{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1237","title":"Oral deposition of Larry Berkley","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":["Bushman Court Reporting"],"dc_date":["2001-10-05"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","School board members","Court records","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Oral deposition of Larry Berkley"],"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/1237"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nDeposition taken at the Friday, Eldredge and Clark Law Firm, Little Rock, Arkansas\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\n   CERTIFIED COPY IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF vs No.LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL, DISTRICT NO . 1, ET AL DEFENDANT MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS INTERVENORS DEPOSITION OF MR. LARRY BERKLEY DATE: October 5, 2001 TIME: 10:21 a.m. PLACE: The Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Law Firm 400 west Capitol, Suite #2200 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 APPEARANCES On Behalf of the Plaintiff: On Behalf of the Defendants: Mr. John w. Walker, Attorney John w. Walker Law Firm 1723 Broadway Street Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Clay Fendley, Attorney Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 west Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 ALSO PRESENT Joy Springer, The John w. Walker Law Firm Tony Rose, Sue Strickland, \u0026amp; Katherine Mitchell, Deponents Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box #4 Sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone : (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 2 CERTf Ff ED COPY PAGE AGREEMENT OF COUNSEL ..................... 3 SWEARING OF THE WITNESS. EXAMINATION OF MR. LARRY BERKLEY  .   . . .  . . . .    3 By Mr. Walker ..................... 3-38 SIGNATURE SHEET. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 0 ERRATA SHEET. . . . . . . . . . . COURT REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION .. * * * * * * * * * Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax . . . 41 . 42  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CE TIFIED COPY 3 STIPULATIONS The deposition of Larry Berkley, produced, sworn and examined at the Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Law Firm, 400 West Capitol, Suite #2200, Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 commencing at 10:21 a.m., on October 5, 2001, in the captioned cause at the instance of counsel for the Plaintiff, and said deposition being taken according to the terms and provisions of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. It is stipulated and agreed all forms and formalities in the taking, transcribing, forwarding and filing of said deposition by witness, are hereby waived by the parties, the right being expressly reserved to object to the testimony of the witness at the time of trial as to incompetency, irrelevancy and immateriality, other than those with respect to the form of questions as propounded to the witness. * * * * * P R O C E E D I N G S THEREUPON, LARRY BERKLEY having been called for examination by counsel for the plaintiff, and having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION Questions by Mr. Walker: Q. Mr. Berkley, you have given depositions before have you Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 4 not? A. Yes. Q. I'll just go straight to the issue. How long have you been a member of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District? A. Five years. REPORTER: Both of you speak up a little bit, please. A. Okay. I've been on it five years. Q. Do you hold an office on the board? A. Not at this time. Q. Have you ever served as either president or vice president of the board? A. Both. Q. When were you president of the board? A. '98 I think. I'll have to go back and look at the records. Q. All right. A. Yes, okay. I'll lean forward. Q. Do you hold an office at that time? A. I do not. Q. What is your education? A. I have a Masters Degree in Physics from the University of Missouri and a bachelors degree and masters degree in physics. Q. What work do you do? A. I'm a medical physicist. I'm Vice President of Medical Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box *4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY Physics and Engineering at CARTI. Q. I see. Is that with UAMS? 5 A. we have a facility at UAMS but CARTI in independent of all the facilities that we serve. Q. I see, all right. Mr. Berkley are you familiar with the revised desegregation and education plan? A. Yes. Q. Have you and the board members had occasion to, as a board in a public meeting, ever discuss that plan together as a board since 1998? A. we have received regular updates from administration and from the consultants and--- Q. I understand, my question though doctor, Mr. Berkley, have you and the other board members in a public session ever had occasion to discuss that in a public setting? FENDLEY: I'm going to object to the--Q. Not simply to receive reports. A. Well, in conjunction with receiving those reports and I believe there was some discussion related to the management study that we had done that related to the deseg plan. Q. Have you had occasion to receive information that, from you lawyers in a public session regarding the revised desegregation and education plan in so far as its implementation was concerned? I'm talking about in a public meeting instead of one-on-one? Cobb Court Reporting P . o . Box t4 Sweet Horne , AR 72164-0004 Phone : (501) 490-0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 6 A. I believe there have been updates from them. Q. In a public meeting? A. I honestly can\"t recall that. Q. Have you and the board members before today ever met with the lawyers privately regarding the revised desegregation and education plan? A. Privately? Q. Yes, sir. FENDLEY: Do you mean independently or together? WALKER: Two persons at one time at any time or more. A. I do not recall doing that. Q. I see. Has it been your practice as a board that whenever two board members met that you would give notice to the press of that meeting? A. Ah, it is our practice yes. Q. I see. Has it been your practice that you would do that even if it were for something as mondain as lunch? A. As a general rule, yes\nthere may have been exceptions to that. Q. I see. Do you know under the Freedom Of Information Act the only exception is to discuss personnel matters? FENDLEY: Object as to form. Q. You may answer. A. I believe that there is some, one interpretation of that Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box #4 Sweet Home , AR 72164-0004 Phone : ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 7 that says that. Q. Mr. Berkley do you recall being informed by Dr. Les Carnine that the district had substantially complied with the expectation of the revised desegregation and education plan? A. Yes. Q. When did he do that? A. I can\"t give you a date. Q. All right. Did he do it over a period of time? A. We have had regular reports from the administration particularly Mr. Babbs ah, that's a regular part of our meetings. Q. Well, I understand that. Did Mr. Babbs or anyone else inform you and the other board members in a public session and all my questions will be about public sessions because I presume you all cannot act in private? A. That's correct. Q. That the requirements of the revised desegregation and education plan had been fulfilled? A. I don't recall the exact words but I think substantial compliance is the corrects words. Q. Okay. Do you recall that I've appeared before the board on several occasions to complain that the plan requirements were not being met? A. You? Q. Yes, sir. Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box 44 sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone : (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY a A. I remember you coming to the board concerned about ah, a position be potentially eliminated as a result of the management plan that we had done. Q. Is that all you recall about that meeting? A. Yes. Q. I see. We have prepared responses to your counsel's interrogatories. Have you seen the interrogatories which were prepared by your counsel and submitted to the Joshua Intervenors? BERKLEY: umrn, have I seen it? REPORTER: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. FENDLEY: I don't think you have. A. No. Q. I want to show--- FENDLEY: I\"m not suppose to answer, if you don't recall--- BERKLEY: I don\"t recall, I don\"t recall seeing them. Q. I see. In order to refresh your memory about that meeting I give you a response to those interrogatories, Response #2 to Interrogatory #7, this is the response to interrogatory #2 and #17. And this purports to be a tape, \"tape of John Walker before LRSD School Board July 22, 1999\", that was prepared by the secretary of the district. Would you look at that and see, it's four pages, would you look at that for a moment and see if Cobb Court Reporting P , o. Box #4 Sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone : (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 9 it refreshes your recollection. A. This is something at King School? Q. Just look at it and see if it refreshes your recollection. FENDLEY: Do you want him to read it all? WALKER: No, just, just--- FENDLEY: Well, what do you want him to do with it? WALKER: Well, if he want's to, he can read it if he wishes. I presume he reads fast, he's a physicist. FENDLEY: He can read it at whatever pace he pleases. A. I do recall you coming to the board with concerns--- Q. No, my question was does that refresh your recollection? A. About ah, you coming to the board another time about some concerns at Hall High. Q. Did this refresh your recollection about complaints that we were making regarding implementation as early as July 22, 1999\ndoes this refresh your recollection? A. No. Q. That's fine. Now did you ever--you were the president during that year weren't you? A. I can look and see. Q. '99 to 2000? A. August '99, that would have been '98, '99? Q. Well, this was July. Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 sweet Horne, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  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 CERTIFIED COPY 10 A. July '99 I would have been president. Q. Yes, sir. A. That's right. Q. All right. Now do you remember as president of the board ever asking Dr. Carnine or any administrator to respond to the comments that I had made after giving them thoughtful consideration on July 22, 1999? A. No. Q. Do you recall any board member ever asking the administration to give any response to the board to any of the comments that I've made regarding criticisms with implementations of the desegregation plan? Any written, anything to the board members or any staff members regarding those things? FENDLEY: I'm going to object, I'm not sure I understand the question. WALKER: Well, let me make sure you understand. Q. Now usually when people appear before the board unless it's a matter where some person has a particular comment to be made, you all generally say nothing\nisn't that generally what happens? A. When the public comes before the board? Q. Yes. A. Yes. Q. All right. Now isn't it also fair to say that when I have Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 sweet Home , AR 72 164-000 4 Pho ne : (50 1 ) 490 - 00 66 (50 1 ) 490 -0 92 6 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY appeared before the board most of the board members have basically been silent. A. I wouldn't--- Q. That's fine. A. make a statement like that. 11 Q. Have you all, when I've come before the board especially in July and made these kinds of complaints about nonimplementation, is it fair to say that you did not ask Dr. Carnine or any other administrator to give a response to these considerations at that time? A. I can't speak for the other board members. Q. But you didn't did you? A. I did not\nno, sir. Q. All right. Now do you know of any official action being taken with respect to the remarks made by the Joshua Intervenors, myself, or Mrs. Springer at any time as a board? A. As a board? Q. Yes, as a board. A. And official action by the board--Q. Yes, sir\nyes, sir--- A. in response to your request? Q. Yes, sir. FENDLEY: And let me just clarify, a request made to the board at a meeting? WALKER: Or comments, yes. Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 12 FENDLEY: So you\"re talking about at a meeting? WALKER: At a meeting, any public session\nyes. A. I do not recall any official action by the board. Q. I see. Now do you recall that we have consistently told you that the plan required the involvement of Drs. Roberts and Ross in the divination and promulgation of policies, programs, and procedures as contemplated by the revised desegregation plan? A. I remember reading your words about your interpretation of the plan that you should be involved with that. Q. Well, what about the, you do not recall me having said on the 22nd that ors. Roberts and Ross would be integrally involved and there was an understanding that these two persons would have a role in planning, development and divination of new policies, programs, and procedures for moving us beyond where we were into where we wanted to be\nyou don\"t recall that? A. I don\"t recall that but it does make sense. Q. Pardon? A. It does make sense. Q. It does? A. Yes. Q. I see. Now have you had a report from anyone setting forth whether or not Dr. Roberts was involved in the establishment of policies, programs and procedures regarding the revised Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box i4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone, ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 13 desegregation plan, did anybody tell you that he was involved? A. No, sir but I will say this: I asked Dr. Roberts in a public meeting and at least one occasion, I think more than one occasion whether he had any concerns about our compliance with the plan and he said no. Q. Well, did you ask him whether he was involved? A. Well, I would assume that that would part of compliance. Q. Well, did he have, what was his role, what was your understanding if his role with respect to developing policies, programs, and procedures by which to implement the desegregation plan\nwhat was your understand was his role, not whether or not he had some concerns? A. My understanding was that he was an individual that you had approved and that the administration and you and he would decide what was appropriate. Q. That's fine. That was your clear understanding wasn't it? A. I can't tell you details about what his involvement should be or should have been but he is an individual who you approved and we agreed would be a good person to take on that task and during the course of those years except for these ah, few exceptions that you\"re referring to, we didn't hear much from you. Q. Is it your belief that you didn\"t hear much from me? Did you not get numerous--- A. We had public meetings twice a month for three years. Cobb Court Reporting p , o . Box H Sweet Horne , AR 7216 4-0004 Phone : (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 14 Q. Did you not receive reports from Dr. Carnine that he was meeting with me from time-to-time? A. Oh, yes. Q. So would you not have been hearing from me in that way? Let me go on to something else. Did you get the impression that Dr. Carnine was an honest and candid man? A. Yes. Q. Did you get the impression that he was giving you full reports regarding and accurate reports regarding implementation of the plan? A. He had delegated that primarily to Mr. Babbs. Q. I see. Did you get the impression that Mr. Babbs was a knowledgeable and competent person that could perform the task that you all assigned him? A. Yes. Q. I see. Were you in court when his testimony was given after ah, in July? A. I was not. Q. I suppose you read his testimony? A. I have not. Q. Has anyone given you an appraisal of his testimony or a summary of his testimony regarding program implementation? A. No official. Q. I see. Anybody unofficially? A. Ah, I wouldn\"t want to say that. Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box 14 Sweet Home , AR 72164-0004 Phone : (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 4 5 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 15 Q. I see. Now the plan calls for, does it not call for remediation of achievement disparities between African-American and none African-American students? A. The revised desegregation plan? Q. Yes, sir\nyes, sir. A. I think it refers to attempts to do that. Q. I see, that's fine. Is it your position that you all did not commit to address elimination of the disparity between black and white achievement? FENDLAND: I'm going to object to the form--WALKER: You can still answer. FENDLAND: in that it did not address that, we committed to--- WALKER: I notice Mrs. Magness shaking her head while your deposition is being given, so that's fine\nshe can do that. A. we ah--- Q. or is it your position, you've heard her statement--FENDLAND: I'll note for the record that he can't see Mrs. Magness, she's sitting behind me. WALKER: I saw Mrs. Magness shaking her head like this--- FENDLAND: Well now, that doesn't matter. Q. Well now you heard Mrs. Magness' statement, I'll just change the question, you heard Mrs. Magness' statement in ah, Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box #4 Sweet Home , AR 72164-0004 Phone : (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  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 CERTIFIED COPY 16 the public meeting the other night when Dr. Darty made his comments and when Mr. Curris made his comments--- A. Uh-huh. Q. that the plan did not require elimination or addressing African-American achievement disparities\nyou heard that didn't you? FENDLAND: Let me--- A. Is this my testimony of Mrs. Magness? Q. Did you hear her, did you--- FENDLAND: Let me object to the form of the question, please. You asked address, you asked two questions. WALKER: I'll change it but before I ask this question do you all plan to make the e-mails available after March 15th? FENDLAND: In accordance with the court's order. WALKER: After March 15th? FENDLAND: We'll let you know that sometime today. WALKER: I may have to then, continue these depositions after today because I don\"t want to go into things that are not, the court's not going to let us address and she said that you couldn't have it both ways. FENDLAND: I understand. WALKER: All right. FENDLAND: And I don't mind telling you more Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box t4 sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone : (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  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 CERTIFIED COPY 11 than likely we're going to go with her option 2. them in? WALKER: Which is to let them in? Not to let FENDLAND: Not, not--WALKER: That's fine. FENDLAND: no e-mails after March 15th. WALKER: That's fine. Q. Now you\"re familiar with the revised plan and I'm just going to put it--you have it in front of you I see\nall right. Can you draw my attention to the section that deals with remediation of achievement disparities and to help you I'll suggest that it's around 2.7. A. Right. Not around 2.7, it is 2.7. Q. I see. A. Designed to improve--Q. Yes, sir. A. and that does not mean it is a commitment to achievement. Q. All right. Little Rock show imple,emt programs designed to improve and remediate the acievement desparities, the academic achievement. Do you take the position that the district has not agreed to make a conscienous effort to eliminate achievement disparities between the races? A. Say that again, please. Q. Do you take the position that the district has not agreed to make a conscienious effort to eleminate the achievement Cobb Court Reporting P. O. Box *4 sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone, ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY disparities between the races? A. I believe that the deseg, revised deseg plans speaks for itself. Q. Let me ask it again. 18 A. The commitment is to design program with the intent to reduce the disparity. The difference is ah, is there anything in the plan which requires us to achieve that reduction in disparity. We did make a commitment to design the programs to attempt to remove the disparity. Q. Do you agree that the only legitimate means to eliminate the racial disparity in achievement is by improving AfricanAmerican achievement? A. Say that again. Q. Do you agree that the only legitimate means to eliminate the racial disparity in achievement is by improve AfricanAmerican achievement? A. Oh, that's not the only legitimate way, it's the only acceptable way. Q. Is that the only legitimate way? A. You can reduce the performance of the non-African-American kids and reduce the disparity. That's not acceptable but it's legitimate. Q. I see. Now do you recall that there was a brief submitted in 1998 which recognized that the Court Of Appeals said that you could not retreat, the board could not retreat from among Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 19 other things the agreed effort to eliminate disparity between the races, it didn't say--let me show you. A. This is germaine to this revised deseg plan? Q. I'm asking you do you agree that the 8th Circuit has indicated that there would be no retreat approved from the agreed effort to eliminate achievement disparity between the races? A. If that's what you say\nI wasn't aware of it before that. Q. You weren't? Well, are you aware of the brief that your counsel prepared in conjunction with me and submitted to the court, this is for everybody so I won't have to go over it again. \"The 8th Circuit identified seven elements of the LRSD's existing desegregation obligations which it considered crucial, and with respect to which no retreat should be approved. Id. at 256. Those elements were: (1) double funding for students attending incentive (virtually all-black) schools\n(2) operation of the agreed number of magnet schools according to the agreed timetable\n(3) operation of the agreed number of interdistrict schools according to the agreed timetable\n(4) intradistrict desegregation of PCSSD according to the agree timetable\n(5) the agreed effort to eliminate achievement disparity between the races\n(6) the agreed elements of early childhood education, at least in the incentive shcools\nand, (7) appropriate involvement of parents.\" were you aware of that? I'll show it to you [hands Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CE. TIFIED COPY 20 document to wi tness]. A. 1998? Q. Yes, sir. A. Okay. Q. were you aware of it? A. No. Q. All right. Now with respect to the plan itself which you have before you, look at it on page 1, were you aware that this plan requires that the orders of the District Court and Court of Appeals interpreting or enforcing sections A through D above will be in effect followed? A. Yes. Q. All right. Now do you still take the position as Mrs. Magness stated, as I understand she stated in a public board meeting that you all simply had to make an effort to do it\ndo you take that position that you simply can make an effort to do it and then fulfill the expectations of this case? A. The way I understood what that said is that shall not retreat from the effort to do that. Q. Okay. A. And I don\"t believe that we have done that. Q. Well, I take it that you all do not agree that you are required to eliminated the achievement disparity? A. Read the whole thing. Q. I'm asking do you, I'm asking you now do you--first of all Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box t4 sweet Horne, AR 72164-0004 Phone : (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED copy 21 did you ever agree to eliminate the achievement disparity at least to the extent in the state's settlement agreement--- A. Ah, as I recall that is a fuzzy, the end point was not clearly defined. Q. Did it not say that the achievement disparity would be eliminated to the point there would--- A. How do you define that, that--- Q. That's fine. A. My understanding that the issue was that at the end point was not clearly defined\nthere\"s the problem. Q. I see. Well have you all, during the intervening years, ever sought as a public board to define the end point? A. Nope. Q. I see. Why haven\"t you done that and why haven\"t you as a board member sought to have it done? A. Because it's not a trivial thing to do. Q. But it's twelve years 1989 until now and in twelve years you could have addressed it as a board, could you not have? A. we could have but I don't think that we--- Q. That's fine. A. we are not educators, we are not experts in how you would define such a thing like that. Q. I see, that\"s fine. Now Mr. Berkley can you tell me what programs were specifically developed by which to eliminate achievement disparity between the races for which you have seen Cobb Court Reporting P . O. Box i4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone : (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY an evaluation? Have you ever seen any of the evaluations of any programs? A. Yes, but I don't recall the detail of those. 22 Q. Are you familiar, I call you attention to page 148 of your March 15 program? FENDLAND: Which one? REPORTER: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you? FENDLAND: I said which one. WALKER: Well, let me go back, let me go back to that\nthank you Mrs. Springer. Q. Can you identify any programs which were designed to eliminate achievement disparity between the races? A. In particular ah, I don't know if you would call it a program but a process to ah, ah, increase the participation of African-American kids in ah, pre-AP and AP classes. Q. I'm asking you about a program to remediate the achievement disparities--- A. Well, that's the intent, that's the--- Q. So your answer is that putting more black kids into pre-AP and AP courses, is that your answer? A. That's the one I can think of right now. Q. Can you thi nk of any other program, is that a program or is that a process, did you say? A. I don't how you would define it, I think of it as a process. Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box t4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone : (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  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 CERTIFIED COPY 23 Q. Well, let me ask you. Has the board ever approved any program itself other than process for remediating achievement of African-American students? A program? A. Well, the Early Childhood Literacy Program, I think is intended to increase the reading level of all kids particularly those who are behind and the intent of that would be as well to reduce the disparity. Q. That was the intent, so that would deal with the pre-K kids, right? A. And up through 3. Q. Up through 3. Now what are the programs that apply to the children in grades 4 and 5 by which to remediate achievement disparities? A. There well may be but I don't recall that. Q. You don't know of any. Have you ever asked the question? A. I have not. Q. All right. What are the programs for remediating the achievement disparities of students who happen to be AfricanAmerican who are in special education? A. I don't recall specific programs. Q. I see. Do you know of any other programs which have been designed to eliminate achievement disparities between AfricanAmerican and white students or nonwhite students--nonblack students? A. I don't recall any right off. Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box #4 Sweet Home , AR 72 164-0004 Phone : ( 501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  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 CERTIFIED COPY 24 Q. I see. Now since one of your board members says the plan doesn't say you have to close the gap it says best effort, good faith effort, look at your plan and draw my attention to where those statements are made, please. A. You said 2.7. Q. 2.7 doesn't say that in my opinion, maybe if you want to say 2.7 I'll go on. A. Repeat your question, please. WALKER: Would you repeat it, please. [The reporter did as requested]. REPORTER: You may continue, sir. A. Well, there are several sections that can influence the--Q. No, I want you, I want you to just draw my attention--FENDLAND: Well, let him finish his answer, please. WALKER: Well that's fine, if you said there are several sections\njust tell me where those several sections are. A. You didn't let me finish. Well, influence the performance of the African-American kids including parential involvement, eligibility, and participation in extracurricular activities--Q. Just a moment, please listen to my question. FENDLEY: Well, are you finished Mr. Berkley? BERKLEY: Yes. Q. Well the point, now I want you to draw my attention to the Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box t4 Sweet Horne, AR 7216 4-0004 Phone : ( 501) 490 - 0066 (501) 4 90 - 0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 25 sections of the plan which say that you do not have to actually close the gap but only as Mrs. Magness said, use your best effort and good faith effort to do so. I want to see any where in here where it said good faith effort and best effort to address achievement of the disparity gap? A. Well, there's a few places in this document that says that we do not have to do but I don't believe it says that. Q. Thank you. Now were you shown by any, by Dr. Carnine a program assessment each year of the academic programs which were in place for improving African-American achievement? A. No. Q. All right. 2.71 says that LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to 2.7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. As a board did you all ever do that after each year? A. You mean all programs? Q. Yes, sir. A. Evaluate all programs? Q. Well, the ones that were implemented pursuant to 2.7 in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement, did you ever do that as a board? A. Not specifically that. Q. That's fine. Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone, ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY A. we did review academic performance of African-American kids. 26 Q. My question was--well that fine, you said you reviewed it. Did any of those assessments reveal that a program was not and was not likely to improve African-American achievement, did you all make that kind of assessment? A. I don\"t remember that. FENDLEY: As a board? WALKER: As a board. A. I don't remember it. Q. Now did you see written assessments that you would contend as a board member and as a physicist which comply with 2.71 from your administrative staff on an annual basis? A. No, I don't recall all of the assessments that we got Mr. Walker. Q. Well, isn't it fair to say that you were never, that all of your assessments would have been presented to you in a public board meeting--- A. Yes. Q. or through the mail? A. Yes. Q. Okay. A. Now they would have been done in a public assembly. Q. And isn't it fair to say that you all never discussed in a public board meeting whether any program was improving African-cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Horne, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 27 American achievement, any particular program? A. It would be fair to say that I don\"t recall that. Q. That's fine. Do you know of any particular program which has overall improved African-American achievement\na program, I'm not talking about a process now? A. But there are individual schools where we\"ve had programs that improved academic performance of African-American kids. Q. Well, can you tell me what those programs are? A. No, I don\"t recall those. Q. Can you tell me where those schools are? A. Not--- Q. All right. A. off the top of my head\nno. Q. All right. Are you aware of the test, the standardize test that were in place in 1989 at the time the commitment was made with the state in the original plan to remediate achievement disparities\nwere you familiar with the test that were in place at that time? FENDLEY: I'll object to the form of the question\nit assumes facts not in evidence. Q. Well all right, let me ask. You were aware that testing had been going in this school district long before you became a school board member? A. Correct. Q. And when you came on some five years ago which would have Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY been 1996, you were aware that the test in place that were standardize were nationally standardize test\nwere you not? A. Correct. Q. You were aware that they included at least the SAT IX? A. Correct. Q. And other SAT test? A. Right. 28 Q. I see. Did you know of any nationally standardize test that were being utilized by the Little Rock School District at the time you came onto the board? A. No. Q. I see. So if the plan, you said something about this being vague, so if the only standardize test being used were the SAT tests, would you not expect that those were the test that would have been the benchmark for determining improvement of remediation or remediation of achievement disparities between black and white students? FENDLAND: Let me object, the question calls for speculation by the witness on what drafters of the 1989 settlement agreement intended. Q. That\"s fine, that's fine. Now you can still go ahead and answer the question. A. Please repeat it. Q. The question basically is that those are the test in use, would you not--first of all are those tests still in use? Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 29 A. Yes. Q. I see. Have you met with any school board members to change those tests for evaluation purposes? You and the board, have you all changed those tests for any reason, any purpose? A. Well, I think we\"ve reduced the number of tests\nI don\"t recall exactly which ones have been eliminated. Q. All right. But the test that were in place when you came onto the board are still in place, are they not? A. Right. Q. I see. Now has the board determined that it will change that particular test, the SAT IX test? A. I don\"t think so. Q. What is the purpose of giving these students the SAT IX test in the f i rst place in your opinion as a physicist and as a board member? A. A physicist doesn't have much to do with it. Q. Well, physicist suppose to be among our most bright people, most logical. A. It's to assess our performance relative to national norm. Q. That's right. And also to determine from year-to-year how students are improving their academic performance, isn\"t that correct? A. Yes. Q. All right. A. Hopefully improving. Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box t4 sweet Horne , AR 72164-0004 Phone : ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 30 Q. I see. Now doesn't 2.1 say that if you find that programs are not working--- FENDLEY: 2.7.1. WALKER: 2.7.1, I\"m sorry. Q. Doesn't that in effect say that if your programs are not working you have to throw them out and get some others? A. It says either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. Q. That's basically the same thing isn\"t it? A. No. Q. I see. Well have you all ever modified any program or replaced any program that you determined was not working--first of all did you all ever determine that a particular program was not working? A. I don\"t recall that. FENDLEY: Let me just clear up are you meaning the board rather than him? WALKER: Meaning the board, meaning the board. He can\"t act individually. A. No. I rely on the administrators to do that. Q. Have t he administrators ever come to you and told you that in their opinion after assessment or evaluation, particular programs were not working to improve African-American achievement? A. I don\"t recall that but I\"m sure that that kind of activity Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box t4 sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone : ( 501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 31 goes on all the time. Q. Well, at least to the board it isn't. No persons on the administrative staff have come before the board to inform you that a particular program, any program has not worked and is not likely to work to improve African-American achievement? A. You know, I don't recall that but it could well be that when they introduce new programs that is, they wouldn't say this program is bad, they would say we're implementing a new progr am because we think it's better\nand that doesn't mean they didn't go through that process and I'm not aware of it. Q. This says that you shall assess the academic programs each year and then change it if it's not working. A. Right. Q. Now does that mean that you as a board tolerated change without an assessment? Change such as the one you mentioned, people coming up like Dr. Les was saying, well we think that this will be better than what we have\ntherefore, we don't need to make this assessment we'll just put this other thing in place? A. Mr. Walker I don't believe that happened. Q. I see. Well, you said that some people have come up, that means basically your instruction department doesn't it? A. Right. Q. And they\"ve come up with other programs, is that right? A. Right. Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box t4 Sweet Horne, AR 72164-0004 Phone : ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY Q. But that, that was not after an assessment that preexisting programs were not working? A. I wouldn't make that assumption. 32 Q. I see. And you have not seen such an assessment have you? A. I don't recall seeing it. Q. That's fine. Now you understand, would you assume that under this plan the assessments that were being made ah, had to be documented? A. I don't know about that\nI don't know what the standard is as far as--there's all kind of program evaluations. Q. I see. A. There are informal program evaluations and there are formal evaluations. Q. What does your plan call for? A. It says evaluate. Q. Doesn't it say that the evaluation has to be pursuant--did you all as a board not adopt a particular writing regarding program evaluation, do you recall that? A. I recall implementing a program within the last couple of years for program evaluations. Q. Do you not recall specifically developing a program evaluation written format? A. I don't recall that\nno, sir. Q. Now as a physicist you know that if you're going to evaluate anything it has to be pursuant to and you evaluating Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box t4 Sweet Home, AR 72164- 0004 Phone : (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 33 things in a series of things that are somewhat related, it has to be pursuant to criteria and standards that are uniformly applied, would you not say that? A. Sometimes. Q. Is that any reason why there should be education and then an investigation? A. Yes. Q. What's the reasons? A. It\"s a very different world. Q. Well, I mean what's so different about it? I mean, the, the, the--- A. Logic is highly quantifiable and there are a lot of things in education that are not quantifiable. Q. You assume that? A. No, I know that. Q. How do you know it? A. Oh, I work as a medical physicist and in medical physic there are a lot of things, biological things that are not quantifiable like there are in pure physics. Just as in education you can\"t define all the parameters, you can't measure every parameter and when you mix all these parameters together you, the end result is something which is sometimes not quantifiable. REPORTER: One moment. You may continue, sir. Q. Now I call your attention to page 148 and I show you thing Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 so you won't have any problem. A. What's is this document? CERTIFIED COPY 34 Q. That's in the report that you all submitted saying that you were ready for release from court supervision. A. Right. Q. That deals with program evaluation. Look at the bottom of the page, can you tell me, there is listed a number of programs that the district says it evaluated. A. Right. Q. Have you ever seen those evaluations? A. I don't recall Mr. Walker, we see lots of evaluations and lots of reports and I can't recall every one of them. Q. Now I\"ve been trying to see some of these evaluations, now I haven't seen them and I'm wanting to tell--if you tell me that you have seen them then that's fine. Just tell me which ones you have seen that you recall, any one that you recall seeing? A. I really can't tell you. Mr. Walker there's so much stuff that comes in front of us, by us that--- Q. Now you understand--- A. now I'm not going to say that I haven't seen something because--- Q. Well--- A. I don't remember a lot of what I've seen. Q. Were you aware that the judge had said that she's really Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box *4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 35 concerned about your evaluations, that's what we're focusing upon now--- A. Right. Q. and upon remediation efforts. A. Right. Q, All right. Now can you tell me as you sit here today Mr. Berkley before you go onto the stand if you go on the stand, if you before March 15 had seen any written evaluation of any of those programs that are listed there? A. Again Mr. Walker, I don't recall seeing them--Q. That's fine. A. but it could well be that I have seen them. Q. Well, I've given it to you so that you can refresh your--A. Okay. Q. Now you've met with Mr. Fendley before today haven't you? A. Correct. Q. You've had a chance to be made aware that the court was concerned about the evaluation issue. A. Correct. Q. All right. And not withstanding that meeting with Mr. Fendley and the court's concerns that were made known to you, you still can't come up with a single program evaluation that you've ever seen can you? FENDLEY: I'm going to object, he's asked and answered\nhe doesn't evaluation he's seen. Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 sweet Horne, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY Q. But I'm asking right now, you've had a chance to--A. I'm not going to change my answer. 36 Q. you don't have to change your answer but he can't tell you not to change your answer\nI'm going to ask another question. Did you think about the issue of evaluation before you came to this deposition today? A. Before is a long time. Q. Before today. Anytime? A. I thought about it when the hearing was going on--Q. All right. A. and that there was concern about it. Q. All right. Now you were in court during that time--A. Some of that time--- Q. at least one day--- A. some of the time. Q. now since that time, being aware of the court's concern, can you say you have reviewed any evaluation that was in writing regarding any of the programs that are on page 148 of your report saying that you had done those things? A. I do not recall that. WALKER: That's fine. Just a moment. [A recess was taken at 11:14 a.m., proceedings resumed at 11:15 a.m., to-wit:] REPORTER: We are on the record, sir and you may continue. Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY DIRECT EXAMINATION CON'T Questions by Mr. Walker Con't: 37 Q. Did you ever receive a report from any administrator that your Evaluation Department before March 15 was not performing at a professional level? FENDLEY: Object to the form, March 15 what year? WALKER: 2001. A. I did not receive a report that they were not performing as professionals. Q. I see. Do you have at this time at PRE Evaluation Department, PRE Department? A. I think that we are reorganizing it. Q. So that you don\"t have one? A. I think that--- FENDLEY: He's answered the question. WALKER: Just a moment, now. Q. I want you to tell me if you have a PRE Department in your opinion? A. In my opinion? Q. Yes, sir. A. I do not know that a department per sa exist. Q. I see. A. That does not mean that evaluations aren't going to happen. Q. What is the last date that you had an Evaluation Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box #4 sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone : (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 38 Department, a PRE Department? FENDLEY: Object, that assumes that we don't have one now which is not his testimony. REPORTER: You need to speak up. Q. What is the last date that you had a PRE staff of more than two people? A. I don't know. Q. What is the last date that you have had a conversation with any person in a PRE Department regarding PRE evaluation of programs that had the purpose of assessing the effectiveness of academic programs in improving African-American achievement? A. Repeat the question. WALKER: Would you do so? [The reporter did as requested.] REPORTER: All right, sir. FENDLEY: Let me say an objection as to the form of the question. Q. That's fine\nnow you can still answer. A. I don't recall a particular date. WALKER: All right, I don't have any more questions of you Mr. Berkley for right now\nthank you. Berkley. BERKLEY: Okay. FENDLEY: I don't have any questions of Mr. WALKER: Okay, you can go\ngood to see you. Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box 14 Sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone , (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  1 2 2001.] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 39 [The deposition ended at 11:17 a.m., October 5, * * * * * Cobb Court Reporting P , o. Box f4 sweet Horne, AR 72164- 0004 Phone : ( 501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax (- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 (- 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 CERTIFIED COPY 40 ERRATA SHEET (Upon completion, please sign and date this sheet below.) Page ..!::L Line -1fL_ Page -:2.. ~ Line Zr::, Page ~s Line b Page ~3 Line '7 _ Page3\"3 Line _!X_ Page ss Line~ Page Line Page Line Page Li ne Page Line Page Line Page Line Change: 9o To: Reason: Change: To: Reason: Change: To: Reason: Change: To: Reason: Change: To: Reason: Change: -\\:14~1JlM+'b\\ cc.Q P 1 '2 dl \\ ~Ci-PV':f S.: To: Reason: Change: To: Reason: Change: To: Reason: Change: To: Reason: Change: To: Reason: Change: To: Reason: Change: To: Reason: fo -\u0026lt;-4-0 / Page Date Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box t4 sweet Home , AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 CERTIFIED COPY 41 SIGNATURE PAGE I, LARRY BERKLEY, hereby certify that the above and foregoing deposition is a full, true, correct and complete transcript of the proceeding [mark the appropriate box]: ( ) had at the time of the taking of my deposition. (OR) (vr--subject to the notations on the attached Errata Sheet made by me or at my direction. /o- 2-le-\u0026lt;::\u0026gt; I Date ~~BERKLEY STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI ss. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, a and for the aforesaid county and state on this of ~ Notary ttlic in J-\u0026amp;- day Notary Public MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: (SEAL) Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box J .4 sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone : (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 ERTIFIED COPY 42 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE STATE OF ARKANSAS ss. 429-84-1622 COUNTY OF PULASKI I, Gloria Y. Cobb, A Certified Court Reporter and Notary Public in and for the aforesaid County and state, do hereby certify that the witness, LARRY BERKLEY, was duly sworn by me prior to the taking of testimony as to the truth of the matters attested to and contained therein\nthat the testimony of said witness was taken by me in stenomask and was thereafter reduced to typewritten form by me or under my direction and supervision\nthat the foregoing transcript is a true and accurate record of the testimony given to the best of my understanding and ability. I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties to the action in which this proceeding was taken\nand, further, that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto, nor financially interested, or otherwise, in the outcome of this action\nand that I have no contact with the parties, attorneys, or persons with an interest in the action that affects or has a substantial tendency to affect impartiality, that requires me to relinquish control of an original deposition transcript or copies of the transcript before it is certified and delivered to the custodial attorney, or that requires me to provide any service not available to all parties to the act. My Commission Expires: Notary Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eBushman Court Reporting\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1239","title":"Oral deposition of Sue H. Strickland","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":["Cobb Court Reporting"],"dc_date":["2001-10-05"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","School board members","School management and organization","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Oral deposition of Sue H. Strickland"],"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/1239"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nDeposition taken at the Friday, Eldredge and Clark Law Firm, Little Rock, Arkansas\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\n   CERTIFIED COPY IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF vs No.LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL, DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANT MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS INTERVENORS DEPOSITION OF MRS. SUE H. STRICKLAND DATE: Octobers, 2001 TIME: 11:22 a.m. PLACE: The Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Law .Firm 400 west Capitol, Suite #2200 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 APPEARANCES On Behalf of the Plaintiff: On Behalf of the Defendants: Mr. John w. Walker, Attorney John W. Walker Law Firm 1723 Broadway Street Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Clay Fendley, Attorney Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 west Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 ALSO PRESENT Joy Springer, The John w. Walker Law Firm Tony Rose, Judy Magness, \u0026amp; Katherine Mitchell, Deponents Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box #4 Sweet Home , AR 7216 4-0004 Phone : (501) 490 - 0066 (50~) 490 - 0926 - Fax  3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 26 CERTIFIED COPY 2 AGREEMENT OF COUNSEL .. SWEARING OF THE WITNESS ... EXAMINATION OF MRS SUE H. STRICKLAND By Mr. Walker .. SIGNATURE SHEET .. ERRATA SHEET. COURT REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION. * * * * * * * * * Cobb Court Reporting P , o. Box #4 sweet Home , AR 72164 - 0004 Phone : ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax PAGE . 3 . . . . . . . 3 . . . 3-28 . . . . . . 2 9 .30 . 31  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 3 STIPULATIONS The deposition of Sue H. Strickland, produced, sworn and examined at the Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Law Firm, 400 west Capitol, Suite #2200, Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 commencing at 11:22 a.m., on October 5, 2001, in the captioned cause at the instance of counsel for the Plaintiff, and said deposition being taken according to the terms and provisions of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. It is stipulated and agreed all forms and formalities in the taking, transcribing, forwarding and filing of said deposition by witness, are hereby waived by the parties, the right being expressly reserved to object to the testimony of the witness at the time of trial as to incompetency, irrelevancy and immateriality, other than those with respect to the form of questions as propounded to the witness. * * * * * P R O C E E D I N G S THEREUPON, SUE H. STRICKLAND having been called for examination by counsel for the plaintiff, and having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION Questions by Mr. Walker: Q. Mrs. Strickland state your name for the record. Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box i4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 4 A. Sue Strickland. Q. Mrs. Strickland do you take the position--what is your position about the board's obligation with respect to implementation of the revised desegregation plan and the court orders in this case, what is your position regarding that? FENDLEY: I object to the form. WALKER: Well, let me make sure we know, we\"re talking about the same thing. Q. Are you familiar with the revised desegregation plan? A. I am. Q. Are you familiar with the Court Of Appeals having set forth seven elements which your counsel agreed that could not be retreated from? A. I am aware. Q. Now what is your understanding of the board's commitment with respect to implementation of the revised desegregation plan and existing court orders? What are you all suppose to be doing? A. We\"re suppose to be implementing it to the best of our ability. Q. Do you understand that you have made, that you have agreed to make a specific effort to elimination achievement disparity between the races? Do you agree with that? Do you disagree with that? A. I\"m not sure exactly if it says that and--cobb Court Reporting P . O. Box H Sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone : (501) 490-0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 5 Q. I see. A. I believe--- Q. I\"m sorry, go right ahead. A. I believe that it is our intent to close the gap as best we can. Q. Well--- A. To make a genuine effort. Q. Do you agree--well, were you told by Mr. Fendley and Mr. Heller that you had told Judge Wright in 1998 the following: The Eighth Circuit identified seven elements of LRSD's existing desegregation obligations which it considered crucial, and with respect to which no retreat should be approved. elements were: (1) double funding for students attending incentive (virtually all-black) schools, yes? A. Yes. Those FENDLEY: Let me just object to the form of the question to the extent you\"re asking about not communications between ah, either myself of Chris and Mrs. Strickland outside the context of a public board meeting. WALKER: Well, at any time, I mean I don\"t, I'm going to ask the question--- FENDLEY: Well, we're objecting, it\"s privileged. Q. Well, well, did you have any one-on-one meeting with Mr. Heller to discuss, I mean or Mr. Fendley to discuss the Cobb Court Reporting P. O. Box *4 sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  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 CERTIFIED COPY 6 commitments that were being made to the court back in 1999 or at any other time? A. Have been meetings with him, yes. Q. Do you, are you, were you aware of this public document which was presented to the court? Look at it. Since he\"s now dealing with the concept of privilege. FENDLEY: I just objected to the extent of your question because you just said any conversation. WALKER: Well my question--let me go on now. Q. The second element would be operation of the agreed number of magnet schools according to the agreed timetable? A. I was aware of this, yes. Q. Intradistrict desegregation of PCSSD according to the agree timetable? A. As me a question. Q. It's the same, these are the elements that you cannot retreat from. A. Right, I was aware of this, yes. Q. The agreed effort to eliminate achievement disparity between the races, were you aware of that? A. Let me read that. Q. Were you aware of that? A. Uh-huh. Q. Ma'am? FENDLEY: You need to speak up. Cobb Court Reporting P. o . Box #4 sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone : (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  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 CERTIFIED COPY Q. You have to say yes or no. FENDLEY: Well, if your answer is going to be yes or no, you need to say yes or no so she can take it down. 7 WALKER: To her without getting an answer from Mr. Fendland. A. I don\"t believe that, that I have ever seen it in writing where it says that you must close the disparity gap. Q. I\"m asking only about what is written before you. A. Uh-huh. Q. were you aware that that had been committed by your counsel? Yes or no. FENDLAND: I'm going to object to the form of the question. That's a quote from an Eighth Circuit opinion. Q. were you aware that this was committed in a paper prepared by your council? A. I was aware of the paper. Q. Were you aware of this particular commitment? FENDLAND: Object to the use of the term commitment. Q. Now you answered the first one Mrs. Strickland, number 1 and number 2, and number three and number 4 but when we get down to number 5 why can\"t you answer the same way? What makes that difficult? A. Well, I was not aware that it state, was stated exactly like that. Cobb Court Reporting P. O. Box #4 sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone, ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 8 Q. That's right. But that is there now, this is a surprise to you isn't it? Yes or no. A. Probably, yes. Q. All right. Why is it a surprise Mrs. Strickland, why is that a surprise to you number 5, so that the record will be clear about what we\"re talking about it's the memorandum filed with United States District Court January 29, 1998. Why is that a surprise to you? A. I have never had any doubt in my mind that it was our intent to close the disparity gap as best we could. I have never seen anywhere saying that we\"re guaranteed that we're going to close this gap. Q. But number 5, this is the first time that you have been aware of it like being presented this way\nis that correct? A. That\"s probably, it's the first time I have read those words exactly like that. Q. That's fine. A. I was thinking that it was taking it more from the revised desegregation plan which is what we had said we were doing. Q. Do you agree that the only legitimate way to achieve elimination of the achievement disparity is by improving African-American achievement\ndo you agree with that? A. No, I don't. Q. That's fine. Now let me ask you if you have a gap between black and white students, let's say students, white students Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box #4 Sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone : (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 9 are at the 60 percentile and blacks are in the 30 percentile and you want to achieve that gap, is it fair to say that you have to focus your attentions upon the students who are in the lower numbered? A. Certainly\nyes. Q. I see. That has to be the focus point of your efforts doesn\"t it more so than just continuing to do the same things you've been doing\nisn\"t that correct? FENDLAND: Object to the form. WALKER: I'll change the question. Q. If you\"re going to narrow the gap and raise the achievement of the ones in the bottom, you'd have to focus upon them don't you? A. I think so, yes. Q. All right. A. And I think we've done that. Q. But you don\"t recognize that the only legitimate means to eliminate the racial disparity is by improving African-American achievement? A. Well, I think--- Q. That's yes or no, I not asking for your opinion. FENDLAND: She can answer your question however she--- WALKER: This is a deposition--STRICKLAND: Uh-huh. Cobb Court Reporting P.O.Box#4 ' Sweet Horne, AR 72164-0004 Phone: ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 10 WALKER: I\"m conducting this, this is not court. FENDLAND: Well, she--- WALKER: Do you agree--- FENDLAND: the witness can answer the question in anyway she feels. WALKER: You can ask her whatever you want to if you want to clear up anything\nthis is my deposition, this is discovery. FENDLAND: You can\"t tell the witness how to answer the question. Q. I\"m asking you now do you agree with the statement that the only legitimate means to eliminate the racial disparity in achievement is by improving African-American achievement? A. I think we have to improve African-American achievement\nthat is not the only way. Q. Do you recognize that your counsel has written that that's the only way? Read it down in the last paragraph. Read it. Were you aware that your counsel who has told you that you all are ready for unitary status had made that commitment? FENDLAND: Object, counsel didn't make any commitments. A. I think we\"ve done that, I think we've improved. Q. We didn't say improve, this doesn't say anything about improving. Your position seems to always be improving isn't it? Your whole statement is that you all are committed to Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box 14 Sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone , (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  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 CERTIFIED COPY 11 improving the educational options for black students? A. [Witness nodding head up and down.] REPORTER: Answer yes. FENDLEY: Object--WALKER: She nodded yes. FENDLEY: Well, let me object to the form of the question if that was finished. STRICKLAND: I think I was nodding that I was listening. Q. Well, let me ask you. Is it your position that you don't, you only have to make your best efforts to eliminate the gap, not to actually eliminate it\nis that your position? A. I think you have to make a genuine effort to do everything you can to help close that gap. Q. All right. Does that mean that you have to develop programs which are addressed and devoted to meeting the specific educational needs of the African-American children? A. I certainly do\nyes. Q. Can you tell me any program that the board has approved for eliminating, not improving, eliminating the gap\nname one program? A. I think everything we do. Q. You can't name a particular program can you? A. I think everything we do. Q. But I'm asking you right now can you name a particular Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 12 program? A. I have given you my answer. FENDLEY: She's answered the question. Q. I understand you have given me your answer, can you tell me any program that the board approved after January of 1998 which had that intended effect\nany particular program? A. Everything we do. Q. Well, just name the programs then. Name the programs. A. Everything we do\nyou have my answer. Q. Mrs., Mrs., Mrs. Strickland you got to name a program for me\ncan you name one program, do you know one program that you all do that has that purpose? A. Yes, all of them\neverything we do. Q. I see. Are you familiar with the evaluations that are set forth on page 148 of the March 15, 2001 report? A. Yes. Q. Have you ever seen a written evaluation of any of those programs that are set forth there? A. Yes, I have. FENDLAND: At the bottom of the page? Q. Yes, you\"ve seen that? A. Yes. Q. Name the ones you have seen. A. Well, I've seen a number of them. Q. Name the ones. Cobb Court Reporting P . o . Box *4 Sweet Home , AR 72164-0004 Phone: ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 13 A. Understanding your school, I have the Hippy Program, the Charter school program ah, that's just the ones I think off the top of my head. The Model Inks--- Q. Go ahead, look at them all. A. English A Second Language, Campus Leadership. Q. You've come up with five. A. That's the ones I can think of off the top of my head but--- Q. I see. Now Mrs. Strickland--- A. I would say we've probably seen all of them. Q. Do you have a Hippy program? A. Well, yes. Q. You still have a Hippy program? A. Well, we cut it back tremendously. Q. Was it working to eliminate African-American achievement disparity at the time you cut it back? A. I really don't know. Q. Can you tell me which of these programs actually worked in your opinion to eliminate African-American Achievement disparities? FENDLAND: Which are the program on the bottom of 148? WALKER: That are listed on page 148\nyes. FENDLAND: Do you want to include all the ones that are discussed in this paragraph? Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box *4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 14 WALKER: The ones at the bottom that are listed at 148. FENDLAND: The bullet points only. STRICKLAND: Uh-huh. A. Well, you know closing the disparity gap was a part of that program--- Q. I'm only asking you--- A. it's a part of everything. Q. Mrs. Strickland, I'm just asking you to tell me which of these programs had that result? FENDLAND: What result? WALKER: Of closing the disparity gap, that's what she said. Q. Which one of them had that, which ones of those had that result? A. Well, I believe most of the things we do helps to close that disparity gap. Q. Well, how do you measure the closing of the gap in your opinion? A. I don't r eally know. Q. Well, how can you say that it has that--A. When the scores have improved. Q. Let me ask you this. How can you make an assessment that the gap has been closed without knowing--- A. Ah, excuse me? Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box t4 Sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone: (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490-092~ - Fax  3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 15 Q. How can you make an assessment that the gap--are you saying that the gap has been closed? A. Nope. Q. I see. A. Did I say that? Q. Well, that's what I thought you were saying. A. I said it helps--- Q. I stand corrected. A. all of our programs helps to close that gap. Q. I see. Let me ask you, you've been on the board now seven years? A. Right. Q. What was the, what was the test in use for determining the standardize test in use at that time for assessing student achievement or student performance\nwhat was the test? A. Ah, I really don't know. Q. I see. Did the board ever discuss what test it would use for assessing or achieving, for assessing student achievement? Did you all ever have a public discussion regarding that? A. You talking about closing the disparity gap? Q. No, for just evaluating student performance, did you all ever discuss what test you all would use? A. Overall test? Q. Yes, ma'am. A. Well, we have a number of tests we use. Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 sweet Horne, AR 72164-0004 Phone, (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY Q. But did you all as a board ever discuss those test? A. Discuss them in what way? 16 Q. Well first of all, can you identify the test that you understood, the standardize test that you all used say when you came onto the board\nwhat were they? A. SAT was one of them. Q. What else? A. Ah, I really don't remember but there were several. Q. I see. What--did you all as a board ever eliminate the SAT? A. I don't think so. Q. I see. Do you know of any other test by which the administration was directed to measure student achievement in 1995, 6, 7, or 8, you know any other test, standardize test? A. Well, we do ACTAP. Q. ACTAP, is that by 1998? A. I don't, I'm not sure what year it was started. Q. I see. A. SAT is really the only one I remember. Q. Mrs. Strickland do you know of any time the board ever addressed as a board the issue of whether any program that was in place was actually working to effectively either narrow or close the achievement disparity between black and white students, any program? Did you all ever have that discussion? A. We have discussed many times the closing the disparity Cobb Court Reporting P , o. Box t4 sweet Home , AR 72164-0004 Phone, (501) 490-0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COP 11 gap--- Q. Listen to my question. A. and our effort to do so. Q. My question is did you all ever assess as the plan says--FENDLAND: You meaning the board? WALKER: The board\nanytime I'm talking. Q. You understand we recognize that you can't make a judgment by yourself for the board can you? A. Right. Q. All right. FENDLAND: Ah,, I'm distinguishing between you meaning LRSD and you as the board. WALKER: The board, always. FENDLAND: Okay. Q. LRSD is the board isn\"t it? You all delegate everything to staff\nis that right but you are the responsible parties? A. We\"re the responsible parties. Q. All right. FENDLAND: Well, I'm making the distinction between you ask her did you, are you saying did anybody in the district do it or did the board do it? WALKER: The board. FENDLAND: Okay. Q. 2.71 says that the district shall assess the academic programs which were implemented pursuant to 2.7 after each year Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  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 CERTIFIED COPY in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs and improving African-American achievement\nyou\"re familiar with that aren\"t you? A. Yes. 18 Q. Now in order to assess these programs they have to first be identified don't they Mrs. Strickland? A. [Witness nodding head up and down.] Q. Ma'am? REPORTER: Answer, yes. A. Yes. Q. All right. Can you identify the programs which were implemented that you all assessed? A. No. Q. Can you identi--you can\"t can you? A. No. Q. Now isn't it fair Mrs. Strickland to say that you all did not see annual assessments of all of the programs that you--you said earlier , now listen to what I'm saying, you said everything was supposed to be working toward that end didn't you? A. Right. Q. Now that meant then that you had to have an assessment every year under this of all those programs didn't you? FENDLAND: I'm going to object to the form of the question, that's a legal conclusion as to the meaning of Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box t4 Sweet Horne , AR 72164- 0004 Phone : (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  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 CERTIFIED COPY 19 the--- Q. I'm asking you the question now\nhe can object at court and that's for the record of course. In your opinion you have to under this policy, you would have to make an assessment of each one of those programs every year wouldn't you? FENDLAND: The same objection. Q. You still have to answer the question. A. I have to answer the question? Q. Yes, ma'am. FENDLAND: If you understand it. A. I think the answer should be yes. Q. All right. Now isn't it fair to say that you never saw written assessments, let's talk about them unwritten later, but you never say written assessments of each one of these myriad programs, myriad meaning many, that were in operation in the school district on an annual basis did you? A. I don't remember seeing every one\nI remember some. Q. Well, we saw on page 148--- A. Uh-huh. Q. I think you identified five but you have far more programs than the dozen that are listed on this page don't you? A. Yes. Q. All right. And is it fair to say that you all never as a board made a judgment that a particular program was working to improve African-American achievement did you? Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box 14 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone, (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 20 A. We did not. Q. All right. Can you tell me as you sit there which program, in your opinion according to the administrators especially Dr. Carnine, has worked to improve African-American achievement? Can you identify any particular program? FENDLEY: Let me object to the form if you're asking her to speculate which program Dr. Carnine thinks improved the performance. Q. I'm only talking about reports that were made to you by-you don't make assessment yourself do you Mrs. Strickland? A. I do not. Q. You only rely on those people you hire. A. That's right. Q. And they come to you as a board in a board meeting and make presentations. A. That's right. Q. All right. Now can you tell me any programs that they reported to you had been effective in improving AfricanAmerican achievement? I just want you to tell me yes, if there were some and which ones they were. A. No, I don't remember. REPORTER: You're going to have to speak up a little bit more for me. A. I'm sorry. I don\"t remember. Q. Now you understand that there have been a lot of program Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box t4 Sweet Horne , AR 72164- 0004 Phone : (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY changes in the last three years, isn't that correct? A. That's right. Q. Now those program changes came about under Dr. Lesley didn't they? A. Yes, they did. 21 Q. And they came about without there having been an assessment of existing programs\nisn't that fair to say a written assessment that was presented to the board? A. I don't know. Q. Well, you don't ever remember seeing any written assessments made as contemplated by 2.7 and presented to the board do you? FENDLAND: I object to the form. Q. Now, you can answer the question. You don't remember seeing any of those do you? A. I don't remember. Q. All right. Now you don't just go and get rid of programs as a matter of routine unless you have made as an education an appraisal that those programs are not effective do you? That would be the normal expectation wouldn't it Mrs. Strickland? A. Yes\nright. Q. Now, but you all actually did that when Dr. Lesley came in because she said I think this can work better\nshe told you that didn't she? FENDLEY: Object, that is a compound question. Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box t4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone, (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  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 CERTIFIED COPY 22 Q. She has come--you a friend of Dr. Lesley's now aren\"t you? A. I am? Q. Are you not? A. I\"m an acquaintance of hers I think you would say. Q. All right. A. And I hope that I'm a friend to everybody at the school district. Q. You, you\"re my friend, at least you used to be my friend\nI haven\"t talked to you for the last couple of years but you-does Dr. Lesley attend your church? A. No. She visited with me one Sunday. Q. I see. That's sort of friendship, isn't it? A. Yeah, I consider\nyeah, I guess she's a friend. Q. And you all talk about school matters a lot don\"t you one-on- one? A. Well, if I have a problem with anything, I don\"t understand anything--- Q. You call her? A. Dr. Lesley is a good one for me to call. Q. I see. And you have more one-on-one communication with Dr. Lesley than any other school administrator don't you? A. No, I wouldn\"t say that. Q. Well, who else would you have more one-on-one communication with? FENDLAND: I think you need to define a time Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box #4 sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone : (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 23 period on that. WALKER: Well, I'll do that. Q. But at this time which board, which school administrator do you have the most one-on-one communication with? A. Probably the superintendent. Q. Okay, that\"s fine. Now before he came--no, in the first months after he came which school board member did you have-which school staff member did you have the most contact with? A. When he first, when, when who first came Dr. James? Q. Yes. A. Would you tell me where this is leading, I don\"t quite understand this? Q. I'm leading, I\"m trying to get up to the point of programs and I'll just go to it. A. Uh-huh. Q. Dr. Lesley told you did she not that she could put into place some better programs than the ones that were existence to help improve learning for all children didn\"t she? A. I don\"t think she\"s ever told me that\nno. Q. What did she tell you? A. I don't know\nwhat conversation you\"re referring to. Q. Well, did she ever tell you that the program that she contemplated would work better than the ones that were already in place in order to achieve improvement of African-American progress in schools? Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 24 A. You mean, you\"re asking me if she told me that personally? Q. Yes, ma'am. A. I don\"t think so. Q. Did she ever tell the board that? A. I don't remember those words. Q. I see. Now--- A. But if I may clarify that, my assumption is anytime that a new program is implemented it's working toward that goal because we all know the deseg plan. Q. Well now, Mrs. Strickland you know that every time a new superintendent comes in you get new programs don\"t you? A. Well, that\"s true some time. Q. All right. Now you all don't just throw out programs that are working do you? A. we try not to. Q. All right. Did you have any programs before Dr. Lesley came that in your opinion had been or were successful in remediating African-American achievement, any one program? A. I can't think of one. Q. You can't think, now can you think of one since she's come that's been effective in remediating African-American achievement? A. I believe that our test scores are better. Q. No, we're talking about programs now rather than what somebody has told you or you believe represents better scores. Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box t4 sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone : (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY But the thing now, can you think of any program? A. No. 25 Q. All right. Now you talk about test scores, the only uniform test score that's been in place throughout these years has been the SAT hasn't it? A. I think so. Q. So if you're going to measure progress and you've been an educator at one time haven't you? A. R.ght Q. And what you try to look at as an educator is a continuum over, things over a period of time rather than a snapshot, isn't that correct? A. That's right. Q. All right. Now if test scores show basically flatness in terms of black achievement and white achievement over a continuum, does not that indicate that whatever gap existed is still there? A. If it\"s flat? Q. Yes, ma'am. A. Yes. Q. All right. Now has the board ever said that it's going to look at some other, that it's going to adopt a different appraisal system for determining remediation of the achievement gap? A. Not that I know of. Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Horne, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 26 Q. All right. Now with respect to evaluations Mrs. Strickland, you've always wanted to have people held accountable haven't you? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you also have always presumed that your people would be truthful haven't you\nthat is your administrators? A. That's right. Q. Did you find Dr. Carnine to be truthful in your opinion? A. Sometimes, no. Q. That's right. Did Dr. Carnine report to you that he was regularly meeting with John w. Walker with respect to the issues contained in the revised Desegregation and Education plan? A. He did. Q. I see. Did he tell you that I was i n agreement with what was going on? A. I don't know that he ever told us those words. Q. I see. Now did he tell you that program evaluation was proceeding as contemplated by the plan? A. Yes, I believe so. Q. You\"re aware now are you not that program evaluation was not proceeding as the plan required\nhave you been made aware of that? A. Well, I think that's a statement you\"re making. Q. Has anybody else representing the district told you that Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box #4 sweet Home , AR 72164 - 0004 Phone : ( 501) 490- 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 21 the district court has found grave problems with your programs evaluations both existence of them and the substance of them\nhas anybody told you that? FENDLAND: Let me object to the form of the question. She hasn't been told that because the district court hasn't made those findings. Q. Well, have you been in court at any time? A. Not on this particular case\nnot this time. Q. Have any of your school board members told you that they have been in court and heard Judge Wright? A. I know some board members that have been in court. Q. I see. Did any of those board members represent to you or did the superintendent represent to you in any writing or statement that the court expressed grave concerns about the district evaluation program? A. I heard her remarks. Q. All right. Now is that anything that you know--now you understand with respect to program evaluation that you all have to have written evaluations as over against somebody's thought that this thing is working or not, there's a difference between somebody's opinion about whether something is working and whether or not an assessment has been made, a written assessment, an evaluation. FENDLAND: I'm going to object\nthat's a compound question. Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  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 CERTIFIED COPY 28 WALKER: I'll change it\nthank you. FENDLAND: You started asking one question and you changed. WALKER: You're absolutely right. Q. If someone, if you make a commitment to do program evaluation for instance as it is set forth here, those programs were to be--that's a program evaluation commitment isn't it Mrs. Strickland? A. Yes. Q. All right. That's from the plan isn't it? Now 2.7 is what it addresses and it says here that you shall assess the academic programs after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the programs and improving African-American achievement. It doesn't say anything about assessing the effectiveness of the programs from an effectiveness of white student improvement does it? It talks about improving black students, right? A. [Witness nodding head up and down.] Right. REPORTER: Answer, yes. A. Yes, I'm sorry. WALKER: All right. No further questions. FENDLAND: I don't have any questions. [The deposition ended at 11:55 a.m., October 5, 2001.] * * * * * Cobb Court Reporting P . o . Box 14 Sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone , (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax ERTIFIED COPY 29 (- 1 ERRATA SHEET 2 3 (Upon completion, please sign and date this sheet below.) 4 5 Page Line Change: 6 To: 7 Reason: 8 Page Line Change: 9 To: 10 Reason: 11 Page Line Change: 12 To: 13 Reason: 14 Page Line Change: 15 To: 16 Reason: 17 Page Line Change: 18 To: 19 Reason: 20 Page Line Change: (- 21 To: 22 Reason: 23 Page Line Change: 24 To: 25 Reason: 26 Page Line Change: 27 To: 28 Reason: 29 Page Line Change: 30 To: 31 Reason: 32 Page Line Change: 33 To: 34 Reason: 35 Page Line Change: 36 To: 37 Reason: 38 Page Line Change: 39 To: 40 Reason: 41 42 Page of - 43 SUE H. STRICKLAND Date 44 Cobb Court Reporting P. 0. Box t4 Sweet Horne, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 CERTIFIED COPY SIGNATURE PAGE I, SUE H. STRICKLAND, hereby certify that the above and foregoing deposition is a full, true, correct and complete transcript of the proceeding [mark the appropriate box]: had at the time of the taking of my deposition. (OR) subject to the notations on the attached Errata Sheet made by me or at my direction. - Date STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI ss. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, a Notary Public in and for the aforesaid county and state on thi s o-\u0026lt;'7.\u0026lt;/o --u. of {Jc\n/: (SEAL) Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box t4 Sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone : (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax day    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 CERTIFIED COPY 31 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE STATE OF ARKANSAS ss. 429-84-1622 COUNTY OF PULASKI I, Gloria Y. Cobb, A Certified Court Reporter and Notary Public in and for the aforesaid County and state, do hereby certify that the witness, SUE H. STRICKLAND, was duly sworn by me prior to the taking of testimony as to the truth of the matters attested to and contained therein\nthat the testimony of said witness was taken by me in stenomask and was thereafter reduced to typewritten form by me or under my direction and supervision\nthat the foregoing transcript is a true and accurate record of the testimony given to the best of my understanding and ability. I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties to the action in which this proceeding was taken\nand, further, that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto, nor financially interested, or otherwise, in the outcome of this action\nand that I have no contact with the parties, attorneys, or persons with an interest in the action that affects or has a substantial tendency to affect impartiality, that requires me to relinquish control of an original deposition transcript or copies of the transcript before it is certified and delivered to the custodial attorney, or that requires me to provide any service not available to all parties to the act. My Commission Expires: Cobb Court -Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eCobb Court Reporting\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1231","title":"Oral deposition of Tony Rose","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":["Cobb Court Reporting"],"dc_date":["2001-10-05"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","School board members","School management and organization","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Oral deposition of Tony Rose"],"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/1231"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nDeposition taken at the Friday, Eldredge and Clark Law Firm, Little Rock, Arkansas\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\n   CERTIFIED COPY IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF vs No.LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL, DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANT MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEPOSITION OF MR. TONY ROSE DATE: October 5, 2001 TIME: 12:38 p.m. INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PLACE: The Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Law Firm 400 West Capitol, Suite #2200 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 APPEARANCES On Behalf of the Plaintiff: On Behalf of the Defendants: Mr. John w. Walker, Attorney John w. Walker Law Firm 1723 Broadway Street Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Clay Fendley, Attorney Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 west Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 ALSO PRESENT Joy Springer, The John w. Walker Law Firm Judy Magness, Sue Strickland, \u0026amp; Katherine Mitchell, Deponents Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Horne, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  4 5 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY AGREEMENT OF COUNSEL. SWEARING OF THE WITNESS . . EXAMINATION OF MR. TONY ROSE By Mr. Walker. . SIGNATURE SHEET . . ERRATA SHEET . . COURT REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION . . * * * * * * * * * Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box Jl4 Sweet Home , AR 72164-0004 Phone : (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax PAGE . . 3 . . . . 3 ... . 3-24 . .      25 . .26 . 27  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 3 STIPULATIONS The deposition of Tony Rose, produced, sworn and examined at the Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Law Firm, 400 West Capitol, Suite #2200, Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 commencing at 12:38 p.m., on October 5, 2001, in the captioned cause at the instance of counsel for the Plaintiff, and said deposition being taken according to the terms and provisions of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. It is stipulated and agreed all forms and formalities in the taking, transcribing, forwarding and filing of said deposition by witness, are hereby waived by the parties, the right being expressly reserved to object to the testimony of the witness at the time of trial as to incompetency, irrelevancy and immateriality, other than those with respect to the form of questions as propounded to the witness. * * * * * P R O C E E D I N G S THEREUPON, TONY ROSE having been called for examination by counsel for the plaintiff, and having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION Questions by Mr. Walker: Q. State your name. Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box i4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  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 CERTIFIED COPY A. Tony Rose. Q. Mr. Rose were you informed that the school district had committed to the revised desegregation and education plan in January of 1988? A. I'm aware of the district committing to that plan. Q. You were not on the board at that time? A. I was not on the board at that time. 4 Q. I see. Were you aware that the plan calls for remediation of academic achievement of African-American students? A. My understanding is it calls for efforts to remediate the gap. Q. Well, look at 2.7. A. 2.7. REPORTER: Now, speak up a little bit for me, please. ROSE: Yes, ma'am. Q. 2.7 says it shall implement programs, policy, and procedures- -- A. Designed--- Q. designed to improve and remediate the achievement gap, the academic achievement of African-American students. A. Yes, sir. Q. Then 2.71 said that in order to do that you\"re going to have an annual assessment of the academic programs to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving African-cobb Court Reporting P. O. Box H Sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone : (501) . 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 American achievement. A. Yes, sir. CERTIFIED COPY Q. Have you ah, when did you go onto the board? A. A year and two weeks ago. 5 Q. I see. Have you seen an assessment--first of all, have you seen a litany or a listing of the academic programs in place when you came onto the board or during that year? A. A full list\nno, I don't believe I have. Q. I see. Do you agree that in order to make an assessment of a program the program has to have some kind of identity? A. It depends on the nature of the assessment. Q. well, if you\"re going to make an assessment as contemplated here, you have to know what the program is before you can determine the effectiveness of the academic program in improveing African-American achievement\nyou have to know what it is don't you? A. That's fair\nyes. Q. All right. Have you been given a listing of the programs which are in place, which were in place when you came on the board which had the purpose of improving African-American achievement? A. I understand that pursuant to the plan their are three programs. Q. What were those three? A. That's the National Science Foundation math and science Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box 14 sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone, ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 6 program whatever it's called, the ah, early literacy, Pre-K literacy whatever it's called, and the middle school program. Q. What are the source of your understanding? A. The ah, report I believe\nthe compliance report. Q. Well now the plan is the plan, so I want you to--well, now that is a compliance--- A. Right. Q. I\"m saying here I would like to see where the plan says that there were three programs. A. I don\"t believe it does. Q. All right. Now are you saying that those were the only plans that you knew of which had the purpose of determining the effectiveness of--let me change it, change it. Are those the only programs which were in place that the board assessed in order to determine the effectiveness in improving AfricanAmerican achievement? A. Those were the programs that were apart of the program evaluation agenda as I understand it. The board approved program evaluation agenda. Q. Now this, this does not, 2.7 doesn\"t address or relate to the evaluation agenda. A. No. Q. It talks, it says here and I read it literally, \"it shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to 2.7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the Cobb Court Reporting P . O. Box *4 Sweet Home , AR 72164-0004 Phone : (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY programs in improving African-American achievement.\" A. It certainly says that, yes. 7 Q. All right. Are there any academic programs, programs which have been--which were implemented pursuant to 2.7 as of the time you came onto the board? A. The, my understanding has been that since the ah, desegregation orders were issued that the board has directed the district, the administrators have made their best efforts to comply to improve education level. Q. Well now Mr. Rose--- A. Did I misunderstand the question? Q. I don't mean to get or cross words with you--A. And I don\"t want to get cross words with you. Q. now I want to go through this. It says that Little Rock shall implement, 2.7 says that you shall implement the policies, programs, and procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students. A. Yes, sir. Q. Are you saying--- FENDLAND: Including but not limited to Section 5 of the revised plan. WALKER: That's right. Q. Now are you saying that to your knowledge the only programs that have that purpose were the National Science Foundation Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box 14 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone 1 ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 8 grant, the early literacy program, and the middle school program? A. No, sir\nI'm not saying that. Q. Right. Now my question then is can you identify the other programs which were placed into effect by the school board which had the purpose of complying with 2.7 or its subordinate sections? A. No, I can\"t identify those those programs. Q. All right. Now if you can\"t identify a thing and you say you had it, that means you can\"t assess it doesn't it? A. Correct. Q. All right. FENDLAND: Are you meaning the board still? WALKER: I\"m meaning the board. ROSE: Board meaning the district because the board doesn't do the assessment. WALKER: Fine. Q. But you understand--now you are aware and I don't want to, I mean you are aware when you went on the board early on you were disappointed with the evaluation or assessment system in place\nis that fair to say as a board? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you all didn't approve the assessments that had been or evaluations that had been submitted? A. I believe if my recollection is correct and it may be hazy Cobb Court Reporting P . o . Box f4 Sweet Home , AR 72164 - 0004 Phone : ( 501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 9 on this because I did attend several board meetings before I was actually sworn on the--- Q. Right. A. board, so which board meeting? Q. Well, whichever--- A. I believe in August before I came on the board is when the National Science Foundation evaluation was not approved. Q. All right. And since that ti--- A. Tabled actually. Q. All right. And since that time it has not been approved has it? The evaluation. A. I do not believe that it has. Q. In fact, since that time no evaluation has been approved by the board has it? No written evaluation has been approved by the board? A. We have received assessment reports that we have accepted on several programs. Q. But now an evaluation report is different from an assessment isn't it? A. Probably. Q. Now you are aware that the Evaluation Department has to abide by progressional standards in performing evaluations are you not? A. I would assume so. Q. That's why you have a P-R-E department. Cobb Court -Reporting P. o. Box *4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 10 A. Yes. Q. And you would also agree that when people do their own assessments of what they are doing they have in effect a conflict of interest? A. I would agree that that is a possibility. Q. All right. So that if you come to me and ask me how my program is working, I have a self-serving interest in saying to you that my program is working okay if that\"s an assessment? A. It's entirely possible that you could say that\nyes. Q. All right. Now but as a board you would want to at least have an evaluation that has purpose, content, criteria, conclusions and you all at least have adopted a set of evaluation guidelines haven\"t you? FENDLAND: Let me say that\"s a compound question. You went through the criteria and then ask him if he'd adopted it. Q. Right. You all have adopted a set of evaluation criteria haven't you? A. Yes. Q. I see. And just a verbal assessment does not meet the evaluation model does it? A. That's correct. Q. All right. Now have you ever seen any assessment of any program from the prospective of whether that program would or likely would not improve African-American achievement in this Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box #4 sweet Home , AR 72164-0004 Phone : (501) 490 - 0066 (501) . 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY district\nanything in writing? A. Yes. Q. You\"ve seen some. Can you identify it, please? A. The National Science Foundation assessment. Q. Now the National Science Foundation assessment but that wasn't approved by the board was it? A. The original one was tabled by the board. Q. And there has not been one approved since then has it? A. I don't believe it has\nno. 11 Q. Now that National Science Foundation grant was intended to apply at the southwest school, McClellan\nis that correct? A. Ah, I'm not sure. Q. What schools were included within the ambit of the National Science Foundation grant? A. I do not remember the original parameter\nthat was before I came onto the board. I know that the programs that have been developed using that grant money have been put in places, a great many schools. Q. I see. Now are you saying that that, the purpose of that was to improve African-American achievement? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is it fair, I mean have you read the grant proposal? A. I don't recall. Q. Have the heard the criticism that the grant proposal did in fact have that as one of its primary purposes but that is no Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box t4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 12 longer the primary purpose of the NSF grant\nare you aware of that criticism? Are you aware of that being a criticism? A. Are you making that criticism now? Q. I've made it before. A. Well, if you're making it now then I'm aware of it now. That's the first I've--- Q. But before now you have not? A. No, sir. Q. I see. Now if you're going to, if the program is for the purpose of improving African-American achievement that's different than improving achievement of all students isn't it? A. No, sir. Impr oving the achievement of all students will improve t he achievement of African-American students by definition. Q. Well let me, let me, let me see how that works. If you have white students at the 60 percentile level and black students at the 30 percentile level and they all go up as some figures show they did by say 5 percent--- A. Then they've all improved. Q. but this is not eliminating the disparity gap is it Mr. Rose? A. No, if the gap remains the same it certainly hasn't improved. Q. All right. Now do you agree that the only measuring standard that is in effect that the district has approved is Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box H sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone : (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 13 the SAT test, the S-A-T? A. In what sense, I\"m sorry, repeat your question. Q. Are you familiar with the criteria for determining whether or not the gap has been narrowed or eliminated? A. I understand that there are several standardize test and when we receive reports of those scores they're always broken down by race. Q. Well, we\"re talking about the test themselves\nwhat are those test other than the S-A-T? A. There's the ACTAP. there's ah, there\"s the state benchmark exams, district benchmark exams. Q. Now you understood that when we went, when this case was resolved in 1989 there was no ACTAP or Benchmark? A. Yes, sir\nI understand that. Q. And we\"re looking at achieving ah, narrowing the achievement gap that you have to use a consistent standard over a period of years, is that fair? A. That\"s probably the best way to do it\nyes. Q. I see. Now did the board ever decide in a board meeting that it was going to use ACTAP for that purpose of measuring whether or not the gap had been changed or was that something that was just presented to you by Dr. Lesley in the last year or so since you've been on the board? A. I don\"t recall the board approving or disapproving of which standards, which exams are going to be used. Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box t4 sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY Q. Do you recall her coming to you once and telling you all that the achievement gap had been eliminated? A. No, sir. 14 Q. Now you had a Research committee doctor, I mean Mr. Rose, do you remember being on that Research Committee? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did that Research Committee--do you understand Mrs. Springer participated in it? A. Absolutely, that's where I met Mrs. Springer. Q. Did that Research Committee have any purpose? A. A charge from the board. Q. I see. A. A vague charge. Q. Vague. Now is that Research Committee still in place? A. As far as I know the committee had not been disbanded. Q. Do you recall ever seeing criticism of the Research Committee by Dr. Lesley? A. Yes, I believe I have. Q. Do you remember her stating that we need to get rid of this sucker? A. I remember you reading that in court. Q. Were you surprised at that? A. Surprised, no. Q. Why would you get rid of a Research Committee that the board approved--- cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box t4 sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone, (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY A. I wouldn't. Q. if the purpose--you wouldn\"t? Does the staff have the power by inaction of a committee to overrule the board? A. The authority or the power? Q. Power. A. Yes. Q. It has the power, okay. A. They have the power to do through inactivity to negate policy. 15 Q. That's right\nI see. So they negated the policy in this case by in effect not using or continuing to use the Research Committee after February of this year, isn't that fair to say? A. Restate the question. Q. You haven\"t been to a committee meeting of the Research Committee since February have you? A. I believe we met once in the summer. Q. Did Mrs. Springer get notice of it? A. I don't know. Q. Did you all do anything? A. We talked about how to continue the work of the committee, who would chair it in the interim until Dr. James selected a new chair. Q. Who was present at that meeting? A. Myself, Dr. Lease, Mr. Babbs, there were others. Perhaps the teacher representative whose name escapes me and--- cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 16 Q. But not the Joshua representative. A. No, I don't believe Mrs. Springer was there. Q. But now it couldn't have been the summer if Dr. Lease was there. A. Early summer--- Q. But she was gone before the summer wasn't she? She left in late April--- A. Is that right--- Q. early May isn't it? A. I thought i t, I thought she left in June. Q. She didn't leave until June? A. I thought she left in June. Q. I see. A. I could be mistaken about that or have the date of the meeting wrong for that sake. Q. Did you all keep minutes of that meeting? A. I did not, I don't know if any--- Q. Did anyone? A. I don't recall. Q. All right. Now can you explain why the Research Committee didn't meet between February and the summer other than because Dr. Lesley sai d we want to kill this sucker? A. I don't think that would have had anything to do with it. Q. I see. Well isn't that, didn't she say that the Research Commi ttee activities should be under her program area? Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box t4 sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone : (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 17 A. She didn't say it to me\nI don't, I haven't heard her say that. Q. I see. You take the position that the district needs to be focusing upon low performing students, is that right? FENDLAND: Who is you? A. Yeah. WALKER: You personally. A. Me personally? Q. Yes. A. Yes, I've taken that position. Q. And if you want to improve the academic achievement of low performing students would you not agree that you would develop different strategies for relating to them than you would for achieving, for improving the achievement of already high performing students? A. Certainly. Q. And would you not agree that in order for low performing students who are already in high school to be served best that you would have to relate to their foundational needs more seriously than you would the students who are already high performing, highly performing? A. More seriously, what do you mean by that? Q. Well, the students can't read and write. You want to make sure that they can at least do those things before they go into something else? Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box t4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone, (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY A. Certainly. Q. And you don't have to follow that same approach with already high performing students, isn\"t that correct? A. You don't have to follow the same approach with students who already read and write\ncorrect. 18 Q. All right. Now, so for all practical--you know that most of the students who are low performing are black? A. I know that most of the students are black and so it follows that most of the students who are low performing are black. Q. Well, you understand that most of the white student are upper income, are middle to upper income? A. I assume that to be true. Q. Well you can look at the census tracks can\"t you--A. Yes, sir. Q. and you can tell that? A. Yes, sir. Q. All right. And if you were to come up with a system which allowed segregation of students--if you just wanted to say we wanted these classes segregated, all you would have to do is just simply say all the students who were in a certain test score range would be over here [motioning with right hand] but the ones who are in another lower test score range would be over here [motioning with the left hand] and the result would be predictable wouldn't it Mr. Rose? Cobb Court Reporting P. O. Box #4 Sweet Home , AR 72164- 0004 Phone : (501) 490 - 0066 ( 501) 490-0.926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY A. I'm sorry, are we segregating them by race or by test score? Q. Well, if you wanted--A. I mean by location? 19 Q. if you wanted to do it by race and you know that the test score performance is likely to be a certain way, if you do it you know what the outcome is going to be. In other words if you say we want to use race, if we want to get a racial result but we have to have a nonracial explanation for it, remember now we want a racial result but you can't come out and say we trying, nobody in the district can come out and say we want a racial result, so in order to get a racial result you can look at those characteristics that are most common to the racial groupings and then adopt criteria for placement that most apply to those racial groups. A. I'm sorry Mr. Walker, I quit listening to the question when you implied that there were people in the district who wanted racial results. Q. Oh, you don't believe that? A. No, sir\nI do not. Q. Are you not aware of ah, teachers and administrators referring in some cases to students ah, in racial terms? A. I've never heard it. Q. You've never even heard that the--- A. I've never heard teachers refer to students in racial Cobb Court Reporting P. O. Box i4 sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY terms. Q. But you don\"t hear teachers, you've never heard those reports? A. I hear teacher a lot. Q. Are you in the schools very much? A. Yes, sir. Q. Why are you there? A. Many reasons. My wife is a teacher, my daughter is a student--- Q. Where does your wife teach? A. Chicot. Q. Who is the principal there? A. Jane Harkey. 20 Q. Okay. Now you don't suggest that you hear all the comments between teachers and students do you? A. Absolutely not\nnot for a moment would I suggest that. Q. All right. You\"re not aware of the teacher at Dunbar who said that he was tired of teaching these dumb ass niggers? A. No, sir. Q. All right. So you just don't believe that people still have racial motivation in 2001 do you? A. No, sir\nI believe that they do. Q. But you believe that nobody in this district does? A. I believe nobody is denying children an education because of their race. Cobb Court Reporting P . o . Box 1f4 Sweet Home , AR 72164 - 0004 Phone : (501) 490- 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 21 Q. Well, there are different ways to deny education. You can let all kids be in a classroom, you can let them all hold their hands up but only call on certain kids from time-to-time\nthat's one way of separating kids isn't it? A. Sure. Q. You can give some kids, give all kids homework but you can give some kids verbalized instruction one-on-one and then not give it to the others and there\"s no way that those students have to complain about it\nbut you don\"t believe that kind of thing happens do you? A. I don\"t have any examples of it. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen. Q. I see. A. Do you have example of it? Q. Oh, yeah. You can give students extra--A. Have you reported those to the board, sir? Q. Oh, yes\nwe have. A. To the board. Q. Well wait a minute. First of all you understand that our charge is not to report things to you? A. No, sir\nI understand that once a month you have a spot on my agenda that you\"ve never appeared for to report things to me. Q. Do you understand that the purpose that what we have been doing is making our reports to the responsible administrators, Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: ( 501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERT\\F\\ED COPY 22 have you not seen the answers to the interrogatories on all the letters and other correspondence that has gone to the--- A. No, sir\nI have not. Q. Are you not aware of the scores and scores of letters of complaints that we--- A. I am aware that you--- FENDLEY: I'll object to the form, that is not true. We don\"t have any indication of the example you just gave. Q. Mr. Washington testified in court, I don\"t know whether you were there--- A. I did not hear Mr. Washington\"s testimony. Q. Mr. Washington testified that he was aware of the example of the white teacher at Dunbar rushing in to the student lounge and said that I'm just tired of teaching these dumb ass niggers. Now you would expect us not to bring those things to the board would you not if we\"re trying to cooperate with the district and bring--and you would expect us to bring them to the attention of your responsible administrators? A. I would certainly hope that a situation like that would be brought very quickly to the attention of someone who can do something about it. Q. Do you have anything to indicate that we have not been doing that over the past three years? A. Do I have anything to indicate that you have not been Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box 14 Sweet Home , AR 72164 - 0004 Phone : ( 501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 23 submitting--no, sir\nI do not have anything to indicate that you have not been submitting those kinds of reports. Q. Have you not been told by Ms. Mitchell and Mr. Babbs that we regularly and frequently brought to their attentions items of discrepancy and racial treatment within the schools? A. I don\"t recall, I don't recall. Q. Or did you assume that because I wasn't coming to the board to talk that we were not bringing things to the attention of your administrators? A. That is my assumption\nyes. Q. Well now, you understood Mr. Rose and I told you once or twice that we were, the purpose that we saw this of the plan was to foist good will and good working relationships upon the parties and to try to work at the lowest possible level to have things resolved so that when they got to the board they would be really serious matters. A. That's reasonable but I take those sorts of racial slurs like you just described as a serious matter. Q. Why should we do that and tell me, not this is a question, why should we bring that to the attention of the board if we bring it to the attention of the administrators and they try to find a way to work it out? A. That's probably, you're probably correct. Q. And why should we put that in the public domain ah, other than to perhaps embarrass a particular_ teacher or characterize Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box *4 sweet Home, AR 72164-0004 Phone: (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  25 CERTIFIED COPY 24 teach misbehaviors in a way that is not helpful? Why should we try to do anything to put the teachers down? Did I not come before you and say that we were trying to shore up the district rather than to pull it down? A. Yes, you said that. 2001.] WALKER: All right. No more questions. FENDLEY: I have no questions. [The deposition ended at 1:03 p.m., Octobers, * * * * * Cobb Court Reporting P . O. Box H sweet Home , AR 72164-0004 Phone : ( 501) 490 - 9066 (501) 490-0926 - Fax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ' 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 CERTIFIED COPY SIGNATURE PAGE I, TONY ROSE, hereby certify that the above and foregoing deposition is a full, true, correct and complete transcript ~/the proceeding [mark the appropriate box): 25 J\\? had at the time of the taking of my deposition. (OR) ( ) subject to the notations on the attached Errata Sheet made by me or at my direction. Date STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI ) ) ss. ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, a and for the aforesaid county and state on this of cOcJl\u0026amp;lHA , 2001. Notary Public in /} c\n-/j..__ ~ - day ~ Cobb Court Reporting P . o. Box f4 Sweet Home , AR 72164-0004 Phone : (501) 490 - 0066 (501) 490 - 0926 - Fax CERTIFIED COPY 26 - 1 ERRATA SHEET 2 3 (Upon completion, please sign and date this sheet below.) 4 5 Page Line Change: 6 , To: 7 Reason: 8 Page __ Line Change: 9 To: 10 Reason: 11 Page Line Change: 12 To: 13 Reason: 14 Page Line Change: 15 To: 16 Reason: 17 Page Line Change: 18 To: 19 Reason: 20 Page Line Change: 21 To: 22 Reason: 23 Page Line Change: 24 To: 25 Reason: 26 Page Line Change: 27 To: 28 Reason: 29 Page Line Change: 30 To: 31 Reason: 32 Page Line Change: 33 To: 34 Reason: 35 Page Line Change: 36 To: 37 Reason: 38 Page Line Change: 39 To: 40 Reason: 41 42 43 Page of 44 TONY ROSE Date Cobb Court Reporting P. o . Box 14 sweet Home , AR 72164-0004 Phone : (501) 490-0066 (501) 490-092! - Fax    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 CERTIFIED COPY 27 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE STATE OF ARKANSAS ss. 429-84-1622 COUNTY OF PULASKI I, Gloria Y. Cobb, A Certified Court Reporter and Notary Public in and for the aforesaid County and state, do hereby certify that the witness, TONY ROSE, was duly sworn by me prior to the taking of testimony as to the truth of the matters attested to and contained therein\nthat the testimony of said witness was taken by me in stenomask and was thereafter reduced to typewritten form by me or under my direction and supervision\nthat the foregoing transcript is a true and accurate record of the testimony given to the best of my understanding and ability. I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties to the action in which this proceeding was taken\nand, further, that I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto, nor financially interested, or otherwise, in the outcome of this action\nand that I have no contact with the parties, attorneys, or persons with an interest in the action that affects or has a substantial tendency to affect impartiality, that requires me to relinquish control of an original deposition transcript or copies of the transcript before it is certified and delivered to the custodial attorney, or that requires me to provide any service not available to all parties to the act. My Commission Cobb Court Reporting P. o. Box #4 Sweet Home , AR 72 164-0004 ~hone : (501) 4 90-0066 (501) 490 - 09 26 - Fax\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eCobb Court Reporting\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1307","title":"Proceedings: ''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":["2001-10-02"],"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 School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Court records","School integration","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''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/1307"],"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":["221 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_291","title":"Compliance correspondence","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2001-10/2001-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning","School administrators","Walker, John W."],"dcterms_title":["Compliance correspondence"],"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/291"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["correspondence"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n1 RECEIVED OCT 2 2001 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING RECEIVED ' OCT 2 2001 OffICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mark Pryor Attorney General STATE OF ARKANSAS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Direct dial\n(501) 682-3643 Direct Facsimile: (501) 682-2591 E-mail: MarkH@ag-Slale ar.us October 1, 2001 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 374-4187 VIA FACSIMILE and U.S. MAIL LRSD V. PCSSD\nUSDC\n4:82CV866SWW Dear Mr. Walker: This is to confirm the receipt of your facsimile transmission of September 19, 2001. In that faxed letter, you requested that I contact you in writing if I wished to continue to receive copies of communications between LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors. In order for my clients to keep abreast of developments in this case, and in order to respond to the Court at a future point in time regarding what has transpired in this case, my client and I request that we continue receiving communications between the Joshua Intervenors and LRSD. By this, we do not mean to inconvenience your office staff or make undue demands upon your financial resources\ntherefore, if you would like to send us communications between LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors on a weekly or bi-weekly basis in order to reduce your cost, we would certainly be amenable to this arrangement, or others if you could suggest them. Further, Sammye Taylor of this office has withdrawn as counsel from this case. Therefore, would you please have your records reflect that all further correspondence and pleadings should be sent to me. 323 Center Street  Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-2591 Internet Website  http.7/v^'^Av.ag.state.ar.us/ 1 Page 2 Mr. Walker October 1,2001 Please give me a call if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter. Very truly yours, MARK A. HAGEMEIER Assistant Attorney General MH/ale cc: via U.S. Mail\nSam Jones Ann Borwn Marshall Richard Roachell Chirs Heller Stephen Jones iU/Ul/Ul X3:4X iD:ns, Hnn narsnaii hro:tlay Fendley Friday Law Firm Page 2/2 Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHELH fRIDAY(lM2-IPM} WIUIAMH SUTTON. P.A BYRON U EISEMAN. JR . P A JOED BELL. P.A. JAMES A BUTTRY, P.A FREDERICK S URSERY. P.A OSCAR E DAVIS. JR . P.A JAMES C CLARK. JR. P.A THOMAS P LEGGETT. P,A JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A PAULB BENHAM III. P.A LARRY W BURKS. P A A WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A J PHILLIP MALCOM. P A JAMES M SIMPSON. P A JAMES M SAXTON. P A J SHEPHERC-RUSSELL III. P.A. DONALD H BACON. P A WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. BARRYE COPLIN. P.A RICHARD D TAYLOR. P.A JOSEPH B HURST. JR . P.A ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P A ROBERT S SHAFER. P A WILLIAM M GRIFFIN Ill. P A MICHAEL S MOORE. P A DIANES MACKEY. PA. Walter M ebeliii.p.a KEVIN A CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A WADDELL. JR . P.A SCOTT J LANCASTER. PA M GAYLE CORLEY. P.A ROBERT B BEACH. JR. P A J LEE BROWN. P.A JAMES C. BAKER. JR . P.A HARRY h LIGHT.P A SCOTT H TUCKER. P.A GUY ALTON WADE. P.A PRICE C GARDNER. P.A. TONIA P JONES. P.A DAVID D WILSON. P.A ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP WWW fridflyfirm.con 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE, SUITE 103 FM 501-685-2147 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2898 FAX 870-762-2918 JEFFREYH MOORE. P.A DAVID M CRAP. P A CARLA GWNILS SPAINHOUP.. P.A JOHN C PENDLEY. JR . P.A JONANN ELIZABETH CONICLIO. P.A R CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.A GREGORY D. TAYLOR. P.A TONY L. WILCOX. P.A. PRAN C HICKMAN. P A BETTY J. DEMORY. P A LYNDA M JOHNSON. P A JAMES W SMITH. P.A CLIFFORD W PLUNKETT. P.A DANIEL L HERRINGTON. P A MARVIN L CHILDERS K COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR ALLISON J CORNWELL ELLEN M OWENS JASONB HENDREN BRUCE B TIDWELL MICHAEL  KARNEY KELLY MUP.PKY MCQUEEN JOSEPH? MCKA7 alexahma a. IFRAH JAY T TAYLOR MARTIN A KASTEN BRYAN W DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN A BOWMAN TIMOTHY C EZELL T MICHELLE AT OR KAREN S HALBERT SARAHM COTTON PHILIP B MONTGOMERY KRISTEN S RIGGINS ALAN G BRYAN OF cetmstt B S CLARK WILLIAM L TERRY WILLIAM L PATTON. JR H T LARZELERE. P A JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A A.D MCALLISTER October 1,2001 JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL5\u0026lt;M-9T0-9329 FAX S01-244-4341 VTA FAX: 374-4187 Mr. John W. Walker Attomev at Law 1723 Broadway Little RocL .AR 72206 RE\nLRSD V. PCSSD Dear Mr. Walker: We would like to depose Joshua's LRSD class representative and the Joshua monitors identified in your response to Interrogatory No. 3 of our first set of discovery who monitored LRSD during the term of the Revised Plan. Please provide dates over the next two weeks when they can be presented for deposition. We would expect each deposition to last approximately one hour. We appreciate your cooperation. Sincerely, John C. Fendley, Jr.RECEIVED RECEIVED OCT 2 2001 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING jw St: 51 OCT 2 znoi OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mark Pryor Attorney General STATE OF ARKANSAS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL A4ark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Direct dial: (501) 682-3643 Direct Facsimile: (501) 682-2591 E-mail: MarkH@ag.state.ar.us October 1,2001 VIA FACSIMILE and U.S. MAIL John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 374-4187 Re: LRSD V. PCSSD\nUSDC\n4:82CV866SWW Dear Mr. Walker: This is to confirm the receipt of your facsimile transmission of September 19, 2001. In that faxed letter, you requested that I contact you in writing if I wished to continue to receive copies of communications between LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors. In order for my clients to keep abreast of developments in this case, and in order to respond to the Court at a future point in time regarding what has transpired in this case, my client and I request that we continue receiving communications between the Joshua Intervenors and LRSD. By this, we do not mean to inconvenience your office staff or make undue demands upon your financial resources\ntherefore, if you would like to send us communications between LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors on a weekly or bi-weekly basis in order to reduce your cost, we would certainly be amenable to this arrangement, or others if you could suggest them. Further, Sammye Taylor of this office has withdrawn as counsel from this case. Therefore, would you please have your records reflect that all further correspondence and pleadings should be sent to me. 323 Center Street  Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-2591 Internet Website  http://v'^'w.ag.state.ar.us/ Page 2 Mr. Walker October 1, 2001 Please give me a call if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter. Very truly yours, MARK. A. HAGEMEIER Assistant Attorney General MH/ale cc\nvia U.S. Mail: Sam Jones Ann Borwn Marshall Richard Roachell Chirs Heller Stephen Jones FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 7J201-34M TELEPHONE (501) 376-2011 FAX NO. (501) 376-2147 CONFtDSffnAUTY NOTE: The Information in this facsimha transmittal Is lagaify orMleaad and coahilaprt^ irH^flMontY for tha use of the IndMthml or entity namedabtate. tf The rentier this messaoe is not the Intended recipient you are hereby noitited that any disimlnatlon, dIstrhMtion or copy of the transmittal Is sirtetiy prohibited. If you reca/va this transmittal In error, please Immediatafy notify us by telephone and mum the original trvismittal to us at the abwe address da the United States Postal Service. Thanh you. Date: Time: Page: 10/2/01 8:55:14 1 To: Fax #: Ms. Ann Marshall 3710100 From: Clay Fendley Subject: Message: LRSD V. PCSSD: Principals Documents Dear Mr. Walker: We are in receipt of your fax of October 1,2001, concerning your review of documents re quested from principals. We cannot agree to make those available today. Depending on when we do the depositions of Board members, we can begin producing the documents o n Friday going through next week. The process will be slow, however, because we will be required to review each file before your review to ensure there is no personally identifiable student information or personnel records the disclosure of which would constitute a cleariy unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The documents produced will not include e-mails or conespondence. Your request in this regard is over broad. If you want to see these, you will need to either narrow your request or agree to a protective onder. Please write or call and let us know when you would like to begin your review of document s. Sincerely, Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 E-mail: fendley@fec.net Direct Phone: 501-370-3323 Direct Fax\n501-244-5341Office of Desegregation Monitoring ' United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Marshall, Federal Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 October 3, 2001 Mr. Clay Pendley Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Clay\nAttached is a copy of a fax I received from you while I was recently on vacation making preparations for my daughters September 30\" wedding. I am perplexed by not only the subject matter but the tone of your message to me. At no time have I asked to attend a meeting of the LRSDs Compliance Committee. Further, I do not recall a conversation with you about attending such a meeting. Your fax, which was addressed solely to me, is surely an error. Id appreciate an immediate explanation and correction, Clay. If others were blind-carboned on this correspondence, please inform them in writing of your correction as well, so no misinformation will stand. Thank you very much. Sincerely yours, - Ann S. Marshall Enc. Bl iu:ns. Mnn narsnaii *f'o\nClay Fendley Friday Law Fir Page 1/1 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A LIMITED LlABILm PARTNERSHIP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201J4M TELEPHONE (501) 376-2011 FAX NO. (501)376-2147 CONFIOeffnAUTY NOTE: TTie inlornallon In Ms facsimile tnmsmitol Is teaaltv orMImd and If (he reader A' hereby notified that any dtslmlnatlon, distribution or copy of the transmittal Is strictly onMblted. If you iran^ltal Inaror, please Immediately notify us by telephone and return the oilginal transmitial to us at the above atiOnss via the Untteb States Postal Service. Thank you. Date: Time: Page: 9/27/01 14:31:04 1 To: Fax #: Ms. Ann Marshall 3710100 From: Clay Fendley Subject: Message: Compliance Committee Meeting This Will confirm our telephone conversation today concerning Fridays Compliance Comm ittee meeting. You stated that you were going to show-up so I could tell you that you are n ot invited and put you out. I stated that I could tell you right now that you are not invited. You stated that you intended to show-up anyway and planned to document it with a earner a. I'm sending you this fax to \"documenr that you are not invited to Compliance Committee meetings. We would respectfully request that you not disrupt our meeting tomorrow. We appreciate your cooperation. Sincerely, Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 E-mail: fendley@fec.net Direct Phone: 501 -370-3323 Direct Fax. 501-244-5341Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (IW-IRM) WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P.A BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR.. P.A. JOE D. BELL, P.A JAMES BUTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A OSCAR E. DAVIS, JR.. P.A- JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P.A JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P.A PAUL B. BENHAM lU. P.A LARRY W. BURKS. P.A A WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR,, P.A JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL lU. P.A DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER, P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN, P.A. RICHARD D. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, PA. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN HI. PA. MICHAEL S. MOORE, P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL UI. P.A KEVIN A CRASS. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.rridayfirm.com JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GRAF. P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR-. P.A JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN KASTEN JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGUO, P.A. BRYAN W. URE WILUAM WADDELL, JJf... P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH, JR.. P.A J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C BAKER. JR.. P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE, P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER, P.A TONIA P. JONES. P.A. DAVID D. WILSON. P.A. 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WESrCAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE, SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703-4811 TELEPHONE 501-895-2011 FAX 501-895-2147 R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.A. GREGORY D. TAYLOR. P.A TONY L. WILCOX. P.A. FRAN C. HICKMAN, P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY. P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON, P-A JAMES W. SMITH. P.A CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT, P.A. DANIEL L. HERRINGTON. P.A. MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK, JR. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL MICHAEL . KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR Karen s. halbert SARAH M- COTTON PHILIP B. MONTGOMERY KJUSTBN S. RJGGINS ALAN G. BRYAN OFCOUNSEL B.S. CLARK WILUAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON, JR. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. AD. MCALUSTER 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2888 FAX 87O-7B2-2B18 September 28, 2001 JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-3323 FAX 501-244-5341 fendlayQftc.nat Hand Delivered Mr. John W. Walker Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 RECEIVED OCT I 200i OFFICE Or RECElVgg OCT I OFFICE Of RE: LRSD V. PCSSD Dear Mr. Walker: In response to your September 5, 2001, request to our office, we are enclosing the State Benchmark Exam results in the form they were provided to the LRSD Board. In response to this morning's request by Ms. Cooley, we are providing the agenda for this morning's Compliance Committee meeting along with my letter referred to in the agenda. Your fax concerning this morning's Compliance Committee meeting is incorrect in that you indicate that the Superintendent turned you away. As you were told this morning, the Superintendent is out of town today. We will review with him our decision to exclude you from the Compliance Committee meeting upon his return. Let me also repeat my offer made to Ms. Springer this morning\nI would be happy to meet with you on a weekly basis to discuss compliance issues. We are contacting Board members and LRSD personnel that yesterday you asked to depose. We will not be able to produce anybody for deposition on Monday. Three of the five Board members who have responded so far are not available on Tuesday. We are going to try to find a date in the next two weeks on which all of the Board members are available. Please let us know your availability over the next two weeks so we can get these depositions scheduled. .I'*'-Mr. John Walker September 18, 2001 Page? We appreciate your cooperation and look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, cc: Dr. Kenneth James (w/o enclosure) Ms. Aim Marshall (w/o enclosure) a xusy uuOT f aye X/ X FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201J4M TELEPHONE (JOI) 276.2011 FAX NO. (501)376-2147 CONFtDENTWJTY NOTE: TTk informatton tn tMs facsimile transmittal is togalty ortviieaed anti confbiencial information intantiati only tor tha usa tha intiMiiual or entity namati above. E the reatiar of this message is not the irrtertoed recipiant. you are hereby notiftoti that arty disimtnation, Oistrfbutton or copy tjf the trvtsmitt^isstrtotiy prohibitea. if you recaNe this transmittal in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original transmittal to us at the above address via the United States Postal Service. Thank you. Date: Time: Page: 9/27/01 14:31:04 1 To: Fax #: Ms. Ann Marshall 3710100 From: Clay Fendley Subject\nMessage: Compliance Committee Meeting This will confirm our telephone conversation today concerning Friday's Compliance Comm ittee meeting. You stated that you were going to show-up so I could tell you that you are n ot invited and \"put you out.\" I stated that I could tell you right now that you are not invited. You stated that you intended to show-up anyway and planned to document it with a earner a. I'm sending you this fax to \"document\" that you are not invited to Compliance Committee meetings. We would respectfully request that you not disrupt our meeting tomorrow. We appreciate your cooperation. Sincerely, Clay Fendley Friday. Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 E-mail: fendley@fec.net Direct Phone: 501-370-3323 Direct Fax: 501-244-5341( John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 HECSfVSD AUS IS office Of 2001 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, PA DONNA J. McHENEY Via Facsimile - 244-5344 August 14, 2001 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mcheiiryd@swbell.net Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Chris: I take your letter to be simply a rejection of my request that I be informed of meetings of the compliance committee and of all proposals before the compliance committee has had an opportunity to take a position on them. The rest of your letter is a set of self-serving statements with which I disagree. I will respond to several of them, however, as follows: First, I disagree with your premise. I also disagree that you added 8.3 to enable us to have a remedy in the event the District failed to develop the promised programs, policies, and procedures. I always expected to be and still expect to be involved before you all develop any new programs, policies or procedures that have anything to do with implementation of desegregation. I have never wavered from that position. That is different from monitoring with respect to compliance programs. One dealt with actual compliance and the other dealt with setting into place programs, policies and procedures that will help facilitate desegregation and reduce compliance problems in the first place. Second, you indicate that I agreed to be paid $150,000.00 for three years for monitoring. In doing so, you attempt to diminish me and beyond that you deprecate me as well by indicating that my principles are subject to purchase. I never agreed to accept $45,000-50,000 a year for monitoring. We agreed to a total settlement amount for past and future fees in the amount of $850,000.00 approximately. The $150,000.00 was simply deferred. Third, don t talk to me anymore about bad faith. You and Les Gamine totally mislead me from day one. You mislead the Court as well. You withheld data from ODM, Drs. Ross and Roberts and me. Because of that, the District is made to appear that it never had any intent to desegregate as promised. You and Clay Fendley appear to me to have schemed to evade and avoid compliance. Now, you try to make me the heavy for the poor state of compliance that you are in. Beyond that, you specifically kept me out of discussions regarding compliance and discussions with the State of Arkansas regarding loan forgiveness. The morning and night( Page 2 - Letter to Christopher Heller August 14, 2001 eating meetings which you and Les Camine had with me, of which there will be no more, were designed to placate and direct me away from the districts activities so that I would not be fully aware of the various nefarious efforts that you, Clay and Les Carnine were engineering. Fourth, you suggest that in three years we have not proposed a single program, policy or procedure by which to assist the district in meeting its obligations. This simply is wrong, but I need not address it. You now indicate that since trial I have barged into the oflaces of District administrators unannounced and uninvited and other things. You may say what you wish with respect to my activities. I do not agree, however. I notice that you have listed six people as receiving copies. Not one of those people will inform you that I have made a request that either of them verbally provide any information to me since the dont talk to Walker (letter) e-mail from you. My requests, many of which remain unanswered, have been in writing. If you think that I have breached the Judges order, specify your allegations stating the person, place, date and time and witnesses, if any. Otherwise, apologize. Fifth, you now indicate that is inappropriate for me to be personally involved in compliance committee meetings. That is a new position which is contrary to our agreement. Beyond that, it is more appropriate for me to be involved than for you and Clay because we represent the parties in quest of remedy. You both have been obstructionists and now you prevaricate. It is not enough for the policies, etc. to be presented to me at the time they are beinj presented to the Board! The idea was clear that we would work out and work through the programs, policies and procedures before they were presented to the Board in the first place. The fact that I did not appear before the Board is due to the fact that you and Les Camine materially mislead me about what was taking place in the District, withheld information and informed me of the many positive things that were happening, when in fact, they were not happening. Finally, it is evident that good faith was not in you or in the district. You mislead the Board, the community, the Court and me as well. This was the administration in action. Those administrators followed your lead! They sought to cover up, by use of slick language, noncompliance. Now your letter to me is another attempt to cloud reality and to deflect attention from the poor judgment which you and Clay made in letting this District go forward in this court proceeding at this time. You agreed that Little Rock was not ready for unitary status with the caveat that Little Rock was better than other districts and that the covenant should protect the interests of my clients. I did not agree and I told you that in January, February, March. April. May and June when I proposed to you that we delay your motion and then meet regularly, with defined obiectives. to address the problems which needed to be worked out to effectively deliver educational opportunity to black children. Instead, you deliberately chose to put me into the position of having to file objections. You made a money proposal which reflected that you thought you could buy me. You clearly dont know me! My proposal was never about money for myself. Rather, it was to address the issue with the State differently and to seek further benefits from the State that would benefit Black children rather than all children. When you say all, it is now clear that you mean non-Black children. Sure, I want adequate compensation forI Page 3 - Letter to Christopher Heller August 14, 2001 my work. You receive it and there is no public issue or discussion about it and there is no limit on your charges. 1 have readily met with you, Les Carnine and other district staff people when called upon, provided I received adequate notice, and have sought to be involved on a continual basis with the Districts purported compliance efforts. I have employed at least three people who regularly engaged in monitoring activities. That reflects good faith on our part. Your ofBce, on the other hand, has lead the District into a more racially segregated posture than it was three years ago and with all of that, you try to shift the blame onto me. Shame on you, Heller. You are supposed to be a man, not less. Your conduct, advice, actions, and crying are traditional and typical. I need say no more. Check your own fees, however, and see who benefits from continuing this case! Inasmuch as you have seen fit to copy your associate superintendents and Dr. James, in your effort to put me in my place, they are being copied with this letter as is the ODM. The question yet remains about meeting the needs of Black children. For Black children, is there no balm in [the Little Rock School District] ? Is there no physician [here]? Apparently, not. We war when we promised to make peace and to educate Black children. It cannot end until justice is delivered to those children. Sincerely, A / -\u0026lt;rohn W. Walker JWW:js cc. Dr. Ken James Ms. Ann Marshall Ms. Sadie Mitchell Mr. Junious Babbs Dr. Don Stewart Mr Brady GadberryFriday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1922-1994) WILUAM H. SUTTON. P.A. ^YRON M. EISEMAN. JR. P.A. JOE D. BELL, P.A. JAMES BUTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS, JR.. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK, JR., P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM lU. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR., P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL UI. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILUAM THOMAS BAXTER, P.A. BARRY B. COPLIN, P.A. RICHARD D. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P.A. ROBERT S. SHAPER. P.A. WILUAM M. GRIFFIN UI. P.A. MICHAEL $. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL HI. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER KEVIN CRASS. P- 400 WEST CAPITOL WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH, JR. P.A. I. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER JR. P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT, P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C GARDNER P.A. TONIA P. JONES. P.A. DAVID D. WILSON. P.A. LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 237 EAST MILLSAP, SUITE 7 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72703 TELEPHONE 501-895-2011 FAX 501-695-2147 JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GRAF. P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR.. P.A. JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO, P.A. R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.A. GREGORY D. TAYLOR. P.A. TONY L. WILCOX. P.A. PRAN C. HICKMAN. P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY. P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W. SMITH. P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT. P.A. DANIEL L. HERRINGTON. P.A. MARVIN L. CHILDERS K COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL MICHAEL E. KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. JAY T. TAYLOR IFRAH MARTIN A. KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON OF COUNSEL B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. A.D. MCALLISTER 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2896 FAX 870-762-2918 received August 9, 2001 AUG 1 5 2C0I CHRISTOPHER HELLER LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-1506 FAX 501-244-5344 baUrfc.n9t Mr. John Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 OFFICE OF desegregation MONITOfljNG gB0VS RE: LRSD V. PCSSD AUG 1 3 2001 Dear John: 1/ This letter is in response to your letter of August 2, 2001, to Dr. James requesting that you be informed of future meetings of the Comphance Committee and all proposals that relate to desegregation comphance before the Comphance Committee or the cabinet has an opportunity to take a position on them. This will also acknowledge and respond to your verbal request to attend Comphance Committee and other meetings. For the reasons set forth below, we cannot accommodate your requests. First, the Revised Plan imposes no obligation on the District to involve you in the development of programs, pohcies and procedures. During negotiations leading up to the Revised Plan, you stated that you wanted a remedy available to you should the District fail to develop the promised programs, pohcies and procedures. As a result, we agreed to add Section 8.3 of the Revised Plan. Section 8.3 provides: Comphance issues subject to enforcement in accordance with Section 8.2 shall include LRSD's implementation of the program, policies and/or procedures developed in accordance with this Revised Plan. Before the end of the transition period, LRSD shall develop and/or identify the programs, pohcies and/or procedures to be implemented in accordance with this Revised Plan and provide the to Joshua. Joshua shall have [the] right to invoke the process described in Section 8.2 if LRSD fails to adopt programs, pohcies and/or procedures required by this Revised Plan\nadopts facially deficient programs, pohcies and/or procedures\nor, fails to implementMr. John Walker August 9, 2001 Page 2 the programs, policies and/or procedures adopted in accordance with the Revised Plan.II As Section 8.3 makes clear, it was never contemplated that you would be involved in the development or identification of the programs, pohcies and procedures required by the Revised Plan. Rather, the District agreed in advance to pay you for monitoring so that you could put the District on notice of any comphance problems. You agreed that you would invoke Section 8.2 as soon as you discovered any compliance problems. The District retied upon that agreement in implementing the programs, policies and procedures outlined in the Compliance Plan and the Interim Compliance Report. Your objection to the District being declared unitary after not having invoked Section 8.2 smacks of bad faith o Sumlarly, we have no reason to believe that the purpose of your request is to work with the District in a positive, constructive manner. In three years, you have not proposed a .single program, policy or procedure. Yourrecent conduct suggests a different motive for your request. Among other things, you have barged into the offices of District admimstrators unannounced and uninvited, have threatened to embarrass\" District admimstrators, have denied receiving documents that were provided to you and have communicated with District administrators without our consent, even after Judge Wright specifically ordered you not to do so. We can only conclude that this request is being made to afford you a greater opportunity to engage in last minute discovery and to attempt to harass and intimidate District personnel. Finally, as the attorney for Joshua, we do not believe it is appropriate for you to be personally involved in meetings and policy discussions at the level requested. Every new pohcy adopted by the Board has been provided to you before being adopted, and you are on the agenda for every Board meeting. That was and is your forum to discuss policy. The fact that you rarely appeared at Board meetings over that last three years further suggests you have acted in bad faith. Moreover, most, if not all, committees within the District include a Joshua class member, even if not a representative assigned by you. The District has worked at good faith for three years to implement the Revised Plan without any significant input fi-om you, even after the Interim Compliance Report was filed. Please be assured that we will continue to do so even though we decline the request set forth in your letter of August 2. Sincerely, Christopher Heller CJH\nlkh Mr. John Walker August 9,2001 Page 3 cc: Dr. Kenneth James Ms. Ann Marshall Ms. Sadie Mitchell Mr. Junious Babbs Dr. Don Stewart Dr. Brady Gadberry10/04/01 11:20 To:Honorable Susan Webber Wright FronrClay Fendley Friday Law Firn Page 1/1 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONT (501) 376-2011 FAX NO. (501) 376-2147 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information in this facsimile transmittal is legally orivileoed and confidential information Intended only for the use of the individual or entity nanyed above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disimlnatlon, distribution or copy of the transmittal Is strictly prohibited. If you receive this transmittal In error, please Immediately notify us by telephone and return the original transmittal to us at the above address via the United States Postal Service. Thank you. Date\nTime\nPage\nTo\nFax#\n10/4/01 11\n26\n54 1 Honorable Susan Webber Wright 6045169 From\nClay Fendley Subject\nMessage\nPlaintiffs Motion for Contempt Dear Judge Wright\nIn light of your Order entered yesterday and Joshua's representation that it would comply with the Court's decision, we believe our pending Motion for Contempt is moot and hereby withdraw the motion. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely. Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol. Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 E-mail\nfendley@fec.net Direct Phone\n501-370-3323 Direct Fax\n501-244-5341lo:Ms. Ann Marshall FroB:Cldy Fendley Friday Law Firs Page 1/1 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201^493 TELEPHONE (SOI) 376-2011 FAX NO. (501)376-2147 C0NFX3EHTWJTYNOTE: The Infonnatlon In this f^nUk transmittal Is leaally luMImd and confidential Monratlon Intended gnl]^ Idr the use of the Individual ar entity named above. If the reader of this message Is not the Intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disiminatlon, distribution or copy of the transmittal Is strictly prohibited. If you receive this transmittal In error, please Immediately notlly us by telephone and return the original transmittal to us al the above address via the United Stales Postal Service. Thank you. Date: Time: Page: 10/4/01 11:20:04 1 To: Fax#: Ms. Ann Marshall 3710100 From: Clay Fendley Subject: Message: LRSD V. PCSSD - Motion for Contempt and Depositions Dear Mr. Walker: In light of the Judge's Order entered late yesterday afternoon and representation to the Co urt that will comply with her ruling, we will be withdrawing our pending Motion for Contemp t. This renders the depositions scheduled for this afternoon moot, and we have advised th ose involved that they need not appear. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 E-mail: fendley@fec.net Direct Phone: 501-370-3323 Direct Fax: 501-244-5341/C -f-e! JOHN W WAl.tn7.P SHAWN CHILDS JOHN w. Walker, P.A. ArroBNEYArLAW 1723 BKOAUwiy Rock, Arkansas 72206 TKI^HONE (601) 374.3758 PAX (601) 374-4187 Via Fax: 376-2147 kobehtiS^IS DONNaJ.McHZNTO Road Email nicheaiydswbaILaet Nir. Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Mr. Fendley: Please have the pe^o^el files f*e deposed today w.th the witnesses If you have obj ection to this, please let with Judge Wright. me know so that I can take the matter up this morning Thank you for your attention to this matter. ^iccfoly. Joi Walker JVvHA^lp cc: Ms. Arm Marshall10/08/01^ 15:04 To:Ms. Ann Marshall FroB:Clay Fendley Friday Law Firm Page 2/5 AGREEMENT FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER This Agreement arises out the Little Rock School District Desegregation case, U.S.D.C. No. LR-C-82-866. Hereinafter, \"LRSD\" shall refer to the Little Rock School District and \"Joshua\" shall refer to the Joshua Intervenors, attorney John Walker and any agents or employees of the Joshua Intervenors or attorney John Walker. LRSD and Joshua will be collectively referred to as the \"parties. IT IS HEREBY AGREED: II 1. LRSD shall make available for review correspondence, e-mails and other documents obtained from LRSD principals for the purpose of responding to Joshua's August 13, 2001, discovery request. It is understood that the documents to be provided may include student information and personnel information which the LRSD considers confidential. Accordingly, the parties agree that all correspondence, e-mails and other documents provided to Joshua in response to Joshua's August 13, 2001, discover}' request shall be considered Confidential Discovery Material and shall be used only for the purposes of the Little Rock School District desegregation case (including any appeals) and not for any other purpose whatsoever. Confidential Discover}- Material shall not be gu'en, shown, made available, or communicated in any wuy to anyone except those persons to whom it is necessary for purposes of the Little Rock School District desegregation case. 2. (a) C onfidential Discovery Material may not be disclosed to any person other than: Counsel of record of the parties to this litigation\nPage 1 of 4 I10/08/01^15:04 To:Ms. Ann Marshall Froffi:Clay Fendley Friday Law Firm Page 3/5 (b) Paralegal, clerical, and other such personnel employed or retained by, or working under the supervision of, counsel of record of the parties to this litigation. (C) Consultants or expert witnesses (as defined in Fed. R. Civ, P. 26(b)) engaged by counsel of Joshua\n(d) The Court and court personnel\nand (e) An other person or entity as to whom counsel for LRSD agrees in A\\Titmg, or whom the Court directs shall have access to such infonmatinn Counsel for Joshua may disclose Confidential Discovery' Material to the class representative only to the extent that disclosure is necessary in order for counsel for Joshua to understand the meaning or context of the Confidential Discovery Material and only after counsel for Joshua has made a good faith attempt to understand the document without assistance from the class representative. Counsel for Joshua shall provide LRSD's counsel with wTitten notice identifying documents which have been disclosed to the class representative within ten (10) days of disclosure. 3. All persons to whom Confidential Discovery Material is disclosed or by whom Confidential Discovery Material is used, shall be informed of and agree to be bound by the terms of this Agreement and shall take all necessaiy' precautions to prevent any disclosure or use of Confidential Discovery' Material other than as authorized by this Agreement and shall agree to submit to the personal jurisdiction of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, on any issue relating to compliance with the Agreement. Counsel subject to this Agreement shall take all reasonable steps necessary to advise any person to whom Confidential Discovery Page 2 of 410/08/01 15:04 To:Ms. Ann Marshall FrorarClay Fendley Friday Law Firm Page 4/5 Material may be disclosed, or by whom it may be used, of the terms of this Agreement and, in addition, before disclosure of any Confidential Discovery Material, shall obtain from any person described in subparagraphs 2(b), 2(c), and 2(d) herein a wntten affidavit of acknowledgment that such person has reviewed a copy of this Agreement and will comply with its terms in all respects. Such original signed affidavits shall be retained by counsel of record and a copy provided to opposing counsel within seven (7) days of execution. 4. If Joshua wants to use Confidential Discover}' Material for a purpose other than the Little Rock School District desegregation case, the Confidential Discover} Material at issue shall be treated as Confidential Discover}^ Material until LRSD agrees in writing that the information and/or documents may be used for another purpose or the United State District Court presiding over the Little Rock School District desegregation case issues an order authorizing Joshua to use the information and/or documents for another purpose. 5. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent Joshua from producing any document or intormation in his, her, or its possession in response to a lawful subpoena or other compulsory process\nprovided that notice shall be given to LRSD at least fourteen (14) business days prior to the return date of the subpoena or other compulsory process, or, if the subpoena or other compulsory process has a return date of less than fourteen (14) days, notice shall be given to LRSD in writing or by telephone as soon as possible but in no event later than forty eight (48) hours prior to the return date. Page 3 of 410/08/01 15:04 To:Ms. Ann Marshall From.Clay Fendley Friday Law Firm Page 5/5 6. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed as a waiver by LRSD of any privilege, a waiver of its right to object to production of information or documents on the basis that said information is not subject to discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or of its right to object to the introduction of information or documents into evidence. 7. Within ninety (90) days after the conclusion of hearings on Joshua's objection to LRSD being released from Court supervision, all Confidential Discovery Material and documents containing or reflecting information designated as Confidential Discovery Material, including but not limited to copies, summaries and excerpts, shall be returned to LRSD or at the option of LRSD all such Confidential Discover}' Material shall be certified as having been destroyed, provided that counsel may retain their work product, copies of court filings and official transcripts and exhibits, provided that the Confidential Discovery Material contained therein will continue to be treated as provided herein. 8. This Agreement be effective immediately upon execution by the parties and shall survive the conclusion of this litigation. 9. The parties agree to file a joint motion for cntr\\' of a protective order consistent with the terms of this Agreement. John C. Fendley, Jr. Attorney for LRSD John W. Walker Attorney for Joshua DATED\nDATED: Page 4 of 410/08/01 15:04 To:Ms. Ann Marshall FroiB:Clay Fendley Friday Law Fir Page 1/5 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A LBUTED LIABILm PARTNERSHIP ATTORNEYS AT LAW lOOO REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. .ARKANSAS \"MOl-JAM TELEPHONE (501) 376-2011 FAX NO. (501)376-2147 CONFIDEKTtMJTY NOTE: The information in Ms facsimile transmittal Is legally anvileoed anti conMemlal Information intendeitonly lor the use of the Indhndual or entity nameOabaie. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby nolifled that any disiminatlon, distribution or copy of the transmittai Is strlctty prohibited. If you receive this transmittal in error, please Immediately notify us by telephone and return the original transmittal to us at the above address via the United States Postal Service. Thanh you. Date: Time: Pages: 10/8/01 15:03:42 5 To: Fax #: Ms. Ann Marshall 3710100 From: Clay Fendley Subject: Message: E-mails Dear Mr. Walker: We have ready for your review the e-mails of principals through March 15, 2001. There ar e a total of 5454 e-mails. We will make them available for your review on a computer in ou r office. Please call and let me know when you want to begin reviewing the e-mails. I am attaching the Agreement for Protective Order which you agreed to sign at the Octobe r 2, 2001, hearing. Please bring the signed agreement with you when you come to review the e-mails. We appreciate your cooperation. Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 E-mail: f6ndley@fec.net Direct Phone: 501-370-3323 Direct Fax: 501-244-5341I I xua y taw I XI (It raye j./i FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNEliSIIir ATTORxNEYS AT LAW 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS \"2201-3493 TELEPHONE (501) 376-2011 FAX NO. (501)376-2147 CONFIDEHTIAUTY NOTE: The information in this facsimile transmittal is legally orivileoed and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message Is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disimlnatlon, distribution or copy of the transmittal is strictly prohibited. If you receive this transmittal in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original transmittal to us at the above address via the United States Postal Service. Thank you. Bate: T ime: Page: 10/09/01 14:49 1 To: Fax: Ms. Ann Marshall 3710100 From: Clay Fendley Subject:FOIA of Board Minutes Message: Dear Mr. Walker: We have complete set of Board minutes in our office which we can make available for you review at your convenience. a Sincerely, Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Little E-mail: Direct Direct Capitol, Suite 2000 Rock, AR 72201 f endley@f ec.net Phone: Fax: 501-370-3323 501-244-53410,1 '* 71/|eZX.j 1 ) John w. Walker, P.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile - 324-2146 October 16, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, PA. donna J. McHenry 8210 Hendbkson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (601) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mcheiiryd^wbell.net Dr. T. Kenneth James Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED OCT i 9 2001 Dear Dr. James: QfflCtOf DEsestEOAnoiiiytofii^ I am in receipt ofDr. Linda Watsons letter dated October S  her 11 onm j\n-.,  T,- , 5, 2001 m response to mine of compliance issues at Rightsell and Stephens schools In that we we are requestmg that this matter be referred to the ODM as September 11, 2001 regardinj'g are not satisfied with the response, provided by the plan. Please let me hear from your by return mail Sinperely, John W. Walker JWW:js Enclosures cc: Dr. Linda Watson Mr. Junious Babbs Ms. Ann Marshall Mr. Clay Fendley John w. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501). 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Corrected Copy Via Facsimile - 324-2146 September 11, 2001 OF counsel ROBERT McHENRY, PA. DONNA J. McHENEY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenrydl^wbelLnet Dr. Kenneth James Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. James: new This is to advise that I attended a conference and made a monitoring visit today at the Stephens School where Ms. Sharon Brooks is the principal. I am once again disturbed about my findings regarding Ms. Brooks treatment of black boys. Ms. Sadie Mitchell and Ms. Frances Cawthon Jones should recall that I contacted them after school started last year to bring to their attention complaints that I had received regarding Ms. Brooks treatment of black boys at Rightsell Elementary. She effectively suspended the boys in Ms. Irbys first grade class for more than two months when she separated the boys from the girls and placed them with Ms. Tims and Mr. Harris who were not certified teachers. During a conference today, I learned that Ms. Brooks gave a four year old black male student a ten day suspension for the offense of a false alarm. Her punishment of this child was harsher than the punishment recommended for students in grades K-5 for the same offense. Ms. Brooks provided the parent with her right to appeal, however, she attempted to renege on the parents right to appeal by not allowing the child to remain in school. Ms. Brooks provided the parent with a suspension notice that indicated the child remain in school upon appeal. Rather than allow him to continue his regular educational opportunities as provided by the appeals procedure, Ms. Brooks placed the student in in-school suspension pending further appeal. We believe her actions are not only retaliatory, but they also violate the revised plan. We are, therefore, invoking the process with respect to Ms. Brooks treatment of black boys while at Rightsell and her current actions at Stephens citing Sections 2.1\n2.5\n2.5.1\n2.5.4\n2.8, 2.12, 2.12.2, and 2.13 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. The names of the parents and students at Right sell may be obtained from the classroom roll of Ms. Irby and their PEFs and the names of the parties involved at Stephens are identified in a letter written by Ms. Springer to Dr. Watson on yesterday, September 10, 2001.Thank you for your attention to this request. icereJ 1 i^ictated but not read John W. Walker JWW:js co: Ms. Ann Marshall  Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Junious Babbs Ms. Sadie Mitchell Ms. Frances Cawthon Jones St 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 __________ Phone: (501)324-2170 E-mail: lwatson@alc.lrsd.kl2.ar.us LINDA WATSON, Ed. D. ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT __________ STUDENT DISCIPLINE Fax: (501) 324-0536 October 5,2001 John W, Walker, P. A. Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Dear Mr. Walker: -- - XT I 1 2001 1/ I am writing to respond to your letter dated September 11, 2001. I forwarded a letter to Mrs. Springer, dated September 15, 2001, which stated that the situation with the four-year old student had been resolved since the students 10-day suspension'was modified to a two-day suspension. Stephens 2000 2001 and Rightsells 1999  2000 annual discipline numbers were reviewed before the beginning of this school year. Mrs. Brooks has addressed discipline in her school unprovement plan and will be working towards decreasing the number of suspensions. We are aware that starting a new program is sometimes difficult when students are adjusting to a new administration and different expectations. Please note that Rightsell.s suspensions dropped once, the expectations for student behaviors had been established and implemented. Also, Rightsells academics and test scores improved greatly once the students were aware of the expectations. We believe the same will happen at Stephens. If you have further questions, feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Dr. Linda Watson C\nDr. Ken James, Superintendent Jumous Babbs, Associate Superintendent Attorney Clay Fendley John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Fax: 376-2147 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY. P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  F.ax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd@swbeU.net October 16,2001 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, .Arkansas 72201 Dear Mr. Heller: Please find enclosed our listing of witnesses, the subject areas of their testimony and our exhibits. I have previously informed the Court that at this next proceeding I am not inclined to call any additional witnesses on the two primary issues before the Court at this point, i.e., evaluations and discipline. They both, however, relate to the issue of remediation of achievement disparities of Afidcan American students. Please be advised that I will be asking the Court for rebuttal time to your case in an amount which is sufficient to address issues that you may seek to interject for the first time. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sipcerely, W. 5^er JWW:lp Enclosures cc: Honorable Susan Webber Wright All Counsel Ms. .Ann Marshall IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V, NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. LET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS 1. JOSHUA INTERVENORS SUPPLEMENTAL WITNESS AND EXHIBIT LISTS I Witness List The Joshua Intervenors respectfully give notice to the school district that it will possibly call the following witnesses: 1) school board members Berkley, Mitchell, Magness, Strickland and Rose (depositions have been taken)\nDr. Daughtery, Mr. Kurrus and Ms. Magness are on record with their tape recorded statements before the school board\n2) the ODM Monitors (Ms. Marshall, Mr. Jones, Ms. Powell) will discuss their reports and findings and will share opinions which have been professionally formed\n3) Mr. Ray Simon, State Superintendent of Education (Mr. Simon will address the manner in which the State was persuaded to abandon a key provision of the Settlement Agreement by LRSD officials and state political leaders)\n4) Dr. Terrence Roberts and Dr. Steve Ross (will discuss their involvement or5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) noninvolvement in development of policies, programs and procedures, evaluations and remediation of achievement disparities)\nMs. Estelle Mathis, former Associate and Acting Superintendent of Schools, LRSD, will address the district's commitment to use and the actual use and results of national standardized tests in evaluating remediation of student achievement disparities\nthe school principal of each school in the LRSD (by agreement Joshua will limit the numbers of principals who may be presented to the Court). These principals will be called for sure: Mr. Howard, Central\nMr. Smith, Hall\nMr. Carter, McClellan\nMs. Brooks, Stephens, Ms. Cox, Baseline\nMr. Mosby, Southwest\nMr. Saine, ALC\nMr. Oliver, Watson\nand several vice principals from Hall, notably Mr. Wade and Mr. Moore. These principals will address remediation and discipline. district administrators Gadberry, Briggs, Frances Jones, Ed Williams and Everett Hawks will address programs, facilities and evaluations\nDr. John Flxiker, will provide an analyst of data over time which addresses the issues raised in the ODM reports, the State Department of Education reports and the district's own reports regarding the effects of remediation. Dr. John Nuimery and Ms. Kay Rainey, persons identified by Dr. Bonnie Lesley as Program Evaluators, will address program evaluations\nparents Donna Stone, Marion Humphrey, Pam Mercer and Deodis Fleming and teachers, Michael Faucett and LaVanna Wilson and Nona Whitaker will address discipline and remediation according to their personal knowledge.Exhibit List The Joshua Intervenors do not anticipate introducing any additional exhibits except school board minutes and recorded statements by school board members Magness, Strickland, Kurrus and Daughtery. Joshua reserve the right to supplement the exhibit list before trial after reviewing the emails of the district which have not been completed by undersigned counsel. Joshua also reaffirms that it will rely upon ODM reports, which are already before the Court, regarding discipline and student achievement. Respectfully submitted. . JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (Tel.) (501) 374-4187 (Fax) , ( By: Joh /, : Walker, Bar No. 64046 Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the following counsel or record, postage prepaid on this /^^ay of November, 2001. Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock. .AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, .Arkansas 72201 I Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of .Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock. .AR 72201 / Jo\nW.Walker iDins. ttnn ndrsnaix rromzLiay rendley Friday Law Firm Fage 1/1 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A L1^U^ ED HABILI l Y PARTNEHSHIP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 REGIONS CENTER 4fl WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE (501) 376-2011 FAX NO. (.\"101) SltllAT CONFiDENTiAUTY NOTE: The informatktn in (his facsimiie transmittal is legaiiy otiviietted and conOdendai information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disimination. distribution or copy of the transmittai is strictly prohibited, if you receive this transmittal in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original transmittal to us at the above address via the Urrited States Postal Service. Thanh you. Date: Time: Page: 10/24/01 14:46:50 1 To\nFax#\nMs. Ann Marshall 3710100 From: Clay Fendley Subject: Message: LRSD V. PCSSD Dear Mr. Walker\nPlease advise on what dates next week the Joshua class representative can be made avail able for deposition. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 E-mail: fendlGy@fec.net Direct Phone: 501-370-3323 Direct Fax: 501-244-5341(Kev, 1/aO)  kKSn EXHIBITS jjections Identification date 6/ No. Rulings Pc. ss C\\ VS. description .^ffer/Rec'dyJfl ' C.JC au U5 Cf. bbb cyl 44g - C)(l cyl (,no I I Ofl b,'ii Cxi 45^ ex i 6 CxI C.^'S CK. U'}L, I Icy ^TT , a Uig I Cl (a'19 g g 1^2 I I LXSD E. S kRSP EterKCri) u I* uRsn IRSO  Li u\n\u0026lt; I  I Ut^SP f, It It causeno7~^ ^vtseJ Jill Iiii-2xk3o Xooa LRso hvxUl^ Lt^so ll n It It l 5-Oo ^C-lnfld/s - P^'me.i pals' I t^s4-t j-U-t-Ct $gto.. n-3t-\u0026lt;5e kKSO iXeywQ It, U-s-T? Pr-.Adu C\u0026gt;ue P, ^\u0026lt;x:gs^ A-vf ftssk Phtt^ttp\u0026lt;| Die.PrdgSg T\" 15-1? 4- S ii^^cats^LBacduLs_6:\u0026lt;M4filL!ifi\u0026lt;i. EPfeeVive.. Disctpkkej______________ ki\u0026gt;\\Ja Lt^fl.4-g~on rvu^M Vt? Ll^3P OiSciprrtt^ri P^dLAg^g mcftl__Re^arl lRSP  I It t' 0 t-KSQ Jl Ikf\\e*. */ou/ ta (RiitXDeh) ----- EXHIBITS ejections DATE No. Identification Rulings Offer/Rec'd) I I I1L^-6 Sa\u0026lt; CjC cy C,g4 CxI -C^ 6g^ Lex Ml -CXi 691 qx C-'f. w Ci. I vs. ot- 0.1 description 4-0 .er- Op, l\u0026lt;^Ap\u0026lt;art M e ma Vft C.ile\u0026lt;p/, LPt5 0 Ij-f. ALVACVoafAZ cause NO. r?-34\u0026gt; ^nareL O, ula.4sart Oi^cipiiwe. S\u0026lt;|ke\u0026lt;K Si u-3i-q2 Ujrwttuafy 4ak\u0026lt;U t-^-OI idt^P Flta.ent.u-y Cji.rUf a-J-it-.H - PtnH t-Rsp .Jh\u0026amp; rnz? fa^^1 ti-liet' .L Lear.',. ypd 'riS* ra^r^-^ S^j-kli-^O ^q-od t Ml \u0026lt;3a al Fp\u0026lt;\u0026gt;^rAwv E UaIu.a4 la rt fklnick. CluU 41-oa i \"jLilSO de-e I USO -l^S^rnta4 itv\\ re: -Hmer. Ac.kvcMeit' ex LfeSQ  Cof*mund4-id3 1j\u0026lt;\u0026amp; fees! Prafc4-icec CK C4\\ ql LlL_z^ I I Lg-SO uso LfcSt\\ LJtSP t)g.so n ! - PpA\u0026lt;U-ie-e - Curr /H4^-keM.a4-igS j Sg.ie\u0026gt;^c.e icul^fam. [iHsVracl.ari ftssgS5\nkxg^i- F(a ^SgSS\u0026gt;w.fc\\-V- ^foeessgs CiS.se\u0026gt;n*t ^aV^a^ fi (ig\u0026lt;:rKStne^i Resuli-S 1 A\u0026lt;aai - ^rg^rg-VA EoalualtoA(Kev. 1/80)  t Ij I j-.S (Rlit/DefO -------- EXHIBITS )j ections date No. Identification Rulings Offer/Rec'd) C)( I ^0^ 5 C\\C Q '6 I vs. description Li\u0026lt;SD u?.s tRse \" L^SO '* tr^sQ CK 'lio Ilksd \" c-yl nil Li^sn \" na cyl TI3 ^^4L211 tt Brii \u0026lt;* .S4-uA.^F Pfec4f^\nUlK I Pre CAUSE NO. - /\u0026gt;la.4-K j Sci dice ^ck p\u0026gt;\nv t ipC4V K^l fi u^so kfcSD LRSD /A\u0026lt;m6 Wor\\ C u i I I ) S vJun * Ui!  Cra\u0026lt;R.4-V-u, ateJ Pfa i  ' * - E Sckools -______/J t^k -Sg.kjotj f\u0026gt;rarai^a^4__________ -urrig.lu.wq OaccLi\u0026gt;\u0026gt;...e^4s ^^''l-ttSe ~l~a ISoai-el E~4u li-^-Cl -----------------------oV l3\u0026gt;rUxg|p.\u0026gt;U La.'tgh4:s a)C nn a-f Cg\u0026gt;ergt D\u0026gt;g __ini'eK/J ^reKv^eq.sg. 4- .^-KI ^l'=l kxSC E\u0026gt;o.xrda-fEJ ^^\u0026lt;251 ucgl-idw I -4- t 'I 6\u0026gt;%\u0026amp; j^UVMmer- ScliOdl ^\u0026lt;SO0 ]__.\\\u0026gt;aluq-Vi o I C)c! 'li.Ti I \u0026gt; Oi^ _it lEf'j__PiojrfUws 5-^-0/ ^\u0026gt;0\"g3L\u0026lt;Kev. l/ao)  JI LK-sn ejections DATE (Plft/Deft} EXHIBITS vs. No. Identification Rtiliiigs 'Offer/Rec'd) B-ao-D| C{ ^^4 1 description ^Av\\pu3 Le,gJ.rski'|J IcLA caus^Tno. raya^ Dra.p-f' ^-IS-i Al-J-tzr. t\u0026amp;Wj-Atn. A nVikrf.,Mc.^4 FttAkeUaH in.g 4-riJr*t Di\nia..vs fla-kej g-ll-i} niz) \u0026lt;^| \\ \u0026gt;Z^v f. 4-a 6kaj-/gy Lj4:i-r^ 5-xx-po S4u i Per, t On 'k J A, ifckoo i I c/ I I ^31 -----4-0 60 ,--------------------------------------------------VJ n3:x ^33 USD C\u0026lt;lm,pt\u0026lt;,s U j^SQ 0|d^ Pe^,\n-4-c^ ski 3^-1*? n sk.'k e ^=5^------'^^'1 l^cUxoal kj3rfl/ow.^4 Pla.\nF\\ppra\u0026gt;sJ Is. Ans. kaa' 1 - a \u0026lt;^x: dj'/A To prd/*\u0026lt;v*.\\p PlaaS Sc.(\\a^l Qaa.t~^i i -^^0____S-ksk^e, Bev,e..k fOnL/l\u0026lt;g.r fc\u0026gt;\u0026lt;5re ^krsal I Q I 1^/ I DHAr' k._ LRSO gft.-T c-t: 11is El.lni. -4- S I i ecancjarsj Ctv sFriday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEL H FRIDAY 119221994) WILLIAM H SUTTON. P A BYRON M EISEMAN. JR , P a JOE 0 BELL. P A JAMES A aUTTRY. P A FREDERICKS URSERY. P A OSCAR E DAVIS. JR . P A JAMES C CLARK. JR . P A THOMAS P LEGGETT, P A JOH.N DEWEY WATSON. P A PAUL B BENHAM ill. P A LARRY W BURKS. P A A WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR . P A JAMES EDWARD KARRIS. P A I PHILLIP MALCOM. P A JAMES M SIMPSON. P A JAMES M SAXTON. P A J SHEPHERD RUSSELL III. P A. DONALD H BACON, P A WILLIA.M THOMAS BAXTER. P A BARRY E COPLIN. P A RICHARD D TAYLOR. P A JOSEPH B HURST. JR . P A ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P A CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P A LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P A ROBERT S SHAFER. P A WILLIAM M GRIFFIN HI. P A MICHAEL S MOORE. P A DIANE S MACKEY. P A Walter m ebel hi. p a KEVIN A CRASS. P A WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. M GAYLE CORLEY. P A ROBERT B BEACH. JR . P A J LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR . P A HARRY A LICHT. P A SCOTT H TUCKER. P.A GUY ALTON WADE. P A PRICE C GARDNER. P A TONIA P JONES. P A DAVID D WILSON. P A ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayfjrm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 601-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE. SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72703-4811 TELEPHONE 501-685-2011 FAX 501-695-2147 JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GRAF. P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINKOUR. P.A. JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR.. P.A JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO. P A. R CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.A. GREGORY D. TAYLOR. P.A. TONY L. WILCOX, P.A FRAN C. HICKMAN. P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY. P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON, P.A. JAMES W. SMITH. P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT. P.A. DANIEL L. HERRINGTON. P.A. MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR ALLISON J CORNWELL ELLEN M OWENS JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL MICHAEL E. KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KARENS HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON PHILIP B. MONTGOMERY KRISTENS. RIGGINS ALAN C. BRYAN orCOUNSEL B S CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. A.D. MCALLISTER 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-782-2898 FAX 870-762-2918 November 1, 2001 CHRISTOPHER HELLER LITTLE ROCK TEL S01-370-1S0* FAX 501-244-S344 halltrOftc.nat Hand Delivered Mr. John Walker received JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 NOV 2 2001 Re: LRSD V. PCSSC OFFICE OF desegregation MONITOSIKQ Dear John: Enclosed is our Exhibit and Witness List for the November 19-20, 2001 hearing. Yours very truly, Christopher Heller I CJH^k Enclosures cc: Clay Fendley all counsel1. Dr. Bonnie Lesley 2. Dr. Leslie V. Gamine 3. Dr. Ken James 4. Dr. Linda Watson 5. Sadie Mitchell 6. James Washington 7. Dr. Kathy Lease 8. Jo Evelyn Elston 9. Dr. Steven Ross 10. Dr. Katherine Mitchell 11. Michael Daugherty 12. Judy Magness 13. H. Baker Kurrus 14. Larry Berkley 15. Tony Rose 16. Sue Strickland 17. Jonathan Lupton 18. Doug Murray 19. David Yarberry/Pattie Allen 20. Dr. Don Roberts F.\\J10ME\\BRENDAK'Jnd\\des-un)iary-wit-iist-11-19-01 wpd LRSD Witness List November 19-20, 2001 21. 22. received NOV 2 ?eoi WSffiREBAWJffiffligjjiig The Joshua class representative(s) and monitors Any witness listed by Joshua.* w - RECEIVED Exhibit No. 1.: 1. 2. 3. LRSD EXHIBIT LIST FOR NOVEMBER 19-20, 2001 NOV 2 2001 OfflSOF KSBSHESAnaSiOTOT LRSD Notebook of Information on Communications about African American Achievement. Memorandum to selected staff from Bonnie Lesley, Aug. 18, 1998, setting up meeting to review Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and specifically to discuss need to open access and ensure success of African Americans in Advanced Placement courses Memorandum to selected staff from Bonnie Lesley, Aug. 27, 1998, following up on the August 26 meeting with list of assignments and possible program strands to use in planning Memorandum to selected staff from Bonnie Lesley, Sept. 18, 1998, on K-12 Talent Development\nadded Elorace Smith to committee on AP\nattached several articles relating to minorities in AP courses A. B. C. The Canary in the Mine: The Achieivement Gap Between Black and White Students by Mano Singham from September 1998 Kappan The Philadelphia Partnership: Improving College Access and Retention Among Minority and Low-Income Students by Steven Ender, et al in the Summer 1998 issue of The College Board Review. Some articles about the Talent Development Middle School model researched by Mona Briggs. 4. Copy of an article from The American Prospect, September/October 1998 distributed to staff, The Black-White Test Score Gap, by Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips. 5. Copy of an article distributed to staff from Education Week, Sept. 9, 1998, Bridging the Remediation Gap\nWhy We Must (and How We Can) Align K-12 Standards with College Placement by Michael Kirst. 6. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to secondary principals, December 16, 1998, urging them to convene a staff committee to determine ways to enroll as many students as possible in the Pre-AP and AP courses\nspecific reference to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 7. Memorandum to principals from Bonnie Lesley, Feb. 8, 1999, on high expectations with attached article from ERIC, Expectations for Students. 1- 8. Memorandum to principals from Boimie Lesley, Feb. 12, 1999, on the importance of building relationships between teachers and students for improved student achievement\narticle attached, Working with Students and Adults from Poverty by Ruby Payne. 9. Memorandum to high school principals, counselors, and registrars from Bonnie Lesley, Aug. 27, 1999Administrative Directive: High School Curriculum\nsection on Equity, with specific references to section 2.6 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and the importance of curriculum access. 10. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley in September 1, 1999, Learning Links on Teaching ALL the Kids\nattached article by Adela Solis, Extending Advanced Skills Instruction into the Education of Disadvantaged Students 11. Memorandum from Boimie Lesley in September 22, 1999, Learning Links celebrating the big jump in numbers of students earning a 3 or above on the Advanced Placement examinations\nattached tables. 12. Memorandum in October 13, 1999, Learning Links on Getting Smart and attaching an article, Making American Smarter: A Centurys Assumptions About Inate Ability Give Way to a Belief in the Power of Effort, by Lauren Resnick. 13. Memorandum to selected staff from Bonnie Lesley, November 10, 1999, reconvening the K-12 Talent Development Committee to work on a local adaptation of Project AVID, in collaboration with Dr. Terrence Roberts\nspecific references to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\nsummary of initiatives already implemented\netc. 14. Memorandum to principals from Bonnie Lesley in December 1, 1999, Learning Links recommending transition strategies from one level of schooling to another to improve academic achievement. A. Summer Programs Help Students Adjust to Key Transition Points B. When Standards Fails 15. Article in December 1, 1999, Learning Links: Teaching AP European History in a Multiethnic Setting for principals 16. Memorandum in January 26, 2000, Learning Links with attached article, Why Every Child in America Deserves a School Where She/He is Known and Valued by Davis Marshak. 17. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to high school principals and other staff, Jan. 24, 2000, attaching an article on College Freshmen Bored by High School Senior Year. 218. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley in February 9, 2000, Learning Links on how to improve student achievement\nattached article, Improving Chicagos Schools 19. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to Division of Instruction and Cabinet, March 9, 2000, attaching an article by Anne Quindlen from Newsweek on The Best High Schools and the importance of challenging courses. 20. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to staff, March 16, 2000, relating to placing into the budget needed funds for the administration of the Pre-AP and AP programs. 21. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley in March 22, 2000, Learning Links on the importance of students taking challenging courses\nattached article from Southern Regional Education Board, Good News, Bad News and Actions for Helping II Students Complete a Challenging Program of Study. 22. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to selected staff, April 12, 2000, inviting us to hear Dr. Andrew Billingsley speak on The Black Family. 23. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to middle and high school staff in April 19, 2000, Learning Links on attendance at the Administrators AP Conference\nreference to Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 24. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley in May 3, 2000, Learning Links encouraging participation in Dr. Terrence Roberts training on Learning to Cope with Differences and attaching a reading list that might be helpful. 25. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley in May 3, 2000, Learning Links related to Project AVID\nattached article by Mary Catherine Swanson, Education for the New Millennium. 26. E-mail from Bormie Lesley to various staff. May 4, 2000, with rationale for changes in the graduation requirements and the importance of high expectations for all students. 27. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley in May 17, 2000, Learning Links on equity\nattached article, We Should Not Kid Ourselves: Excellence Requires Equity, by Bradley Scott. 28. E-mail from Les Camine to staff, July 25, 2000, with attached article, Is the Test Score Gap Really Color Based? by William Bainbridge. 29. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to high school curriculum staff, Aug. 11, 2000, with attached article on Advanced Placement, Not Exclusion. 30. Memorandum to Associate Superintendents, September 11, 2000, from Bonnie Lesley on the role of counselors in enhancing academic achievement. 331. Memorandum to selected staff from Bonnie Lesley, October 2, 2000, with copy of a self-assessment instruction, Bridging the Gap: Self-Assessment Instrument developed by the Mackenzie Group, Washington, DC. 32. Memorandum to principals from Bonnie Lesley, October 2, 2000, with attached report, Dispelling the Myth\nHigh Poverty Schools Exceeding Expectations. 33. Memorandum to principals in November 1, 2000, Learning Links on stereotype research and attaching an article by Claude Steele, Stereotype Threat and the Test Performance of Academically Successful African Americans, from the book. The Black-White Test Score Gap by Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips\nreference to Terrence Roberts. 34. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to NSF team, Nov. 16, 2000, advising them of the purchase of the video-tapes from the Columbus meeting for NSF participants on Bridging the Gap. 35. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to selected staff, Nov. 20, 2000, advising them of the importance of successful implementation of the IB programs at Cloverdale Middle and McClellan High if the magnet grant got funded. 36. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to Les Camine, Nov. 20, 2000, with rationale for building in incentives for African American students to take challenging courses\nreferences the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 37. E-mail from Suzi Davis to a parent, Dec. 5, 2000, with an explanation of the criteria for placement of students in advanced courses and the differentiated curriculum for Pre-AP at the middle school level. 38. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to the Board of Education, Dec. 14, 2000, proposing changes in the graduation requirements, with rationale\nreferences to equity and the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Exhibit No. 2.: LRSD Notebook of Information on Communicating Best Practices. 1. Memorandum to Division of Instruction, Sept. 18, 1998, establishing procedures for the publication of Learning Links, a weekly publication for principals from the Division. Literacy 1. Memorandum to selected staff from Bonnie Lesley, Aug. 26, 1998, on development of the literacy plan\nattached article, Urban School Development: Literacy as a Lever for Change. 4s . 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Memorandum to middle school principals in Dec. 9, 1998, Learning Links with references to three books providing the research base for the middle school ReadingAVriting Workshop program. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to principals in Jan. 6, 1999, Learning Links with suggested books that outline best practices in the development of literacy. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to middle school principals in Jan. 13, 1999, Learning Links advising them of multiple copies of books they will receive on best practice in teaching middle-level literacy. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to principals in Jan. 21, 1999, Learning Links on potential programs to remediate reading problems. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to elementary principals in July 21, 1999, Learning Links advising them they will receive an additional book on development of literacy. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to middle and high school principals in August 4, 1999, Learning Links relating to remediating reading problems at the secondary level\nattached article from Harvard Education Letter, Johnny Still Cant Read? Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to middle school principals in Aug. 25, 1999, Learning Links on teacher participation in training and on strategies for developing vocabulary\nattached article, Six Whole Class Vocabulary Strategies for the Content Areas by Hanus, et al and Teaching Vocabulary in the Subject Areas by Karen Wood. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to middle school principals in September 1, 1999, Learning Links on teaching reading to students performing at the lowest levels\nattached articles. A. B. C. D. E. A research synthesis on what works in restructuring urban middle school reading and writing programs. Reading Comprehension Instruction for At-Risk Students: Research- Based Practices that Can Make a Difference Teaching Them All to Read: Results of a Nationwide Study of Successful Literacy Programs for Young Adolescents Alternatives to More of the Same for Poor Readers' Students at Risk: The Slow Reader in the Middle Grades 510. Memorandum to SEA principals from Bonnie Lesley, Nov. 15, 1999, on evaluation research on SEA\nattached article, Success for All: A Summary of Evaluations by Jeanne Weiler. 11. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley in Nov. 17, 1999, Learning Links on early literacy\nsummary of research on what works in high-poverty schools\ncharacteristics of effective teachers\nattached article, Study Details Effectiveness of High-Poverty Schools in Reading Education During Early Grades from Michigan State University. 12. Memorandum to principals in Dec. 8, 1999, Learning Links from Bonnie Lesley on how to teach vocabulary\nattached article, Making Vocabulary Development Manageable in Content Instruction by Katherine Misulis. 13. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to elementary principals, Dec. 17, 1999, requesting information on the implementation of Animated Literacy at the kindergarten level. 14. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to elementary and middle school principals, Jan. 11, 2000, with suggestions for the next years Title I budget\npotential changes in SPA. 15. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to elementary principals in Jan. 12, 2000, Learning Links with research on Direct Instruction and Success for All\nattached article, Prepackaged School Reform by Jay Mathews. 16. Memorandum to elementary principals and brokers in Mar. 22, 2000, Learning Links on research-based reading program\nattached research summary, Improving the Reading Achievement of Americas Children: 10 Research- Based Principles. 17. Memorandum to high school principals in Apr. 12, 2000, Learning Links on the research base for the ninth grade English I Workshop program\nattached chapter from Best Practice: New Standards for Teaching and Learning in Americas Schools. 18. E-mail from Kathy Lease to middle and high school principals. May 30, 2000, advising caution in using only one set of data to make decisions about program changes. 19. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to reading staff. Mar. 19, 2000, on evaluating the content of the professional development program for teaching reading. 20. Memorandum to Suzi Davis and Barbara Brandon, March 26, 2000, asking them to develop a program to address needs of middle and high school students with low performance in reading. 621. Research Report, Every Child Reading: A Professional Development Guide, November 2000 22. Research base for Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) 23. Report: Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas, General Information. 24. Research Report from Educational Research Service, How Children Learn: What Cognitive Research Tells Us About Effective Instruction. 25. Research Report from NCREL, Meaningful, Engaged Learning and Components of a Learner-Active, Technology Infused Classroom: What It Looks Like. 26. Research Report from National Reading Panel, Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction. April 2000. 27. Whats the Big Idea? Integrating Young Adult Literature in the Middle School, from the January 2001 English Journal. 28. To Grammar or Not to Grammar: That Is NOT the Question, from Voices from the Middle: Contextualizing Grammar by Constance Weaver, Carol McNally, and Sharon Moerman. 29. Just the Facts: Research and Theory about Grammar Instruction, from Voices from the Middle: Contextualizing Grammar by Constance Weaver, Carol McNally, and Sharon Moerman. 30. Developing Students Textual Intelligence Through Grammar, from Voices from the Middle: Contextualizing Grammar by Constance Weaver, Carol McNally, and Sharon Moerman. 31. The Evolution of Middle Schools by Paul George in December 2000 Education Leadership. 32. Holding Sacred Ground: The Impact of Standardization by Carl Glickman in December 2000 Education Leadership. 33. Response to Literature as a Cultural Activity, Reading Research Quarterly, January/ February/March 2000. 34. Reading AloudAre Students Ever Too Old? from Education World. Memorandum from Dennis Glasgow to secondary science teachers, Jan. 11, 1999, on ninth grade physics implementation. 7Exhibit No. 3: LRSD Notebook of Information on Best Practice in Curriculum and Instruction. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Memorandum to selected staff from Bonnie Lesley, Aug. 26, 1998, with attached excerpt from book by Douglas Reeves (ADE consultant on implementation of Smart Start), Making Standards Work: How to Implement Standards-Based Assessments in the Classroom. School, and District. Memorandum to principals in Oct. 28, 1998, Learning Links information about a recommended book. Best Practice: New Standards for Teaching and Learning in Americas Schools. Memorandum to principals in Nov. 11, 1998, Learning Links\nattached speech by Hayes Mizell, Principals as Leaders in Standards-Based Reform. Memorandum to staff in Aug. 11, 1999, Learning Links on a new publication^ Taking Responsibility for Ending Social Promotion. Memorandum in Aug. 18, 1999, Learning Links on curriculum standards\nattached article, Realizing the Promise of Standards-Based Education. Letter to McRel Institute, Sept. 16, 1999, requesting permission to make copies of certain pages of Essential Knowledge: The Debate Over What American Students Should Know. Memorandum in Nov. 9, 1999, Learning Links on standards-based reform\nattached article by Mike Schmoker and Robert Marzano. Memorandum to selected staff from Bonnie Lesley, Nov. 22, 1999, establishing a committee to develop Instructional Standards for the District\nattached copies of several research-based models for consideration. Memorandum to selected staff from Bonnie Lesley, Dec. 8, 1999, with follow-up to committee working on Instructional Standards\nattachments to support the work, including research article from ERS, How Children Learn: What Cognitive Research Tells Us About Effective Instruction. 10. Memorandum to selected staff from Bonnie Lesley, Dec. 14, 1999, with more models to consider for the Instructional Standards. 11. Memorandum to Terrence Roberts, Steve Ross, ODM, John Walker, and CTA from Bonnie Lesley, Dec. 15, 1999, requesting their input on the work relating to development of Instructional Standards. 812. Document: Summary of Teaching and Learning Research-Based Models, prepared for June 2000 workshop for high school teachers and used subsequently in other meetings as a summary of best practice. 13. Memorandum in Oct. 4, 2000, Learning Links to principals from Bonnie Lesley on readings before the Oct. 25-26 workshop on Teaching and Learning\nattached three articles. 14. Memorandum to Division of Instruction from Bormie Lesley, June 7, 2001, on constructivism with attached publication from Detroit Public Schools. Exhibit No. 4.: LRSD Notebook of Information on Mathematics/Science. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. 8. 9. Memorandum from Dennis Glasgow to secondary science teachers, Jan. 11, 1999, on ninth grade physics implementation. Memorandum from Dennis Glasgow to principals, Aug. 25, 1999, on the deployment of mathematics/science lead teachers. Mathematics Program Descriptiondocument prepared to submit to the National Science Foundation in April 2000. Science Program Descriptiondocument prepared to submit to the National Science Foundation in April 2000. K-12 Curriculum Implementation Plandocument prepared to submit to the National Science Foundation in April 2000. CPMSA Staffingdocument prepared to submit to the National Science Foundation in April 2000. Professional Development Plan for Mathematics and Sciencedocument prepared to submit to the National Science Foundation in April 2000. Little Rock CPMSA Strategic Plan, September 2000February 2002document prepared to submit to the National Science Foundation in April 2000. Memorandum from Vanessa Cleaver to eighth grade mathematics teachers, May 9, 2000, on the extended-year Algebra I program. 10. E-mail from Dennis Glasgow to a parent. Mar. 23, 2000, providing research base for the middle school mathematics program, the Cormected Mathematics Project (CMP). 93 . 11. Memorandum from Boimie Lesley to elementary and middle school principals in June 14, 2000, Learning Links on the research and theory behind new mathematics curricula\nattached article, Wheres the Balance in Math Instruction? 12. E-mail from Dennis Glasgow to parents, Nov. 9, 2000, with information about research behind LRSDs adoption of the elementary mathematics program. 13. E-mail from Debbie Berry to Bonnie Lesley, Nov. 17, 2000, expressing appreciation for attendance at a national conference on new mathematics curriculum. 14. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley in Feb. 14, 2000, Learning Links on national study on how best to teach mathematics\nattached article from Education Week, Forget Math Feud, Take Broader View, NRC Panel Urges. 15. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley in Aug. 23, 2000, Learning Links on standards-based mathematics\nattached article, Spread the Word by Lee Stiff. 16. Research Report on new mathematics curriculum used in decision-making: Preliminary Comparison of Michigan State Wide Testing\nResults in STC Adopted Districts, June 18, 1998. 17. Research Report on Exemplary Promising Mathematics Programs, Eisenhower National Clearinghouse. 18. Research Report on Connected Mathematics as one of the Exemplary Promising Mathematics Programs, Eisenhower National Clearinghouse 19. Research Report, Middle Grades Mathematics Textbooks: A Benchmarks- Based Evaluation, Project 2061. 20. Research Report, Investigations in Numbers, Data and Space: Validation StudyPretest and Posttest Results, Scott Foresman, Jan. 12, 2001. Exhibit No. 5.: LRSD Notebook of Information on Assessment Planning/Training Activities. 1. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to elementary principals, Oct. 20, 1998, providing information on Smart Start training on standards, assessments, and accountability 2. Copy of handout from ADEs training for educators on Smart Start: Higher Student Achievement through Standards and Performance Assessment, fall 1998 103. Plan and Process Alignment for Improved Student Achievement, Little Rock School District (Matrix showing relationship of various required plans to District processes), created fall 1998 4. Invitation to meeting on Systemic Planning Session for Assessment and Program Evaluation, May 18, 1999 5. Agenda for Assessment and Program Evaluation Work Session, May 18, 1999 6. Portfolio of Services of Division of Instruction, 1999-2000 7. Agenda for Division of Instruction, June 17, 1999 meeting\npresentation on the LRSD Assessment Plan 8. Memorandum in July 28, 1999, Learning Links with attached article on Changing the Entitlement Culture -emphasis on results rather than process. 9. LRSD Assessment Plan\nUsing Assessment to Enhance Student Achievement (PowerPoint presentation slides)presented to Board of Education in August 1999 10. Reading List prepared to distribute at the summer 2000 Campus Leadership Institute\nsection on Building and Maintaining Accountability Systems is about assessment and program evaluation 11. Transparencies used in July 19, 2000, Curriculum Day for principals, assistant principals, and brokers. 12. Notebook/handouts for July 19, 2000, Curriculum Dayfocus on quality management, data-driven decisions, and LRSD assessment programs 13. Memorandum in August 23, 2000, Learning Links with attached Primer on Assessment Literacy for distribution to Campus Leadership Teams 14. District Assessments: The Assessment Program for 2000-01 15. Memorandum to the Board of Education for July 26, 2001, agenda on Proposed Amendments to the Assessment Program Memorandum to elementary and junior high principals, Nov. 16, 1998, on schedule for picking up SAT9 testing materials Exhibit No. 6: LRSD Notebook of Information on Assessment Processes(Examples). 1. Memorandum to elementary and junior high principals, Nov. 16, 1998, on schedule for picking up SAT9 testing materials 11 s. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Memorandum to elementary school principals, Dec. 14, 1998, on procedures for upcoming administration of the criterion-referenced tests in reading and mathematics Memorandum to elementary and junior high principals, Jan. 5, 1999, on the testing procedures for grades 4 and 8 ACTAAP Benchmark examinations Memorandum to elementary and junior high principals and counselors, Jan. 26, 1999, on inservice schedule for test coordinators for the ACTAP Benchmarks for grades 4 and 8 Memorandum to selected administrators on Data Quality with attached paper written by Dr. Glynn Ligon Memorandum to elementary principals, Aug. 17, 1999, relating to use of released items from Smart Start assessments E-mail to curriculum staff, Aug. 23,1999, relating to use of released items from Smart Start assessments E-mail to elementary and middle school principals, Sept. 17, 1999, inviting them to an overview session on the new pre- and post-test Achievement Level Tests developed by Northwest Evaluation Association. Memorandum in Sept. 22, 1999, Learning Links to principals identifying training needs to administer the Observation Survey and Developmental Reading Assessment 10. Memorandum to principals and K-2 teachers in March 15, 2000, Learning Links setting up an assessment training review for the Developmental Reading Assessment and Observation Survey 11. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley on Mar. 17, 2000, suggesting a resource on how to assess technology knowledge 12. Memorandum in Apr. 5, 2000, Learning Links to elementary and middle school principals and test coordinators on new information relating to ACTAAP Benchmark examinations in grades 4 and 8 and the field testing in grade 6. 13. Document entitled Description of the Assessment System prepared in April 2000 in response to a request from the National Science Foundationrelating to the assessment of mathematics and science 14. Document entitled Procedures for Providing Data Analysis/Interpretation to Decision Makers prepared in April 2000 in response to a request from the 12National Science Foundation^relating to the assessment of mathematics and science 15. Document entitled Orientation to the Analysis and Interpretation of Test Results prepared in April 2000 in response to a request from the National Science Foundationrelating to the assessment of mathematics and science. 16. E-mail to Kathy Lease, May 23,2000, providing feedback to proposed survey of middle school students and teachers. 17. E-mail to principals, Aug. 25, 2000, providing information on upcoming administration of the Achievement Level Tests in September. 18. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Aug. 31, 2000, providing information on new middle school report card 19. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Aug. 31,2000, providing copy of new middle school report card report 20. Memorandum from Linda Austin to Marian Lacey providing Middle School Report Card Update 21. E-mail to middle school principals, Jan. 3, 2000, setting up training for teachers on how to administer the State Benchmark examinations 22. Memorandum to Division of Instruction, Feb. 1, 2000, setting agenda for Feb. 2 meeting\nincludes information on the District Assessment Plan 23. E-mail to elementary principals, Feb. 1, 2000, providing information on the use of calculators on Benchmark examinations 24. E-mail to principals, Feb. 3, 2000, providing copy of assessment schedule/matrix to distribute to teachers 25. Document prepared in fall 1999 by PRE on Achievement Level Tests: Assessments that Make a Difference 26. Memorandum to all principals and test coordinators, Mar. 17, 2000, establishing training sessions for the administration of the Benchmark and end-of-course examinations 27. Memorandum in Apr. 5, 2000, Learning Links to high school principals and test coordinators providing new information from ADE on the end-of-course literacy examination 1328. E-mail to Kathy Lease and Les Gamine, Apr. 7, 2000, providing rationale for adding science assessments to the Achievement Level Tests 29. Memorandum in Aug. 30, 2000, Learning Links to elementary principals and K-2 teachers including pre-testing instructions for the Observation Survey and Developmental Reading Assessment 30. Memorandum in Aug. 30, 2000, Learning Links to all principals and test coordinators establishing inservice schedule for administration of the SAT9 and ALTS 31. Memorandum in Sept. 8, 2000, Learning Links to elementary principals relating to K-2 assessment and the importance of the language arts instructional block 32. Memorandum in Sept. 27, 2000, Learning Links to elementary and middle school principals relating to the administration of the end-of-module tests in mathematics and the end-of-unit tests in science 33. Memorandum in Sept. 26, 2000, Learning Links to elementary principals relating to instructions to complete the Observation Survey and Developmental Reading Assessment 34. Memorandum to principals, Oct. 13, 2000, requesting feedback through a survey for consideration by the Assessment Focus Group\ncopy of survey attached 35. Memorandum to principals, Feb. 13, 2001, with information on the administration of the climate surveys for parents, teachers, students, and administrators 36. E-mail, Feb. 26, 2001, relating to administration of surveys for the Extended Year Education school evaluation 37. E-mail to curriculum directors, Feb. Tl, 2001, relating to discussion of the potential purchase of an electronic curriculum/assessment management system 38. E-mail to principals and selected others on Mar. 1, 2001, relating to an information session on ALT online testing 39. E-mail to principals. Mar. 1, 2001, providing spring testing schedule for elementary, middle, and high schools 40. E-mail to Les Gamine, Mar. 8, 2001, providing outline of PRE responsibilities for Dr. James, incoming superintendent 41. Memorandum to elementary principals. Mar. 14, 2001, providing information on end-of-module mathematics criterion-referenced tests 1442. E-mail between various staff. Mar. 14-15, 2001, relating to analysis of results of mathematics and science criterion-referenced tests 43. Document entitled Mathematics, Reading, and Language Achievement Tests: Administration Guide prepared by PRE for use in training sessions for the ALTs, 2000-01 Exhibit No. 7: LRSD Notebook of Information on Dissemination of Assessment Results. 1. Memorandum to elementary principals and teachers in Feb. 3, 1999, Learning Links, attaching the results for the second quarter reading and mathematics CRTs 2. Memorandum to Les Camine, June 1, 1999, providing status report on the development of the Quality Index and reporting on recommendations of Dr. Steve Ross relating to the assessment program 3. E-mail to Cabinet, Sept. 28, 1999, providing preview of grade 8 Benchmark examination results 4. E-mail to middle school principals, Oct. 8, 1999, relating to dissemination of Benchmark results 5. E-mail between Lucy Neal and Kathy Lease, Oct. 28-Nov. 2, 1999, relating to need for SAT9 scores to evaluate Title VI 6. Memorandum to Judy Milam, Nov. 4, 1999, requesting report on quarterly SFA assessments 7. Memorandum to Kathy Lease, Nov. 4, 1999, requesting report on DRA results for fall 8. E-mail to Kathy Lease, Dec. 3, 1999, advising her of Dr. Camines request for results of climate surveys 9. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Apr. 3, 2000, with report on Advanced Placement scores 10. Memorandum to principals in Apr. 5, 2000, Learning Links providing information on packets being sent to schools on ALT results 11. E-mail to John Ruffins and Kathy Lease, Apr. 12, 2000, requesting course enrollment data for NSF report 12. Memorandum to principals and teachers in Apr. 26, 2000, Learning Links with comparisons of second quarter CRT results for 1998-99 and 1999-2000 1513. E-mail to Diane Barksdale, Apr. 19, 2000, providing feedback on ALT scores 14. Memorandum to all principals in May 10, 2000, Learning Links providing information about a data interpretation workshop to be conducted by NWEA staff 15. Memorandum to counselors and ALT coordinators in May 10, 2000, Learning Links providing information about a data interpretation workshop to be conducted by NWEA staff 16. Memorandum to professional staff of Division of Instruction in May 10, 2000, Learning Links providing information about a data interpretation workshop to be conducted by NWEA staff 17. E-mail to Dennis Glasgow and Ed Williams, May 15, 2000, requesting a special report on the middle school ALT mathematics scores 18. E-mail to SEA principals. May 23, 2000, relating to training for SEA schools for improved academic achievement 19. E-mail to Virginia Johnson, May 19-23, 2000, relating to data collections for NSF evaluations and results of middle school student survey 20. E-mail to elementary principals, June 1,2000, relating to results of 1999-2000 Developmental Reading Assessment 21. E-mail to Kathy Lease, June 7, 2000, requesting report on Science ALTs 22. E-mail to Virginia Johnson and Ed Williams, June 7, 2000, relating to data requests from Dr. Camine 23. E-mail to Kathy Lease, June 7, 2000, requesting results of middle school student survey 24. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, June 23, 2000, requesting interpretation of DRA results 25. E-mail to Les Camine, July 7, 2000, providing information on interpretation of DRA results 26. E-mail to Kathy Lease, Ed Williams, and Linda Austin, July 13, 2000, requesting data for Southwest Education Development Lab relating to implementation of the Collaborative Action Team 27. E-mail to Sadie Mitchell and Frances Cawthon Jones, July 14, 2000, relating to DRA interpretations 1628. E-mail to Pat Busbea, Patricia Price, and Ed Williams, July 14, 2000, relating to interpretation of DRA results\nattached document defines proficient 29. E-mail to Patricia Price and Pat Busbea, July 17, 2000, requesting correlation of teacher participation in ELLA training and student achievement 30. E-mail to elementary staff, July 21, 2000, attaching copy of presentation slides to the Campus Leadership Institute on DRA results 31. E-mail to Leon Adams, July 28, 2000, providing rationale from Mitchell Academy for the abandonment of Success for All, based on data analysis 32. E-mail to selected SFA principals, Aug. 8, 2000, with report on achievement of SFA schools as compared to others and with suggestions on possible abandonment of SFA based on data analysis 33. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Aug. 9, 2000, from Freddie Fields relating to possible modification of SFA and requesting ELLA training, based on data analysis 34. E-mail to Kathy Lease, Sept. 14, 2000, from Linda Austin requesting copy of LRSD Assessment Notebook 35. Memorandum to curriculum division, Oct. 25, 2000, announcing available reports on grades 4 and 8 Benchmark examinations 36. Memorandum to Board of Directors, Oct. 25, 2000, announcing available reports on grades 4 and 8 Benchmarks 37. Memorandum to Cabinet, Oct. 25, 2000, announcing available reports on grades 4 and 8 Benchmarks 38. Memoranda to selected principals, Nov. 3, 2000, congratulating them for achievement on grade 4 Benchmarks 39. E-mail to Kathy Lease, Nov. 6, 2000, requesting several sets of data to include in Compliance Report 40. E-mail to Patricia Price and Dennis Glasgow, Nov. 8, 2000, attaching spreadsheets on Benchmark data by SES status 41. E-mail to Kathy Lease from Tara Adams, Jan. 17, 2001, requesting information on interpretation of the ALT results 42. E-mail to principals and cabinet, Jan. 17, 2001, with attached reports on SAT9 scores, five-year comparison\nSAT9, three-year comparison\nand SAT9 quartile report. 1743. E-mail to principals, May 30, 2000, with attached sample letter to parents that can accompany the ALT results 44. Document entitled Identified Issues from Data/Attendance Focus Group prepared by PRE 45. Document entitled Assessment Window prepared with advice from Focus Group 46. Document entitled Assessment Advisory Committee, 2000-01 with names of advisory committee members 47. Copies of PowerPoint presentation to Board of Education, Nov. 16, 2000: A Quick Look at the 4* Grade Benchmark Exam and a Preview of the SAT-9 48. E-mail to Steve Ross, Nov. 20, 2000, including feedback to a draft plan he had written relating to loan forgiveness 49. E-mail to principals and Cabinet, Nov. 29, 2000, with information on how to access test data on the ADE web page 50. Memorandum to IRC Staff, Dec. 1, 2000, relating to available SAT9 and Benchmark reports 51. Memorandum to middle school principals, Dec. 11, 2000, attaching reports on assignments of eighth graders to high schools 52. E-mail to SFA principals and facilitators, Feb. 23, 2001, announcing training on the SFA Student Data Base 53. E-mail to Virginia Johnson, Mar. 14, 2001, relating to analysis of end-of-module test results 54. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Apr. 23, 2001, with attached information on the Duke Talent Search 55. E-mail to middle school principals, June 29, 2001, reminding them of information sent to them earlier about how to access test data on the ADE web site 56. E-mail to principals, June 29, 2001, attaching copies of DRA test results 18Exhibit No. 8:. LRSD Notebook of Information on Planning for Program Evaluation. 1. Memorandum to designated principals from Mona Briggs, Aug. 23, 1999, providing information on standards for accreditation from ADE 2. Memorandum to elementary staff, Jan. 20, 1999, relating to an ADE evaluation of Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) 3. Memorandum to Kathy Lease and Ed Williams, June 29, 1999, on program evaluation with attached articles on qualitative research and an example of a research report from Austin ISD by Glynn Ligon 4. Memorandum to Division of Instruction, Feb. 1, 2000, with agenda relating to program implementation 5. E-mail to Virginia Johnson and Debbie Milam, Feb. 4, 2000, suggesting a model for the evaluation of VIPS programs 6. Memorandum in March 15, 2000, Learning Link relating to progress made by schools implementing the ALT assessment program 7. Document from Kathy Lease- alendar of meetings with Dr. Steve Ross since March 15, 2000\nattached planning document on program evaluation 8. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Mar. 24, 2000, providing information about a meeting with Dr. Steve Ross to discuss the middle school evaluation 9. E-mail to Kathy Lease, May 23, 2000, providing feedback on proposed middle school student survey 10. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Marian Lacey, and Sadie Mitchell, June 12, 2000, from Les Camine requesting information about the middle school evaluation 11. E-mail from Steve Ross to Kathy Lease, June 27, 2000, with attached design notes for Title I/Elementary Literacy Program Evaluation 12. E-mail from Kathy Lease to her staff, Aug. 6, 2000, requesting them to place the memorandum and program evaluations on the Board agenda 13. E-mail from Kathy Lease to Les Camine, Aug. 10, 2000, providing copies of drafts of the ESL and middle school evaluations\nthen his questions and her answers. 14. Memorandum to Board of Education, Aug. 24, 2000, from Kathy Lease presenting the program evaluations: Title I/Elementary Literacy, LRCPMSA 19(mathematics and science), English as a Second Language, and Middle School Transition and Program Implementation. Attached is her PowerPoint presentation: Program Evaluation. 15. E-mail from Steve Ross to Les Camine, Sept. 7, 2000, giving his feedback to the program evaluation reports. 16. E-mail from Debbie Milam to Cabinet members, Sept. 20, 2000, requesting permission to conduct interviews of parents on the subject of parental involvement. 17. E-mail from Kathy Lease to staff, Oct. 11, 2000, advising them of an upcoming meeting with Dr. Steve Ross related to program evaluation 18. E-mail from Virginia Johnson to Bonnie Lesley and Vanessa Cleaver, Oct. 20, 2000, relating to our required participation in an evaluation study conducted by the National Science Foundation 19. Memorandum to Gene Jones, ODM, from Kathy Lease, Oct. 27, 2000, inviting him to an intensive work session with Dr. Steve Ross on program evaluation 20. Document prepared by PRE in November 2000 that lists Additional Programs and Strategies Requesting Evaluation 21. E-mail to Cabinet members from Kathy Lease, Nov. 28, 2000, attaching Dr. Steve Ross planned presentation to the Board of Education on Using Evaluation for Program Improvement: Lessons Learned 22. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to Virginia Johnson, Jan. 2, 2001, setting up a meeting to finalize CPMSA program evaluation plan 23. E-mail from Virginia Johnson to Bonnie Lesley, Jan. 3, 2001, attaching her tentative plan 24. E-mail from Kathy Lease to Les Camine and Junious Babbs, Jan. 5, 2001, providing information relating to outsourcing program evaluations to Dr. John Nunnery 25. E-mail from/to Virginia Johnson, Jan. 5-20, 2000, relating to submission of Core Data Elements to the National Science Foundation 26. E-mail from/to Virginia Johnson, Apr. 14-16, 2000, relating to CPMSA program evaluation issues 27. E-mail from Kathy Lease to Les Camine, Jan. 22, 2001, attaching a draft of the work from Dr. John Nunnery 2028. Memorandum (one of several) from Kathy Lease, Jan. 24, 2001, inviting participants to the first meeting of the Research Committee 29. Memorandum from Kathy Lease to John Walker, Jan. 24, 2001, inviting him to participate in first meeting of Research Committee 30. Agenda for Feb. 5, 2001, meeting of the Research Committee and sign-in sheet 31. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to Eddie McCoy, Ed Williams, and Karen Broadnax, Feb. 16, 2001, to set up a meeting to discuss ESL program evaluation 32. Memorandum from Kathy Lease to Research Committee setting up Feb. 26, 2001, meeting 33. Agenda for Feb. 26, 2001, Research Committee meeting and sign-in sheet 34. Invoice from Dr. John Nunnery to LRSD for services rendered, February-March 2001 35. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to CPMSA staff, Feb. 21, 2001, setting up a meeting to discuss the CPMSA program evaluation 36. E-mail from Virginia Johnson to Bonnie Lesley, March 14, 2001, providing updates 37. E-mail to middle school staff from Bonnie Lesley, Mar. 15, 2001, summarizing a meeting to plan for a Middle School Team Leaders Institute, including recognition of need to train team leaders on assessment and using data 38. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to CPMSA staff. Mar. 19, 2001, setting up follow-up meeting to discuss CPMSA program evaluation 39. Memorandum to Carnegie Management Team, March 20, 2001, from Bonnie Lesley with information about counseling program and need for a program evaluation 40. Memorandum from Kathy Lease to Research Committee, Apr. 16, 2001, setting up next meeting on summer school evaluation and program evaluation for the National Science Foundation grant 41. Sign-in sheet for Apr. 23, 2001, meeting of the Research Committee 42. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to Dennis Glasgow, Suzi Davis, and Laura Beth Arnold, April 17, 2001, to discuss program evaluation for Element 5 of the Safe Schools/ Healthy Students project 2143. E-mail from Virginia Johnson to Bonnie Lesley, Apr. 18, 2001, relating to next steps in providing information about SAT9 item analyses for teachers 44. E-mail from Mona Briggs to Bonnie Lesley, Apr. 25, 2001, relating to survey needs for national evaluation of Safe Schools/ Healthy Students project 45. E-mail from Dennis Glasgow to elementary and middle school staff, Apr. 26, 2001, summarizing a large scale study that links classroom practices to student achievement in mathematics 46. E-mail among team working on CPMSA program evaluation, Apr. 18-May 2, 2001, relating to model for program evaluation and data analysis 47. E-mail from Kathy Lease to Research Committee, May 2, 2001, with attached latest version of the Guidelines for Program Evaluations 48. Agenda for May 7, 2001, meeting of the Research Committee and sign-in sheet 49. E-mail from Don Crary to Bonnie Lesley, May 24, 2001, announcing that a program evaluator had been hired by New Futures to conduct the program evaluation for Safe Schools/ Healthy Students 50. E-mail from Kathy Lease to Research Committee with attached memorandum relating to next meeting on June 11, 2001 51. Agenda for June 11, 2001, meeting of the Research Committee and sign-in sheet 52. E-mail from Junious Babbs to Bonnie Lesley, June 12, 2001, relating to information on program evaluation 53. E-mail from Kathy Lease to Compliance Team, June 14, 2001, with an outline of a plan for the completion of the Middle School Evaluation 54. E-mail from Kathy Lease to Research Committee, June 14, 2001, attaching a copy of final draft of Dr. Nunnerys evaluation of the mathematics/science programs 55. E-mail from Dennis Glasgow to Ed Williams, July 3, 2001, requesting additional ALT reports 56. E-mail from Vanessa Cleaver to others working on CPMSA program evaluation, July 10, 2001, requesting help in publishing a three-year progress report on the CPMSA 22Exhibit No. 9: - 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. LRSD Notebook of Information onWritings on Program Evaluation-Literacy. PreK-3 Literacy Plan (with needs assessment, see pp. 12-26), June 1999 Memorandum to Board of Education from Bonnie Lesley, June 24,1999, requesting their review of the proposed PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan Report on Level of ELLA training for K-2 teachers, May 10, 2000 Definition of Proficient for the Developmental Reading Assessment, K-2, May 2000 Report on Spring 2000 Developmental Reading Assessment, Percent At or Above Readiness Correlation StudyAmount of Training Hours and Student Achievement on the Developmental Reading Assessment, Spring 2000 Correlation StudyMultiple Comparisons of Effect of Four Approaches to Literacy Development, Spring 2000 Executive Summary, Title EElementary Literacy Program Evaluation, July 2000 Title I/Elementary Literacy Program Evaluation, August 2000 .. 10. Updated Draft of Title I/PreK-3 Literacy Plan Program Evaluation, December 2000 - 11. Progress Report on Elementary Literacy Plan to Board of Education, January 2001 ~ 12. Update on Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan, June 2001, presented to Board of Education 13. Copies of slide presentation to Board of Education on PreK-3 Literacy Program, June 2001 14. E-mail to principals and Division of Instruction from Bonnie Lesley, June 29, 2001, attaching copies of the formal Update on Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan to the Board of Education, plus the Highlights documents, and a copy of the presentation slides. 15. E-mail to elementary principals and other staff from Bonnie Lesley, June 29, 2001, attaching tables of DRA results by middle school feeder pattern. 2316. Evaluation of Success for All Programs, Little Rock School District, Year 1: 1997-98 by Steve Ross, Mary McNelis, Tracey Lewis, and Steve Loomis, University of Memphis 17. Evaluation of Success for All Program, Little Rock School District, Year 2: 1998-99 by Weipling Want and Steven Ross, University of Memphis, July 1999 18. Memorandum to elementary principals from Bonnie Lesley in Sept. 1, 1999, Learning Links, assigning supervision of the Success for All program in the Division of Instruction for greater effectiveness 19. Memorandum to Kathy Lease from Bonnie Lesley, Mar. 31,1999, attaching a copy of a contract for the evaluation of the Success for All program 20. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to selected SFA staff, Oct. 8, 1999, setting up training on Success for All 21. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to SFA principals, Nov. 11, 1999, providing to them copies of their contracts with the University of Memphis for SFA services 22. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to SFA principals, Nov. 15, 1999, providing them a study on SFA effectiveness\nattached article, Success for All: A Summary of Evaluations, by Jeanne Weiler, ERIC. 23. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to selected SFA principals, Aug. 8, 2000, suggesting that data analysis indicates SFA not being effective in their schools\nattached tables. 24. Report on Success for All Inservice activities, 1999-2000 School Year 25. Reports from eight-week assessments in Success for All schools, 1999-2000. 26. Success for All Implementation Report for December 1, 1999 (site visit reports from the University of Memphis that are done twice annually) 27. Success for All Implementation Reports for Spring 2001 (site visit reports from the University of Memphis that are done twice annually) 28. Executive Summary, English as a Second Language Program Evaluation, July 2000 29. English as a Second Language Program Evaluation (submitted to Office of Civil Rights), October 2000 24Exhibit No. 10: LRSD Notebook of Information onWritings on Program Evaluation-Mathematics/Science. 1. Proposal to National Science Foundation, Aug. 1, 1998, to fund Collaborative Partnerships in Mathematics and Science Achievement (see pp. 2-4 for needs assessment). 2. Management Plan for Year One, 1998-99, CPMSA (based on proposal for funding to the National Science Foundation. 3. 1999-2000 Strategic Plan, CPMSA (based on data analysis and decisions about next steps) 4. September 2000February 2002 Strategic Plan, CPMSA (based on data analysis and decisions about next steps) 5. September 1, 2000August 31, 2003 Strategic Plan, CPMSA (based on data analysis and decisions about next steps) 6. Revised Three-Year Strategic Plan, April 11, 2001, CPMSA (based on data analysis and decisions about next steps) 7. Annual Progress Report, 1998-99, submitted to the National Science Foundation. 8. Letter from National Science Foundation to Dr. Les Camine, May 20, 1999, with follow-up report to Site Visit of April 27-29, 1999. 9. Document prepared for December 3, 1999, Site Visit: Relationship of CPMSA Goals and LRSD Quality Indicators 10. Agenda forNSF Site Visit, December 3, 1999 11. Letter from National Science Foundation to Dr. Les Camine, January 24, 2000, with follow-up report to Site Visit of December 1-3, 1999. 12. Annual Progress Report, 1999-2000, submitted to the National Science Foundation. 13. Copy of slide presentation to the National Science Foundation Site Visit team, December 1-3, 1999. 14. Letter from National Science Foundation to Dr. Les Camine, January 16, 2001, with follow-up report to Site Visit of December 6-8, 2000. 15. Copy of slide presentation to Board of Education relating to CPMSA progress, January 2001. 2516. Copy of slide presentation to the National Science Foundation Midpoint Review (reverse site visit) in Washington, DC, February 5, 2001. 17. Letter from National Science Foundation to Dr. Les Camine, March 15, 2001, with follow-up report on Midpoint Review presentation in Washington, DC (reverse site visit) of February 5, 2001. 18. Systemic Initiatives Core Data Elements, 1998-99: Results for Little Rock, report submitted to the National Science Foundation relating to implementation of new mathematics/science programs 19. Systemic Initiatives Core Data Elements, 1999-2000: Results for Little Rock, report submitted to the National Science Foundation relating to implementation of new mathematics/science programs 20. Program EvaluationSigns of Success: Trends in Mathematics and Science Student Performance, 1997-98 and 1999-2000, report submitted by CPMSA Program Evaluator to project staff. 21. Program EvaluationBenchmark ExaminationOpen Response Mathematics Items: Student Outcomes of a Targeted Initiative with 4* Grade Students, 1998- 99. 22. Program EvaluationACTAAP Benchmark Examination Mathematics Results, Grades 4 and 8, 1997-98 to 2000-01. 23. Program EvaluationDistrict Criterion Referenced Tests (CRTs), Higher-Level Mathematics and Science, 3\"^ Quarter, 2000-01 24. Program EvaluationStanford Achievement Test, 9*'' Edition, Mathematics Results, 1997-98 to 2000-01. 25. Program EvaluationStanford Achievement Test, O* Edition, Science Reasoning Results, 1997-98 to 2000-01. 26. Program EvaluationAdvanced Placement Test: Mathematics Results, 1997-98 to 2000-01. 27. Program EvaluationAdvanced Placement Test: Science Results, 1997-98 to 2000-01. 28. Program EvaluationAmerican College Test Results for 8* Grade EXPLORE, 1997-98 to 2000-01. 2629. Program EvaluationAmerican College Test Results for 10* Grade PLAN, 1997-98 to 2000-01. 30. Program EvaluationAmerican College Test Results for 12* Grade ACT Test, 1997-9810 2000-01. 31. Program EvaluationComprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement: Tabulated Indicators for Systemic Changes, 1997-98 to 2000-01, Part I: Graduation Data Summary and SEM Proficiency by Ethnicity. 32. Program EvaluationComprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement: Tabulated Indicators for Systemic Changes, 1997-98 to 2000-01, Part II: Enrollment by Grade Level and Ethnicity. 33. Program EvaluationComprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement: Tabulated Indicators for Systemic Changes, 1997-98 to 2001-02: Qualitative Indicators. 34. Program EvaluationComprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement: Tabulated Indicators for Systemic Changes, 1997-98 to 2000-01: Part 4: Higher Level Mathematics and Science Course Enrollment and Successful Completion. 35. Program EvaluationSMART (Summer Advanced Mathematics Readiness Training), 1999 and 2000. 36. Program EvaluationAfter School Science Club, 1999 and 2000. 37. Executive Summary, CPMSA (Collaborative Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement) Program Evaluation conducted by PRE, July 2000 38. CPMSA Program Evaluation conducted by PRE, August 2000 39. Updated draft of CPMSA Program Evaluation by John Nunnery, Feb. 26, 2001 40. Final Draft of CPMSA Program Evaluation by John Nunnery, July 2001 41. Grant Proposal to the National Science Foundation for supplemental funding relating to the implementation of the CPMSA projectLittle Rock Center of Excellence for Research, Teaching, and Learning (CERTL), October 1, 1998 42. LRSD Mathematics and Science Mini-Grant Application for 2001-02 to provide funds to schools to accelerate their implementation of the CPMSA project 43. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to CPMSA team, Dec. 11,2000, praising them for their preparation and performance at the NSF Site Visit 2744. E-mail exchange with Bormie Lesley and Vanessa Cleaver relating to need for data to evaluate SECME program, Feb. 16,2001 45. E-mail ffom/to Vanessa Cleaver and Bonnie Lesley, Feb. 21-Mar. 22, 2001, relating to needs to expand SMART program for Algebra I Readiness 46. Agendas for Advisory Committee/Goveming Committee/Steering Committee, September 1998May 15, 2001 47. E-mail from Dennis Glasgow to elementary principals and other staff, April 11, 2001\nattached Validation Study on Investigations in Number, Data, and Space (elementary mathematics curriculum)\ncontains achievement data for districts around the country\nattached paper. 48. E-mail from Dennis Glasgow to elementary principals and other staff, April 25, 2001, providing information on the relationship between participation in professional development and student achievement\nattached bar graph. 49. E-mail from Dennis Glasgow to elementary principals and other staff, April 25, 2001, attaching a summary of a large scale study by the Miliken Family Foundation that links classroom practices to student achievement in mathematics. 50. E-mail from/to Bonnie Lesley and Eddie McCoy, Apr. 26, 2001, relating to an item analysis of SAT9 results that Ms. McCoy volunteered to do for the CPMSA program evaluation team 51. SAT9 item analysis for grades 5 and 7mathematics, completed by Eddie McCoy in June 2001. Exhibit No. 11: LRSD Notebook of Information on Writings on Program Evaluation-Other. 1. Executive Summary, Middle School Transition Program Evaluation, July 2000 2. Middle School Transition Program Evaluation, August 2000 3. Memorandum to Brenda James (Mann principal) from Bonnie Lesley, March 1, 1999, in response to their request to waive the implementation of new middle school curriculum and processes\nincludes evaluation concerns 4. Request for Waiver from the LRSD middle school curriculum for 2001-02 from Mann Middle School 285. 6. 7. 8. 9. Letter from Doima Creer to Bormie Lesley, Mar. 23, 2001, requesting her to attend the April 10, 2001, meeting of the MRC relating to discuss of Mann Middle Schools request for waiver. Letter to Donna Creer, MRC Executive Director, from Bonnie Lesley, March 28, 2001, evaluating Mann Middle Schools performance under the waiver that had been approved and recommending that the waiver not be granted for 2001-02 Letter from Donna Creer to Bonnie Lesley, Apr. 11, 2001, providing follow-up to the Magnet Review Committee meeting of April 10, 2001 relating to Mann Middle Schools request for waiver. Letter to Jim Fullerton (Mann Middle School principal), April 16, 2001, from Les Camine, Sadie Mitchell, Marian Lacey, and Bonnie Lesley denying Manns request for waiver for 2001-02 from the LRSD curriculum. Memorandum from Marian Lacey to Jim Fullerton, May 16, 2001, encouraging Mann Middle School to collaboratively plan for the conection of the decline in reading and language arts performance. 10. E-mail to Jim Fullerton from Bonnie Lesley, May 23, 2001, with recommendations for Mann Middle Schools curriculum and efforts to narrow the achievement gap 11. E-mail from Jim Fullerton to Bonnie Lesley, June 5, 2001, inviting her to a meeting to discuss changes at Mann Middle School relating to narrowing the achievement gap 12. Sample letter to parents from Mann Middle School, Aug. 1, 2001, to set up a program devoted to the academic improvement of the lowest achieving sixth grade students. 13. Memorandum to curriculum staff from Bonnie Lesley, Aug. 27, 1998, assigning duties related to the Talent Development Plan to improve access and success in AP courses\nattached planning strands with notes from meeting. 14. LRSD AP and Pre-AP Professional Development Course Survey Results (study on training experienced by AP and Pre-AP teachers conducted by Mable Donaldson to guide decision-making related to professional development plan for these teachers). 15. Memorandum in April 12, 2000, Learning Links from Bonnie Lesley to high school principals, cabinet, and Division of Instruction including analysis of Status of Enrollment in Advanced Placement and Pre-Advanced Placement Courses\nTwo-Year Comparison of Advanced Placement Examination Participation and Scores' 2916. Evaluation of HIPPY Program: A Look at Outcomes for Children at the End of 3\"* Grade and 6'* Grade, July 1999, conducted by PRE 17. Site Visit Report from Arkansas HIPPY, Feb. 26, 2001. 18. Monitoring Reports provided to schools and the District by the Division of Child Care and Early Childhood Education (annual assessments) 19. Little Rock School District Technology Plan, 2001-2004, December 2000\nsee pp. 17-25 on evaluation of current status and see pp. 26-45 for program goals) 20. Inventory of Computers by School, Spring 2001 21. Priorities for LRSD Professional Development, 1999-2000 and 2000-01 22. Report to the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development relating to LRSDs participation in the Urban Professional Development InitiativeFirst Quarter Report, April 14, 1999\nincludes a plan for evaluation and baseline measures. 23. Memorandum to the Board of Education from Bonnie Lesley, Feb. 22, 2001, requesting approval of the proposed professional development policy and regulations\nnote the emphasis on using student performance data to drive the program, on expectations for improved education achievement and equity of outcomes for all students, and on the need for program evaluation. 24. Vital Link: Passage to 00 25. Alternative Learning Environment (ALE) Program Evaluation\nTwo-Year Comparison: Lyceum Scholars High School (LSHS) 26. Program EvaluationPhilander Smith College/LRSD Lyceum Scholars High School, 1999-2000. 27. Summer School 2000 (final to be added upon completion) Exhibit No. 12: LRSD Notebook of Information on Writings on Program Evaluation-School District Improvement. 1. Document: Guidelines to School Improvement Planning, August 1999 (distributed to participants of summer 1999 Campus Leadership Team Institute)\nsee pp. 1-16 of using data for decision making and prioritizing\npp. 29-30 on Plan Evaluation.) 301. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Memorandum in Feb. 9, 2000, Learning Links from Bonnie Lesley on conducting a formative evaluation of the progress on the School Improvement Plan with attached ERS research article: School Improvement: Factors Leading to Success or Failure Document of notes made by Bonnie Lesley in efforts to analyze the first ALT results in spring 2000, by school Memorandum in Dec. 16, 1998, Learning Links to principals from Bonnie Lesley establishing the waiver process, with attached application form, including a required evaluation design. Memorandum to Cabinet from Bonnie Lesley, Jan. 4, 1999, requesting feedback on a draft plan to restructure the Districts Title I program in order to align it with new literacy and mathematics curricula and Smart Start, as well as with the Strategic Plan and the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Memorandum to elementary principals from Bonnie Lesley, June 9, 1999, clarifying Title I program issues and the importance of aligning Title 1 programs with efforts to improve achievement. Memorandum to Board of Education from Bonnie Lesley, Aug. 12, 1999, on issues relating to changes in the Districts Title I Plan for 1999-2000. Memorandum to John Walker, et al, from Bonnie Lesley, Sept. 1, 1999, relating to changes in the LRSD Title 1 Plan for 1999-2000\nattaching copy of the plan. Feedback from Arkansas Quality Award to 1999 application for Level I Award, September 8, 1999 10. Planning document to write the application for the Arkansas Quality Award, prepared by Bonnie Lesley in April 2000 11. E-mail to selected staff from Bonnie Lesley, Apr. 26, 2000, thanking them for contributions to the writing of the application for the Arkansas Quality Award 12. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to selected staff. May 4, 2000, with attached copy of application to Arkansas Quality Award program 13. Application for the Arkansas Quality Award: Little Rock School District: Dedicated to Excellence, May 5, 2000 14. Agenda for planning meeting for Arkansas Quality Award site visit. August 14, 2000, with attachment, Arkansas Quality Award Application Procedure 15. Agenda for Arkansas Quality Award Site Visit, August 16-18, 2000 3116. Feedback from Arkansas Quality Award after site visit on August 16-18, 2000. 17. Memorandum to Ann Brown and ODM Staff from Bonnie Lesley, Aug. 4, 1999, in response to draft of their report. 18. Memorandum from Ann Brown to Bonnie Lesley, Oct. 15, 1999, in response to Aug. 4 memorandum. 19. Letter from Kathy Lease to N.W. Marshall at ODM, Oct. 11, 1999, stating concern that NCEs were used to make judgments in Achievement Disparity report. 20. Letter from N.W. Marshall to Kathy Lease, Oct. 22, 1999, in response to her concerns. 21. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to curriculum staff. May 10, 2000, with copy of feedback\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_297","title":"Compliance court orders","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2001-10/2001-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","School administrators"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance court orders"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/297"],"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 LT FiLED EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OCT 0 1 2001 ^ames w. McCormack, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAWTIFF*\u0026lt; V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS MOTION FOR DEFINITION AND CLARIFICATION OF THE ISSUES AND FOR OTHER RELIEF The Joshua Intervenors request the Coun to enter a written ruling defining the issue and the scope of this proceeding. The Joshua Intervenors make this request in order to obtain clarification of the issue(s) that the Court is now hearing and of the expectations of the Court with respect to issues which the LRSD seeks to inject into the proceedings which have not been raised by the LRSD in a formal pleading. The precipation for this motion is affirmative inquiries into the activities of Joshuas counsel for which no complaint is made or relief sought. On August 13,2001, the LRSD served an extensive set of interrogatories upon the Joshua Intervenors. (See Plaintiffs Motion to Compel filed Friday, September 21,2001. On Monday, September 24,2001, the district withdrew its motion and on September 25,2001, the Court entered an Order dismissing the motion as moot.) The LRSD has now filed a second set of interrogatories upon Joshua. Those interrogatories reflect that LRSD is trying to develop the defense to its motion for declaration of unitary status that the -1-4 Joshua Intervenors had certain duties to assist the LRSD in reaching unitary status under the Revised Desegregation Education Plan which duties were not fulfilled by Joshua. The LRSD, however, has not filed a motion or presented at any time during these proceedings a request for relief with respect to unitary status regarding the involvement of the Joshua Intervenors. The only relief that the district has sought has been a citation of contempt of court upon Joshua counsel and that motion is now pending for hearing before the Court on October 16, 2001. The Joshua Intervenors have responded by undersigned counsel to the first set of interrogatories propounded by counsel for the LRSD. Joshua noted in responding to those interrogatories that it was answering them without waiving objection to the propriety of the district filing them in the first place. (See Exhibit C) Joshua is without notice of the purpose of either set of interrogatories. The LRSD counsel informed the Court on June 29,2001, that it expected to introduce only one exhibit in support of its motion for unitary status. Mr. Heller then stated: \"Our only exhibit will be the DRA scores that were announced to the board last night, and reported in the paper this morning. Beyond that there is nothing else that we plan to use .. . See pages 13 and 14 of the transcript before the Court dated June 29, 2001. The Court and the Settlement Agreement determined that the burden of proof was upon the Joshua Intervenors to demonstrate the shortcomings or failings of the LRSD which supported Joshuas position that a declaration of unitary status was premature and not supported by the evidence. During the proceedings on June 29, 2001 before the Court, LRSD did not indicate that it was in need of any information whatsoever from the Joshua Intervenors. This was because its March 15,2001 Compliance Report and the DRA scores, supra, reflected the success of the Revised -2-Desegregation and Education Plan. The focus of the June 29, 2001 proceeding was upon the information to be provided Joshua by the LRSD that related to the issue of the districts compliance with the Court Orders herein. The Court indicated\na) . . . . I would ask that the district open up its personnel to him [Joshua counsel] and to his staff so that he will be able to get whatever discovery he needs . . . and that you willingly hand over discovery\nb) ... if its true that Mr. Pendley is sitting on a whole lot of stuff I would hope that he would provide it to Mr. Walker\ninsofar as Mr. Walker needs to review it.\nc) since the LRSD is a public institution I dont have the same protective attitude towards its documents and other papers that I might, if you were not a public institution\nd) .... so I would hope that you would be cooperative and give Mr. Walker what he needs. Pages 26 and 27 [letters parenthesized are not a part of the Court transcript]. The Court went on to indicate that Mr. Walker should hand over to Mr. Heller and Mr. Pendley any exhibits he intends to use. Page 29. When Joshua sought to address the issue of the State obligation, the Court directed that Joshua remain focused on the issue before the Court. [Underlining added for emphasis]. The Court said: I am not here to talk about the States obligation, and you may file something with the Court... in the form of a motion. All lam here right noyv is to talk about Little Rock, whether Little Rock is substantially complying. \" (June 29, 2001 transcript. -j-page 34). The Court further made it clear that she did not wish to address Mr. Walkers unwritten objections regarding promises made in the Convenant of the school District. She said: . you want to file something with the Court objective to that, that's not before me right now.  The Court indicated to defense counsel that she would expect Mr. Walker to ... let them know what you are going to use ... but I am not going to require that any FOI requests that you put there be filtered through the attorney. Pages 46 and 47. The Court only required Joshua provide to the district with its witness and exhibit list. Page 53. That has been done. The LRSD refuses, since the beginning of the school term, to provide any further e-mail review to the Joshua Intervenors unless Joshua agrees to a protective order. See exhibit F, letter from J. Clay Fendley dated September 12,2001. Joshua notes that no such order was required for the top administrators e-mails and that the Court has not imposed that requirement. The Plaintiff LRSD is now in the position where it has sought not only discovery from the Joshua Intervenors regarding issues not before the Court for which LRSD seeks no relief from Joshua, it compounds the problem by propounding further interrogatories and discovery beyond the voluntary responses which were provided to the plaintiff on September 24, 2001. A copy of the districts second set of interrogatories and requests for production to the Joshua Intervenors regarding Joshuas objections to unitary status is attached hereto as Exhibit A. There is also attached hereto as Exhibit B, a letter with objections to the responses from the plaintiff that is extensive regarding the first set of interrogatories. The third attachment (Exhibit C) is Joshua counsels letter to district -4-counsel regarding the discovery. The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the Court to define the parameters of the districts efforts to obtain discovery from the Joshua Intervenors and to determine what issues, if any, the Court will address in the proceedings that are now in recess, if any, other than the districts motion for a declaration of unitary status. Joshua brings to the attention of the Court that it is frustrated with the status which Joshua finds itself in because of the LRSD attorneys refusal to cooperate, as directed, and provide discovery in the form of FOIA responses as directed and as requested. Joshua is also frustrated because the district lawyers, through Superintendent Kenneth James, have sought to impede the Joshuas access to information. Dr. James has now promulgated a regulation known as Administrative Direct ADB which requires that the district charge Joshua for FOIA copies at the rate of $.25 per page, see Exhibit D. Because of that AD, the district now refuses to provide responses to Joshua without prepayment of costs if the document is 25 pages or more. The administrative directive came after and upon the Courts directive that Joshua may use FOIA in order to obtain information. It has been applied only to Joshua. Joshuas frustration is further noted by Administrative Directive EGAD fExhibit Ei which requires the school district employees to delete their e-mail files within 15 days after transmittal or reception. This directive was created, on information and belief, to be effective on October 1, 2001 and in response to the Courts comments regarding e-mail use during the last hearing. Joshua submits that it was made by Dr. James in an effort to prevent access to information by the Joshua Intervenors and to frustrate the Courts Orders. The Joshua Intervenors respectfully submit that clarification is needed from the Court to determine the extent to which they should be required to respond to a second set of interrogatories -5- and to further reply to a first set of same which (a) have no essential purpose, (b) about which the Court has never been given notice by the school district, and (c) for which no relief is sought by LRSD. The Court is further called upon to clarify whether the district may frustrate Joshuas access to information which the Court authorized Joshua to obtain by promulgation and enforcement of restrictive administrative regulations which effectively apply only to Joshua. Joshua is further concerned that the regulations appear to be an effort by the district to limit the scope of the Courts mling with respect to Joshuas access to information. In other words, the district appears to be attempting to overrule the Courts decision that Joshua is entitled to access to information freely and without restrictive conditions. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors pray that the Court enter an Order defining and clarifying the issues which are before the Court. Joshua further prays for other relief including (a) providing Joshua access to the promised e-mails, (b) quashing interrogatories which plaintiff has submitted to Joshua, and (c) suspending implementation of the Policy Directives DB-KDB and DB-EGAD. Respectfully submitted. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (Tel.) 1) 374-4187 (^) By: W. Walker, Bar No. 64046 -6- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing^as been mailed, postage prepaid to the following counsel or record, postage prepaid on this j^^^ay of September, 2001. Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM Qne Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 / John W. Walker .J. -7- 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS REGARDING JOSHUAS OBJECTIONS TO UNITARY STATUS Comes the Plaintiff, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), and submits the following Interrogatories and Requests for Production to be answered within thirty days in accord with Rules 33 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. GENERAL DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS (A) \"you\" or \"your' .It Shall mean the Joshua Intervenors' LRSD class representative and counsel for the Joshua Intervenors and any person (as defined below) acting on their behalf\n (B) \"person Shall mean any individual, corporation, partnership, joint venture, firm, association. proprietorship, agency, board, authority, commission, and other such entities\n(C) \"communicate\" or \"communication\" Shall mean every manner or means of disclosure, transfer or exchange, and every disclosure, transfer or exchange of information whether orally or by document or whether face to face, by telephone, mail, personal delivery, or otherwise\n(D) \"document' .11 ihi't' f\\Shall mean any original written, Typewritten, handwritten, printed or recorded material, as well as all tapes, disks, non-duplicate copies and transcripts thereof, now or at any time in your possession, custody or control\nand, without limiting the generahty of the foregoing definition, but for the purposes of illustration only, \"document\" includes notes. correspondence, memoranda, business records, diaries, calendars, address and telephone records, photographs, tape recordings, videotapes and financial statements. Without limitation of the term \"control\" as used in the preceding sentence, a document is deemed to be in your control if you have the right to secure the document or a copy thereof V from another person or a public or private entity having actual possession thereof. If a document that is responsive to a request for identification or production is in your control, but is not in your possession or custody, identify the person with possession or custody. If any document that is responsive to a request for identification or production was. but is no longer, in your possession or subject to your control, state what disposition was made of it, by whom, and the date or dates or approximate date or dates on which disposition was made, and why\n(E) \"identify\" (i) As to a person (as defined), shall mean the person's name, business and residence address(es), occupation, job title\nand, if not an individual, state the type of entity and the address of its principal place of business\n(ii) As to a document, shall mean the type of document (letter, memo, etc.) the identity of the author or originator, the date authored or originated, the identity of each person to whom the original or copy was addressed or dehvered, the identity of such person known or reasonably behevedby you to have present possession, custody, or control thereof. 2and a brief description of the subj ect matter thereof, all with sufScient particularity to request its production under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure\n(hi) As to a communication, shall mean the date of the communication, the type of communication (telephone conversation, meeting, etc.), the place where the cnrmm ini cation took place, the identity of the person who made the communication, the identity of each person who received the communication, and of each person present when it was made and the subject matter discussed\n(F) \"Pertaining to It Shall mean constituting, embodying, arising out of, incident to, referring to. mentioned, bearing upon, reflecting, evidencing, affecting, concerning, providing evidence for, or relating to the transaction, individual, entity, act, object, conference, contention. communication, allegation or activity identified\n(G) To \"describe in detail It Shall mean to provide with respect to any act, occurrence, transaction, event. statement, communication or conduct (hereinafter collectively, \"act\") all facts concerning any such act known to Plaintiffs after due inquiry, including but not limited to a description of each act, the date, the location, and the identify of each person involved\n(H) \"or\" shall be construed either conjunctively or disjunctively to bring within the scope of these Interrogatories any information which might otherwise be construed to be outside their scope\nThe singular includes the plural number, and vice versa. The masculine includes the feminine and neuter genders. The past tense includes the present tense where the clear meaning is not distorted by change of tense. 3If you do not answer any Interrogatory or Request for Production because of a claim of privilege, set forth the privilege claimed, the facts upon which you rely to support the claim of privilege, and identify all documents for which such privilege is claimed- INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please identify all persons who participated in the preparation of the responses hereto. 1 INTERROGATORYNO. 2: Please identify all persons you intend to call as a witness i at the hearing set for November 19 and 20, 2001. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please identify all documents you intend to introduce as an exhibit at the hearing set for November 19 and 20, 2001. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Please identify and describe in detail all communications between you and persons in any way connected to the National Science Foundation pertaining to LRSD's National Science Foundation Grant. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Please produce aU documents pertaining to communications between you and persons in any way connected to the National Science Foundation pertaining to LRSD's National Science Foundation Grant. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Please identify and describe in  detail all commumcations between you and Dr. Terrence Roberts pertaining to LRSD's compliance with its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Please produce all documents pertaining to communications between you and Dr. Terrence Roberts pertaining to LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. a.INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Please identify and describe in detail all nnm-rrm-m'cations between you and Dr. Steven Ross pertaining to LRSD's compliance with its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Please produce aU documents pertaining to communications between you and Dr. Steven Ross pertaining to LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. INTERRQGATORY NO. 7: For each expert witness that you may call as a witness 7 at the hearing set for November 19 and 20, 2001, please provide a complete statement of all opinions and the basis and reasons therefor\nidentify and describe in detail the documents, communications, data or other infoimation considered by the witness in forming the opinions\nprovide the quahfications of the witness, including a list of all publications authored by the witness withing the preceding ten (10) years\nprovide the compensation to be paid for investigation and testimony\nand provide a listing of all other cases in which the witness has testified as an expert at trial or by deposition within the preceding four (4) years. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding interrogatory. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Please produce all contemporaneous time records maintained by you pertaining to your monitoring of LRSD's implementation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Please identify and describe in detail all information provided to you by LRSD employees either anonymously or without the knowledge or 5consent of counsel for LRSD pertaining ro LRSD's compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Please produce all documents provided to you by LRSD employees either anonymously or without the knowledge or consent of counsel for LRSD pertaining to LRSD's comphance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Please identify all LRSD employees who have provided you information or documents without the knowledge or consent of counsel for LRSD pertaining to LRSD's compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Please identify and describe in detail all oral r.riTnmuTiications between you and LRSD employees since August 17, 2001, pertaining to LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan which took place outside the presence of coxmsel for LRSD. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: For each Joshua monitor identified in response to Interrogatory No. 3 of Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, please: (a) describe in detail all education, training and experience that you believe quahfies them to serve as monitors\n(b) describe in detail all monitoring activities undertaken by them, mcluding the dates, times and locations where monitoring occurred and the subject matter of the morutoring\nand (c) describe in detail each and every instance where the monitoring revealed what you contend was noncompliance or bad faith implementation of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 6REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Please produce all documents pertaining to your monitoring of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, including but not limited to any notes or summaries of monitoring activities. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: You allege in your response to Request for Production No. 1 of Plaintiff s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents that Dr. Les Camine and Chris Heller requested that you not publish any monitoring reports. Please identify and describe in detail aU communications between you and Dr. Camine and/or Mr. Heller pertaining to your monitoring reports. v'\"' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Please produce aU documents pertaining to communications between you and Dr. Camine and/or Mr. Heller pertaining to your monitoring reports. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: In your response to Intemogatory No. 8 of Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, you allege that the Compliance Committee refused to share quarterly reports produced by the School Services Division, please identify and describe in detail all communications between you and any Compliance Committee member pertaining to these quarterly reports. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Please produce all documents pertaining to communications between you and any Compliance Committee member pertaining to these quarterly reports. A INTERROGATORY NO. 14: In your response to Interrogatory No. 8 of Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, you allege that It 'Joshua's counsel was continually misled and misinformed by LRSD school officials including Camine andHeUerregarding desegregation accomphshments.\" Please identify and describe in detail all communications between you and any LRSD official in which you were 7misled or misinformed about LRSD's implementation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Please produce all documents pertaining to communications between you and any LRSD official in which you were misled or misinformed about LRSD's implementation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Please produce all documents pertaining to communications between you and any LRSD employee pertaining to the semester by semester discipline statistics referred to in your response to Interrogatory No. 8 of Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. INTERROGATORYNO. IS: In your response to Interrogatory No. 8 of Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, you allege that you did not follow through on compliance issues \"in response to and at the request of and from Superintendent Camme and District counsel Chris Heller and upon promised (sic) of fair and adequate remedy thereof.\" Please identify and describe in detail all communications between you and Dr. Gamine and/or Mr. Heller pertaining to (a) a request that you not follow through on comphance issues and (b) a promised remedy for a compliance issue raised by you\nplease also describe in detail the promised remedy, state whether you contend that the promised remedy was not provided, and if not, please identify all facts and documents which support this contention and identify all persons with knowledge pertaining to the promised remedy. REQUEST FQR PRODUCTIQN NO. 13: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORYNO. 16: Please identify each and every LRSD student that you contend was subject to racial discrimmatio-n in the imposition of discipline during the term 8of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\nfor each student and/or incident of discrimination, please also describe in detail all facts and documents which support your contention and identify all persons with knowledge pertaining to your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: In your response to Interrogatory No. 10 of Plaintiff s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, you allege, \"Not all black children who are disciplined are [] included in the discipline reports.\" Please identify and describe in detail ail facts and documents which support this allegation and identify all persons with knowledge of this allegation\nplease also identify each and every LRSD student that you contend was disciplined but was not included in discipline reports. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Please identify and describe in detail each and every instance in which you contend that the Ombudsman's response to a matter referred to the Ombudsman by you failed to comply with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\nand for each such instance, please identify all facts and documents which support you contention and identify all persons with knowledge of the underlying incident you referred to the Ombudsman and the District's response thereto. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Please produce all documents pertaining  to your response to the preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Please identify each and every instance in which you contend that you referred a matter to the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman failed to take any action in response to your referral\nand for each such instance, please identify all facts and 9documents which support you contention and identify all persons with knowledge of the underlying incident you referred to the Ombudsman and the District's response thereto. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Do you contend that all or part of the cmrent disparity in academic achievement on standardized tests between LRSD's Afincan-American andnon- African-American students is a vestige of racial discrimination by LRSD? If so, please state how much of the current disparity you contend is a vestige of racial discrimination by LRSD, V ' identify all facts and documents which support that contention and identify all persons with knowledge pertaining to this contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 18: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 21: Please identify all provisions of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan which you contend required the District to involve you in the development of programs, pohcies and procedures, identify all facts and documents which support that contention and identify aU persons with knowledge pertaining to your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 19: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 22: Please describe in detail what role you contend Dr.  Terrence Roberts and Dr. Steve Ros's should have played in the development of programs, policies and procedures under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, identify all facts and documents which support that contention and identify all persons with knowledge pertaining to your contention. 10REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 20: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding interrogatory. INTERRQGATQRY NQ. 23: Do you contend that the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan required District staff to prepare periodic monitoring reports regarding implementation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan? If so, please identify all facts and documents which support that contention and identify all persons with knowledge . pertaining to your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 24: Do you contend that Dr. Bonnie Lesley constructed a plan the implementation of which would result in a set of in-school racially segregated assignment programs? If so, please identify and describe in detail the plan, identify all facts and documents which support your contention and identify all persons with knowledge pertaining to your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 25: Do you contend that professional conflicts existed between Dr. Bonnie Lesley and any other staff member? If so, please identify and describe in detail the conflicts (including but not limited to the duration of the conflict and resolution, if any), identify all facts and documents which support your contention and identify all  persons with knowledge pertaining to your contention. REQUEST FQR PRQDUCTIQN NQ. 23: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding interrogatory. 11 INTERROGATORYNO. 26: Do you contend that the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan required the District to maintain lower pupil teacher ratios at the former Incentive schools? If so, please identify those provisions of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan which imposed such a requirement, identify all other facts and documents which support your contention and identify all persons with knowledge of your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding interrogatory. V, . INTERRO' GATORY NO. 27: Do you contend that the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan required the District reduce the disparity in academic achievement on standardized tests between LRSD's Afincan-American and non-African-American students? If so, please state by how much, identify those provisions ofthe Revised Desegregation and Education Plan which imposed such a requirement, identify all facts and documents which support your contention and identify all persons with knowledge of which support your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to tte preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 28: Do you contend that the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan requires LRSD to establish programs, provide services or provide any kind of assistance solely for the benefit of black students? If so, please identify those provisions ofthe Revised Desegregation and Education Plan which impose such a requirement, identify  all facts and documents which support your contention that such a requirement exists, and identify all persons with knowledge of facts which support your contention. 12 INTERROGATORY NO. 29: Do you have, or have you ever had, a written plan or any other document which sets forth the purposes and procedures for Joshua monitoring of LRSD? If so, please identify those documents. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 30: Do you contend that the Revised Desegregation and . Education Plan or any other currently effective document or Order requires or authorizes Joshua monitoring of LRSD? If so, please identily and describe in detail all facts and documents which support your contention and identify all persons with knowledge of facts supporting your contention. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25: Please produce all documents pertaining to the response to the preceding interrogatory. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376\n202^ // BY: Christopher Helkm(#8'1083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 13CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copv of same by U.S. Mail)unless hand-dehvery indicated) on September 27,2001: Mr. John W. Walker JHand-Delivered) JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 2P0 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 RoacheU Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sammye Taylor Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 istopher Heller F:\\HOMEKFENDLEY\\LRSD 2001\\aes-uniafy-int-rfp-Joshua-002.wpd 14Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1922-1994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A BYRON M SISEMAN. JR, P.A JOE D. BELL. P.A JAMES BUTTRY, P.A FREDERICK S. URSERY, P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR,. P.A JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A PAUL B. BENHAM HL P.A LARRY W. BURKS. P.A A. WYCKLIFP NISBET, JR.. P.A JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL lU. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A RICHARD D. TAYLOR, P.A JOSEPH B. HURST. JR. P.A ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.. CHRISTOPHER HELLER P.A LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER P.A WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN IH. P.A MICHAEL S. MOORE, P.A DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL m. P.A KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL WILLIAM WADDELL, JR. P- LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 SCOTT J. LANCASTER P.A M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A ROBERT B. BEACH. JR. P.A J. LEE BROWN. P.A JAMES C. BAKER JR. P.A HARRY A LIGHT. P.A SCOTT H. TUCKER PA. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A PRICE C. GARDNER P.A TONIA P. JONES. P.A DAVID D. WILSON, P.A TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE, SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72703-4811 TELEPHONE 501-695-2011 FAX 501-685-2147 JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A DAVID M. GRAF. P.A CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR P.A JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR. P.A JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO. P.. R CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.A GREGORY D. TAYLOR P.A TONY L. WILCOX. P.A FRAN C, HICKMAN, P.A BETTY J. DEMORY, P.A LYNDA M. JOHNSON, P.A JAMES W. SMITH. P.A CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT. P.A DANIEL L. HERRINGTON, P.A MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOR JR ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL MICHAEL E. KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN IPRAH KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON PHILIP b'. MONTGOMERY KRISTEN S. RIGGINS ALAN G. BRYAN OF COUNSEL B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE, P.A JOHN C. ECHOLS, P.A. AD. MCALLISTER 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2898 FAX 870-762-2918 September 27, 2001 JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-3323 FAX 501-244-5341 fBndleyQftc.nat Hand Delivered Mr. John W. Walker Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 RE\nLRSD V. PCSSD Dear Mr. Walker\nWe have received and reviewed your responses to our First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production ofDocuments. We find your responses inadequate and respectfully request that you immediately supplement your responses as follows\nInterrogatory No. 2\nPlease provide the name and address of your class representatives. Interrogatory No. 3\nPlease provide addresses for the monitors identified. Interrogatory No. 4\nYour reference to the files of LRSD personnel is nonresponsive. You then identify but fail to describe in detail areas of alleged noncompliance or bad faith implementation. Please describe in detail each allegation. Request for Production No. 2\nPlease identify the correspondence with Junious Babbs, Dr. Les Camine, Sadie Mitchell, James Washington and \"other central office administrators\" to which you refer. Your assertion that \"[c]opies of these files have been previously provided to counsel for the District\" is not true if you mean by you. We may have these files, but we have no way of know to what letters within these files upon which you rely.  \u0026gt;Mr. John Walker September 27, 2001 Page 2 Interrogatory No. 5: Neither Dr. Camine nor Mr. Babbs acknowledged that the Comphance Plan was not provided to you -until Mr. Babbs letter of August 25, 2001. In fact, Mr. Babbs' letter states. If 'You will find no revision in it comparable to the copy of the draft that was mailed to your attention prior to board submission and adoption.\" Do you deny receiving a draft of the Comphance Plan prior to submission to the Board? Do you deny receiving a copy of the June 10, 1999, version of the Comphance Plan on July 1, 1999? Interrogatory No. 6: As we read your response, your answer to this interrogatory is \"no.\" Please let us know if our understanding is incorrect. Please bear tn mind that this interrogatory was not hmited to preparation of the Comphance Plan. InterrogatorvNo. 7: As we read your response, your answer to this interrogatory is \"no.\" Please let us know if our understanding is incorrect. Please bear in mind that this interrogatory was not limited to preparation of the Interim Comphance Report. Interrogatory No. 8: You reference your objections to LRSD being granted unitary status. From what we can decipher from your objections, you refer to disparities in the areas of discipline, achievement and special education. For these three areas and any others revealed by monitoring, please state (a) when you became aware of the disparity\n(b) when you communicated your knowledge of the disparity to LRSD\nand (c) whether's LRSD's response to the racial disparity comphed with the Re-vised Plan\nand if not, why you did not invoke the process for raising comphance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 fo the Re-vised Plan. As to the \"notes and files\" of LRSD personnel, please specifically identify the documents to which you are referring and/or provide copies of those documents as requested in Request for Production No. 5. Interrogatory No. 9: Please describe tn detail the alleged incidents of racial discrimination in the imposition of discipline. To the extent you reference correspondence with LRSD personnel, please specifically identify the documents to which you are referring and/or pro-vide copies of those documents as requested in Request for Production No. 6. Interrogatory No. 10: As LRSD understands your response, you answer to this interrogatory is that you do not know. Please let us know if our understanding is incorrect. Interrogatory No. 11: Please state whether's LRSD's response to each incident referred to the Ombudsman comphed with the Revised Plan\nand if not, why you did not invoke the process for raising comphance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 fo the Revised Plan. Request for Production No. 8: You indicate we should refer to the files of the Ombudsman. We would hke to be sure that his file is complete by comparing it to your file. Accordingly, please identify and/or provide copies of ah correspondence between you and the Ombudsman.Mr. John Walker September 27, 2001 Page 3 Interrogatory No. 12: Your answer is nonresponsive. The obligation under Section 2.5 was to implement programs, pohcies and/or procedures to ensure that there is no racial discriTninatinn with regard to student discipline. The District's discipline pohcies and procedures are outlined very clearly in the Students' Rights and Responsibihties Handbooks for each grade level. Do you contend that these were inadequate\nand if so, please identify ah facts and documents which support your position and provide us copies of any documents identified as requested in Request for Production No. 9. Interrogatory No. 13: Your answer is nonresponsive. The obhgation under Section 2.5.1 was to strictly adhere to the policies set forth in the Student Rights and Responsibihties Handbook. Do you contend that LRSD failed to do so\nand if so, please identify all facts and documents which support your position and provide us copies of any documents identified as requested in Request for Production No. 10. Interrogatory No. 14: Your answer is nonresponsive. The obligation under Section 2.5.2 was to purge students' discipline records after the fifth and eighth grades. Do you contend that the District failed to do so\nand if so, please identify all facts and documents which support your position and provide us copies of any documents identified as requested in Request for Production No. 11. Interrogatory No. 16: Your answer is nonresponsive. The obhgation under Section 2.5.4 requires LRSD to work with students and their parents to develop behavior modification plans for students who exhibit frequent misbehavior. Do you contend that LRSD failed to do so\nand if so, please identify all facts and documents which support your position and provide us copies of any documents identified as requested in R,equest for Production No. 13. Interrogatory No. 17: You state your position but fail to identify and describe in detail the facts and documents supporting your position\nplease do so and provide copies of any documents as requested in Request for Production No. 14. Please also identify the testimony of Junious Babbs, Sadie MitcheU, Bonnie Lesley and Dr. Leshe Gamine which you beheve supports your position. Interrogatory No. 18: As we understand your response, your answer to this interrogatory is \"none. Please let us know if our understanding is not correct. tl Request for Production No. 16: Please provide copies of all documents responsive to this request.Mr. John Walker September 27, 2001 Page 4 Due to the Court's deadline of November 1, 2001, we respectfully request that the above information and documents be provided on or before October 5,2001. If we have not reached some agreement by that date, we will file a motion to compel on October 8,2001. We agree to reimburse you for the cost of copying the documents requested. We appreciate your cooperation. Sincerely, cc: Dr. Ken James Ms. Ann Marshall JOHN W. Walker, P.A. Attoeney At Law 1723 Beoadway Little Rock, Aeeansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 '*% J JOHN W. WAT,KF,R SHAWN CHILDS Via Fax: 376-2147 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENEY, P.A. DONNAJ.McHENEY 8210 Hendeeson Road Lotle Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone\n(501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email\nmchenrydz^wbeH-nec September 20, 2001 Mr. Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Clay: We are not involved in litigation as that term is normally used. We are in the midst of an action where, despite our burden of proof, the district is defending its motion to be declared unitary. Accordingly, you are not entitled to inquire of us as to matters that you raise in your interrogatories. What difference does it matter regarding what we know, or knew along the way, regarding the district's performance now that you are at the end of the road for compliance, according to your motion. It really doesn't matter. The question is simply did your client do what it was committed to do now. All of the information regarding compliance is in your hands. I believe that your interrogatories are simply an effort to deflect our attention from acquiring information from you which will further demonstrate the lack of performance of the school distnct in fulfilling its commitments. I view the interrogatories much like I view your resistance to our e-mail requests, i.e., to place as many obstacles in the path of access to knowledge which you know, as a member of the compliance committee who also wore the hat of lawyer, shows noncompliance. The way I am feeling today, you may as well prepare your motion and that will be another matter that we wiE have a hearing on. Even if I provide a response to your \"interrogatories\" it will be upon the premises that we object to them because they are not pertinent at all to the issues of the lawsuit and that they are not designed to lead to helpful information to establish the district's case. Therefore, while you are in the process of preparing your motion, would you also request the court to set an expedited hearing on it as well as on your motion for contempt. We can use such a hearing date to determine the further parameters of your case before you proceed in November. It is my position that you cannot use information which was not present at the time '7  bii (LPage Two September 20, 2001 of your motion to support your motion. Accordingly, you should soon be prepared to inform me of any additional information which you have developed since March 15, 2001, when your time at bat comes. TWWilp cc\nMs. Arm Marshall Sinper^ly, fl LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE\nKDB Effective: July 16, 2001 PROCESS FOR MAKING REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION UNDER THE FOIA Purpose The specific purposes to be served by these procedures are:  To ensure that the District complies with the requirements of the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) as amended in 2001\n To ensure reasonable and timely citizen access of District records\n To ensure that the privacy rights of students and staff are protected in the release of District records\nand  To ensure an orderly and efficient process for obtaining information from the District. Definitions Records: Records shall be interpreted as writings, recorded sounds, films, tapes, or data compilations in any form, required by law to be kept, which constitute a record of the performance or lack of performance of official functions. All records maintained by LRSD employees in the scope of their employment shall be presumed to be public records. Before records are provided for inspection or copying, the custodian of the records shall determine if the records contain information that is not . releasable under the FOIA, Family Education Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA), or other applicable statutes. If the records contain information that is not releasable, it shall be the responsibility of the custodian to delete that information and make the remainder of the records available. Electronic Information\nFor the purpose of this administrative directive, electronic information shall be interpreted to include all data processing time required to manipulate computer or other technologically stored or generated data into a format that is transferable to the requester. Custodian of the Records: For the purpose of these regulations and the convenience of the public, the custodian of the records will be the person having administrative control of that record.I  LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE: KDB Effective: July 16. 2001 continued . Process for Obtaining Information through the FOIA AV  Any citizen of the State of Arkansas may request records open under the .Arkansas FOIA from the LRSDs custodian of the record.  The request may be made in person or by telephone, mail, facsimile transmission, electronic mail, or other electronic means provided by the custodian.  To facilitate the retrieval of the records, the request shall be sufficiently specific to enable the custodian to locate the records with reasonable effort.  The requester should indicate whether or not he/she wants to inspect the records or receive copies of the records. The LRSD will copy the requested records when the requester wants copies and it is reasonable for the District to make the copies.  In an effort to be responsive to the public and avoid accounting procedures that are not cost effective, the District will not charge for the first 25 pages that it copies for a citizen unless the total number of copies exceeds 25 in one calendar month. If it requires more than 25 pages of copies to meet a single request for information, or if a citizen makes additional requests for information within the month which would require more than 25 total pages of copies, the District will charge the requester 25 cents for each copy including the first 25 pages. Additionally, the District will charge the requester the actual costs of mailing or transmitting the record by facsimile or other electronic means. Special requests for electronic information will be handled as follows: 1, The District may agree to summarize, compile, or tailor electronic data in a particular manner or medium and may agree to provide the data in an electronic format to which it is not readily convertible. 2. Where the cost and time involved in complying with the requests are relatively minimal, the District may agree to provide the data as requested. 3. If the custodian agrees to a request, the District will charge the requester the actual, verifiable costs of personnel time exceeding two (2) hours associated with the tasks, in addition to copying costs. 4. The charge for personnel time shall not exceed the salary of the lowest paid employee who, in the discretion of the District, has the necessary skill and training to respond to the request. 5. The District will provide an itemized breakdown of charges-for expenses incurred.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE: KDB Effective: July 16, 2001 continued If the estimated fee exceeds twenty-five dollars ($25.00), the District will require the requester to pay the fee in advance. Requests must be made during normal business hours. Any requests received by facsimile or other means after regular business hours will be considered received at the start ofthe next business day.  If the information is in active use or storage at the time of the request, reasonable time will be established for the custodian to comply. The custodian will set a time, date, and place within three days at which time the records will be made available. To the extent practicable the custodian will do this in consultation with the person requesting the record for the convenience of both parties. If the person requesting the information does not come at the appointed time, the records may be returned to active use or storage.  In the event that the requester is seeking information regarding a third party, the custodian of the records will within 24 hours make efforts to the fullest extent possible to notify the person about whom the information is being sought. If personal contact cannot be made within the 24 hours, an overnight letter shall be sent to the last known address ofthe subject ofthe request. The District may also seek an Attorney Generals opinion about the release of the records. If an Attorney Generals opinion is sought, the records will not be released before the Attorney General has issued his/her opinion.uy/Zt/Ui rKi 14:52 KAA DRAFT I UU5 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT administrative DIRECTIVE\nEGAD Eifective:- October 1,2001 the use and DELETION OF ELECTRONIC mail With the spread of telecommunications throughout District recognizes that employees will shift information, and contact others. As the electronic work place, the the ways they share ideas, transmit staff members are connected to the global community, their use of new tools and systems brings r-.... well as opportunities. The District expeds that aTempiX^e: electronic mail and telecommunications  ' well as opportunities. new responsibilities as to the performance of tasks . will learn to use tools and apply them in appropriate ways associated with their positions and assignments. use of telecommunications to explore Dracticp-? communication systems expedite the sharing of effective Purpose The specific purposes of this directive To ensure that the District. To ensure that the District: are: To ensure s electronic mail system is used appropriately\ns electronic mail system works efficiently\nand an orderly and efficient process for the reasonable and timely AYtrpnRniic moil J purging of extraneous mail. Inappropriate Use The following behaviors networks: are inappropriate and are not permitted on the District A. B. C. employees because messages are not entirely secure\nSending or displaying offensive messages or pictures\n* . - . - ------Iu! piuLures, to any office D. E. promotion of or opposition to elections and business\nor for the any ballot proposition including union Using obscene, harassing, or insultino languaqe- F. Engaging in practices that threaten the may introduce a virus^\nViolating copyright laws\nnetwork (e.g., loading files thatu DRAFT UU4 G. H. I. J. Using others passwords\nTrespassing in others'folders, documents, or files' Employing the network for commercial purposes\nor Promoting, supporting or celebrating religion or religious institutions. Review or'Files and Communications The Districts computer network is the property and responsibility of the LRSD may review files and communications -3 maintain the systems integrity and to ri X \"  using the system responsibly. Users should that files stored on District servers will b- As such, network administrators transmitted through the network to that staff members are ensure ifi private. not expect .... Network administrators will sunervknr i i report inappropriate behaviors to the employee's supervisor who will take appropnate disciplinary action  inappropriate behavior, violations, c. supervisor for appropriate action. Violations e-mail system and/or disciplinary action. . Any other reports of or complaints will be routed to the employees fT-iay result g toss of access to the Storing_and Deletion of Electronic Messages and Files Many employees send and receive an extremely large volume of e-mail . . -------------/iciy icjiye voiurn day. Storage o.f e-mail in the Microsoft Outlook software has every impact on the efficiency of the system If Inboxes. \"Sent Items, a great negative users want to save files kept in personal folders or folders and Deleted Items,\" they must be appropriately stored rs in one of the other computer programs or drives. in Jo ^hat end mail left in Inboxes. \"Sent Items\", and/or \"Deleted Items will administrators from SX7J?1 be toiX'bto\"\"' longer will teTost tcthe the Microsoft Outlook was sent or received. Any mail or files all users ample time to clean and file October 1. 2001 to allow any e-mail that they wish to save to folders. !he T-eacXTT\"T \"g-up folders to save e-mail, they should refer to fUer ass Stoned ^RSD website for step-by-step directions. 11 luiLfier assistance is needed, o ea.sp  Don Department. please contact the LRSD Information ServicesFriday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHei  lOAV (IK2J-IVWI wtUUAM M. SUTTON. P A nYRCN M. EISEMAN. JR . P A JOE 0. BELL. P.A. JAMCS auTTRr. I*.*. PrSDERICX S. URSERY. P.a. ''SCAR . DAVIS, JR.. P.A. \\MESC. CLARK, JR.. P.A. . fHOMAS P. LECGETT. P_R. JOHN OEWEY WATSON. P.x PAUL a. BENHAM III. P.X Larry w. buaks. p.a. A. WYCXJJPP NISBET. JR., P.A. James edward karris, ..x i. PHiuUr maLCOM. Ka. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A lAUa U. SAXTON. P.A J. SKEPHCRO RUSSELLHI. P.A. DONALD K. BACON. P.A WXLUAM THOMAS OAXTEa. P.A. BARRY S. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD O. TAYI.0a, P.a. jO5:pk u. HURST, JR.. ..a. l^UEