well. Let me know what you thin kl Kathy Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc. lrsd .kl2.ar. us 7 LESLEY, BONNIE From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 7:2.d. PM To: MITCHELL, SADIE Subject: RE: Documents yes, th2nks. I need as2p. -Oriainal Messaae- From:  MITCHELL. SADIE Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 5:51 PM To: LESL::Y, BONNIE - Cc: WASHINGTON, CHARLOTTE Subject: Docum~nts We got the list of documents on file done but I forgot to remind Ch2rlotte to send it to you. She is gone for the day and it is on her computer. You will have it first thing in the morning. Sadie Sadie Mitchell smmitch@lrsdadm.lrsd .kl2.ar.us LESLEY, BONNIE From: LESLEY, BONNIE A Sent: W To: Monday, July 16, 2001 7:24 PM WARD, LIONEL Subject: RE: SAIP He requested info from me. I told him I had given him all I had but that you are the administrator on this issue. I was following up to see if he had contacted you. -Original Message- From: WARD, LIONEL Sent Monday, July 16, 2001 4:29 PM To: LESLEY. BONNIE Subject: RE: SAIP Are you irying to tell me something? I have not received any such request from Mr. Walker. If he talks with me, I will talk to you about a proper response first. One basic problem with implementation is in the thought some might harbor which explains why their efforts started late in the game. I am sure some folks faced more struggles than others. Clearly, schools must satisfy the requirements with wise, careful and timely deliberations this year . ., ----__ ....  / --Original Message- From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2001 3: 49 PM To: WARD, !..!ONEL SubjeC::: SAIP Lionel, h2s Mr. Walker requested anything from you about the implementation of SAIPs? If so, what did you send . to him? Thanks. v-- Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associace Superinte!7dent for Instruction Uttie Rock Scheel District 88 752 501/324-0567 (fax) - LESLEY, BONNIE From: LESLEY, BONNIE. Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 8:16 AM To: JAMES, KENNETH Subject: RE: Work in Progress Absolutely! -Original Message- From: JAMES. KENNETH Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 7:54 AM To: L::SLEY, SONNIE Subject: RE: Work in Progress Bonnie: I agree. The work and time that you have invested in this will indeed pay off. as the testimony unfolds. It will be interesting to see how the judge handles all of this information and to observe her thought process. Ken -Original Message-- From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2001 9:4.2 PM To: JAMES, KENNETH Subject: RE: Work in Progress When I left today, I left a lot still un-done, but I left feeling more and more certain that we have strong evidence that we did the plan. This is going to be helpful to me in remembering all the efforts-even if Chris decides not to use some of it as evidence. I think it will particularly be strong when we combine what Sadie has with ours in this Division. -Original Message- From: JAMES, KENNETH Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2001 9:34 PM To: LESLEY, BONNIE Subjec~: RE: Work in Progress Bonnie: I have reviewed both documents and they are excellent at showing what has been accomplished in the are2s of evaluation and assessment 1 Great job' We will touch base tomorrow. Ken -Original Message- From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 6:24 PM To: 'heller@fec.net'; JAMES, KENNETH; MITCHELL, SADIE Subject: Work in Progress I've worked today on getting the ideas laid out about assessment/program evalu2tion. That includes collecting and organizing stacks of p2per that document our work and processes. In addition, ple2se see the attached documents to determine if this is where we want to go. I welcome your feedback.  Fiie: 1 Program i:1aluation.doc \u0026gt;\u0026gt;  File: 1 Assessment Grid.doc  96 Little Rock, ArkaT1S2s 72206 501/324-2131 - 501/ 324 -'.)567 (fax) LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Sunday, July 15, 2001 3:41 PM 'heller@fec.net' JAMES, KENNETH SAIPs Mr. Walker requested on June 20 the follow: \"Please advise whether you have information regarding the District's implementation of STt!dent Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) as required by the State. If so, please share with this this office.\" I replied: \"You will find that information in the March 2001 Compliance Report in Section 2. 7. I do not have any information beyond what you will find there since the implementation is done at the school level. Leonel Ward is in charge of implementation.\" When I searched everything for the documents I needed from you, I found several memos in Learning Links that I had forgotten about-about the philosophy in implementing SAIP, sample SAIPs done by Price, Glasgow, and Davis, the memo establishing the committee to develop the program. the memo to the board, etc. Should I forward those to Mr. Walker as well? . Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District A 3001 5. Pulaski W little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) LESLEY, BONNIE From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 6:24 PM To: Subject: 'heller@fec.net'; JAMES, KENNETH; MITCHELL, SADIE Work in Progress I've worked today on getting the ideas laid out about assessment/program evaluation. That includes collecting and organizing stacks of paper that document our work and processes. In addition, ple2se see the attached documents to determine if this is where we want to go. I welcome your feedback. ~ 1 Program Evalualion.aoc i Assessment Grid.doc Dr. Sonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 5. Pulaski a :ttle Rock, Arkansas 72206 ~ 01/324-2131 501/ 324-0567 (fax) 102 . LESLEY, BONNIE - From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Don Crary [dcrary@newfuturesforyouth.org] Wednesday, April 18, 2001 1 :33 PM LESLEY, BONNIE mopierce@newfuturesforyouth.org Re: Computer with Access Great. We can pay for it. I'm sure it will be cheaper if it is purchased through the district contract. The district can invoice us and we will reimburse them for the cost. Don -Original Message- From: LESLEY, BONNIE \u0026lt;BALESLE@IRC.LRSD.K12.AR.US\u0026gt; To: 'dcrary@newfuturesforyouth.org' \u0026lt;dcrary@newfuturesforyouth.org\u0026gt; Cc: BRIGGS, MONA R. \u0026lt;MRBRIGG@ANNEX.LRSD.K12.AR.US\u0026gt;; PAAL, MARY M. \u0026lt;MMPAAL@ANNEX.LRSD.K12.AR.US\u0026gt; Date: 04/18/2001 12:50 PM Subject: Computer with Access \u0026gt;I talked with Mona about your need for a dedicated computer somewhere in the \u0026gt;district so that your evaluator can come work on direct access to the data \u0026gt;base. She is arranging for an additional computer drop in the office that \u0026gt;Mary Paa! will have at Garland. Can you all purchase the computer out of . your budget? \u0026gt;Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction \u0026gt;Little Rock School District \u0026gt;3001 S. Pul;:3ski \u0026gt;Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 \u0026gt;501/324-2131 \u0026gt;501/324-0567 (fax) \u0026gt; \u0026gt; LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Bonnie, LEASE, KA THY R. Wednesday, April 18, 2001 12:32 PM LESLEY, BONNIE MITCHELL, SADIE; CAWTHON, FRANCES H.; LACEY, MARIAN G. RE: ALT Results --.......__ What group of principals did you meet with yesterday? Do I need to contact them? I explained to all of them when we did the testing calendar that we could get results back to everyone before school was out, if they followed the schedule. If there are some that we need to follow up with, please let me know who they are. We are returning ALT results as quickly as schools get them in. The whole purpose of setting up the schedule like it is centers around being able to get the results back to everyone before school is out. District results can't be calculated until  I schools are in. That is why it is imperative that everyone stay on schedule. Both teachers and parents will get their suits unless someone doesn't follow the schedule. Second grade results have all been returned to the schools, along with two copies of the parent report. High school preliminary results have been returned to Parkview and Fair. McClellan's results are here and are being scored. Central and Hall have not turned in their answer sheets yet. All make-ups were to have been completed by this past Monday. Reiests for high schools are due back on Friday. The first page of the parent report can be printed, but we can 't print the longitudinal report for parents unless all high schools are in.  708 Our elementary schools did a great job during 2nd grade testing; so if they keep that up, we will sail right through their scoring and printing. They have all of their results. .  \\/Ve're still missing two of the middle schools' Algebra I I geometry results as of this morning. We are having a scoring robiem with the high school science tests, but NWEA is working on it. The subject specific math and science tests require no retests, so that shouldn't hold things up. Also, we have provided data on request any school who wants to know last fall's ALT scores for their rising grade students. If you have any other questions, please let me know. Kathy ---Original Message---- F rom: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 10:37 AM To: LEASE, KATHY R. Subject: ALT Results l met with a group of principals yesterday who suggested to me that if they can't receive their ALT results before school is out that there is no use in sending them at all. Kids and parents need them quickly, and the school needs them quickly in order to plan for next school year. What our your chances of being able to do that? Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) LESLEY, BONNIE \u0026amp; om: . ent: To: Subject: Rose.doc Paulette Mabry [pmabry@newfuturesforyouth.org] Wednesday, April 18, 2001 10:59 AM Bonnie Lesley; Brady Gadberry; Junious Babbs; Linda Austin; Marian G. Lacey; Sadie Mitchell Words to encourage us Thought you might enjoy this today as a way to jumpstart the afternoon when things seem impossible. Paulette LESLEY, BONNIE From: BRIGGS, MONA R. Sent: To: Wednesday, April 18, 200110:10 AM LESLEY, BONNIE Subject: Cost of Tools for Learning (Fred Jones); Parent Component Importance: High The discounted costs of books is: 500 books @ $18.00 (regularly priced at 29.95) 300-499@ $18.50  0-299@ $18.95 0-199@ $19.95 Shipping for 500 is $546.75; it may be slightly less for fewer numbers but not significantly. RE: Parent involvement with training 709 GADBERRY, BRADY L. -From: Sent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Tuesday, November 28, 2000 4:31 PM BABBS, JUNIOUS; FRANCES CAWTHON; Gadberry, Brady L.; Hurley, Richard; LESLEY, BONNIE; Leslie Carnine; LINDA WATSON; MARIAN LACEY; Milhollen, Mark; Sadie Mitchell; STEWART, DONALD M.; Vann, Suellen Steve Ross-Program Evaluation.ppt Steve Ross-Program Evaluation-.. FYI--Here is a copy of Steve's presentation to the Board. KL GADBERRY, BRADY L. From: LEASE, KATHY R. Sent: To: Thursday, November 16, 2000 8:32 AM GADBERRY, BRADY L. Subject: RE: PRE List Requested - ~hared with Babbs that I thought we could provide some assistance in PRE to make the surveying process a little easier.  eve got the equipment and the software! I just talked with Gene Jones to confirm his schedule, and he said that he was invited to the compliance meeting tomorrow morning. I told him, \"Great! See you then!\" KL ---Original Message- From: GADBERRY, BRADY L. Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 8: 17 AM To: BABBS. JUNIOUS Cc: LEASE, KATHY R. Subject: RE: PRE List Requested We were told early in the year by Dr. Carnine that all surveys would be done through PRE. ----Original Message----- F rom: BABBS, JUNIOUS Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 7:15 PM To : GADBERRY, BRADY L. Cc: LEASE, KATHY R. Subject: FW: PRE List Requested To my knowledge Vic and I both allowed department \"Quality of Service Surveys\" that went to appropriate building staff to be returned and worked through our own division shops. What is your thinking to continue with this format or consideration through PRE ? Junious C. Babbs, Jr jcbabbs@stuasn.lrsd.kl2.ar.us little Rock School District - Original Message- From: L~SE, KATHY R. Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 12:18AM To: 'Clay Fendley'; LESLEY, BONNIE; BABBS, JUNIOUS; MITCHELL. SADIE; GADBERRY, BRADY L.; STEWART, DONALD M. Cc: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Subject: List Requested Dear Folks, Attached is the list of programs or strategies that have either received some evaluation services or have requested evaluaiion services. If you need additional information, please let me know. 15 Thanks, Kathy - \u0026lt;\u0026lt; File: Addition2I Programs and Strategies Requesting Evaluation.doc GADBERRY, BRADY L. From: Sent:  To: Subject: logo memo.doc LEASE, KATHY R. Friday, October 27, 2000 2:52 PM MITCHELL, SADIE; LESLEY, BONNIE; BABBS, JUNIOUS; GADBERRY, BRADY L.; STEWART, DONALD M. Memo to Gene Jones Here is what I am having Irma send on Monday. If you see anything that needs to be changed, let her know ASAP. KL GADBERRY, BRADY L. From: LEASE, KA THY R. Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 8:37 PM To: CARNINE, LESLIE V.; MITCHELL, SADIE; BABBS, JUNIOUS; GADBERRY, BRADY L. Subject: FW: Benchmark Scores - ear Folks. If Bonnie wants to continua lly harass me that is one thing , but I would appreciate it if she didn't pick on my assistant. Please read the exchanges below. She also left Irma a voice message that was very curt. Irma h2s been working like a dog in room 16 to finish up the answer documents for the CRTs, so she wasn't immediately available to read email or answer the telephone. No one came down here looking for her, so she didn't know that there was an urgent message. I emailed a reply message to Bonnie and sent you all a blind copy; so I'm sure I'll be in trouble again. However, there has to be an end to this. We are working as hard as we can to produce these test reports, implement the assessment program, and produce program evaluations. I don't know how much more I can stand. She also continues to work behind my back through Eddie McCoy. This is ridiculous!! Who could be successful in such an environment? I'm sorry for ranting, but I am exhausted mentally, physically, and emotionally. Kathy -Original Message- From: TRUETT, IRMA Sent: Wednesday, October 25. 2000 8:21 PM To: LEASE. KATHY R. Subject: FW: Benchmark Sccres -Original Message- From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 5:05 PM To: TRUETT, IRMA Subject: RE: Benchmark Sccres I'm sorry, Irma, but I can't accept that response. -Original Message- From: TRUETT, IRMA Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 2:08 PM To: LESLEY, BONNIE Subject: RE: Benchmark Sccres Sorry, I'm just now getting your e-mail, but I've been working in room 16. I don't have this information and frorn what I underst2nd Dr. Lease has it with her to give to the principals this afternoon. Sorry! - Original Message- 16 From: L::SLEY, BONNIE Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 9:44 AM To: TRUETT, IRMA Subject: Benchmark Scores I need copies of the state test results by school in my office asap. Board members and others are calling for information. Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) GADBERRY, BRADY L. From: Sent: To: Subject: Bonnie, LEASE, KATHY R. Wednesday, October 25, 2000 8:17 PM LESLEY, BONNIE Benchmark Scores Irma forwarded your messages to her about the test scores. As I told you when we met with Suellen, I would have your curriculum copies ready by Friday. They are ready now. After learning that you were insistent on having the scores immediately, I stayed late tonight and finished them up. Irma came back down here from home to help me. I am just waiting on your initials on the memos. I will bring them to the Institute tomorrow. Irma can come pick them up and make copies. I understood Dr. Carnine to say that the Board reports could be sent in the Friday report. I had them ready at the Board meeting, but he didn't want them distributed until we had more time to confirm the data. Since you  ave asked for them, I printed what we have at this time in draft copy. I will give the copies to you that are printed for the oard. If you think they need to be sent by special courier rather than in the Friday report, that will be your choice. I was nly trying to follow the directions I was given. If you needed the scores so quickly, why didn't you call me out of the meeting today? Irma didn't even know where we had secured the copies of the reports. It was very unfair of you to keep harassing her and making her feel badly because she couldn't produce the reports instantly for you. If you need something, please do me the courtesy of asking me for it. I understood that the Friday timeline was satisfactory with you. If it wasn't, you should have let me know. Kathy Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc.lrsd.k12.ar.us 17 Subject: RE: This has been the week from hell. I hear that Walker may call Kathy to testify. Of course, that may not be good for the district. We'll see. I'm so tired I could fall on my face. Sooooooo glad it's Friday! -Original Message- From: BRIGGS, MONA R. Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 8:00 PM To: LESLEY, BONNIE Subject: RE: Bonnie, I hate all this, don't you? I guess you will have your \"day in court.\" Too bad Kathy didn't get in on it ... I understand from Eddie that she took all her files with her. What a deal. Surely, the judge will see through this and let us get on with our lives. Walker just doesn't want to give up those big bucks he makes off of us. Hope you have some down time somewhere along the line. Mona R. Brig~ N1iadI~ [~~~I Specialist Little Rock School District 501-324-2412 \"Seek First to Undersfal7d; then to be understood\" (Covey) -----Original Message----F rom: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 9:08 AM To: CHAPMAN, SUSAN; GLENN, RANDALL; WATSON, LINDA; ELSTON, JO; WIEDOWER, JULIE; EGGLESTON, DEANA; ADAMS, LEON; ARNOLD, LAURA BETH; AUSTIN, LINDA; BRANDON, BARBARA; BRIGGS, MONA R.; BROADNAX, KAREN; BUSBEA, PAT; CARR, MARCELLINE; CARSON, RENE'; CLEAVER, VANESSA;  CLIFFORD, ELIZABETH; CRAWFORD, PAMELA; DAVIS, SUZI; DEBBIE MILAM; DILLINGHAM, YVETTE; DONALDSON, MABLE; FI!\\JNEY, ANTONETTE; FLETCHER, DANNY; FREEMAN, A~~N; GILLIAM, ANITA; GLASGOW, DENNIS; HARDING, CASSAt\\JDRA; HUFFMAN, KRIS; JACKSON, MARION; JOHNSON, VIRGINIA; JONES, DOCIA; JONES, STEPHANIE;_ l92 Subject: RE: This has been the week from hell. I hear that Walker may call Kathy to testify. Of course, that may not be good for the district. We'll see. I'm so tired I could fall on my face. Sooooooo glad it's Friday! -Original Message- Frorn: BRIGGS, MONA R. Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 8:00 PM To: LESLEY, BONNIE Subject: RE: Bonnie, I hate all this, don't you? I guess you will have your \"day in court.\" Too bad Kathy didn't get in on it ... I understand from Eddie that she took ell her files with her. What a deal. Surely, the judge will see through this and let us get on with our lives. Walker just doesn't want to give up those big bucks he makes off of us. Hope you have some down time somewhere along the line. Mona R. Brig~ Mia-a,~ [~~~I Specialist Little Rock School District 501-324-2412 \"Seek First to Understand; then to be understood\" (Covey) -----Original Message----From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 9:08 AM To: CHAPMAN, SUSAN; GLENN, RANDALL; WATSON, LINDA; ELSTON, JO; WIEDOWER, JULIE; EGGLESTON, DEANA; ADAMS, LEON; ARNOLD, LAURA BETH; AUSTIN, LINDA; BRANDON, BARBARA; BRIGGS, MONA R.; BROADNAX, KAREN; BUSBEA, PAT; CARR, MARCELLINE; CARSON, RENE'; CLEAVER, VANESSA;  CLIFFORD, ELIZABETH; CRAWFORD, PAMELA; DAVIS, SUZI; DEBBIE MILAM; DILLINGHAM, YVETTE; DONALDSON, MABLE; FINNEY, ANTONETTE; FLETCHER, DANNY; FREEMAN, ANN: GILLIAM, ANITA; GLASGOW, DENNIS; HARDING, CASSAt'\\JDRA; HUFFMAN, KRIS; JACKSON, MARION; JOHNSON, VIRGINIA; JONES, DOCIA; JONES, STEPHANIE; 192 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: ?57 KIILSGAARD, SHARON; KILLINGSWORTH, PATRICIA; KOVACH, RENEE: LAJUANA RAINEY; LOYA, STELLA; MARION BALDWIN; MARTIN, PAULETTE; McCOY, EDDIE; McNEAL, MARIE; MILAM, JUDY; NEAL, LUCY; PAAL, MARY M.; PAUL, ANNITA; PERRITT, YORIKO U.; PRICE, PATRICIA; RYNDERS, PAULA; SMITH, GARY; SMITH, PAULA; TEETER, JUDY; WALLS, COLLEEN; WARD, LIONEL; WILLIAMS, BARBARA; WILLIAMS, ED; WILSON, LEVANNA; WOODS, MARION Cc: 'heller@fec.net' Subject: I just spoke with Chris Heller, our attorney. He asked me to reiterate to everyone that he does not want any of the staff talking with Mr. Walker about anything-to refer all his calls, faxes, and visits to Mr. Heller. And he asks that we absolutely not send to Mr. Walker anything without clearing it with him first. Finally, he asks that we remind all our staff once more about this! He was adamant. Please make sure the staff not named in th is e-mail also understand this directive. Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/3 24-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) LESLEY, BONNIE Friday, June 29, 2001 2:47 PM ADAMS, LEON; ARNOLD, LAURA BETH; AUSTIN , LINDA; BRANDON, BARBARA; BRIGGS, MONA R.; BROADNAX, KAREN; BUSBEA, PAT; CARR, MARCELLINE; CARSON, RENE'; CLEAVER, VANESSA; CLIFFORD, ELIZABETH; CRAWFORD, PAMELA; DAVIS, SUZI; DEBBIE MILAM; DILLINGHAM, YVETTE; DONALDSON, MABLE; FINNEY, ANTONETTE; FLETCHER, DANNY; FREEMAN, ANN; GILLIAM, ANITA; GLASGOW, DENNIS; HARDING, CASSANDRA; HUFFMAN, KRIS; JACKSON, MARION; JOHNSON, VIRGINIA; JONES, OOCIA; JONES, STEPHANIE; KIILSGAARO, SHARON; KILLINGSWORTH, PATRICIA; KOVACH, RENEE; LAJUANA RAINEY; LOYA, STELLA; MARION BALDWIN; MARTIN, PAULETTE; McCOY, EDDIE; McNEAL, MARIE; MILAM, JUDY; NEAL, LUCY; PAAL, MARY M. ; PAUL, ANNITA; PERRITT, YORIKO U.; PRICE, PATRICIA; RYNDERS, PAULA; SMITH, GARY; SMITH, PAULA; TEETER, JUDY; WALLS, COLLEEN; WARD, LIONEL; WILLIAMS, BARBARA; WILLIAMS, ED; WILSON, LEVANNA; WOODS, MARION; BABBS, JUNIOUS; FRANCES CAWTHON; GADBERRY, BRADY L. ; HURLEY, RICHARD; JAMES, KENNETH; LINDA WATSON; MARIAN LACEY; MILHOLLEN, MARK; Sadie Mitchell; STEWART, DONALD M.; VANN, SUELLEN; WATSON, LINDA; ANDERSON, BARBARA; ASHLEY, VIRGINIA; BRANCH, SAMUEL; BROOKS, SHARON; CARSON, CHERYL; CARTER, LILLIE; COURTNEY, THERESA; COX, ELEANOR; DARIAN SMITH; DEBORAH MITCHELL; ETHEL DUNBAR; Faith Donovan; FIELDS, FREDERICK; GOLSTON, MARY; HALL, DONNA; HARKEY, JANE; HOBBS, FELICIA L; JONES, BEVERLY; KEOWN, ADA; Lillie Scull; MANGAN, ANN; MANNO, ROBERTA; MARY BARKSDALE; MENKING, MARY; MORGAN, SCOTT; NANCY ACRE; OLIVER, MICHAEL; PHILLIPS, TABITHA; SHARON BROOKS; SMITH, MARY; TAYLOR, LESLIE; TUCKER, JANIS A.; WILSON, JANICE M. ; WORM, JERRY; ZEIGLER, GWEN S.; BERRY, DEBORAH; BLAYLOCK, ANN; FULLERTON, JAMES; HUDSON, ELOUISE; Larry Buck; MOSBY, JIMMY; PATTERSON, DAVID; ROUSSEAU, NANCY; SAIN, LLOYD ORA Results by Middle School Feeder Pattern 193 the AL Ts, and so they were down there yesterday and again today just kind of picking it up, but they do not necessarily know what they are supposed to be doing. They need direction, and I don't feel that I should provide it. - ow do you want to handle this? LESLEY, BONNIE From: LEASE, KA THY R. Sent: To: Monday, October 02, 2000 6:48 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V. Subject: FW: Priorities 2000-2001 Dr. C., I'm sorry. I guess I don't quite know what to do with the plan I sent to Bonnie. I guess I missed the mark. I thought we were to develop what we were doing in our department to meet the areas you outlined in your critical priorities processes. Do you want me to send the parts to the people Bonnie mentioned below? Or are you going to put it all together using what you want out of what we sent? Let me know what you want me to do. KL -Original Message- From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 3:04 PM To: LEASE, KATHY R. Subject: RE: Priorities 2000-2001 You need to send the technology stuff to Lucy Neal. You need to send the Campus Leadership stuff to Sadie Mitchell. I suggest that you forward the other two pieces directly to Dr. Carnine. They are much more detailed than the other items in the Division of Instruction Work Plan and therefore don't \"fit\" with what we have. Alsp; I know nothing about the Quality Initiative Plan, so that makes no sense. to.roe0 Perhaps he can just include your items separately.     -- -  -  -0-riginal Message- From: LEASE, KATHY R. Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 2:50 PM To: LESLEY, BONNIE Subject: Priorities 2000-2001 Importance: High I had massive computer failures today. It took Ed, Ken, Virginia, and Irma to help me get it all back. Here are the priorities from PRE. Call me, if you want me to go over them with you. Thanks, Kathy \u0026lt;\u0026lt; File: Priority II Technology 2000-2001 .doc   File: Priority 11I-2000.doc   File: Priority IV InstructionAssessment. doc   File: Priority IV Instruction-evaluation.doc \u0026gt;\u0026gt; Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc.lrsd .k12.ar.us 51 sounds like the our data is available. - ESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: Dr. C., LEASE, KA THY R. Tuesday, October 03, 2000 6:09 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V. CTA issues 75.1 Did Clementine come in today to discuss assessment issues with you? I invited her in last spring to talk with me, but she never came. If she has some specific issues that you think we need to address in the questionnaire, let me know. I started drafting some ideas about questions, but I think I need some input from you. It looks like from one of the emails you sent that folks have been communicating with you about their concerns. They may have shared some things we haven't thought about. Let me know if you have any time tomorrow afternoon to visit with me (phone or in person) about the survey. Thanks, Kathy Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc.lrsd.kl 2.ar.us LESLEY, BONNIE a rorn: LEASE, KA THY R.  ent: To: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 5:45 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V. Subject: RE: ALT Check-In, Etc. This is pure fabrication . This is not the situation here in PRE. We have a fox in the hen house. I thought this kind of thing was supposed to be over. The digs have continued. The ALT process has to have someone who shepherds it. I said originally that I would need Gayle at least six weeks to two months. I fully understand the strain that Sadie is under because she has come to depend on Gayle as well. If Gayle cannot fulfill her commitment with ALT, then I think she would let me know. She had to go over to the administration building to get some work done to be ready for the Bi-Racial committee report that she is scheduled to give tonight. Roz told her that she could take care of anyone who checked in things today. I guess the real question is that if my staff thinks they are having a problem \"handling\" the ALT today, why didn't they contact me? We had Ed here scanning and scoring, and Irma received no calls that she couldn't handle. I'm afraid I am left with no other conclusion but that this is continued harassment by the person that I thought had agreed to quit harassing. Can you help me with any other explanation? KL -Original Message- From: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 11 :10 AM To: LEASE, KATHY R. Cc: Mijchell, Sadie Subject: FW: ALT Check-In, Etc. I know you know how assumptions can get you in trouble. Obviously, there appears to be a communication problem and I would hope you and Sadie could work it out. -Original Message- Arom: LESL!::Y, BONNIE wrent: Tuesday, October 03. 2000 10:55 AM To: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Subject: ALT Check-In, Etc. I have had three complaints already today-two from IRC staff and one from building-level. Gayle has returned to downtown, and Kathy is sitting in the school improvement meetings. Neither of them organized the staff for the return cif so 76D - LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: Thanks, Bev. -Original Message- LESLEY, BONNIE Wednesday, June 20, 2001 1:13 PM GRIFFIN, BEVERLY RE Semester Test Exemption From: .GRIFFIN, BEVERLY Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 1:15 PM To: LESLEY, BONNIE Subject: RE: Semester Test Exemption i gave a copy of th~ minutes from the February Board meeting to Mr:3. Lacey earlier this week. I don't think I have;--, copy of the kids proposal, but I will check. l was under the impression that this action was for this years seniors only. I might be wrong . . . but, it might be worth checking with Board members to see if they intended for it to be a permanent change to the policy. I will fax you the minutes in just a minute. -Original Message- From: LESLEY, BONNIE , Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 12:51 PM To: GRIFFIN, BEVERLY Subject: Semester Test Exemption Bev, there is wide disagreement about what people remember as the motion the board made regarding the exemption of seniors from their spring semester tests. I don't remember the month they did that-probably February or March? Will you send to me the text of the motion, as well as the text of the language used by the kids in their proposal. I don't have that and will need it to update those regulations/policies. Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, .Arkansas 72206 501/324~2131 501/324-0567 (fax) LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Wednesday, June 20, 2001 1 :12 PM TRUETT, IRMA Compliance i - - --- ~ The compliance report lists several \"program evaluations\" that PRE reported that they had completed, but which I have never seen. Please provide me with three copies each of the following reports. They have been requested by Mr. Walker. '  Extended Year Schools Summer School HIPPY Program  parter Scho0I W'.ampus Leadership Teams Engiish as a Second Language , Lyceum Scholars Program at Philander Smith Colleae Southwest Middle School's SEDL Program - Onward to Excellence (Watson Elementary) Collaborative Action Team (CAT) 351 - LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Monday, June 25, 2001 12:37 PM 'Clay Fendley'; 'heller@fec.net' RE: Meeting schedule Yea! Thanks you! I can't tell you how important this is! 76/ I just talked with Ann Brown. She wanted all the test scores. I put her off until the end of the week. We need to talk about what to give her. -Original Message- From: Clay Fendley [SMTP:FENDLEY@fec.net] Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 12:42 PM To: BALESLE@IRC.LRSD.K12.AR.US Cc: Chris Heller Subject: RE: Meeting schedule Leaving at 1 :05 on the 6th is fine. We will tell Walker that if he wants to call you as a witness, he will need to call you on the 5th. Thanks. \u0026gt; \"LESLEY, BONNIE\" \u0026lt;BALESLE@IRC.LRSD.K12.AR.US\u0026gt; 06/25/0111:49AM \u0026gt; I just called the airlines. I would need to catch a plane at 1 :05 on the 6th to get to Amarillo in time for the rehearsal dinner for this big wedding. If I can't do that, then the latest I could leave to get there at all on Friday is at.5:35 Then I would-come. home on Sunday. What do you advise? \u0026gt; -Original Message- \u0026gt; From: Clay Fendley [SMTP:FENDLEY@fec.net] \u0026gt; Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 9:41 AM \u0026gt; To: BALESLE@IRC.LRSD.K12.AR.US; blgadbe@lrsdadm.lrsd.k12.ar.us; \u0026gt; DMSTEWA@lrsdadm.lrsd.k12.ar.us; lvcami@lrsdadm.lrsd.k12.ar.us; \u0026gt; SMMitch@lrsdadm.lrsd.k12.ar.us; JCBABBS@STUASN.LRSD.K12.AR.US \u0026gt; Cc: Chris Heller; KJAMES@lrsdadm.lrsd.k12.ar.us \u0026gt; Subject: Meeting schedule \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Here's the meeting schedule so far: \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Mr. Gadberry - Wednesday at 2:00 at our office. \u0026gt; Dr. Lesley - Thursday at 1 :DO at our office. \u0026gt; Ms. Mitchell - Friday at 9:00 at our office. \u0026gt; \u0026gt; We should get Joshua's objections today and have requested a witness list \u0026gt; by Wednesday. \u0026gt; \u0026gt;Weare leaving Monday (July 2) open until we get Joshua's witness list. \u0026gt; Everybody plan on meeting Tuesday (July 3) all day at our office. Let me \u0026gt; know if that presents a problem for you, and we can try to work around \u0026gt; your schedu_le. \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Remember, the most important thing in preparation for the hearing is for \u0026gt; you to know what's in the Revised Plan and the interim and final \u0026gt; compliance reports. \u0026gt; \u0026gt; We will provide copies of Joshua's objections as soon as they are \u0026gt; received. \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Let me know if you have any questions. \u0026gt; selected to receive Merit Scholarship awards. The info in italics is from the National Merit web site. So, of the 1.2 million entrants, only 7,900 are named Finalists for National Merit scholarships and corporate-sponsored scholarships. That amounts to 6/10 of 1 % of the entrants. Mr. Walker's statement on page 22 is: \"We note here that the district is yet to have a single Black national merit scholar in the nineteen years of this active litigation.\" THIS IS INCORRECT. Without reviewing 19 years of data (and we don't have al(b:f the data for those years), as recently as 4 years ago Salonica Gray, an A.fiican American female senior at Central, was a National Merit Finalist. Hope this helps! Suellen 5. Vann, APR Director of Communications Little Rock School District (501) 324-2020 LESLEY, BONNIE From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Thursday, June 28, 200111 :36 AM To: MITCHELL, SADIE Subject: RE: ~ am wondering how he is feeling as well. This is baptism by fire. -Original Message- From:  MITCHELL. SADIE Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 9:29 AM To: LESLEY, BONNIE Subject RE: I panicked when I got here and saw all of the stuff from John. I am worried about Dr. James. I hope he will be able to handle all of this. Sadie Mitchell smmitch@lrsdadm.lrsd.k12.ar.us -Original MessageFrom: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 9:09 AM To: MITCHELL, SADIE Subject: RE: He was kind of angry that we are even attempting to respond to this stuff. He asked me what he needed to do to make sure everyone understands that we are not to play Mr. Walker's game. How ya doing today? -Original Message- From: MITCHEU, SADIE Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 9:18 AM To: LESLEY, BONNIE Subject: RE: :) Sadie Mitchell smmitch@lrsdadm.lrsd.k12.ar.us - __1!_8_ ------ - - --- - ------ --- - - -Original Message- From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 9:04 AM To: MITCHELL, SADIE; EGGLESTON, DEANA; GADBERRY, B~DY L.; STEWART, DONALD M.; BABBS, JUNIOUS; JAMES, KENNETH Cc: 'heller@fec.net' Subject: RE: I just spoke with Chris Heller, and he asked me to tell all of you that we are not going to make this information (copies of our invitations and documents sent to Mr.Walker or Ms. Springer) available to Mr. Walker. It is without exception stuff we have already sent to him:\"- He also asked me to reiterate to everyone that he does not want any of the staff talking with Mr. Walker about anything-to refer all his calls, faxes, and visits to Mr. Heller. And he asks that we absolutely not send to Mr. Walker anything without clearing it with him first. Finally, he asks that we remind all our staff once more about this! He was adamant. -Original Message- From: MITCHELL, SADIE Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 9:03 AM To: EGGLESTON, DEANA Cc: LESLEY, BONNIE; GADBERRY, BRADY L.; STEWART, DONALD M.; BABBS, JUNIOUS Subject: RE: Thank you Sadie Mitchell smmitch@lrsdadm.lrsd.kl2.ar.us -Original Message- From: EGGLESTON, DEANA Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 8:38 AM To: MITCHELL, SADIE Cc: BABBS, JUNIOUS Subject: RE: Everyone sent the information when it was requested, however, I'm not sure if they have sent recent documents since his original request. I just spoke with Cly and he said to make the folders we have available to Joy on Monday as per \"her request, but for me to not to put the documents in any particular order (ie. date, subject, etc.) -  - ------  - .. ~.. . -- --- ---- .. -- - . ___ .. Deana -Original Message- From: MITCHELL, SADIE Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 8:41 AM To: LESLEY, BONNIE; STEWART, DONALD M.; GADBERRY, BRADY L.; BABBS, JUNIOUS; JAMES, KENNETH   Cc: EGGLESTON, DEANA Subject: Mr. Walker sent a fax requesting \"all invitations to Ms. Springer or Mr. Walker to meetings of any kind, as well as copies of any documents you have sent to them over the past three years. Also any document of whether Mr. Walker or Ms. Springer actually attended the meetings to which you invited them.\" I think we already sent this information to Mr. Babbs and he compiled it. Is this correct? Sadie Mitchell smmitch@lrsdadm.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 219 - - LESLEY, BONNIE From: LEASE, KATHY R. Sent: To: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 12:54 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V. Subject: FW: Test Pack Importance: High Dr. Carnine, What is the purpose of this? Am I missing something? Is Bonnie trying to eliminate her need to work with this department? We have some software that is licensed to this department. Eddie has been trying to get it loaded on her computer. My guess is that she needs it to work on her dissertation. She has not spoken to me about what her data needs are for her dissertation. Most doctoral candidates come in and visit with us about their data needs. We work with them, but they get data in an aggregate form, not individual students' information. I wish you would please tell me what role you want this department to play. I know the game that is being played. I am about to my wit's end with it. Kathy -Original Message--- From: JOHNSON, VIRGINIA Sent Tuesday, February 13, 200112:43 PM To: LEASE, KATHY R. Subject: FW: Test Pack -Original Message-  om: LESLEY, BONNIE nt; Monday, February 12, 2001 5:31 PM , o: RUFFINS, JOHN Cc: JOHNSON, VIRGINIA; McCOY, EDDIE; CLEAVER, VANESSA Subject RE: Test Pack Thanks so much, JOhn. -Original Message- From: RUFFINS, JOHN Sent; Monday, February 12, 2001 4:46 PM To: LESLEY, BONNIE Subject: RE: Test Pack I will come over and personally visit with Virginia and Eddie to access their data and program needs. -- -Original Message--From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent Monday, February 12, 2001 2:40 PM To: RUFFINS, JOHN Subject Test Pack John, I am moving Eddie McCoy and Virginia Johnson out of the rooms designated for PRE and into the room where Vanessa Cleaver is. Both of them will have some program evaluation responsibilities and need to be able to access the SAT9 data, as well as other student data. How do I get those programs loaded onto their machines? Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) 19 ' LESLEY, BONNIE From: LEASE, KA THY R. Sent: To: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 5:36 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V. Subject: RE: Another thought Here's one more thought, then I'm burying this frustration. I wouldn't have knowt'i\" about what she is doing at all if Virginia hadn't forwarded me a copy of the message. I'm trapped in junior high!!! Can't somebody save me??? Kathy -Original Message-- From: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 4:05 PM To: LEASE, KATHY R. Subject: RE: Another thought I can support but you do not want to hold the data ... You want free access. Give her all the access she wants or needs ... and then give her more. -Original Message- From: LEASE, KATHY R. Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 12:56 PM To: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Subject: Another thought Is it possible to require Bonnie to work through me to get the data she needs? .She is doing everything possible to undermine the work of this department. I have never seen such viciousness in all my professional experience. Can yo1:1 s1:1ppo1Tusor are weTon our own? Kathy Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 5. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 LESLEY, BONNIE From: LEASE, KATHY R. 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc. lrsd .k12.ar. us Sent: To: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 4:10 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V. Subject: RE: Another thought I totally agree with that. I want everyone to have access to the data at his or her fingertips. I just continue to be frustrated with the way she refuses to work with me. Kathy -- -Original Message--- From: CARNINE, LESUE V. Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 4:05 PM To: LEASE, KATHY R. Subject: RE: Another thought \u0026amp; can support but you do not want to hold the data ... You want free access. Give her all the access she wants or needs ...  nd then give her more. --Original Message- From: LEASE, KATHY R. Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 12:56 PM To: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Subject: Another thought 17 Is it possible to require Bonnie to work through me to get the data she needs? She is doing everything possible to undermine the work of this department. I have never seen such viciousness in all my professional experience. Can you support us or are we on our own? Kathy Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 LESLEY, BONNIE 501 -324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc.lrsd.k12.ar.us From: LEASE, KA THY R. Sent: To: Subject Tuesday, February 13, 2001 12:59 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V. Positions After Don's comment in Cabinet about not hiring people, I visited with him about the positions that I currently have advertised. He suggested that I visit with you about whether or not I can hire the people I need to do the assessment program. I am currently down to three employees. I don't think we can do assessment for 20,000 kids with that number. want to set up interviews this week, but I want your blessing! -- Thanks, Kathy Kathy Lease, Ed.D. a,-ssistant Superintendent 9'lanning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 LESLEY, BONNIE 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc.lrsd. k 12 .ar. us From: LEASE, KA THY R. Sent: To: Subject: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 12:56 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V. Another thought Is it possible to require Bonnie to work through me to get the data she needs? She is doing everything possible to undermine the work of this department. I have never seen such viciousness in all my professional experience. Can you support us or are we on our own? Kathy Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc. lrsd. kl 2.ar. us 18 From: To: Date: Dr. Faucette i'r/-}- Mrs. Hargis 17 November 2000 ....'  Subject: Exclusion of regular English students from Jennie Calder lecture I write to request a bit of information concerning the recent visit of Jennie Calder, a Robert Louis Stevenson scholar from Scotland, to Central as a part of the conference celebrating this great writer. It was my understanding, after our conversations last spring, that the event was in recognition of the universal appeal of a revered writer. Known and loved the world over, Stevenson is one of a -select group whose works attract readers from widely varying backgrounds, uniting people of all classes and condition in the appreciation of a gifted artist. I was excited about the opportunity Central students-including my own studentswould have to be--exposed to a world of exciting and enthusiastic research that would be especially significant for seniors. (Traditionally, the last year of high school English is dedicated to the exploration of the rich legacy of British literature.) I was disappointed  beyond belief to learn that none-not one--of my regular Engli~h students would be allowed to oenefit from tlie singular experience of having the chance to see and hear the visiting scholar. Only AP and pre-AP students were allowed to attend the Piesentation. In fact, most teachers of regular English classes only learned of the event when students began to ask why they were not allowed to attend the assembly that students in other classes were discussing at lunch. Limiting the experience to students in AP and pre-AP English classes meant that very few black students were allowed to attend. I am shocked and outraged that yet another singular educational opportunity has been reserved for the children of privilege. Because many of the privileged AP English students took advantage of the event to slip out of the building and skip the assembly, and because you wanted to supplement their numbers, you solicited the attendance of students from AP. science and history classes,   still denying access to students from regular English classes. If you really wanted to  impress Ms. Calder, having the Creative Writing Club presented would have done just  that. The knowledge that, at 287 members, the Creative Writing Club is the most active club at Central would impress any true scholar or teacher. One can only wonder why you, Mr. Howard, and the third floor English department all miss the significance of the fact that the club that most fully represents the student diversity in our building is a club centered around an academic endeavor, the study and practice of literature. Yes, this is quite an example you set for our students. Central, lvir. Howard, the English department, and you all had a chance to shine as this scholar brou~bt her enthusiasm to our large and diverse student body. Central, Mr. Howard, the English department, and you dropped the ball disastrously on this one. Rather than seizing the opportunity to be shining beacons by providing this opportunity 7tS I  I I   l ; . ~   .. for learning outside the traditional limitations of the classroom to all of our students, you have shown your true stripe. I thank you for the demonstration once again that, instead of a single unified English department, Central actually bas two:.the second floor contrining primarily regular English classes, and the privileged third-.floor home of AP English. I would now ask an additional bit of information. Please inform me in writing of your reasons for this -l~test instance of educational snobbery so that I might explain more accurately to my classes your dismissal of them as second-class students. - ....._ - -  -  Dr. Leslie Carnine Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Carnine: Via Facsimile - 324-2146 December 16, 1998 Would you please ask Nir. James Washington, the District's ombudperson, to look into the complaint of Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Deodis Fleming regarding their concerns at Carver Magnet. You are probably not aware that this office has had.several complaints from other parents regarding the unfair treatment of black students at Carver. You should have received a letter from the Flemingsoutlining their concerns along with a response from Ms. Barksdale. Copies ofboth are enclosed for your convenience. . The Flemings believe that Ms. Barksdale is trying to excuse the reason for Ms. Ransom's exclusion of their son from participation by stating that he had behavior problems. In today's society, persons who discriminate usually attempt to establish legitimate reasons for their discriminatory actions. The reason given by Ms. Ransom, we believe, is pretextual. In other words, the reason that she has given is not legitimate. The Flemings were not previously advised that their son had behavior problems regarding his participation in Odyssey of the Mind. Moreover, they are not aware that their son has a behavior problem. Ms. Barksdale's commitment to establish an OM Guideline booklet is a step, I believe, in the right direction. However, I do not believe that she should wait until next year. That process should start immediately. Opportunity for discrimination evolves when there are no written guidelines or rules for participation in a particular activity. The person overseeing or administering the activity usually has the discretion to make rules as they go along. These rules usually favor their own personal interests. Moreover, these rules or guidelines usually change daily to fit a particular interest or situation. I am not sure why the Flemings chose not assist in the coaching of Odyssey's students as indicated by Ms. Barksdale; however, many of our children's parents are unable to participate in many of the schools activities because often they occur-when they are obliged to work and other commitments to meet the overall needs of their families. Page 2 - Letter to Dr. Carnine December 17, 1998 167 I have indicated to Mr. \u0026amp; rvirs. Fleming that I woulq be happy to sit down with 1vir. Washington, Ms. Mitchell, Ms. Barksdale, and any other persons tl,1-?-t they believe can help bring this matter to an amicable resolution. In fact, Mr. Washington may assume the role as the parent advocate, if the Flemings agree. I would, however, like to receive a report of his findings and resolution. Thank you for your attention to this request. JCS/ Enclosures cc: Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Deodis Fleming Ms. Diane Barksdale Ms. Sadie Mitchell Mr. James Washington Sincerely, Joy C. Springer Joshua Intervenors Via Facsimile - 324-2146 February 18, 1999 Ms. Sadie Iv.litchell Associate Superintendent for Student Services Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 7220 l Dear Ms. Mitchell: This office has received several calls regarding the selection process for the new football coach at J. A Fair High School. It is our information that the selection process has been changed to favor the selection of a particular coach for the position. In oraer to address tfie concerns that have been raised, would you please provide to me a copy of process being utilized by District officials for the selection of coaching positions including the selection criteria. If this information has changed from prior years, also please provide the process and criteria that was utilized in previous years. I have spoken with Mr. Gillespie regarding this matter and he has assured me that the only change in the process was that the selection committee did not meet on the school campus as it has done in previous years. I was, however, a bit concerned about the gender makeup of the selection committee for the Fair position. I voiced my concern to Mr. Gillespie that the committee was all males. I am available to discuss this matter with you and Mr. Gillespie at a mutually convenient time. Thank you for your attention to this request. JCS/ cc: Ivir. Ray Gillespie Sincerely, Joy C. Springer Joshua Intervenors Rudolph Howard . Principal, Central High School 1400 Park Street Little Rock, AR 72202 Dear Mr. Howard: Via Facsimile - 324-2308 March 17, 1999 lb't I am writing on behalf of Rev. \u0026amp; Ms. Bennie Horton and their son, Tariclc, to request a conference regarding his grades. As I review the revised desegregation plan, I can point to a number of areas including equal treatment, participation in honors and gifted classes, academic achievement, parental involvement etc. that are involved in these parents' concern. By copy ofUiis letter to the District's Ombudsperson, :tvir. James L. Washington, I am also putting him on notice of this concern and invite him to participate in the conference. I have spoken with Ms. Horton and she is available during her lunch hour to discuss this matter. Please let me hear from you. JCS/ cc: Rev. \u0026amp; Mrs. Bennie Horton Mr. James L. Washington Sincerely, Joy C. Springer Joshua Intervenors JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON 2\\-1ARK BUR1'rETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. Mr. James Washington Little Rock School District Office of Ombudsman 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Washington: JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATIORNEY AT LAw 1723 BROADWAY L!ITLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 'TELEPHONE(501) 374-3758 FA,'{ (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile - 324-2213 October 14, 1999 KP./,puv1se AJ0. S 77{ /1)0, !1 I am writing to request that you look into the selection process for students participating on mock trial teams:at Central High School. We request that you obtain some background information regarding past composition by grade, race and gender and the current composition by grade, race and gender. This office has received a complaint that these teams are generally one race and favor . white students because their parents or other relatives are business professionals such as lawyers, judges, etc. Thank you for your attention to this matter. We further request a report of your findings with respect to this inquiry. By copy of this letter to Mr. Howard, :tv!r. Babbs and Dr. Carnine, I am also advising them of these allegations. JCS/ cc: Mr. Ruduloph Howard Mr. Junious Babbs Dr. Leslie Carnine a:rely,;'l - / ' cl::vKfl,/ / Joy C. Springer U .c::::1 On Behalf of Joshua 1vir. James Washington Ombudsperson Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 7220 I Dear Mr. Washington: Via Facsimile February 28, 2000 I am writing to request that you investigate the complaints of discrimination and retaliatory treatment by Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Eddy Harris Sr. against his son, Eddy Jr. by members of the staff at Oak Grove High School in the Pulaski County Special School District. For several years, Eddy Jr.w as a M to M student in tfie County. Eddy is currently a student in the Little Rock School District. I have previously requested that Mr. Billy Bowles, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation, look into complaints of the Harrises. I am enclosing a CGpy of my request to .l\\!Ir. Bowles. Mr. Bowles assured me that he would conduct a thorough investigation and, thereafter, provide a report of his findings. I am enclosing a copy ofivir. Bowles' purported report of his findings. It is basically a one sentence conclusion. At least, I expected a report which enumerated all charges and a summary of his findings. I expected a more thorough report similar to the one that he and members of his staff conducted several years ago at Robinson High School where he noted findings, whether substantiated or unsubstantiated. The Harrises claim Eddy Harris Jr. was not allowed to participate on the football team for the last four or five games for.racial and/or retaliatory reasons, that Eddy Jr. was not selected to participate on the basket ball team for racial and/or retaliatory reasons and that Eddy Jr. re_ceived retaliatory treatment from his classroom teachers, in particular, Ms. Morrison, his English teacher. who gave him gave him an \"F\". The Harrises claim that Eddy's English grade for the semester is based, in part, upon assignments that he should not have been charged for because they had officially withdrew him from Pulaski County School District. Enclosed is the documentation from the Harrises. Also enclosed are copies of letters directed to or copied to Mr. Bowles regarding the claims of the Harrises. I also have several tape recordings of conferences with staff members that I will be happy to share with you. i\\lir. Bowles-was aware of these taped conferell(:es, but he-did not request a copy of either of them for his review. Mr. Bowles did not make single finding regarding his investigation nor did he address any of the points in this correspondence. In summary, the complaints of the Harrises are as follow: 1) failure of Eddy Jr. to participate in the remaining four or five games of the football season; 2) failure to Eddy Jr. to participate on the basketball team; and 3) the failing grade received by Eddy Jr. in English. 77/ The treatment referenced above, we believe is due to racial and/or retaliatory treatment by Pulaski County School District officials. Please let me know if additional information or clarification is needed regarding this matter. Again, I am copying Mr. Junious Babbs to alert him of this egregious situation and to request that he also utilize his offices to assist in the amicable resolution of this matter. I would also appreciate a report of your findings. Thank you for your attention to this request. JCSt cc: Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Eddy Harris Sr. Mr. Billy Bowles Mr. Junious Babbs Ms. Ann Brown  Sincerely, Joy C. Springer Joshua Intervenors :Mr. James Washington Ombudsperson Little Rock School District 810 West Mark.ham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Washington: February 28, 2000 I am writing to request that you investigate the complaints of Mr. Reginald Abrams. I am taking the time to put this request in writing due to the egregious nature of the situation. Mr. Abrams' \"son is a Boys Scout at Cloverdale Middle School. Mr. Abrams complained to me regarding the treatment his son and other black Scouts received while attending the Boys Scout Council Area Banquet on last Thursday evening, February 24, 2000 at Ricks Armory. I have-asked Mr. Abrams to call you with the specific details of this experience. I must state, however, that based upon his communication to me, I do not believe that the Little Rock School District's commitment to inclusiveness and desegregation was demonstrated at this banquet. Upon information and belief, it appears that the black scouts roles at this activity were both demeaning and nonexistent. I must also question the expectations oflv!r. Lacour, the Scout Master, who tolerated this treatment and was reported to have said that he did not expect black parents to participate and thus be able to question the roles and participation of their children during particular scouting activities. Mr. Lacour needs to understand that the spirit of desegregation plan called for activities such as scouting and that \"scouting\" would be an opportunity for black students to have new experiences and be given opportunities to develop skills such as social and leadership skills, to new a few. May I suggest that you conduct an investigation into the scouting programs for the entire District and determine the roles of black students and whether similar situations have occurred. I believe that you should interview Mr. Lacour to determine the schools that he has been working with and the names of other scout masters in the area who work with Little Rock District students. I understand that Mr. Lacour's number is 758-1838 or pager 688-4533 . Mr. Abrams may be reached at 9700 Stardust Trail, Little Rock, AR 72209, telephone number 562-0348. Please let me hear from you regarding the result of your findings and your recommendations to ensure that similar situations do not occur in the future. Thank you for your attention to this request. I believe that it is important that ~fr. Junious Babbs receives a copy of this letter given his role to ensure compliance with desegregation. JCS/ cc: :tvir. Reginald Abrams l\\lir. Junious Babbs Sincerely, Joy C. Springer Joshua Intervenors JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE SHAWN CHILDS Mr. Ray Gillespie Athletic Director Little Rock School District 8 l O West Markham Little Rock, AR 7220 l JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAw 1723 BROADWAY UTILE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile August 28; 2000 ...... Re: Southwest l\\:liddle School Dear Mr. Gillespie: 773 17l I am writing to request that you investigate the complaints of Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Michael Wesley regarding their son, Marquis, a student at Southwest Middle School. Mr. Wesley reports a very disturbing incident that occurred on Friday, August 24, 2000 at the school involving Coach Foote. In summary, Mr. Wesley reports that Coach Foote choked Marquis and has openly admitted doing so. The Wesleys are very upset about Coach Foote actions and request that \"he be dealt with\". We are available to meet with you, if additional information is needed. ncere~y '( h':-I ' Joy . Springe ,, On Behalf of Joshua lntervenors JCS/ JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE SHAWN CHILDS Dr. Leslie Carnine Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Carnine: JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAw 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile September 12, 2000 I am .vriting on behalf of Marcus Winston, a 9rh grade student at Parkview High School and similarly situated students in the Little .Rock District. Would you please direct my attention to the sec ti off ofthe District' s- student handbook which states that 9th grade students cannot participate in varsity team athletics. It is my understanding that the practice of the District in previous years has been to allow these students to participate on varsity teams. By copy of this letter to Mr. James Washington, I am also requesting that he investigate this matter. I recommend that he identify all 9th grade students at the senior high level to determine the number, race and gender of the students who are being adversely affected by unwritten directive. As I review t~e District's desegregation plan, I note in Section 2.6 of that plan that the District \"shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are .no barriers to participation by qualified African Americans in extracurricular activities .... \" It appears that the District's refusal to allow 9rh grade students to participate in athletics at the varsity level is contrary to plan commitments. This new practice is neither promoting nor ensuring participation. Prior to invoking the process regarding compliance issues, I ask that Mr. Washington provide to this office a report of his preliminary findings. by September 20, 2000. Thank you for your attention to this matter. nin~ero/J~. ,_, . ~- \"44 \u0026lt;J= ; 9t~ ~ / Joy C. Sprin~er ~ ( On Behalf of Joshua Intervenors JCS/ cc: Mr. James Washington, Ombudsman Mr. Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent Mr. Ray Gillespie, Althletic Director Ms. Ann Brown ?Jf JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETIE SHAWN CHILDS Dr. Leslie V. Carnine Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 8 IO West Markham Little Rock, AR  7220 I JOHN W,,,WALKER, P.A . . _,,. ATI6RNEY AT Ll.w 1723 BROADWAY L!TILE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile - 324-2146 October 10, 2000 Re: Duties of Ombudsman Dear Dr. Carnine: Yollf letter of October 5, 2000, in responseto my letter of October 3, 2000, was received by this office today. I look forward to receiving the other requested information. . With respect to the second instance, may I call your attention to a letter dated July 25, 2000 addressed to you from a Parkview parent, Bill Winston? A copy is attached for your convenience. According to Mr. Winston, you did not respond to his inquiry. On September 12, 2000, I spoke briefly with Mr. Gillespie about Mr. Winton's concerns. :tvfr. Gillespie reported to Mr. Winston and me that there existed documentation which communicated to all parents the District's position regarding 9th grade participation on varsity teams for the 2000-2001 school year. This information was requested for the parent through the Ombudsman. To date, this information has not been received. This complaint was subsequently assigned to Dr. Marion Lacey for handling. Dr. Lacey, Mr. Gillespie and I met on September 29, 2000 regarding Mr. Winston's concerns. I was assured by Dr. Lacey that she would provide a written response along with the previously requested information by the Ombudsman and myself By copy of this letter to Dr. Lacey, I hope that this will serve as a reminder that I wouid still like to have her letter and the requested information.  By copy ofthis letter to Mr. Washington, I hope that this also refreshes his memory regarding the requested information that was not shared with him or a parent after inquiry and request for it. Surely, these records do not fall in the category of confidentiality. Moreover, the District has had approximately thirty (30) days to provide the information. Thank you again for your response and consideration giveri to this inquiry. JCS! Enclosure  cc: Mr. Junious Babbs Mr. James w ashington Dr. Marion Lacey Mr. Ray Gillespie Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Gus Taylor 715 Sinferelv, 4~- (/,(L(( (:!, ' !zt:t~ My C. S prmger  . (J On Behalf of Joshua ..... SEP , 13 ! 00 . 7:48 FR NATIONWIDE July 25, 2000 Superintendent Les Carnine 810 W. Markham Little Rock. AR 72202 Superintendent Carnine, 501 223 1749 TO 93744187 Please be advised that I am attempting to contact you by letter, having been unsuccessful so far in getting you to call me back. ! have left several messages with your secretary requesting to speak to you concerning my oldest son, Demarcus Winston, a freshman .scheduled to attend Little Rock Parkview Arts and _Science Magnet High School this year. My lasr attempt to reach you was July 14, 2000 and I was told by your secretary that you were out of town and she would have you call me on Monday, July 24, 2000 upon your return. In any event, my concern involves the situation or status of 9th grade athletes being able to participate on the varsity level. I have spoken with the head football coach, Ernest Mcgee, and the head basketball coach, Al Flanagan, about this issue and they advised they were unclear-on-whether 9th graders could\"play with the varsity, but both were hoping they could. They encouraged me to voice my concerns to you hopefully before any decision is made . . I personally feel that my son would be penalized and held back in his development as an athlete if he were not allowed to play on the varsii:y level. The 9th graders who were good enough to play at the varsity level were allowed to do so last year and I have no idea and, as a concerned parent, have not been given an explanation of why my son would not be allowed to play this year. There is not an organized 9th grade league of competition as there is in the Pulaski County school district. Since the new format now moves 9th graders to Senior High (9-12), then he should be allowed to play. The coaches want him to play, his parents wanr him to play, but I am told that he may not be allowed to play. I would hope that you would consider that my son who is 6-6, 2001bs gets penalized ifhe is not allowed to play with the varsity and compete at the highest levd of competition. I am oguin asking you to discuss this issue with me and listen to my concerns. Sincerely, Mr. Bill Winston 775 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE SHAWN CHILDS Mr. James Washington Ombudsman Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 7220 l Re: 9th grade Athletics Dear Mr. Washington: JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATIORNEY AT LAw 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE Rocx, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile - 324-2260 September 13, 2000 776 For y0ur information, I am attaching a copy of a letter- that was sent to Dr. Carnine by one of the concerned parents. It is my understanding that Dr. Carnine has not responded to the letter nor has he returned the parent's numerous teiephone calls. Also attached hereto is a list of other parents whose children stand to be adversely affected by the District unwritten rule regarding 9th grade athletics. Hopefully this information will assist you with your investigation. In speaking briefly with Mr. Gillespie on yesterday, he indicated that the District sent notices to parents regarding this matter. Would you also inquire about the notices that were sent to parents and share copies of same with this office. Finally, would you also check to see whether this issue was submitte~ to the Board for approval. .. I look forward to your preliminary report by September 20, 2000. Thank you for your cooperation. JCS/ (r:lyar ~(pnrig~~ On Behalf of Joshua SEP 13'00 7:48 FR NATIONWIDE 501 223 1749 TO 93744187 P . 02/03 776 July 25, 2000 Superin1endent Les Carnine 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72202 Superintendent Carnine, Please be advised th.a! I am attempting to contact you by letter, having been unsuccessful so far in getting you to call me back. l have le.ft several messages with your secretary requesting to speak to you concerning my oldest son, Demarcus Winston, a freshman scheduled to attend Lirtle Rock Parkview Arts and Science Magnet High School this year. My last attempt to reach you was July 14, 2000 and l was told by your secretary that you were out of town and she would have you call me on Monday, July 24, 2000 upon your return. In any event, my concern involves the situaiion or status of 9th grade athletes being able to participate on the varsity level. I have spoken with the head football coach, Ernest Mcgee, and the head basketball coach, Al Flanagan, about this issue and they advised they w_ere unclear on whether 9th graders could play with the varsity, but both were hoping they could. They encouraged me to voice my concerns to you hopefully before any decision is made. I personally feel that my son would be penalized and held back in his development as an athlete ifhe were not allowed to play onthe varsity level. The 9th graders who were . good enough to play at the var.;ity level were allowed to do so last year and I have no idea and, as a concerned parent, have not been given an explanation of why my son would not be allowed to play this year. There is not an organized 9th grade league of competition as there is in the Pulaski County school district. Since the new fonnat now moves 9th graders to Senior High (9-12), then he should be allowed to play. The coaches want him to play, his parents want him to play, but I am told that he may not be allowed to play. I would hope that you would consider that my son who is 6-6, 200lbs gets penalized if he is not allowed to play with the varsity and compete at the highest level of competition. I am ago.in asking you to disc~ this issue with me and listen to my concerns. Sincerely, Mr. Bill Winston SEP 13'00 7:49 FR NATIONWIDE 501 223 1749 TO 93744187 Concerned Parents:  Bill and Tammy Winston (Demarcus Winston, Linle Rock Parlcview) Home Phone# (501)224-5138  Glenn and Karen Anderson (Jamaal Anderson. Little Rock Parkview) Home Phone# (501)224-2593  Lynn and Angie Smith (Nicholas Smith, Little Rock Parkview) Home Number Unknown  Brian and Tracey Salley (Trey Salley, Little Rock Parkview) Home Phone# (501)565-0947  William and Jean Givens (CaTravia Givens, Little Rock Central) Home Phone# (501)562-6882  Fred and Dorothy Blerlsoe (Fred Bledsoe, Jr., Little Rock Central) Home Phone# (501)562-566L  Eric Mcghee (Tori Mcghee, Linle Rock Central) Home Nwnber Unknown P.03/03 776 ** TOTAL PAGE.003 ** STEWART, DONALD M. - rom: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 10:49 AM To: STEWART, DONALD M. Subject: RE: Desegregation Payments to Pulaski Co. Districts Thanks so much for this information. I am understanding it for the first time. -Original Message- Frorn: STEWART, DONALD M. Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 4:17 PM To: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Cc: GADBERRY, BRADY L.; ANDERSON, VICTOR; MILHOLLEN, MARK; BABBS, JUNIOUS; MITCHELL, SADIE; LESLEY, BONNIE Subject: Desegregation Payments to Pulaski Co. Districts Attached to th is email is an Excel worksheet which calculates the total amount of funds received from the State by the three school districts in Pulaski County as a result of the Desegregation Settlement Agreement and various court orders. These calculations are based on the data from the 1999-2000 school year and do change slightly from year to year. In total payments the three districts in Pulaski County will receive approximately $39.5 M. in the 1999-2000 school year. This total is made up of funds for: Magnet School operation ($10.1), M-to-M transfer payments ($13 M), Magnet and M-to-M transportation ($5.9 M), Teacher Rel. \u0026amp; Health Ins. Reimburse. {$10.3 M), and Worker's Compensation Reimbursement ($.2 M). These payments are divided among the three Pulaski County Districts utilizing various methods and result in annual payments on behalf of district students to: LRSD ($19.86 M), NLRSD ($4.88 M), and PCSSD ($14.76 M). M-to-M Funding: Currently M-to-M transfer students are removed from the district enrollment prior to regular State Equalization Aid . computations. If these students were not being funded through the separate M-to-M funding mechanism they would be eligible for regular State Aid and would create approximately $8.5 M per year. LRSD is currently sending a larger number (1100) of M-to-M students than it receives (422) and also, through the pooling agreement, must pay to the PCSSD ($.4 M) for the education of M-to-M students. Because of these provisions, doing away with the M-to-M provision would actually result in an increase in aid to the LRSD of approximately ($1.2 M), while NLRSD wculd lose ($1 .3 M) and PCSSD would lose ($4.1 M). If all M-to-M transfers were returned to their home district, LRSO would be responsible for educating approximately 675 more students than it currently does. At the current rate of expense per student that would cost the district in excess of $4 M. Magnet Funding: Magnet funding is limited to students in the original stipulated magnet school, all located in LRSD. These students are included in the home district's enrollment count for equalization aid purposes. In addition to this funding source, the State is req uired to fund one half the cost of educating these students. This amount is calculated from MRC approved budget submissions and is paid directly to the LRSD on behalf of all students enrolled in those schools. The approved amount for the 1999-2000 school year is approximately ($10.1 M). The amount paid on behalf of each district's students is: 100 LRSD ($6.3 M), LRSD ($1.29 M), and PCSSD ($2.47 M). Magnet \u0026amp; M-to-M Transportation: ?77 The three districts in Pulaski County are currently paid one hundred percent of the costs of providing transportation for all Magnet and M-to-M students, including some expenses for getting these students to after school activities and events. The estimated costs for 1999-2000 is: LRSD ($3.41 M), NLRSD ($.57 M), and PCSSD ($1.94 M). If this funding sourc.e were eliminated there would be no resulting increase in Transportation Aid to the districts from regular State sources. The basic assumption would likely be that all of these cost would also end. Teacher Retirement \u0026amp; Health Insurance: During 1999-2000 the school districts in Pulaski County are projected to receive approximately ($10.28 M) to offset teacher retirement and health insurance costs. This number is somewhat stable but is effected by a number of factors and could change significantly from year to year. Under the present payment calculation any increase in the required contribution rate, (currently $114. per employee, per month and set by the State Board of Education) would result in a corresponding increase in funding to the Pulaski County Districts. The funding breakout by district is currently: LRSD ($6.17 M), NLRSD ($1 .02 M), and - PCSSD ($3.08 M). The cessa tion of these payments would result in a negative bottom line of the amounts received . No offsetting funds would exist and no method for significantly decreasing cost is available. Worker's Compensation: During 1999-2000 the school districts in Pulaski County will receive ($.19 M) to offset costs for providing Worker's Compensation coverage to district employees. These payment amounts by district are currently: LRSD ($.06 M). NLRSD ($.04 M), and PCSSD ($.09 M). Summary: If all special funding for desegregation programs and services were discontinued the ($39.5 M) estimated aid to the three Pulaski County School Districts from desegregation related funding sources would be offset by M-to-M students again being counted for regular State Equalization Aid. When that calculation is made the total aid loss would be app~oximately ($31 M) and by district would be: LRSD ($15.13M ). NLRSD ($4.21 M), and . PCSSD ($11 .66 M). The actual total aid loss to the LRSD budget would be increased by the amount paid directly to the District on behalf of students from the other districts attending Stipulated Magnet Schools. The additional amount would be approximately $3. 76 M but there would also be a decrease in the district's costs since the magnet students attending LRSD schools would by necessity either be reassigned to their home district or some other funding mechanism would need to be put in place. The total aid package is obviously a significant amount of funds and the abrupt loss of these funding sources would necessitate drastic changes in the way all the districts operate. A transition of several years may be necessary in order for the districts to work through the various changes that would be required. 101 STEWART, DONALD M. - om: Sent: To: Subject: BABBS, JUNIOUS Thursday, April 19, 2001 9:19 AM STEWART, DONALD M. FW: LRSD Biracial Committee Request 77! Thanks for agreeing to give him a call. You will find his number listed in an earlier mailing attached. Will stay in touch. Junious C Babbs, Jr jcbabbs@stuasn.lrsd.kl2.ar.us Little Rock School District -Original Message- From: EGGLESTON, DEANA Sent: Wednesday. April 18, 2001 1:51 PM To: BABBS. JUNIOUS Subject: FW: LRSD Biracial Committee Request FYI -Original Message- From: STEWART, DONALD M. Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 2:01 PM To: EGGLESTON, DEANA Subject: RE: LRSD Biracial Committee Request The reason we do not have an estimated completion date on Romine is that we have just started the preliminary design work on that project and until we know exactly what we are going to do we can't guess when it will be complete. I don't know who needs to talk to this person but if Junious want it to be me, let me know. - -----Original Message---- F rorn: EGGLESTON, DEANA Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 10:06 AM To: STEWART, DONALD M.; GADBERRY, BRADY L. Cc: BABBS, JUNIOUS Subject: LRSD Biracial Committee Request We held the April meeting of the LRSD Biracial Committee last night. Delaney Fleming (Joshua's representative) was questioning why the Romine project had no start/ est. completion date on the handout that Don provided. FYI - Delaney has questioned the district's committment to Romine and the \"poor conditions\" of the Romine bldg. many times. Mr. Babbs said that he would check into the projected start dates and have one of you telephone Mr. Fleming. His # is 224-0630. Mr. Fleming's address is 9505 Cerelle, Little Rock, AR 72205 (in Romine's zone). Babbs is out today, however, he wanted me to pass this info along to you. Deana Deana M. Eggleston Student Registration Office (501) 324-2408 dmeggle@stuasn.lrsd.k12.ar.us 37 '/ 1/7 STEWART, Db_NALDM.: \" __ . --___ .''i:\u0026gt;- __ ... . . :c;;. \u0026gt;.:: From: LEASE, KATHY R. Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 2:32 PM To: MILHOLLEN, MARK Cc: STEWART, DONALD M. Subject: Leave Accountability Report Importance: High Mark, I just received the June to March Leave Accountability Report. The names of all those people that we discussed earlier are still on the report. One of my concerns is that they do not have access to their leave information because it was all sent to my department. Another concern is that, again, it looks like there are more people in PRE that there really are. Interestingly enough, Regina Moore got changed to PRE since she is now Karen Broadnax' secretary. The following list of folks do not work in PRE: Mona Briggs, Karen Broadnax, Virg inia Johnson, Shirley Lewis Eddie McCoy, Regina Moore, Rosalyn Summerville. The people who do work for me are the following: Eula Yvette Dillingham, Irma Truett, Charlotte Marks, Malinda Allen , Paulette Denson, and Ed Williams. Thanks for your help in straightening this out. It concerns me that the PRE staff list has not been accurate the whole time I've been here. I'm afraid that it presents a distorted picture of staffing for this department. If there is anything that you need me to do, please let me know. Thanks, Kathy Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc.lrsd .k12.ar.us Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 1:01 PM To: WELCH, JANE Cc: LESLEY, BONNIE Subject: RE: Plato Communication grade I did not know that Central was offering a PLATO Communications course. I am going to research my email from last year. Seemingly there was a question about it then either at Central or Hall. -Original Message- From: WELCH, JANE Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 12:15 PM To: LESLEY, BONNIE Cc: GREEN,CAROL Subject: Plato Communication grade I have been given a grade in the Plato Lab for Larts-/communication. We do not have a number assigned for communication. How do I key this grade without an identifying number? Jane Welch, Registrar-Central High school LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Friday, May 25, 2001 4:14 PM BERRY, DEBORAH; BLAYLOCK, ANN; FULLERTON, JAMES; HUDSON, ELOUISE; Larry Buck; MARIAN LACEY; MOSBY, JIMMY; PATTERSON, DAVID; ROUSSEAU, NANCY; SAIN, LLOYD DAVIS, SUZI; AUSTIN, LINDA Middle School Evaluation I understand that you all got \"assigned\" the middle school program evaluation yesterday. Probably most of the stuff you  eed is in the Compliance Report or the Interim Report. I am attaching both for your information. They are long, so you ay want to look at what you need before you print them. I am not at all sure that you need to spend much time on that assignment. Let me check with the superintendent before you do a lot. I know you have many other things on your plate right now. ~ 1 A Final Compliance Report-001 ... Compliance Report, Feb. 2000.d ... Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/ 324-0567 (fax) 358 STEWART,\" DONALD M. From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 11 :31 AM To: CARNINE, LESLIE V.; ANDERSON, VICTOR; BABBS, JUNIOUS; MITCHELL, SADIE; STEWART, DONALD M.; GADBERRY, BRADY L. Subject: FW: AP fyi --Original Message- From: Clay Fendley [SMTP:FENDLEY@fec.net1 Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 11 :13 AM To: BALESLE@IRC.LRSD.K12.AR.US Subject: AP I have received and reviewed you memo on AP enrollment. It looks great! As you know, there will be concern that we are simply lowering the standards so more kids can get into the courses. To counter this perception, it would be nice to show an increased number and/or percentage of students passing the AP exam. For this reason, I would support either requiring them to take the exam or offering some incentive for doing so. I think it's as i    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\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"nge_ngen_strange-fruit","title":"Strange fruit","collection_id":"nge_ngen","collection_title":"New Georgia Encyclopedia","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018"],"dcterms_creator":["Clayton, Bruce"],"dc_date":["2002-07-03"],"dcterms_description":["Encyclopedia article about the novel Strange Fruit. In hindsight, the controversy that greeted the publication of Lillian Smith's Strange Fruit in 1944 seems unusually heated today. This novel of interracial love was denounced in many places for its \"obscenity,\" although sex is barely mentioned. Massachusetts banned it for a short time; so did the U.S. Post Office. But the book has had many admirers in the years since its publication. It was a commercial success--a best-seller, a Broadway play briefly--and it remains in print in many languages. From her home atop Old Screamer Mountain near Clayton, in Rabun County, Smith knew that many of her neighbors had bought the book, but in public they snubbed her."],"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":["Books--United States","Fiction","Love stories, American","Interracial dating--United States","Racism in literature","Race discrimination in literature"],"dcterms_title":["Strange fruit"],"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/strange-fruit/"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["Cite as: \"Strange Fruit,\" 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":["Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_p1532coll1_16849","title":"Lottie Shackelford interviewed by Grif Stockley","collection_id":"bcas_p1532coll1","collection_title":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Audio Collection","dcterms_contributor":["Stockley, Griffin Jasper, 1944-2023"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Shackelford, Lottie"],"dc_date":["2002-07-02"],"dcterms_description":["Interview discussing her memories of the Daisy Bates during Grif Stockly's research for the book Daisy Bates: Civil Rights Crusader from Arkansas.","phone numbers and address have been removed from audio recording."],"dc_format":["audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Grif Stockley papers (BC.MSS.01.01)","Arkansas Women","Arkansas African Americans"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Civil rights workers","African American women"],"dcterms_title":["Lottie Shackelford interviewed by Grif Stockley"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p1532coll1/id/16849"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["audiocassettes"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Bates, Daisy, 1914-1999"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1740","title":"District Court, memorandum brief in support of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion in Limine, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, and supplementary materials from plaintiff and Joshua intervenors.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2002-07"],"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","School districts","Little Rock School District","Joshua intervenors","Arkansas. Department of Education","School administrators","African Americans--Education","Education--Evaluation","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Project management"],"dcterms_title":["District Court, memorandum brief in support of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion in Limine, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool, and supplementary materials from plaintiff and Joshua intervenors."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1740"],"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":["88 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eDistrict Court, order; District Court, memorandum brief in support of plaintiff's motion in Limine; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to the Little Rock School District (LRSD); District Court, order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' witness list; District Court, Joshua intervenors' supplemental witness list; District Court, transcript and order; District Court, plaintiff's revised witness list for the July 22, 2002, hearing; District Court, letter-order; District Court, two orders; District Court, motion for reconsideration; District Court, order and clarification of order; District Court, plaintiff's witness list for the July 22 hearing as revised July 23, 2002; District Court, order and clarification of order; District Court, plaintiff's motion to strike; District Court, memorandum brief in support of plaintiff's motion to strike; 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.    AO 72A (Rev.8/82) ECEIVED JUL -8 2002 OFF!CF. OF EGREGATIOH MONITORING u.sfo,{b~cRRT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO\"fltffERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JUL Q 1 2002 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. ORDER DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS Pending is Plaintiffs Motion for a Protective Order and for Emergency Hearing. For the time being, Plaintiff's request for a protective Order against Joshua, or anyone acting on their behalf, is GRANTED. The deadline for exchanging exhibits and witnesses was set on May 15, 2002, for June 21 , 2002. At the request of lawyers for LRSD and Joshua, the deadline was orally extended until 5:00 p.m. on Monday, June 24, 2002. It appears, from the documents attached to Plaintiffs Motion, that Joshua's FOI request was submitted on June 26, two days after the deadline for exchanging exhibits and the names of witnesses. Even assuming the FOI can be used in addition to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by a party to litigation, it appears quite certain that this request was not timely. It is my impression, from a quick review of the law, that the great weight of authority precludes a party from using the FOi as a supplement to the discovery rules of the Federal Rules 6 1 1 A072A {Rev.8/82) of Civil Procedure; but, be that as it may, this particular request appears to be manifestly out of time. I note in passing that many, if not most, of the documents requested in the FOI request are not pertinent to the three remaining issues in this case. Accordingly, the LRSD is relieved of any duty to respond to the FOI request by Joshua. If Joshua wants a hearing on this issue, it should file a response to Plaintiff's Motion forthwith, and request a hearing--if such a request is made, a hearing will be set as soon as practicable. IT IS SO ORDERED. DA TED this I 9-:f day of July, 2002. UNITED sT ATESDISTc JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE 1/V!Tb:(oE 58 AND/OR~7~ F9R CP r,;, , ~ ..,___ GY _ - - '\" _ f_t:___ I -2- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKJ COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE RELEVANCE GENERALLY RECEIVED JUL - 8 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS The LRSD moves to exclude all evidence and testimony of noncompliance with the Revised Plan that was not brought to the attention of the entire LRSD Board of Directors pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 401 , 402 and 403 . The ultimate issue before this Court is whether noncompliance with the Revised Plan casts doubt on the Board's intent to comply with the Constitution in the future absent court supervision. See Cody v. Hillard, 139 F.3d 1197, 1199 (8th Cir. 1998). Noncompliance that the Board knew nothing about has no bearing on this issue and is irrelevant. See Fed. R. Evid. 401. Section 1983 Liability Standard The issue before this Court is analogous to the issue of whether a governmental entity may be held liable under 42 U.S.C.  1983 for the unconstitutional conduct of its employees. Respondeat superior is not a permissible theory for holding a governmental entity liable for the unconstitutional acts of its employees. Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). Instead, a governmental entity is liable under 1983 when \"a policy, statement, ordinance, regulation or decision officially adopted and promulgated - by that body's officers\" can be causally related to the allegedly unconstitutional conduct of its employees. Id. Liability may also be based on \"constitutional deprivations visited pursuant to governmental custom even though such a custom has not received formal approval through the body's official decision-making channels.\" Id. at 690- 91, 98 S.Ct. 2018. See Ryan v. Board of Police Commissioners of the City of St. Louis, 96 F.3d 1076, 1084 (8th Cir.1996). In Ware v. Jackson County, 150 F.3d 873 (8th Cir.1998), the Eighth Circuit explained that: Official policy involves 'a deliberate choice to follow a course of action * * * made from among various alternatives' by an official who [is determined by state law to have] the final authority to establish governmental policy.\" Jane Doe A, 901 F.2d at 645. Alternatively, \"custom or usage\" is demonstrated by: (1) The existence of a continuing, widespread, persistent pattern of unconstitutional misconduct by the governmental entity's employees; (2) Deliberate indifference to or tacit authorization of such conduct by the governmental entity's policymaking officials after notice to the officials of that misconduct; and (3) Th[ e] plaintiff['s] injur[y] by acts pursuant to the governmental entity's custom, i.e., (proof] that the custom was the moving force behind the constitutional violation. Ware, 150 F.3d at 880 (citations omitted) (emphasis supplied). \"(I]naction or laxness can constitute government custom if it is permanent and well settled.\" Tilson v. Forrest City Police Dept., 28 F.3d 802, 807 (8th Cir.1994) (citation omitted). - \"Such a government custom of laxness or inaction must be the moving force behind the constitutional violation.\" Id. \"To establish a city's liability based on its failure to prevent misconduct by employees, the plaintiff must show that city officials bad knowledge of prior incidents of police misconduct and deliberately failed to take remedial action.\" Andrews v. Fowler, 98 F.3d 1069, 1075 (8th Cir.1996) (emphasis supplied). In the context of the present case, the Board is the \"final authority\" in making District policy. During the term of the Revised Plan, the Board adopted and/or re-adopted clear, unambiguous policies indicating its intent to comply with the Revised Plan, federal civil rights statutes and the Constitution. See CX 719. Thus, to cast doubt on the Board's intent to comply with the Constitution in the future, Joshua must establish a \"custom or practice\" of failing to remedy noncompliance with the Revised Plan. This requires that Joshua show \"that [the Board] had knowledge of prior incidents of [noncompliance] and deliberately failed to take remedial 2 action.\" Andrews, 98 F.3d at 1075. Accordingly, incidents of noncompliance of which the Board did not have knowledge are irrelevant. See Fed. R. Evid. 401. Joshua may argue that the District failed to adequately train or supervise its employees who were violating the Revised Plan. It is true that a governmental body may also be held accountable under certain circumstances based on a failure to adequately train and supervise employees. City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S . 378, 109 S.Ct. 1197, 103 L.Ed.2d 412 (1989). In Andrews, the Eighth Circuit summarized these circumstances related to a city police force. The court stated: A city also may be liable for deficient policies regarding hiring and training police officers where (1) the city's hiring and training practices are inadequate; (2) the city was deliberately indifferent to the rights of others in adopting them, such that the failure to train reflects a deliberate or conscious choice by a municipality; and (3) an alleged deficiency in the city's hiring or training procedures actually caused the plaintiffs injury. It is necessary to show \"that in light of the duties assigned to specific officers or employees the need for more or different training is so obvious, and the inadequacy so likely to result in the violation of constitutional rights, the policymakers of the city can reasonably be said to have been deliberately indifferent to the need.\" In other words, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the city \"had notice that its procedures were inadequate and likely to result in a violation of constitutional rights.\" Andrews, 98 F.3d at 1076 (citations omitted) (emphasis supplied). In the context of the present case, Joshua must establish that the Board \"had notice that its procedures were inadequate and likely to result in a violation of [the Revised Plan.].\" Id. It is simple common sense that the Board cannot be on \"notice that its procedures were inadequate\" if the Board was unaware of the noncompliance resulting from the alleged procedural inadequacy. Therefore, Joshua must at a minimum show that the Board had knowledge of noncompliance with the Revised Plan in order to cast doubt on the Board's intent to comply with the Constitution in the future absent court supervision. The Revised Plan Requiring Joshua to show, at a minimum, that the Board had knowledge of noncompliance about which they complain is consistent with the Revised Plan. As a part of the 3 Revised Plan, Joshua and the LRSD agreed to a process for raising and resolving compliance issues. Revised Plan  8 outlined a three step process for resolving compliance issues. First, the issue would be brought to the attention of the District. If the parties were unable to reach an agreement, the issue would be submitted to ODM for facilitation. Finally, the issue would be presented to the Court for resolution. During the term of the Revised Plan, all compliance issues raised by Joshua were resolved without the need for facilitation by ODM or resolution by the Court. See Final Report, p. 166. Consistent with Revised Plan  8, the Board expected Joshua to bring to its attention any substantial compliance issues. To facilitate Joshua's monitoring of the District's compliance, the Board agreed in advance to pay Joshua to monitor the LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan, and Joshua billed the LRSD for monitoring the LRSD's Compliance. See Exhibits 7 and 8 to Plaintiffs Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status. Therefore, Joshua cannot be heard to complain that requiring it to show that the Board had knowledge of noncompliance is inconsistent with the Revised Plan. Conclusion The parties knew there would be compliance issues, and for that reason, agreed to Revised Plan 8. Thus, real question before this Court is not whether there was noncompliance, but how the Board responded to noncompliance. The Board had no opportunity to respond to noncompliance of which it was unaware. Thus, noncompliance that was not brought to the Board's attention is irrelevant and should be excluded pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402 and 403 . 4 Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Regions Center, Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501 - 011 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by mail on July 2, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 (via hand-delivery) Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 NationsBank 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 5 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 A072A (Rev.8/82) I O!INO~ NOl!VU3YD3S3Q d030WO zooz s- 1nr u.fo!k~QAr ... , :\\ ;~l'\\~U ::JJi \\i :.il .J :I g EASn fiN Ol6i/ii1CT MH\u0026lt;AN IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUL O 2 z SA EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 002 LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. RECEIVED MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. JUL - 8 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On July 1, 2002, I entered an Order (docket no. 3611) granting LRSD's request for a protective order to the extent that LRSD was relieved of its duty to respond to Joshua's FOI requests, which appeared to be untimely under the May 15, 2002 Scheduling Order (docket no. 3600). However, I permitted Joshua's counsel the opportunity to file a written response to LRSD's Motion for Protective Order and for Emergency Hearing and to request a hearing ifhe deemed it necessary. This morning, I received Joshua's counsel's July 1, 2002 letter, a copy of which is attached to this Order. In that letter, Joshua's counsel requests me to rescind my July 1 Order, allow him an opportunity to file a written response to LRSD's Motion, and \"then allow either party to request a hearing.\" This Order responds to the various points raised by Joshua's counsel in his July 1 letter. First, my July 1 Order admittedly was entered in \"haste\" because LRSD's motion papers declared an \"emergency\" and made it clear that July 1, 2002, was the deadline for it to produce A072A {Rev.8/82) documents pursuant to Joshua's FOI requests. Furthermore, in LRSD's Brief in Support of Motion for Protective Order and Emergency Hearing, its counsel pointed out that Ark. Code Ann.  25-19-104 provides a \"potential criminal penalty (of thirty days in jail) which could flow from the LRSD's failure to respond within three days [to Joshua's FOI requests] .\" This time of year, jails in Arkansas are particularly uncomfortable. Therefore, I hastened to enter my Order before 5 :00 p.m. on July 1, lest I place someone in jeopardy of being hauled off in chains. I want to assure counsel for Joshua that, in entering that Order, I was not \"vexed\" with counsel--somewhat or otherwise. I appreciate counsel for Joshua clarifying that the FOi requests were filed in connection with his ongoing monitoring ofLRSD under the 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (the \"Revised Plan\"). This important point apparently was not communicated to LRSD, which understandably construed the FOI requests as seeking documents that Joshua intended to use in connection with the upcoming evidentiary hearing which commences on July 22, 2002. J.n LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371 , 1386 (8th Cir. 1990), Judge Arnold made it clear that, in approving the 1989 global settlement of this case, the Court placed \"a great deal of weight\" on the fact that \"the parties have all agreed to continued monitoring,\" which the Court found to be \"essential.\" Likewise, Exhibit B to the Revised Plan makes it clear that Joshua's counsel will continue his monitoring of the LRSD's implementation of its desegregation obligations. By clarifying that Joshua is seeking the documents described in its FOI requests in connection with its continuing monitoring duties, and not for use in the July 22 hearing, I believe counsel should be able to work out a satisfactory schedule for the production of the requested documents. As an aside, I believe that counsel for both sides have more than enough to do in preparing for the -2- AO 72A (Rev.8/82) upcoming five days of evidentiary hearings beginning on July 22, and should not to have to concern themselves with the collection and production of a large volume of documents related to Joshua 's ongoing monitoring function. It appears to me the production of those documents can and should be delayed until after the completion of the evidentiary hearings that begin in less than three weeks. In conclusion, my July 1 Order will remain in effect until after the evidentiary hearing unless counsel for Joshua can convince me that there is a need for the production of the documents described in the FOI requests before the July 22 hearing. Counsel for Joshua is allowed until and including July 8, 2002, to file a response to LRSD's Motion for Protective Order and for Emergency Hearing. LRSD can submit a short reply by 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 11 , 2002. Thereafter, if either party requests a hearing on that Motion, the Court will likely conduct one. IT IS SO ORDE~,- DATED this 1 ~ day of July, 2002. W~R-~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT mDGE -3- JUL . 1.2002 5:55PM JOHN W WALKER PA JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. JOH.,.~ W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Honorable Judge William R Wilson United States District Judge 600 West Capitol, Suite 423 Little Rock. AR 72201 ATToRNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY L1TrLE RoCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsinule - 604-5149 July 1, 2002 Re: Case No. 4:82CV0866WRW/JTR LRSD v. PCSSD Dear Judge Wtlson: NO .521 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 liEND81!SOl'I RoAD Ltmz Rocr, ~ 72210 l'HON\u0026amp;: (501) 372-3425  J\u0026lt;'AX (501) 372-3428 r.!MA!r..: mchonry,i@awbGll.not - I received your order dated July 1, 2002 after 5:30 p.m. when I returned to the office from a trial before the Honorable George Howard, Jr., USA v. Dennis Wtlliams and Joe Bryant I am surprised that the Court ruled on the matter before I had an opportunity to reply to it. I note, however, that the Court provides that opportunity to reply post hoc by the filing of a motion and requesting a hearing. The apparent premise of the Order is that the requested FOIA documents are intended for use at the trial on July 22, 2002. Moreover, the Court seems so_mewhat vexed ~el. I believe the Court would not be ~ were I to have had a reasonable time in which to respond and to make the follo'Wing explanation. Joshua has been monitoring the District's record of compliance since the entry of the original Decree. In that role, we constantly receive concerns from class members about race related matters in each of the three Districts. We first seek to get the District's infonnation by letter. When that fails, we make a request under FOIA. The District usually responds to our letter requests unless a hearing like the one set for July 22 is approaching. Our monitoring was contemplated by the 8th Circuit and the Settlement Agreements herein. The Court has not been involved with respect to our monitoring unless the District claimed some prejudice in its trial preparation. BetWeen 1998 and June 2001, there was not a single hearing before the Court on any matter involving LRSD that was initiated by Joshua Furthermore, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Joshua have obtained information from the District in the same manner for years. The Court has reacted in haste to a matter which is not, and will not be before it. The reaction is seen in the Court's conclusion that the requested information \"appears quite certainn to JUL. 1.2002 5:55PM JOHN W WALKER PA NO.521 P.3/3 be \"not timely\". The Court seems persuaded that we did not meet the deadline for exchanging exlnoits and names of witnesses. We each did so. Mr. Heller's office delivered bis exhibits to us at the close of business on June 24, 2002 and we returned our witness list and exhibits to Mr. Heller by his own courier. We agree with the Court's comments that the requests are pot pertinent to the three rernainine issues in this case as the case relates to the District's compliance as of March 15, 2001. That does not mean, however, that Joshua's monitoring ended upon the filing of the report by the District on March 15, 2001. For the foregoing reasons, I request the Court to simply rescind its Order, afford us a reasonable reply time and then allow either party an opportunity to request a hearing thereon.. In that way, the burden of proof would be upon the moving party on the issue rather than having Joshua in the position ofbeing the moving party. For the information of the Court and the other parties, a criminal jury trial in which I am counsel before Judge Howard is expected to last at least through July 8, 2002. Thank you for your attention to this matter. JWW:js cc: All Counsel of Record Clerk of the Court IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JUL 8 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of AD E's Project Management Tool for June 2002. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General DENNIS R. HANSEN,# 97225 Deputy Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2586 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Dennis R. Hansen, certify that on July 2, 2002, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Attorney at Law P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Lt~ Dennis R. Hansen IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 28, 2002 Based on the information available at)v1ay j _t 2002,;frie ADE calculated the Equalization Funding for FY 01/02, iUbj'eb(to periodic adJustrr.i'knis: B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. A072A (Rev.8/82) ECEIVED JUL - 8 2002 OFFICE OF ESEGREGATION MONITORING FIL~e EAS ~ S. 1~~ RT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT T RN'2Ji 1 ~NSA EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JUL - 5 2002 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. ORDER DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS On July 3, 2002, LRSD filed a Motion in Limine and Supporting Memorandum Brief arguing that: (1) because Joshua's witness list fails to comply with the Court's May 15, 2002 Order, Joshua should be required, on or before 5 :30 p.m. on July 10, 2002, to identify the date and time each of their witnesses will be called, to identify the issues on which each witness is expected to testify and to provide a detailed statement of the witnesses' expected testimony on each issue; (2) certain Joshua exhibits should be excluded because they have not been provided to LRSD as required by the Court's May 15 Order; (3) Joshua should not be allowed to call Sadie Mitchell and Junious Babb, because, in earlier evidentiary hearings, Joshua's counsel has called and examined both of them on student achievement, guidance counseling, and advanced placement courses; (4) various Joshua exhibits should be excluded because, on their face, they do not directly relate to the three remaining issues of advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities; (5) any testimony from Jim Mosby and Jody Carter related to their recent removal as principals of Southwest Middle School and McClellan High 6 1 6 A072A (Rev.8/82) School should be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 401 , 402, and 403; (6) Joshua's failure to identify any witnesses or exhibits for use in their \"thirty minutes of true rebuttal\" prevents them from presenting any rebuttal testimony at 8:30 a.m. on July 22, 2002; and (7) Joshua Exhibits 767- 776 and 791 should be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 801-804, 401-403, and 901. The schedule for LRSD and Joshua submitting their exhibits and witness lists to the Court on July 9 and the commencement of evidentiary hearings on July 22 necessitates an expedited response from Joshua to LRSD's Motion in Limine. Therefore, Joshua must file their response to LRSD's Motion in Limine no later than 2:00 p.m. on Monday, July 8, 2002, and serve other counsel by fax at or before that time. Thereafter, the Court will promptly decide the merits of LRSD's Motion in Limine. Since time is of the essence, this Order will be faxed to counsel of record as soon as it is entered. IT IS SO ORDERED. 11f DA TED this f day of July, 2002. UNITED STATESDlSTRIC DG THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 7~ ON 7/6/0'6 gy_O-c~,-_=-_..~,a.-- -2- ---- -- RECEIVED .- - -- 'JUL 1 O 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING - . ; /:JLt:::,o .. - E.A.s,f;p. Dtsr g;;;. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT QOURT Noisr~;g~ uRr EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JUL OB KA.ivsAs WESTERN_DIVISION JAMs W 2002 By:  MccoR MACK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.I , ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO THE LRSD 1. Joshua Intervenors ' Witness List , CLERK p.1,,1\u0026lt;,\u0026lt;Dl.A ,,...._.u. F [f::RK DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS The Joshua Intervenors maintain that their witness list generally parallels the list submitted by the LRSD, by identifying the topics of witness testimony. For example, the LRSD can maintain that the summary of the testimony of Dr. Leslie (for 6 hours) \"provide[s] a detailed statement of the witnesses' expected testimony on each issue\" only on a \"tongue in cheek\" basis.  The Joshua Intervenors face two problems in preparing a witness list, which the LRSD does not face. The LRSD has ready access to all of its witnesses, who are its employees. In contrast, none of Intervenors ' witnesses are employees.1 Moreover, at least 11 oflntervenors' witnesses are subject to the direction of the LRSD. These are witnesses number 1-3, 5, 7, 14-15, 18-19, 23, and 26 on the Intervenors ' list. Nevertheless, the Joshua Intervenors will submit a supplemental witness list by 5 :00 p.m. on 1Doctors Roberts and Ross are experts designated by Intervenors. -1- July 10, 2002. 2. Asserted Failure to Provide Exhibits The LRSD complains about the failure to provide exhibits identified by the numbers 793, 794, 799, 800 and 801. Each exhibit is an LRSD document(s) . . Some are voluminous. By this objection, the LRSD is simply seeking to frustrate the Joshua Intervenors' effort to present the position of the class in a reasonable manner. Exhibit 801, \"LRSD Quarterly Status Reports,\" was the subject of testimony during the earlier hearings. These reports contain information regarding enrollment in advanced courses, as well as the extent to which students succeed. 3. Testimony by Sadie Mitchell and Junious Babbs These associate superintendents served on the LRSD compliance committee during the implementation of the revised plan and have had responsibility for the areas of guidance counseling and extracurricular activities. LRSD plans to offer lengthy testimony by Ms. Mitchell (two hours). The Joshua Intervenors, in contrast, propose to question each administrator for approximately 10 minutes. In this light, it is appropriate to allow Joshua Intervenors to proceed with the testimony, with the LRSD having the right to object to a question as repetitive. 4. Various Exhibits Assertedly Not Relevant to Issues to be Heard The exhibits deal with the following issues: advance placement: 754, 801-802 guidance and counseling: 780, 786-789 extracurricular activities: 746 (lumped statistics), 771, 773 , 775 rebuttal: 743,747,749, 750,755 , 757,758,759,760,762,763 , 764,779, 785 will not be offered: 752, 756, 761, 777, 778, 779, 782, 783 , 784 -2- 5. Testimony from Jim Mosbv and Jodv Carter The Joshua Intervenors do not plan to question Messrs. Mosby and Carter regarding \"their recent removal as principals.\" 6. Rebuttal The Joshua Intervenors will present rebuttal testimony by ODM Monitors Ann Marshall and Gene Jones. They will address the LRSD's testimony at the earlier hearing, which asserted compliance with Section 2. 7 .1 of the revised plan. 7. Joshua Exhibits 767-776. 791 These letters written by Ms. Springer are offered to show notice to the district of various problems. Counsel for Joshua Intervenors intends to explore at the hearing what if any investigation and other responsive actions were undertaken by the LRSD, after receipt of the letters. The LRSD pledged to implement programs, policies and procedures to insure non-discriminatory access to extracurricular activities. Its administrators ' responses to the letters is therefore relevant. The Joshua Intervenors should have the opportunity to seek the authentication of pages 2 and 3 of Exhibit 791 , dealing with guidance, by the testimony of Junious Babbs and Sadie Mitchell. 8. Relevance Generally The LRSD's efforts \"to exclude all evidence and testimony of noncompliance with the Revised Plan that was not brought to the attention of the entire LRSD Board of Directors ... \" [Motion in Limine at 3] and to rely on Section 1983 entity liability standards [Memorandum Brief in Support of Plaintiffs Motion in Limine] is flawed. These gambits ignore the law of the case, and, more particularly, multiple promises, throughout the plan, to implement various activities without regard to whether or not non-compliance was called to the attention of the Board. See, e.g., Revised ,., -.)- Plan Sections 2.5, 2.7, 2.7.1, 2.12.1, 6, and 11. As emphasized in Joshua Intervenors ' response of May 30, 2002, the Court of Appeals has held and reiterated that the terms of settlement agreements in this case provide the standards for measuring the performance of the school districts, here the LRSD. [Memorandum at 47] The Revised Plan does not identify Section 1983 entity liability principles as the standard for evaluating compliance with its terms. Rather, it calls, inter alia, for adoption of various programs, policies, and procedures, their implementation, and monitoring to identify problems and provide a basis for remedial actions. School Board members are not LRSD employees, their commitment is for less than full-time. Manifestly, the plan envisions implementation activities by administrators and other - elements of the work force, without qualification in terms of notice to the school board. Joshua Intervenors ' proof will be consistent with this fran1ework. There will likely be questioning on the adoption of programs, policies, and procedures (largely the domain of the school board). There will be questioning of implementation, or the lack thereof (largely the domain offulltime employees). The effort to exclude evidence, wholesale, is without merit. Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 Respectfully submitted, John -W. Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 JQHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) -4- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has/been senTby fax and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to the following counsel ofrecord, on this ,?~ day of l-,, 1,  ----:-2002: -r:;:-- 'I // I Mr. Clay Fendley Mr. Dennis l'l. H en  FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Office of the Attorney General 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 323 Center Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 200 Tower Building 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 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL LAW FIRM 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 I / Joen W. Walker -5- J VHl'i W WHLKt.t-\u0026lt; t-' H N0 . 571 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET Date: July 8, 2002 To: Ms. Ann Brawn Marshall Fax: 371-0100 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al. Sender: Jolm W. Walker P. l/6 YOU SHOULD RECEIVE [ _ (including cover sheer)] PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL \"\u0026lt;(501) 374-3758'\u0026gt;\" The information conr.a.ined uu:his fucsimile message is atto111ey privileged and confidential information intended only fur the use of the individual or entity named aoove. !f the reader of this m~sagc is not the intended recipient, or me emp1oyee or agent responsible to deliver it fo the inrended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communicttion Is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediate notify us by telephone, and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. R CEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTu.folb~cPuRT EASTERN DISTRICT OF AR.KANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION JUL 0 9 2002 J L 11 2002 OFFICE OF OESEG EGATION MONITORING A072A (Rev.8/82) 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 DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS Earlier today, United States Magistrate Judge Tom Ray conducted a hearing to receive the parties ' pre-marked exhibits, exhibit lists, witness lists, and witness statements as provided for in paragraph 5 of my May 15, 2002 Scheduling Order. In addition, at my request, Judge Ray also addressed several housekeeping matters associated with the hearing that I have scheduled for 8 :30 a.m. on Friday, July 12, 2002, on LRSD's Motion In Limine. I have now reviewed the transcript of the hearing before Judge Ray, and want to reiterate several points covered during that hearing. First, the evidentiary hearing that is scheduled to commence before me at 8:30 a.m. on July 22, 2002, is limited to testimony and other evidence relevant to LRSD's alleged failure to substantially comply with its obligations in three specific areas of the Revised Plan: (1) advanced placement courses ( 2.6 and 2.6.2); (2) extracurricular activities ( 2.6); and (3) guidance A072A (Rev.8/82) counseling ( 2.6.1 and 2.11.1 ). The only other evidence the Court will receive during the July 22 hearing will be limited to: (a) LRSD's obligation of good faith( 2.1), but only as that obligation specifically relates to these three things: advanced placement courses, extracurricular activities, and guidance counseling; and (b) LRSD's obligations regarding African-American students' achievement ( 2.7), but only as that obligation specifically relates to these three things: advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities. 1 Second, after reviewing Joshua's witness list and witness statements, it appears to me that some or all of the anticipated testimony of a number of their witnesses falls outside the scope of the July 22 evidentiary hearing, as defined above, and as defined earlier by Judge Wright, and by my Order of May 9. I assume these potential problems will be cured by the supplemental witness lists and statements that Joshua and LRSD will file by 5:00 p.m. tomorrow. In connection with those supplemental witness lists and statements, I expect both sides to comply fully with each and every requirement of paragraph 3 of my May 15 Scheduling Order. Third, I want to reiterate that I will be continuing the practice followed by Judge Wright of allocating and keeping time for each side during the July 22 hearing. As my May 15 Scheduling Order makes clear, Joshua and LRSD are each allocated twenty hours to present their cases. Each side should keep this overall time constraint in mind in calling and examining their witnesses. Absent compelling circumstances, I do not intend to give either side more than their allocated twenty hours. 11 am mindful that Joshua also will be allowed thirty minutes at the beginning of the July 22 hearing to call Ann Marshall and Gene Jones as rebuttal witnesses on the three issues tried to conclusion during the earlier evidentiary hearings before Judge Wright: (1) good faith; (2) African-American student achievement; and (3) student discipline. -2- A072A (Rev.8/82) Finally, I have reviewed the so-called \"rebuttal exhibits\" that Joshua intends to introduce during the rebuttal testimony of Ann Marshall and Gene Jones. Many of these rebuttal exhibits appear to be documents that were available and could have, and, if they wanted them in evidence, should have, been introduced by Joshua in their case in chief. During the July 12 hearing, Joshua's counsel should be prepared to address how those exhibits constitute true rebuttal documents. The lawyers for the parties, especially the lawyers for LRSD and Joshua, should have someone watching their fax machines commencing no later than 8:30 a.m. this Thursday, July 11. It is possible that I will enter an Order early Thursday morning in response to filings made by these parties Wednesday afternoon. The Order may require additional work before the hearing scheduled for 8:30 a.m. this Friday, July12. IT IS SO ORDERED#. DATED this qr aay of July, 2002. UNITED STATES DISTRIC'i'JUDGE -3- FAX COVER SHEET UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Eastern District of Arkansas JAester,'1 Division Telephone 501-604-5140 Fax Number 501-604-5149 TO: Chris Heller \u0026amp; Clay Fendley Sam Jones . 376-2147 376-9442 3i5-1027 221-3331 374-4187 682- 2591 371-0100 Stevejones Richard Roachell John Walker Dennis Hanson Anne Marshaii DATE: There are _\"f.J pages, including this Cover Sheet, being sent by this facsimile transmission. Z:0/10 3rnrl MESSAGE SENT BY: Office of Judge Wm. R. Wiison, J; U.S. District Court 600 West Capitol, Room 423 Little Ro,..,~ \"R 7,,0, ~,, I \"-\"-J ~ ,, t RECEIVED JUL 1 5 2002  OFFICEOF ESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICTNO.l, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL JOSHUA INTERVENORS' WITNESS LIST DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors submit their witness list in response to the Court's several directives regarding these matters. Joshua is presenting below a summary of the testimony in some detail of each witness it will call on direct. Joshua is presenting a table of the name of each witness, the expected time each witness will take on direct examination and the approximate time of the appearance of each witness. The times of the appearances of each witness are presented taking into account an equal an1ount of cross examination time by the plaintiff. Possible times for lunch breaks are included. In presenting the matter in this manner, we do not intend to offend the Court by suggesting the exact times of breaks and/or for lunch, nor do wish to offend the Court by presenting this document in this fashion. The manner in which we present it will provide the Court and the parties a timeline of expected testimonial events and provide easy and ready reference to each forthcoming event. We expect our case in chief to be approximately 11 hours (660 minutes). We expect to use the remaining time for either cross examination or for rebuttal (up to two hours). -1- SADIE MITCHELL: The issues Sadie Mitchell will address are extra-curricular activities and guidance counseling. Her respective testimony is that Joshua raised issues of disparate treatment with respect to extra-curricular activities for which she or some subordinate made responses. She will address examples such as discrimination in 9th grade athletics, band, scouts, choir, mock trial, quiz bowl, cheerleaders and the activities wherein participation by race is reflected in the various student yearbooks. She will also address the complaints regarding student honors and efforts to improve minority paiiicipation in AP and honors type activities particularly at Central and Hall High Schools. She will also relate to the inadequacy of data collection regarding extra-cunicular activities and the decision to aggregate rather than disaggregate activity data. She will confirm that aggregation of the data presents a false picture of activity participation in the respective schools which include all the secondary schools. She will also address the failme rates in advanced placement courses as reflected in the Quarterly Reports previously discussed before Judge Wright. JUNIOUS BABBS: Junious Babbs will address the identification of particular athletic programs and other activities with limited African American participation and plans for remediation, review of each school's annual guidance report to identify areas of limited service to African American students such as a) course enrollment facilitating access to stronger higher education opportunities; b) access to financial aid; and c) course enrollment to help to facilitate graduation. He will also address his investigation into the participation and inequities thereof of minority students in AP courses and the passing and failure rates related thereto. MS. SHARON BROOKS: Ms. Sharon Brooks will testify regarding her placement of -2- elementary school African American boys without utilization of counseling services for a period of two months. She will address failure to provide a teacher and a counselor for those boys, whom she separated from the girls. DR. MICHAEL FAUCETTE: Dr. Michael Faucette, a teacher at Central High School, will discuss in detail the problems with the administration of advanced placement courses, the racial effect of the placements, the manner in which the placements are made, how the placements tend to favor one group of children over another, the problems with scheduling and how those scheduling decisions interact with other decisions of placement and counseling; participation in extra-curricular activities; the favor given to white students at Central high School; the disparate effect of AP courses with respect to teaching, awards, and other oppo1iunities; and he will discuss the issue of the District's good faith compliance. MS. PAM MERCER: Ms. Pam Mercer, an African American parent, will discuss the District's good faith establishment and administration of AP courses at Central High School, the exclusion of African American students therefrom, the privileges extended by AP teachers and activities sponsors to white students, counseling of students for placement in AP courses and the racial atmosphere which exists within AP classes. She will discuss her membership on the Activities Advisory Board for the school district and her dissatisfaction with its efforts. CRYSTAL MERCER: Crystal Mercer will discuss her dissatisfaction with guidance counseling services with respect to the following areas: access to financial aid and course enrollment facilitating access to stronger higher educational oppo1iunities. JASON MERCER: Jason Mercer will discuss his dissatisfaction with the District's efforts to ensure more African American student participation in AP courses. He will also discuss content ., -.)- of Exhibit 797. D.J. THAMES and A VIS THAMES: D.J. Thames, student at Fair High School and Avis Thames, his mother. Their testimony will cover their dissatisfaction with the District's efforts to ensure fair participation in extra-curricular activities such as football. ROMONA HORTON: RomonaHorton,parentof students at Central High School and Forest Heights Jr. High School will testify regarding her dissatisfaction with the District's efforts to encourage her children's participation and retention in Pre AP and AP courses at their respective schools. She will also testify regarding her dissatisfaction with counseling services with respect to her children's success in the classes, access to financial aid and course emollment facilitating access to stronger higher educational opportunities. In addition to testimony regarding dissatisfaction with her children's participation in AP, she will also address the use of racial slurs by an AP teacher. She will also discuss the District's response to her complaints. JODIE CARTER: Jodie Carter will discuss special problems with AP classes in the school district as a whole and at McClellan High School in particular. He will specifically relate to the manner in which courses are constituted at the various schools. The problem with staffing the classes and in filling the classes at the various schools. He will discuss his understanding of guidance counseling as it relates to AP placement, participation in extra-curricular activities and the District's good faith. He will specifically relate to problems that he has observed regarding school board members' support of AP classes, guidance counseling and extra-curricular activities. He will discuss the issue ofracial placement and how the counseling system has worked in his observation at the school district over time. This necessarily will include the varying levels of support provided by the central administration with respect to AP courses, guidance counseling and extra-curricular -4- activities at McClellan in comparison to Parkview and Central High School. MS. DOROTHY MCDONALD: Ms. Dorothy McDonald will discuss counseling in general and at McClellan High School in particular. She will discuss the way counseling has a more negative impact on African Americans than white students at McClellan High School and as she understands it to be at other schools based upon her meetings with JoEvelyn Elston and other persons who oversee and administer the other counseling progran1s. MS. CASSANDRA NORMAN: Ms. Cassandra Norman, Principal at J.A. Fair High School will discuss counseling services, placement in pre AP and AP classes at both the middle and Jr. High school and high school and how those courses differ from similar courses at Central and Parkview High Schools. She will discuss AP class sizes, expenditures, teacher turnover and the support of school administrators for her school with respect to these issues. She will address issues regarding counseling within Fair and the problems with a counselor that she had whodid not address the issues in equitable way regarding African American students. CHRIS PAYNE: Chris Payne a former student at J.A. Fair High School will discuss race discrimination in extra-curricular activities. His efforts to participate in the Quiz Bowl at Fair, counseling that he received at Fair while he was there, and the fact that he did not feel that he was fairly treated with respect to those subjects. MR. KENNETH MOORE: Mr. Kenneth Moore will discuss extra-curricular activities, counseling and good faith compliance. His testimony will relate to his experiences at Hall and Fair High Schools and how counseling works at those schools to the detriment of African American students with respect to their participation in extra-curricular activities and with respect to their AP type placements. -5- MR. RAY GILLESPIE: Mr. Ray Gillespie will discuss his role with respect to overseeing the athletic extra-curricular programs and activities and assisting in the monitoring of school programs at the direction of Les Carnine to ostensibly assure eliminating racial discrimination. He will testify regarding the lack of suppo1i that he received in his efforts to achieve equity and his conclusion that African American students and staff are treated differently with respect to these subject areas in comparison to similarly situated white persons. MR. JIMMY MOSBY: Mr. Jimmy Mosby will discuss guidance counseling, extra-curricular activities and pre AP courses during his tenure at Hall High School and at Southwest Middle School. He will address the District's lack of support with respect to pre AP and cow1seling. MS. SUE STRICKLAND: Ms. Sue Strickland will address guidance and counseling programs, AP courses, class sizes of AP courses, pupil teacher ratio, criteria for placement into the programs or the lack thereof or the rationale therefore and the board's good faith. Ms. Strickland will also address the lack of truthfulness by Superintendent Carnine with respect to communication with the school board. DR. KA THERINE MITCHELL: Dr. Katherine Mitchell will address guidance and counseling programs, AP courses, class sizes of AP courses, pupil teacher ratio, criteria for placement into the programs or the lack thereof or the rationale therefore and the board's good faith. DR. MICHAEL DAUGHTERY: Dr.Michael Daughtery will address guidance and counseling programs, AP courses, class sizes of AP courses, pupil teacher ratio, criteria for placement into the programs or the lack thereof or the rationale therefore and the board's good faith. He will discuss his efforts to understand the necessity for relating counseling to AP and pre AP placement, monitoring counseling programs and AP programs and his efforts to have AP programs -6- to become more inclusive for minority students. He will discuss how students can be expected to succeed in AP courses in middle and high schools if they haven't been taught and properly counseled in the earlier grades. DR. TERRENCE ROBERTS: Dr. Tenence Roberts is a District Consultant regarding desegregation activities. He will address the necessity for there to be a correlation between guidance counseling and placement in AP courses. He will discuss the manner in which he has been used by the District to train teachers with respect to these subjects in particular and other subjects in general in Little Rock. Counsel is endeavoring to have him available on either July 23 rd or July 24th . He lives in California and travel arrangements have not been made. DR. STEVEN ROSS: Dr. Steven Ross will testify about the District's good faith compliance, AP courses. He will also discuss the need for criteria for placement and whether all students may be qualified in the absence of standards for placement in AP courses without earlier foundations and specific training. MS. ETHEL DUNBAR: Ms. Ethel Dunbar, Principal at Franklin Elementary School will discuss elementary good faith compliance, gifted and talented courses, guidance cotmseling and the assistance received with respect to these issues from the Division of Instruction. REBUTTAL Name Date of Testimony Approximate Time Minutes Ann Marshall 7/22/02 8:30 - 9:00 a.m. 15 Gene Jones 7/22/02 15 -7- DIRECT EXAMINATION Name Date of Testimony Approximate Time Minutes Sadie Mitchell 7/22/02 9:30 a.m. 30 Junious Babbs 7/22/02 10:30 a.m. 30 Sharon Brooks 7/22/02 11 :30 a.m. 15 7/22/02 Lunch 12-1:00 p.m. 60 Dr. Michael Faucette 7/22/02 1:00 p.m. 90 Pam Mercer 7/22/02 4:00 p.m. 30 Crystal Mercer 7/22/02 5: 00 p.m. 10 Jason Mercer 7/22/02 5:20 p.m. 15 D .J. Thames/ A vis Thames 7/22/02 6:30 p.m. 15 Romona Horton 7/23/02 8:30 a.m. 30 Jodie Carter 7/23/02 9:30 a.m 120 7/23/02 Lunch 12- 1 :00 p.m. 60 Dorothy McDonald 7/23/02 2:30 p.m. 15 Cassandra Norman 7/23/02 3:00 p.m. 45 Chris Payne 7/23/02 4:30 p.m. 10 Kenneth Moore 7/23/02 4:50 p.m. 15 Ray Gillespie 7/23/02 5:20 p.m. 15 Jimmy Mosby 7/24/02 8:30 a.m. 15 Sue Strickland 7/24/02 9:00 a.m. 10 Dr. Katherine Mitchell 7/24/02 9:20 a.m. 10 Dr. Michael Daughtery 7/24/02 9:40 a.m. 30 Dr. Terrence Roberts 7/24/02 10:40 a.m. 30 -8- Dr. Steven Ross 7/24/02 Ms. Ethel Dunbar 7/24/02 Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781 ) 862-1955 11 :40 a.m. 1:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ,,,-,, Jdhn W. Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 vJOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) -9- 30 30 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent by fax and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to the following counsel of record, on this 10th day of July, 2002: Mr. Clay Fendley 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 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 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL LAW FIRM 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 I . ,,('(;~~--/:.,/ J,ohn W. Walker . RiCEIVED JUL 1 5 2002 OFACEOF - SEGREGATION MONITORING J:JL 1 O 2~:;, JAMES W r, :,..c .. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO   .- ., -ORMACK, CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. 1v1RS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. JOSHUA lNTERVENORS' SUPPLEMENT AL WITNESS LIST PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VENO RS INTER VENO RS Joshua filed its Witness List earlier today. Inadvertently omitted was the name of Ms. Pat Watson, Counselor at Hall High School. Her name is being submitted as a witness who will address the District 's counseling programs, her instructions as to how they are to be implemented and how they are in fact implemented at Hall High School. She will address the counseling role for placement into Pre-AP, AP and Honors courses and she will relate to the counseling with respect to scholarships and other opportunities as well as course enrollment . Her testimony will take approximately 15 minutes. We urge to allow us to use her testimony on either the 23 rd or 241h if we are making substantial progress and have additional time we have not used in our case and chief. Otherwise her testimony will that of Ms. Ethel Dunbar on July 24th at approximately 3:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robert Pressman - MA Bar No. 405900 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1 955 \"'John W o.-64046 JOHNW. WALKER, PA 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing Motion has been sent to all counsel of record via United States mail postage prepaid on 1~10'11 ~-ay of ~uly , 2092. \\ Ml , ! I ' / -~ / \";c' L}/ -' / . ~ /Ar~-;/ tz~-tt i \\, RECEIVED FILED U,S, DISTRICT COURT EASTE~N DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL 1,2 2002 IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT JUL 1 0 2002 OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. , 4:82CV00866-WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1., et al MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al ORDER DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Attached is a copy of the transcript of the telephone conference held yesterday afternoon. The directions in this transcript are the orders of the Court. - ord.LRSDI IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of July, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE VV!TH RULE 58 AND/OR 7~ FRCP oN_!Jd__O-Od::'BY -,~~----'-~=-  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 - 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, V . No. 4:82CV00866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Little Rock, Arkansas July 9, 2002 4:45 P.M. Defendants, MRS. LOREN JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., APPEARANCES: Intervenors. TELEPHONE CONFERENCE BEFORE THE HONORABLE WILLIAM R. WILSON United States District Judge. For the Plaintiff: CHRISTOPHER J. HELLER, ESQ. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Regions Center, Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 For the Defendant: (No appearance. ) Carolyn S. Fant United States Court Reporter 1 1 For Joshua Intervenors: ROBERT PRESSMAN, ESQ. John Walker, P.A. 2 1723 Broadway 3 4 Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Proceedings reported by machine stenography; transcript 5 prepared by computer . 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Carolyn S. Fant United States Court Reporter 2 1 2 P R O C E E D I N G S THE COURT: All right, we're having a telephone 3 3 conference hearing this afternoon on the record in Little Rock 4 School District against Pulaski County, et al. It's 5 LR-C-82-866. This conference is regarding a letter that was 6 just hand delivered to me dated July 9 from Mr. Walker and Mr. 7 Pressman. It shows a copy to Mr. Heller. I am going to 8 notify by letter in the morning other lawyers of this 9 telephone conference so that they can order a transcript of 10 this hearing if they want to from Ms. Fant. But in any event, 11 I want to address this letter, and I will just start with the 12 first paragraph. Apparently Joshua got Exhibits 793 and 801 13 over to Judge Ray's courtroom deputy, Ms. Swanson, this 14 afternoon as was directed by Judge Ray this morning. By the 15 way, Judge Ray is here in my conference room. But I 16 understand there are other exhibits that have not been brought 17 over for marking, which are 794, 799 and 800 and I'm puzzled. 18 What's the problem with them, Mr. Pressman? 19 MR. PRESSMAN: One of the exhibits is five 20 yearbooks, and we were told that we could pick up the year- 21 books at five different high schools. 22 23 THE COURT: Okay. MR. PRESSMAN: And take them away to copy. And Mr. 24 Walker wasn't here. I didn't know how to handle that. 25 THE COURT: Okay, I will give you -- 794 and 799 and Carolyn s. Fant United States Court Reporter 1 800 I will give you until 2:00 p.m. tomorrow to do what's 2 necessary to have them delivered to Ms. Swanson by 2:00 p.m. 3 All right, are there other exhibits that we need to 4 address? 5 6 7 8 9 10 MR. PRESSMAN: No, I don't think so. THE COURT: All right, let's look at paragraph 1 of the letter; that he and Judge Wilson are apprised of the following position: \"One, we want to reserve for rebuttal that part of our 20 hours which we do not utilize in our case in chief.\" I'll, of course, allow you to reserve a certain 4 11 amount of time for rebuttal. I will remind you again that I'm 12 big on true rebuttal, not just more evidence that could have 13 been introduced during your case in chief. And I wouldn't 14 allow you, for example, to put on five hours of testimony and 15 reserve 15. What do you want? About an hour or two hours for 16 rebuttal, Mr. Pressman? 17 MR. PRESSMAN: That was -- that was -- that's what 18 Mr. Walker told me. He has handled this. 19 THE COURT: Is Mr. Walker there with you? 20 21 22 23 MR. PRESSMAN: No, he's at the courthouse. THE COURT: Well, I will give you two hours for rebuttal and you notify me by 2:00 p .m. tomorrow by fax -Judge Ray and me both by fax and the other parties if you want 24 more than two hours reserved for rebuttal. I'm not inclined 25 to reserve much more than that, but I will give you an Carolyn S. Fant United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 opportunity to address that. If you haven't addressed it by 2:00 p.m., I will assume that two hours is satisfactory with you. Now the next sentence in paragraph 1 I find quite disturbing. It says, and I quote: \"We'll attempt to provide a more specific response regarding rebuttal time in our supplemental document regarding our witnesses.\" Now, I entered this order in May directing the identity of witnesses and detailed statements with respect to 5 10 what they were going to say, and that order was not met. The 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 requirements of that order were not met. Judge Ray today extended that until 5:00 p.m. tomorrow. As I understand, Mr. Walker was in the courtroom part of the time, at least, but I'm not sure I understand what \"attempt\" -- why you use \"attempt\" rather than say \"we will comply.\" If you will look  at the title of that document that I entered back in May or those two documents, the word \"Order\" is there, not 18 suggestion. 19 And so would you address .that, what the problem is 20 with that, not getting that detailed statement or just 21 attempting to do it? 22 23 24 25 MR. PRESSMAN: I have not been involved in the development of the facts regarding these three areas. I was asked to do this hearing because Mr. Walker was not available. THE COURT: Well, of course, he knew well in advance Carolyn S. Fant United States Court Reporter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 of the trial before Judge Howard he was going to have it and he's had since May to meet those directions. You need to get him tonight and tell him that I'm going to take a very dim look at an attempt rather than a full compliance by 5:00 p.m. tomorrow. Will you pass that message on to him specifically? MR. PRESSMAN: Yes. THE COURT: All right, I appreciate it very much. In paragraph number 2, I'm going to solve that 9  problem real quickly. Just assume that the other side will 10 take as long for cross-examination as you take for direct and 11 we'll worry about whether I ask questions or not. That won't 12 13 14 15 count against you, of course, so that should make it very easy. Any problems with that? MR. PRESSMAN: I will just we'll comply. I just 16 wish to say that I think that attorneys -- it's proper to 17 inform the Court if you feel that the Court's orders are 18 unreasonable, and that was the reaction that we had to these 19 orders about timing. 20 21 THE COURT: What's unreasonable about it? MR. PRESSMAN: Because these things just can't be, 22 you know, determined with that degree of precision. 6 23 24 25 THE COURT: Well, you know, of course, judges across the country are doing this regularly. I know one judge from -- district judge in Chicago who is now in the last couple of Carolyn S. Fant United States Court Reporter 1 years been promoted to the Seventh Circuit who runs two stop 2 watches, and they count objections against your time if you 3 don't win them, so I don't think that's unreasonable at all. 4 So I'm directing that you comply with it . And, like I say, 5 just give your time for direct examination and assume the 6 other side is going to take the exact same amount of time for 7 cross so you can calculate it. 8 Now I will say this, and I hesitate to say it 9 because I don't want to sound like I will give too much 7 10 leeway. You have a total amount of time here so if you want to 11 go 30 minutes on a witness that you estimated at 20 and take 12 13 14 it off another witness, that's all right. The total amount of time, that is the main thing. However, I'm not going to allow taking much more than your estimated time because what will 15 happen we'll get down to the end and you say, \"I have the most 16 crucial witness I've got in the whole case and I don't have 17 any time to put them on . \" So you'll have to stick pretty 18 close to your projected time . So that issue has been 19 resolved. 20 On the next page, the last page, the second page: 21 \"Last, we want to again point out we do not have the same 22 ability as the LRSD to control the order in which our 23 witnesses will appear. We are not dealing with persons who 24 25 are our employees.\" I'll cure the problem right now. Subpoena your witnesses for 8:15 on July the 22nd. Have them Carolyn S. Fant United States Court Reporter 1 all there . I will get them in the courtroom, swear them in, 2 and tell them to either stay at the courthouse or be where 8 3 they can be reached by telephone so you can get them there. I 4 will take that burden off your back, Mr. Pressman. 5 Hello? 6 7 8 9 10 11 fees? 12 13 MR. PRESSMAN: Yes. THE COURT: Doesn't that solve it? MR. PRESSMAN: Okay . Yes, it solves it. THE COURT: All right. MR. PRESSMAN: I guess we have to pay them witness THE COURT: I would assume. It's very unlikely -- if the exhibits are not over 14 here by 2 : 00 p . m. tomorrow that we have designated, it's very 15 unlikely I will allow their use at the trial. 16 Are there any other issues that we can resolve at 17 this point? If not, I'm going to sign off. 18 19 Honor. 20 21 MR. HELLER: We haven't seen that letter, Your THE COURT: Who's speaking? MR. HELLER: I'm sorry. This is Chris Heller. But 22 it sounds like the issues have been covered and we certainly 23 don't have any other issues at this point. 24 25 THE COURT: All right. How about you, Mr . Pressman? MR. PRESSMAN: No, I don't have any other issues, Carolyn S. Fant United States Court Reporter 9 1 but I think that Your Honor's approach doesn't account for the 2 3 4 5 6 7 different kind of practice that Mr. Walker has from a large law firm that has a school system as a client. THE COURT: In what respect does it not account for it. What specifically? MR. PRESSMAN: Because there aren't the same resources available. Mr. Walker is a unique resource in 8 Arkansas. People are constantly calling him from all over the 9 10 11 12 13 14 state every day about their civil rights problems. His time is called upon from scores of different directions. He has a lot of pressures on his time. He does the best he can within that context, and it's not as easy to comply with these kinds of directives for him as it is for a large law firm. THE COURT: Well, you know, I practiced for many 15 years as a solo practitioner in a small firm and judges 16 imposed these burdens on me regularly, and I just figured that 17 I had to double up. Of course, I was a mere street lawyer, 18 but I would suspect I probably got as much or half as much 19 again number of phone calls as Mr. Walker gets during the day, 20 so he's had since May to do this. This is a major trial. I 21 don't believe he has a more major trial. You are here, so it 22 23 24 looks to me like, Mr. Pressman, since you're one of the counsel of record you may need to stay hooked in here real tight and make sure the deadlines are met. I want you to 25 convey this to Mr. Walker very distinctly. I am not going to Carolyn S. Fant United States Court Reporter 10 1 treat him differently than I treat other lawyers. Lawyers in 2 big firms -- I happen to have had the happy experience of 3 being in a big firm myself for over two and a half years in 4 the litigation department, and the lawyers are -- each one has 5 an extremely busy practice. Now we all have a tendency when 6 we are not in one of the big firms to say, \"Oh, they've got a 7 hundred or 80 lawyers up there,\" but unfortunately each of the 8 80 or 70 lawyers has -- they are as busy as a solo 9 practitioner. They have their own solo practice, in effect. 10 I have been there, done that, and I used to get, \"You're at a 11 big firm. You\"ve got five partners that can do this, that or 12 the other.\" So I am distinctly unimpressed with that 13 position. I appreciate your expressing it and I'm glad you 14 did because it gives me an opportunity to make it clear that 15 I'm going to hold Mr. Walker to the same standard that I'm 16 going to hold the lawyers representing the other parties. 17 Everybody is going to be treated equally. 18 Is there anything else that we can bring up? I will 19 be happy to hear anything else; an objection, a complaint, 20 whatever else. I'm in a rulifying and commenting mood. 21 MR. HELLER: Your Honor, we don't have anything. 22 THE COURT: Mr. Pressman? 23 MR. PRESSMAN: No. I mean, I just basically 24 disagree with your positions but that's -- you're the Judge. 25 THE COURT: Mr. Pressman, you know, at least half of Carolyn S. Fant United States Court Reporter 11 1 the lawyers in every case I have disagree with my position and 2 that's one of the wonderful reasons that we have an Eighth 3 Circuit in case I don't do right. But I do appreciate your 4 comments. I take them into consideration. I just I don't 5 agree with your position and particularly not that I should 6 treat Mr. Walker differently than I should another lawyer. I 7 would consider that a very, very bad thing if I did that to 8 any lawyer . 9 All right. There being nothing else that I hear 10 from the lawyers, I want to thank you all for taking this call 11 on short notice and you go have a good evening to the extent 12 you can after my rulings. 13 MR. HELLER: Thank you, Your Honor. 14 MR. PRESSMAN: All right . Thanks. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (At 5:00 p.m., the above-entitled proceedings were adjourned. ) C E R T I F I C A T E I, Carolyn S. Fant, Official Court Reporter, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct transcript of proceedings in ~e above-ent Carolyn S. Fant United States Court Reporter IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKl COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL PLAINTIFF'S REVISED WITNESS LIST FOR THE JULY 22, 2002 HEARING RECEIVED JUL 1 l 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") hereby identifies the following witnesses to be called at the July 22 , 2002 hearing and provides a detailed statement of their expected testimon y: 1. Dr. Bonnie Lesley. Dr. Lesley will testify on Wednesday, July 24, 2002, from I :00 p.m. until 4:00 p.m. regarding the District's compliance with Revised Plan 2.6 (as it relates to advanced placement courses) and Revised Plan  2.6.1 and 2.6.2. Dr. Lesley is the Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction for the District. Dr. Lesley will testify that the District's efforts to increase African-American enrollment in advanced placement courses and to ensure their success in those courses begins as soon as they enter the District. In this regard, Dr. Lesley will review the latest results from the K-2 reading assessments (the third year of the program 's implementation and the third year of testing data); describe a recent study Page I of 8 conducted by a team in her Division on the academic effects of participation by AfricanAmerican students in the District's pre-kindergarten program for students now in grades K-8 versus the scores of African-American students who did not participate; describe the new grants that have been awarded to several elementary schools to support their school improvement efforts, especially in reading/writing literacy; discuss the results of the State Benchmark examinations for grades 4, 6, and 8 (if available by the hearing date); discuss the District's new writing curriculum for PreK-12 (which will be ready by the time school starts in fall 2002), its goals related to improved student achievement at all levels, and how it is aligned with the State's curriculum standards and the knowledge/skills required to perform well on the ACT. Dr. Lesley will also discuss efforts undertaken by the District specifically at the secondary level and the results achieved by the District so far. In particular, she will summarize the results of two studies related to the District 's advanced courses at the secondary level; discuss the section on \"Advanced Placement Courses\" on p. 36 of the Compliance Report of March 2001-the summary of activities that resulted in the improved enrollments; describe the District's partnership with the Southern Regional Education Board in the implementation of the \"High Schools that Work\" framework for high school reform, especially the emphasis on all students taking a rigorous program of study, including college preparatory courses in the core areas; describe the trend/research for high schools to admit more and more non-traditional students to advanced courses and the benefits derived from those changes in practice, including improved test results, improved ACT scores, improved performance in college, etc.; review the NAACP's \"Call for Action in Education,\" and compare the NAACP's recommendations to the District's efforts; and describe a study that she conducted on class size at the middle and high school Page 2 of 8 - - ---- levels, including the percentage of small classes that are advanced classes and the percentage of African-Americans who were enrolled in all classes under 20. Dr. Lesley will also update her testimony from November 2001 related to how she sees the District continuing to improve in the next several years. The District's efforts must also be consistent with the requirements of the new federal \"No Child Left Behind\" legislation. Accordingly, Dr. Lesley will explain the District's plan for implementing these new requirements and responding to the new accountability requirements, including the support for low-performing schools. During her testimony, Dr. Lesley will also address the District's good faith commitment to comply with the Constitution even if no longer monitored by the Court. Dr. Lesley may also offer testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua Intervenors during their case. 2. Dr. Marian Lacey. Dr. Lacey will testify on Thursday, July 25, 2002, from 10:00 a.m. until 11 :00 a.m. regarding the District's compliance with Revised Plan 2.6 (as it relates to extracurricular activities) and Revised Plan 2.6.3. Dr. Lacey is the Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Schools for the District. Dr. Lacey will testify that the Board adopted policies JB, JBA, JBA-R, JJ, JJ-R, JJIA, JJIB, JJIB-Rl, JJIB-R2, and JJIB-R3 in order to comply with Revised Plan  2.6; that the District increased participation in extracurricular activities 76 percent in the 1998-99 school year and another 26 percent in the 1999-2000 school years; that 62 percent of African-American students participated in extracurricular activities during the 1999-2000 school year; that the number of African-American students participating in co-curricular activities increased 9 percent in the 1998-99 school year and an additional 30 percent in the I 999-2000 school year; that a 1999-2000 parent survey indicated that 90 percent of African-American parents and 93 percent of African-American teachers thought that activities Page 3 of 8 were open to all students; that the SIP program has helped increase African-American participation in activities; that transportation is provided for all extracurricular activities; that the Activities Advisory Board has begun functioning; that the District has hired Danny Fletcher, an African-American, as Fine Arts Director; and that she is not aware of any barriers to participation by African-Americans in extracurricular activities. During her testimony, Dr. Lacey will also address the District's good faith commitment to comply with the Constitution even if no longer monitored by the Court. Dr. Lacey may also offer testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua Intervenors during their case. 3. Jo Evelyn Elston. Ms. Elston will testify on Thursday, July 25, 2002, from I :00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. regarding the District's compliance with Revised Plan  2.11 and 2.11.1 . Ms. Elston is Director of Pupil Services for the District. She will testify that during the term of the Revised Plan the District adopted policies JB, JBA and JLD; that counselors assist students with their educational, social, personal and career development; that each school conducts a needs assessment every three years and develops a school-based guidance plan; that the District has developed a comprehensive guidance program plan for both the elementary and secondary level; that counselors prepare monthly reports on their progress in implementing the guidance plan; that counselors are to keep a daily log of students counseled; that counselors have been instructed to encourage students to take pre-AP and AP courses; that counselors have attempted to ensure equity in honors, awards and scholarships; that counselors regularly prepare newsletters to notify students of scholarsh.ip opportunities, ACT preparation courses, etc.; that counselors provide all students with a written graduation plan; that secondary counselors prepare annual reports; that her office monitors both the monthly reports and annual reports prepared by counselors; that the Page 4 of 8 data on enrollment in pre-AP and AP courses, scholarships and honor graduates suggests that the counselors are doing a good job; that a 1999-2000 parent survey indicates that counselors are doing a good job; that the Safe School Health Students grant has allowed the Pupil Services Department to provide additional services to students; and that she is not aware of any systemic racial discrimination in the provision of guidance and counseling services. During her testimony, Ms. Elston will also address the District's good faith commitment to comply with the Constitution even if no longer monitored by the Court. Ms. Elston may also offer testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua Intervenors during their case. 4. Sadie Mitchell. Ms. Mitchell will testify from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 25, 2002, regarding the District's compliance with Revised Plan  2.6, 2.6 .2, 2. 6.3, 2.11 and 2.11 .1. Ms. Mitchell is the Associate Superintendent for School Services for the - District. She will testify that the District has adopted the Total Quality Management philosophy and the principles underlying that philosophy; that the District has been awarded Quality Interest Award and Quality Commitment Award; that Campus Leadership Teams play an important role in school improvement; that the District has provided extensive training to make Campus Leadership Teams successful; that each school develops a school improvement plan each year, focusing on improving achievement in literacy and math; and that an important part of the District's strategy for improving achievement of African-American students is encouraging more African-American student to enroll in more rigorous academic courses. During her testimony, Ms. Mitchell will also address the District's good faith commitment to comply with the Constitution even ifno longer monitored by the Court. Ms. Mitchell may also offer testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua Intervenors during their case. Page 5 of 8 5. Dr. Ken James. Dr. James will testify on Thursday, July 25, 2002, from 5:00 p.m. until 5:30 p.m. regarding the District's good faith commitment to comply with the Constitution even if no longer monitored by the Court. Dr. James is the current Superintendent of the District and has held that position for one year. Dr. James will testify that he supports and intends to follow District policies which require compliance with the Constitution and federal civil rights statutes. Dr. James will also discuss the District's partnership with the Southern Regional Education Board, its implementation of the \"High Schools that Work\" framework for high school reform and the importance of students taking a rigorous program of study. Dr. James may also offer testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua lntervenors during their case. 6. Baker Kurrus. Mr. Kurrus will testify on Friday, July 26, 2002, from 9:00 a.m. - until 10:00 a.m. regarding the District's good faith commitment to comply with the Constitution even if no longer monitored by the Court. Mr. Kurrus is President of the District's Board of Directors. Mr. Kurrus will testify that the Board adopted and/or re-adopted policies during the term of the Revised Plan requiring compliance with the Revised Plan, Constitution and federal civil rights statutes; that every policy was adopted after being read at a prior Board meeting; that the Board fully expected the administration to comply with its policies requiring compliance with the Revised Plan; that the administration reported to the Board that it was complying with the Revised Plan; that a representative of the Joshua Intervenors was permitted to address the Board whenever requested; that in the 1998-1999 school year, the Board had 23 meetings and no representative of the Joshua lntervenors addressed the Board; that during the 1999-2000 school year, the Board had 20 meetings and a representative of the Joshua Intervenors appeared on July Page 6 of 8 22, 1999 and November 10, 1999; that at the July 22, 1999 meeting, attorney John Walker raised only general concerns; that the Board understood that the Superintendent worked with the Joshua Intervenors to address those concerns; that on November 10, 1999, attorney John Walker appeared to support parents and community members opposed to the closing of Mitchell Elementary School; that the Board agreed not to close Mitchell Elementary School; that during the 2000-2001 school year, the Board had 27 meetings, and the minutes reflect that Joy Springer appeared on behalfofthe Joshua Intervenors on January 25, 2001; that on that date Ms. Springer stated that improvements had been made, that there were still some issues to be addressed and that the Joshua Intervenors were hoping to work with administrators and the Board to address those issues; that the Board understood that the administration attempted to work with the Joshua lntervenors to resolve those issues; that the Board expected the Joshua Intervenors to raise in a - timely manner any compliance issues which could jeopardize the District obtaining unitary status, either with the Board or pursuant to Revised Plan  8; that the Board agreed to pay the Joshua Intervenors in advance to ensure Joshua's ability to monitor the District's compliance; that Joshua billed the District for monitoring, and the District paid those bills; that the Board never had any evidence presented to it that the District had not substantially complied with the Revised Plan; and that the Board adopted the Covenant to demonstrate and memorialize its good faith commitment to the Revised Plan and the Constitution in the future. Mr. Kurrus may also offer testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua Intervenors during their case. Page 7 of 8 Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Regions Center, Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY!fjflzt1~- C. Fendley,Jr. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by U.S. mail or as otherwise indicated on July 10, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. I 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 (hand-delivery) Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 NationsBank 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 F \\HOME\\FENDLEY\\l..RSD 2001 \\dcs-uniwy-wimcss-list- 7-22-02-revised.wpd 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 J~\u0026lt;=.F'endCley, fr -~ Page 8 of 8 RECEIVED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS u r-:,S~ll; RRT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS 600 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 JUL 1 5 2002 OfFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3325 (501) 604-5140 BILL WILSON JUDGE Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. Clay Fendley Facsimile (501) 604-5149 July 11, 2002 LETTER-ORDER BY FAX Mr. John Walker 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72201 1723 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Samuel Jones, Ill 200 West Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell 11 800 Pleasant Ridge Road Little Rock, AR 72222 Mr. Dennis Hansen 111 Center Street, Suite l 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School, et al. 4:82CV00866 Dear Counsel: The filings yesterday appear to meet most of the requirements of paragraph 3 of the May 15 order. Joshua does need to file -- today -- a detailed statement of the expected testimony of their two rebuttal witnesses. It appears that Joshua has provided the exhibits referenced in LRSD's Motion in Limine. Joshua's filing of July 8 indicates that the testimony of Ms. Mitchell and Mr. Babbs will not be duplicative -- and the questioning of each witness will only be for ten minutes. It appears that Joshua has removed some of the \"rebuttal\" exhibits listed earlier. I will take a look-see at the other exhibits at the hearing which commences at 8:30 in the morning, unless LRSD concedes that Joshua's response renders those remaining relevant for rebuttal. LRSD v. Pulaski County School District July 11, 2002 Page Two Joshua indicates, in its July 8 pleading, that it does not intend to question Messrs. Mosby and Carter regarding their recent removal as principals. As long as the questioning of these two witnesses (as well as all the other witnesses) relates only to the three remaining issues, there should be no problem. Back to Joshua's two rebuttal witnesses. LRSD argues that they can't provide true rebuttal testimony, but I cannot rule on this point until I see the detailed summary of their expected testimony -- which, as noted above -- must be filed today. Turning now to Joshua Exhibit 767-776, 791 (Ms. Springer's letters). First off, let me state that I will not apply Monell in this case. That 1978 case, involving a Section 1983 complaint, is not applicable in school desegregation cases, in my view. The LRSD's objection to my ruling on this point is denied, and its exception is saved. I now quote from Joshua's July 8 filing with respect to these exhibits: The Joshua intervener should have the opportunity to seek the authentication of pages 2 and 3 of Exhibit 791, dealing with guidance, by the testimony of Junious Babbs and Sadie Mitchell . I will have to be more fully advised in the premises, during the hearing in the morning, as to the exact meaning of the above-quoted paragraph. Joshua's July 8 filing also indicates that these exhibits are offered to show \"notice.\" I assume that this means that Joshua is not offering them to prove truth of the contents. If this is correct, it removes the statements from the definition of hearsay, and I must turn to the question of whether \"notice\", in this manner, is admissible, and, if so, under what theory. In view of my ruling, above, on Monell, I see no reason to go further with respect to LRSD's \"relevance generally.\" I can't put my finger on the objection right now, but, as I recall, LRSD objected to Joshua's designation of LRSD's exhibits as Joshua's exhibits too. If I recall the objection correctly, it is overruled, and LRSD's exception is saved. While courthouse lore is often contrary to established law, it has been the practice of trial lawyers in this state, since the mind of man and woman runneth not to the contrary, to designate the other party's exhibits as their own. LRSD contends (again, as I recall it) that this designation is contrary to some provision in the May LRSD v. Pulaski County School District July 11, 2002 Page Three l 5 order. If that order prohibited this specific designation, I'm going to ignore that particular portion of the order (in this context). If there are other issues that should be addressed in the morning, I would be much obliged if the parties would send Judge Ray and me a fax today identifying those issues. Thank you. ci!il~ Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. cc: The Honorable J. Thomas Ray Original to the Clerk of the Court RECEIVED 9N1110llNOW NOllYD3\\193S30 JUL 1 s 2002 United States District Court ~033wo --::aor--______EA_ ST_ER_N_ __ DlSTIU~rr _ ARI\u0026lt;ANSAS ZOOZ 8 1 1nr - OFACEOF T TTT: r: Rnr'f(Fcltm~~SION rnE ii.R~Ilg~~OM~E~~cr EAST~r1f.Pc1STAICT ARK'lTNSAs ~~~jl:I JUL 1\"' 1 2002 LASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et a!.MES W McCORMACK, CLERK CASE NIBvffiER: 4 : 82CV008, ,_..,.,. 1--:- . B~: DEP. C[ERKI --  TnO~L'\\S R..~Y Christopner Eelle:::-, et al. Sam Jones, et a1. u!v\" 9, ?QQ? \\ ~a'fi,1.yn Fant \\ FsF Swapsol! . - - x~ 7-~-i;: - ' :x ~~b ~ I I ::x '/ Yip I I ex 'JtP \\ \\ \\ I \\ ~ 4S \\ \\ \\ I \\ I ex 1 5,) I ( I I I ex '757 I l I I I ex 153 I \\ I I I 1 cxt~ I ) \\ \\ \\ ~,si; I I I I . . $:~~;ot;;,ff'g;_\\vc.~ ~o' l~-r1'14\"~ ~ Tu-14-eo r ~ ~ -/2, ~ ~-a {~ ~qo) (-~ ~ 0'1-;;;i...q-ot ~ _,, ~\u0026lt;;J.\u0026amp;,.._ . hw--,.._-ft ~ H-% tL,v/., ~,~-t ~7-.J.-O ;,' . /07) I t-~ ~ I I - I le -oo ~~ ~ ~ 'To \\~~ I c;__ - mi:iJ_ cue~ 03 -01 -o 1 0 . 1-l T ~ 0-,ui_ /14 w....;t cf.d_-fa, C:3-07-D( (l.f:/)..'i/11-f .f'(i/4 ; I It,, ::..n,._d.J.. clLW D 7-b--ul (rfJr.ri - -le l liJ(),\\J. (h.ti_ - ~ ~ D7-11p-ot {. g~ 1 (-r,,..\u0026amp;.l I.,~ o\u0026lt;o-~g--01 c,:o\u0026lt;:sa..-f'r\u0026lt;- F H~ ~ -fc o-r,J2.-n4,..;,2 ,~ ~ ~I ( P. tq;;\u0026gt;. tL.d /q 3 \\ u cv ~ :J ;o United States District Court ________E_ AS_TE_RN __ DtSTIUCT OF --:::-=:ARKAN==-~SA~S _______ I T TTTJ 'C' Barz DIVISION [T ROCK SCF.OOL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST ULASKI COUNTY SPECL~L SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. CASE NlJ11BER: 4: 8 2CVOO! J:-iHO~L\u0026gt;\\S RAY I ..._,...Ch:-   11 al  1-- r1.stopne= J::ie_ er, et . Sam jones, et al . .!u!v' 9, 2002 l.aTI,1yn Fant I w;; Swapson ex 7 rsr; '!- '1-0 ~ -~ cl.t:rfu- oq-.).q-oo ~ ~ ~ ~ / K~ -~ IU:P~ ;;Jboo-O~ CR _57) I I ~ -riutJ- d,i.,# 10 - 3-00 ~ ~, e~ ~ ~ k - ~ ~ -'Alt ~1--~ ( A @J I 0 l I\\ I I I I ( - h\\._~  Q -I~ ~ I 3 - if I  I rJ.-.,J. Ca:~ c.~ 1q ') I .f\\ - ;.. United States District Court -----------=EA:..:..::.S.;::.;:TE=RN_ __ DtSTIUCT OF ARKANSAS  I TTTT ,:- Rory --;:;D~[V~IS~I07-;\"N~-------- [T ROCK SCP.COL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST ULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. CASE IBJMBER: 4: 82CVOOl T\"\"'nfmL-\\S RAY 1-- 1-- Chriscophe-:- Eeller, et al. Sam Jones, et: al. Ju!v\" 9, 2002 \\t'arcilyn Fane \\ :acf'\"\" 5 . . . . - -   ~--~v  wapson \\cx'Y7(p \\ \\ \\ \\ \\~ ~ Ofv-07-06 ~ ~ il\u0026gt;~1  ex 117 I I I I 1e~ /k ~:;;~-OI United States District Court -----= ______ E_AS_TE_R_N __ D1STR.ICT OF -~ARK.!~!\\N:7SA~S ______ _ - I TTTJ ,:- :gnrx DIVISION ITTLE ROCK SCROOL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST ULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. CASE N\"'illvffiER: 4: 82CVOO! Ju!v\" 9, 2002 I \\ \\ ex 1ero  I I ...-.... ......... Christopher Eeller, et al. I. t:\"a'fp1 yn F an_t I,__ Kathv s~apson I I I I (-;y...r,i,__,t ~ 09-3o-CO - ~ c=r-c..,, __ -/TJ ~ -ak h{Jz;,/.4- t..,\\ ~ 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 I \\ I ~  1 - ~~ Ct4\u0026lt;M..e. - I ~v-Q_ e,o ~d-'7t j ~ ~ 68-04--Cfq ~ ~ rn~ I] United States District Court ~-------E_A_ST_ER_N ___ D1Sn.ICT OF --=::-::ARK.!::::!\\N:::-:S-;-A_S ______ _ - I TTTT -c- pnry DIVISION .ITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT I. 'ULASKI COUNTY SPECL~L SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. , rnfmL~S RAY I I ........, __ Christopher Eeller, et al. mtv\" 9, 2002 \\.t\"a'fl\u0026gt;1.yn Fant I I I I I I I I EXHIBIT LIST CASE NIBvIBER: 4: 82CVOQ. ~  I . I United States District Court ________ EA_ST_ER_N __ D!STRICT OF_~ARKAN==SA;.:;....S ______ _ - I TT.,..J\"\" :gnrK D[VISION ~ITTLE ROCK SCP.COL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. CASE NillvIBER: 4: 82CV0C 1:--THOK!\\.S RAY \\ 'chr'i';;opher Heller, e't al. \\ 7a:j;nes, et: al. ex \u0026lt;lO / I I I -pG.A.k~..J ~ ~ ~ ~1~ I l ~, 7_;);).-:,btl~ 7-~-557'6 United States District Court ___. ,..___ _____EA _S_TE_RN __ DlSTRlCT OF --=-::-ARKAN~_;;,.;.SA~S _______ - I TTTJ, ROCK DIVISION CTTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST ULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. CASE NUMBER: 4: s2cvooc T\"\"'fiim-L'\\S RAY \\ 'chr':i';;opher Heller, et al. I ~-~nes, et al. J,....u .1. \" 'v\" 9, 2002 1--\"+ F 1---  1.,ar.9.1.yn an~ Kathv \u0026lt;;wapson ex?; / 3 ~-1-0;).. J!.P.W f-lciB.,Zv().(.d' -~ =-t-14 -t-u~1 9~J~ooo (,--;;i ct- 01qq1,;1. -j-T) /-;).f-0111,;iq. I I J/.d-,0--0 ro ;1.1esc/~ ~ t -c) -DICfl :\u0026gt;.~ I -)f-ol C/ '1~) I I rf..R.. SJ) ~~\"--\" ~~\"'\u0026lt;..LO- t/-l';;l - !'119- 'd{JO() {1--~-K-o/CjCJQ;, ~ /~)(-cJ/19(:;q) 1 I I I I 1:- ~ \"'4'.P / '\\,U,VTI\\J/ ~t:\u0026lt;19 _ g 17 \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ P~~vt- ~Cll.Ad   1 I I I . l ~-4 . iqqq(l-~-DI . United States District Court ~-------EA_ST_E_RN ___ DIS'TRICT OF _-::-:-:'-ARKAN~-:-:-SA_S ______ _ - I TTTT -c- BOrK DIVISION LTTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST ULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. CASE NUMBER: 4:s2cvoo1: J:-iHOI:La\\S RA.Y I ~i-;;opher Heller, et al. I ~-'j;nes, et al. Ju!v' 9, 2002 l.ra'fp1.yn Fant I w~ Swapsop United States District Court __________EA_ ST_E_RN_ __ DISTIUCT OF -~ARK.!~~~SA_S_ _______ - I TTTJ i:- BOrK DIVISION :TTLE ROCK SCP.COL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST JLASKI COUNTY SPECL~L SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. CASE NlJrvfBER: 4:82CV008 Ju!v\" 9, 2002 \\ :C-a~'lyn Fan~ I w~ Swanson ex Mo I \\ex '6ltq \\ ~~ i;-D 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 11--R..SD ~Z\u0026gt; -ot ~~ ~ e  (1-:).\u0026lt;;i\"'-oJo3~ --fo f-:\u0026gt;-f-6)031./7) l'J'l'L . :/S~ Ct -:\u0026gt;-i ..... Q d-0 iJL/::;;. 71\u0026gt; I- d-\u0026lt;t-Od-() c.;9) United States District Court __________EA_ ST_ER_N_ __ DlSTRlCT OF --=::=:ARKAN~~SA~S _______ - r TTT'J ,:- B/\"\\rT\u0026lt;\" D1VISION ITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST lTLASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. CASE N\"'U1v1BER: 4: 82CV001: r:-'fRO!:-LA.S RAY I 'chr'i';;opher Heller, et al. I s:;j';;'nes, ec al. .ru!v' 9, 2002 l.'.Ca'fp1.y:n F~n.t I FsF Swanson ~ sr;;-\\ ~g, I ! ! I I Im vT ~..-. DI ( t -- -;;;.. f_ o){Jb{i.  --/-\u0026lt;iJ /-\";;).f-c~O\u0026amp;:J/';;}. I 1, '\\ I~ ~  ~ P~ \\ c?.06 r - ').Do ::i. (r --;}. F '-0 ::i. o~ 'gC/7zJ I-';) ?-o~t) 77;) ex g Go I I . I 1~ ~ -  ,~ ~o~ ex '6l, ( \\ ) \\ \\ \\ \\ ~ tJ HD -1 f ' b -~;;J- 6'/-3'{ -r,, 7~ ';,;;). _,;11d 1 \\ ( \\ \\ \\ \\ t\u0026lt;.. itL,tr ~ vth~::2. ( 1 cx ~ (,)- \\ . I ~J;;;ff:LI 1 g ..-- l-0, ~ (7- -;; - [;l/l/D lD 7 - ;;;-;;) - X q, 6 3 I . / I I I I ~ ' 7  ~If!!_ ( c).COC  i~4 I \\ I I I 1~ ~7-~-m1/fe7-?2-w1J United States District Court --------E-ASTE-RN ---DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS I TTII 't\" BOrK DIVISION [T~ ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST ULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al . CASE NUMJ3ER: 4: 82CVOOE .i-:-firo-t-Lt\\.S RAY \\ 'chr'i;;opher Heller, et: al.. \\ ~~nes, et al. Ju!v' 9, 2002 luTI,1yn F.ant I wF Swapson I I I -I I I I I I .. - I I \\ I I I I I I I ex I I I I I I I I -I I I I I I I I I I I  I I I I I RECEIVED - JUL 2 .. 2 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING u.fo lbf cPuRT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO~ERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION JUL 1 8 2002 JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK By: ----~D::-:E\"\"'P.\"\"\"c\"\"\"'Le=A-R LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTER VEN ORS KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTER VEN ORS ORDER 1. My May 15, 2002 Order read, in part, as follows: 4. In addition to exchanging exhibit lists, each party must exchange pre-marked exhibits on or before June 21 , 2002. Any exhibit that is not pre-marked and exchanged on or before June 21 , 2002, will not be received into evidence during the July 22 hearing, absent highly unusual circumstances. (Emphasis added.) 2. In a letter dated July 16, 2002, Mr. Walker enclosed seven proposed rebuttal exhibits. I will deal with them one by one. 3. CX 599 has been previously identified by Joshua and, absent a specific objection, will be admitted. 4. A Bonnie Lesley July 27, 2001 e-mail to Ms. Anne Brown (Marshall) was not - - - - - ----- - - - - -- - - - - - identified and marked prior to the June 21 deadline, and will be excluded. 5. A copy of the cover sheet for the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, which is entitled \"Report on the Little Rock School District's Preparations for Implementation of its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan,\" dated August 11, 1999. I assume, but do not know, that Joshua plans to introduce the entire report, although nothing but the cover sheet was provided in the letter. In any event, it violates the deadline set forth above and will be excluded. 6. Ms. Bonnie Lesley's February 21, 2000 letter to Ms. Anne Brown regarding \"recent LRSD publications.\" It will be excluded for the same reason.  7. A letter dated April 13, 2000, from Ms. Anne S. Brown to Dr. Bonnie Lesley acknowledging receipt of Ms. Lesley's February 21 , 2000 letter and attachments. It will be excluded. 8. Ann Brown's April 25,200 memo to Bonnie Lesley regarding \"feedback on LRSD Curriculum Documents.\" It will be excluded. 9. The Office of Desegregation Monitoring's October 26, 1999 \"Achievement Disparity Between The Races In The Little Rock School District.\" This will be excluded. 10. In the last paragraph beginning on the first page of Mr. Heller's July 17 letter, he requests that Mr. Walker be required to identify, by page and line number, the testimony of Dr. Lesley, which renders the rebuttal testimony of Ms. Marshall and Mr. Jones necessary. This is a fair request, and I normally would require it if time were not so short. I do note that Mr. Walker has only thirty minutes, total, for rebuttal. 11 . In the first full paragraph of Mr. Heller's letter dated July 17, 2002, which begins, \"in its Motion in Limine ... \" LRSD objects to the reading into evidence portions of the -2- depositions of certain Board members. With the exception of Dr. Karen Mitchell's testimony at lines 13-23 on page 27, all of remaining designated deposition testimony relates exclusively to the issues of academic achievement and program evaluations which are not among the issues which will be addressed during the hearing beginning on July 22. The objection is sustained. 12. In view of the sustaining of the objection, in the next preceding paragraph, the remainder of Mr. Heller's letter is moot. IT IS so ORDERErH DATED this / B day of July, 2002. -3- THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WlTf: ~UL7 58 ANO/OR 79(a) FRCP ' 7//9/tJ~ ~ 07/18/2002 11:16 5016045149 PAGE 02 RECEJVED JUL 2 -2 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING FILJ:D : U.S. DISTRl~COURT  EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL 1 8 2002 STATE OF ARKANSAS JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENEME----=..,,_.,.;._ oJiliP~ Deputy Attorney G\u0026lt;m~l Civil Department Direct dial: (BOI) 682,2586 Mark Pryor Attorney General R~~tr,s July 17, 2002 ... _,,~ The Honorable William R. Wilson . J. a~j (U?\"'w:U;_ ~1:~~ Jr. United States District Court ~nO ~~~ '(/ uE.t. ~~sx;~~~~g~e 600 West Capitol, Suite 423 11) : ~ Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. Case No. 4:82CV0866WRW/JTR Dear Judge Wilson: oiC  ~ \"f!:11-(0)- eneral, counsel for the Arkansas Department of Education in the above-referenced matter, es ec y request that we be excus from the final evidentiary hearing on the Little Rock School Distnct s otlon or m ary tatus set to begin on Monday, July 22, 2002. The presentation of evidence by Joshua and the Little Rock School District on the remaining issues does not appear to require our attendance at the hearing and we do not intend to examine witnesses or otherwise participate. Thank you for your consideration of the foregoing. c=~~ DENNIS R. HANSEN Deputy Attorney General DRH/km cc: The Honorable J. Thomas Ray Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. SamuelJones,III Mr. Richard W. Roachell Mr. John Walker Ms. Ann Marshall Mr. Steve Jones Original to the Clerk of the Court 323 Center Street  Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-8084 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ Q :\\Civi1\\DenniaHldeeeg\\2002\\Con-espondcnce\\judgeltt07-l 7 .doc JUL.19.2002 10:36AM Ja-!N W W~KER P A N0.732 P.2 na:\\;flVEu - JUL 2 2 2002 OFFIC~ OF n ,:.:( .l! '/1\"~\"  \"\" I~IO NITORING JOffNW. WAt,Klm . SHAWN CH1LD8 Honorable William R. Wilson United States District Jlldge 600 W. Capitol Suite 149 Little Rock. AR 12201 JoHNW. WALKER,P.A. u Ff LS::D .s. DISTR1\u0026lt;!'rcou M:TOBNXT kt LAW EASTERN DISTRICT RT 1723 B'RoADWAY ARKAN SAS Lrm\u0026amp;Rocx,ARKANSAB 72206 JUL 1 9 2002 TELEPS'ONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 814-4187 JA_M~~q5M , Sy, -,~~aw;..~,~C~LERK~ . T MOcHFECNORUYN PiE.AL. , _ DONNAJ. ~y VI.a Facsbnile: 604--5149 July 19, 2002  8210 HIMl'l!SON BoAD 14:rrt,\u0026amp; Roc:x. ~ 7l!l!l0 PROm: (501) 11n-3426  Fax (501) 372,M28 EliWl-~bell.net 7 l -- ct_..\u0026lt;!L ,. h , . ~))4 \"~ f l)f il)UI-~  ~ dra'I' ~lA lA'L  ~ \u0026lt;J r ) i: CA V\\11 L  _A _1t ,i.,VII\\ ~ ,-A,1/~p ))\\f I , ~,t.\u0026amp;_ ~;;-.;, ,, u9--1 ) _,d.Jfo/'f .A ~ !-+Iv'' \u0026gt;;f/i u C~----aJfl--\\ ~f~i,ll 1 ~l ..,_;;,a,Lv--' i),L{ . ~{' ~'':' 1:,,t--\u0026amp; 1#..\"' v-.\u0026lt;1-Y,~J:v ~1,\u0026lt;, I ,. -~--;\";j))}-tL ffed: ,e-. Y:,. i,..1L '10   1i '\\ tJ,'.Jl.-.- if J?,1 ,uA-a.t.--.;(,~{# ~ '?r.,,/,'P-\" v\" Ct ~ 1'.-c11~u~ Dear Judge Wilsoll! \\,Vw-,.-v' .,/4A, J;-{,t,Jul- \\,~A.A. ~t.U: '  IJ\"'\"t/' One of the witnesses that we listed Ms. Ethel Dunbar~ Principal of Franklin ElementarY  , pit.Q.,,( School has been subpoenaed for the 8,30. July 22, 2002 hearing as directed by the Court. She ;,(c.' (J)l)-M has called me to ask excuse from being present at 8:30 due to State Department of Education }- business at that time. She is scheduled to appear 8$ a witness on Wednesday. I see no probleui n~ L\\. in haVing hor appear on Wednesday other th8n your order. Toe District, l llll1 sure, will alao C'- \"')'. want her exoused if it is also possible. I am therefore writing to request tha1 she be allowed to ., v\"  l..f report on Wedneoda}' momlng, July 24, 2002. ralh\u0026lt;:r than July 22. 2002. ~, \"\"'; Thank you for whatever consideration you may give regarding this request. JWW:lp cc; Honorable J, Thomas Ray Mr, Chris Heller Ms, Ethel Dun.bar 10/10 39'i1d 51,rs RECEIVED JUL 2 2 2002 OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 600 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3325 (501) 604-5140 BILL WILSON JUDGE Mr. Dennis Hansen Deputy Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Facsimile (501) 604-5149 July 19, 2002 BY FAX FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL 1 9 2002 ~~~~ RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School, et al. 4:82CV00866WRW / JTR Dear Mr. Hansen: You may be excused from next week's evidentiary hearing in this case a t - your discretion. cc: The Honorable J. Thomas Ray All Counsel of Record Original to the Clerk Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. RECEIVED Fii ;:~ u ~--.. , EAsrMRsN ?;,ftt1ff co URT ' ARKANSAS f JUL 3 0 2002 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT . JUL 1 r 2~n2 l a_ OFFICEOF 90ESEGREGATION MONITORING EASTE~I;:~c6ii s~NS~:MES w. McCORMACK, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO.-4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.I, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DEP CLE~K PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the Court to reconsider its Order of July 18, 2002 which was faxed to us at the end of the business day, yesterday, July 18, 2002. On the day before, July 1 7, 2002, plaintiffs counsel filed a letter with the Comi by fax, also at the end of the business day, wherein counsel made several objections citing authority for one. The Joshua Intervenors were not afforded an opportunity to respond prior to the Court's Order. The Joshua Intervenors, therefore, object to the Court's entry of an Order on a disputed matter without their having been afforded a reasonable response time to the plaintiffs motion. We note that there are only 30 minutes of rebuttal testimony and evidence at issue here. Joshua notes that the positions of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) have been considered vital in the previous deliberations during fact finding proceedings. In the past, the Court Itself has invited the ODM to state its findings on matters which it had monitored. That has been the established procedure in this case for its duration. Joshua counsel acknowledges that the transition from one judge to another will result in some changes in the administration of a case; but Joshua believes that it is fundamental that the role of the ODM be preserved not only in operation but in presentation of the facts which it learns during its monitoring. Joshua proceeds now to address the reasons for the motion herein. 1) Joshua communication with Ms. Ann Marshall before June 21 , 2002 and even since then has been difficult due to personal circumstances of Ms. Marshall. Ms. Marshall's personal situation constitutes \"highly unusual circumstances.\" 2) The Leslie e-mail of July 27, 2001 to Ms. Marshall is a document which the Distiict has had for some time. There is no unfair prejudice to the plaintiff for it to be used by Ms. Marshall during her testimony. We submit that the Court's ruling should be reconsidered because it simply identifies ODM documents. 3) The Court excludes the ODM \"Report on the Little Rock School Districts Preparation for Implementation of its Revised Desegregation and Education Report.\" We note that this report is already a pait of the Court's record. It was filed when it was prepared. Please note the file mark of August 1 1, 1999. The cover sheet was submitted simply for reference by Joshua because the Court already has the entire report. I presume, but apologize for presuming, that the Court was aware that this report was already a pait of the record. [See Par. 5, infra.] 4) The Bonnie Leslie letter of February 21 , 2000 has also been excluded by the Court. We object to the Court's ruling for the reason, supra. The District contends that ODM participated in the evaluations that it made. The letter of February 21, 2000 shows that Leslie invited \"feedback for improvement\" or questions regarding the certain curriculum documents rather than for \"evaluations.\" We request that we at least be allowed to proffer the document with a note that Ms. Marshall may surely testify about the contents therein. 5) The Court excluded the ODM Report of August 26, 1999. This, too, has been filed as a matter of record in this case since August 26, 1999. It is not a new exhibit. The Court has had this exhibit before it now for almost three years. I ask the Court to reconsider its exclusionary ruling because the effect of it is to remove an admitted document from the record. [Underlining added for emphasis.] 6) Finally, with respect to the identified testimony of school board members, the Court precludes all but the testimony of Dr. Mitchell at lines 13-27 on p. 27. We feel that the Court should reconsider this ruling because an issue of good faith is also raised with respect to the issues which were before the Court in the first proceeding. For example, Dr. Carnine testified regarding the subjects in issue. His credibility was a clear issue. Dr. Mitchell and Ms. Strickland were asked questions regarding Dr. Carnine's truthfulness to them as board members. We are entitled to show that either they did not consider him credible or that they would falsify a response themselves rather than give a statement of their experiences with Carnine regarding Carnine's truthfulness. Carnine's truthfulness goes to the District's good faith and to the integrity of the evidence recited in the reports prepared under Carnine's supervision in March of 2000 and 2001. Also, please note, Judge Wilson, that the school board members depositions were taken after we had basically concluded our case on those issues before the Court. We could not have presented it during our case-in-chief because it was not then available. Furthermore, the depositions were before the Court as exhibits before the June 21, 2002 deadline for filing exhibits. The cited lines relate to the issue of good faith with respect to good faith, discipline, student achievement and program evaluations. In conclusion, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the Court to reconsider its Order and to modify it accordingly. Joshua also requests that if the Court is inclined to make an instantaneous ruling on a motion by the District that the Cow1 afford Joshua reasonable time to respond before entering an Order. Robert Pressman, Mass Bar 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 . r, AR Bar No. 64046 ' JOHNW. WALK.ER, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) Rickey Hicks, AR Bar No. 89235 Rickey Hicks, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 3 7 4-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoin/ ~.ha been \"},:,lf and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to the following counsel ofrecord, on this day of I  , 2002: I Mr. Clay Fendley Mr. Dennis R. Hansen FRlDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Office of the Attorney General 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 323 Center Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 200 Tower Building Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Mr. Sam Jones \\\\TRJGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 rvir. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell ROA CHELL LAW FIRM 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 JUL 2 2 2002 A OFACEOF  DESEGREGATION MONITORING UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. * * * * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * .I)ISTRICTNO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * MRS. LOREN JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors, * * * * * * 4:82CV00866 ORDER u.fo1{fm~cRRr EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL 1 :e 2002 i;,~~-1-r I have reviewed Joshua's motion for reconsideration of the July 18, 2002 order excluding - certain documents Joshua recently identified as exhibits for use with their rebuttal witnesses. First, Joshua points out that the Court entered its order without allowing Joshua an opportunity to respond to LRSD's letter requesting the exclusion of those exhibits. While the Court normally allows opposing counsel an opportunity to respond to an issue before ruling, in this case Joshua had clearly violated the Court's May 15, 2002 Scheduling Order that explicitly required Joshua to identify all exhibits they intended to use during the July 22, 2002 hearing -- on or before June 21 , 2002. In light of that undisputed fact, which was the basis for my exclusion of those proposed exhibits, I saw ( and see) no reason for allowing Joshua an opportunity to respond. Second, Joshua points out that a number of the documents have previously been filed in the record. I was fully aware of that fact at the time I entered my order. However, merely because a - --- - - - - - ---- - ---- document has been filed in the record does not excuse Joshua from complying with the May 15 Scheduling Order. It explicitly required them to pre-mark and exchange with opposing counselall exhibits that it intended to use during the July 22 hearing. Under Joshua's interpretation of the May 15 Scheduling Order, they would be permitted to use, as rebuttal exhibits, any of the thousands upon thousands of documents that have been filed in this case during the last two or three years without identifying and exchange those documents with opposing counsel (marked as exhibits) -- as required by this order. Finally, in connection with the excluded deposition testimony, Joshua has construed the remaining issue of \"good faith\" in far too broad a context. The only good faith issue that remains to be tried in this case is LRSD's substantial compliance with its obligations regarding extracurricular activities, advance placement courses, and guidance counseling. To the extent that Joshua desired to use this deposition testimony, which was known to them before the conclusion of the November 19, 2001 hearing, Joshua should have submitted that testimony as part of its case in chief. Since the trial date is upon us, if either side files a motion, at this late hour, an instantaneous ruling is likely if the motion or request is patently meritorious, as it was in this case. For both parties: The chute is about to open -- get your best hold. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 19th day of July, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE o';~9J~J.~; ~~~,o:~ 2 U/f!i;{ [~ U. S. DISTRICT JU~~ UNITED STATES MAGISTRA TE JUDGE J 600 WEST CAPITOL R  THOMAS RAY , OOM 149 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 PHONE: (501) 604-5230 FAX: (501) 604-5237 FACSIMILE FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL 2 2 2002 RECEIVED JUL 2 3 2002 omcEoF DESEGREGATION MONITORING UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE J. THOMAS RAY 600 WEST CAPITOL, ROOM 149 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 PHONE: (501) 604-5230 FAX: (501) 604-5237 FACSIMILE FROM: \\,..I ~ ,_r\\ - ~ '\\! N't\\ . \\'\\. ~ ' :s Q(\\ FAX No: ~7 4 - L\\ \\ 'o7 / \"3 7lo-2\\47 DA7E: ~ \"'-\\Q 2\\/ 200 2 RECEIVED JUL 2 3 2002 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING RE: ~ ~\\~ '2..2. \\\\~r\\\"A \\..~bb \"' ~ '-s s.:h  No. Ac. ezcv O0 7 _ 2. 7 - D L-- J s,~ PAGES: {ji_JJ,/\\. ~~: } ~vn1.12 J N-'/;\" ~ ,zf:;u- lf!J,V; O-A,J) ~I\\ 1), ~ /_,M-.(,;_p f-t\u0026amp;.w-J!{ 1M.e_ u,_/,,c6i (\\_ ~~ i~!J)_ 1 ~ ,vy\u0026amp;,.~r (a~ tt%/J  ,~A.Vi.,i,\"-'i.t..J J,f.#.,T waf k lJ.bl} tf--l-L/v4J / ,u. ' ~ 1 ,y-JrJ-i {}/wv1.-' 06V1.,l7f-fQ1::;1 . ri 1~. ~ l\u0026lt;.c ~i!l l,vll~ X C : \\../.C1' / ~ 4--(/--r,~ f\u0026lt;-J-,t 1 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE J. THOMAS RAY 600 WEST CAPITOL, ROOM 149 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 PHONE: (501) 604-5230 FAX: (501) 604-5237 FACSIMILE RECEIVED FROM: 'N~-\"- 'v-J :\\s ~ JUL 2 3 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING -FAX ;:.o, 0\\ 4- 4\\~7 / ~llo-Z I '\\7 RE: ~ ::--~ - ?~;- F\"!L %fR1 g,srR,~ D IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO~T ,srR,cr ~/!:J EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSA~. JUL 2 3 2i sAs WESTERN DIVISION s;MEs w M 'OJ2  ccoRMAc K, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PL V. LR-C-82-866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED JUL 2 5 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF'S WITNESS LIST FOR THE JULY 22, 2002 HEARING AS REVISED JULY 23, 2002 DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") hereby identifies the following witnesses to be called at the July 22, 2002 hearing and provides a detailed statement of their expected testimony: 1. Dr. Bonnie Lesley. Dr. Lesley will testify on Wednesday, July 24, 2002, from I :00 p.m. until 4:00 p.m. regarding the District's compliance with Revised Plan  2.6 (as it relates to advanced placement courses) and Revised Plan  2.6.1 and 2.6.2. Dr. Lesley is the Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction for the District. Dr. Lesley will testify that the District's efforts to increase African-American emollment in advanced placement courses and to ensure their success in those courses begins as soon as they enter the District. In this regard, Dr. Lesley will review the latest results from the K-2 reading assessments (the third year of the program's implementation and the third year of testing data); describe a recent study conducted by Page 1 of 7 a team in her Division on the academic effects of participation by African-American students in the District's pre-kindergarten program for students now in grades K-8 versus the scores of AfricanAmerican students who did not participate; discuss the District's new writing curriculum for PreK- 12 (which will be ready by the time school starts in fall 2002), its goals related to improved student achievement at all levels, and how it is aligned with the State's curriculum standards and the knowledge/skills required to perform well on the ACT. Dr. Lesley will also discuss efforts undertaken by the District specifically at the secondary level and the results achieved by the District so far. In particular, she will summarize the results of two studies related to the District's advanced courses at the secondary level; discuss the section on \"Advanced Placement Courses\" on p. 36 of the Compliance Report of March 2001 - the summary of activities that resulted in the improved enrollments; especially the emphasis on all students taking a rigorous program of study, including college preparatory courses in the core areas; describe the trend/research for high schools to admit more and more non-traditional students to advanced courses and the benefits derived from those changes in practice, including improved test results, improved ACT scores, improved performance in college, etc.; review the NAACP's \"Call for Action in Education,\" and compare the NAACP's recommendations to the District's efforts; and describe a study that she conducted on class size at the middle and high school levels, including the percentage of small classes that are advanced classes and the percentage of African-Americans who were enrolled in all classes under 20. During her testimony, Dr. Lesley will also address the District's good faith commitment to comply with the Constitution even if no longer monitored by the Court. Dr. Lesley may also offer other testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua Intervenors during their case. Page 2 of 7 2. Dr. Marian Lacey. Dr. Lacey will testify on Thursday, July 25, 2002, from 10:00 a.m. until 11 :00 a.m. regarding the District's compliance with Revised Plan  2.6 (as it relates to extracurricular activities) and Revised Plan  2.6.3. Dr. Lacey is the Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Schools for the District. Dr. Lacey will testify that the Board adopted policies JB, IBA, IBA-R, JJ, JJ-R, JJIA, JJIB, JJIB-Rl , JJIB-R2, and JJIB-R3 in order to comply with Revised Plan  2.6; that the District increased participation in extracurricular activities 76 percent in the 1998-99 school year and another 26 percent in the 1999-2000 school years; that 62 percent of AfricanAmerican students participated in extracurricular activities during the 1999-2000 school year; that the number of African-American students participating in co-curricular activities increased 9 percent in the 1998-99 school year and an additional 30 percent in the 1999-2000 school year; that a 1999- 2000 parent survey indicated that 90 percent of African-American parents and 93 percent of African- - American teachers thought that activities were open to all students; that the SIP program has helped increase African-American participation in activities; that transportation is provided for all extracurricular activities; that the District has hired Danny Fletcher, an African-American, as Fine Arts Director; and that she is not aware of any barriers to participation by African-Americans in extracurricular activities. During her testimony, Dr. Lacey will also address the District's good faith commitment to comply with the Constitution even if no longer monitored by the Court. Dr. Lacey may also offer testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua Intervenors during their case. 3. Jo Evelyn Elston. Ms. Elston will testify on Thursday, July 25, 2002, from 1 :00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. regarding the District's compliance with Revised Plan  2.11 and 2.11.1 . Ms. Elston is Director of Pupil Services for the District. She will testify that during the term of the Revised Plan the District adopted policies JB, IBA and JLD; that counselors assist students with Page 3 of 7 their educational, social, personal and career development; that each school conducts a needs assessment every three years and develops a school-based guidance plan; that the District has developed a comprehensive guidance program plan for both the elementary and secondary level; that counselors prepare monthly reports on their progress in implementing the guidance plan; that counselors are to keep a daily log of students counseled; that counselors have been instructed to encourage students to take pre-AP and AP courses; that counselors have attempted to ensure equity in honors, awards and scholarships; that counselors regularly prepare newsletters to notify students of scholarship opportunities, ACT preparation courses, etc.; that counselors provide all students with a written graduation plan; that secondary counselors prepare annual reports; that her office monitors both the monthly reports and annual reports prepared by counselors; that the data on enrollment in pre-AP and AP courses, scholarships and honor graduates suggests that the counselors are doing a - good job; that a 1999-2000 parent survey indicates that counselors are doing a good job; that the Safe School Health Students grant has allowed the Pupil Services Department to provide additional services to students; and that she is not aware of any systemic racial discrimination in the provision of guidance and counseling services. During her testimony, Ms. Elston will also address the District's good faith commitment to comply with the Constitution even if no longer monitored by the Court. Ms. Elston may also offer testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua Intervenors during their case. 4. Sadie Mitchell. Ms. Mitchell will testify from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 25, 2002, regarding the District's compliance with Revised Plan  2.6, 2.6.2, 2.6.3, 2.11 and 2.11. 1. Ms. Mitchell is the Associate Superintendent for School Services for the District. Ms. Page 4 of 7 Mitchell may offer testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua Intervenors during their case. 5. Baker Kurrus. Mr. Kurrus will testify on Friday, July 26, 2002, from 9:00 a.m. until 10:00 a.m. regarding the District's good faith commitment to comply with the Constitution even if no longer monitored by the Court. Mr. Kurrus is President of the District's Board of Directors. Mr. Kurrus will testify that the Board adopted and/or re-adopted policies during the term of the Revised Plan requiring compliance with the Revised Plan requirements regarding guidance counseling, extracurricular activities and advanced placement courses, that every policy was adopted after being read at a prior Board meeting; that the Board fully expected the administration to comply with its policies requiring compliance with the Revised Plan requirements regarding guidance counseling, extracurricular activities and advanced placement courses; that the administration reported to the Board that it was complying with the Revised Plan requirements regarding guidance counseling, extracurricular activities and advanced placement courses; that a representative of the Joshua Jntervenors was permitted to address the Board whenever requested; that in the 1998-1999 school year, the Board had 23 meetings and no representative of the Joshua Jntervenors addressed the Board; that during the 1999-2000 school year, the Board had 20 meetings and a representative of the Joshua Jntervenors appeared on July 22, 1999 and November 10, 1999; that at the July 22, 1999 meeting, attorney John Walker raised only general concerns; that the Board understood that the Superintendent worked with the Joshua Intervenors to address those concerns; that on November 10, 1999, attorney John Walker appeared to support parents and community members opposed to the closing of Mitchell Elementary School; that the Board agreed not to close Mitchell Elementary School; that during the 2000-2001 school year, the Board had 27 meetings, and the minutes reflect Page 5 of 7 that Joy Springer appeared on behalf of the Joshua Intervenors on January 25, 2001; that on that date Ms. Springer stated that improvements had been made, that there were still some issues to be addressed and that the Joshua Intervenors were hoping to work with administrators and the Board to address those issues; that the Board understood that the administration attempted to work with the Joshua Intervenors to resolve those issues; that the Board expected the Joshua Intervenors to raise in a timely manner any compliance issues which could jeopardize the District obtaining unitary status, either with the Board or pursuant to Revised Plan  8; that the Board agreed to pay the Joshua Intervenors in advance to ensure Joshua's ability to monitor the District's compliance; that Joshua billed the District for monitoring, and the District paid those bills; that the Board never had any evidence presented to it that the District had not substantially complied with the Revised Plan requirements regarding guidance counseling, extracurricular activities and advanced placement - courses; and that the Board adopted the Covenant to demonstrate and memorialize its good faith commitment to the Revised Plan requirements regarding guidance counseling, extracurricular activities and advanced placement courses and the Constitution in the future. Mr. Kurrus may also offer testimony responsive to evidence offered by the Joshua Intervenors during their case. Respectfully    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"}],"pages":{"current_page":347,"next_page":348,"prev_page":346,"total_pages":6766,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":4152,"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}}]}}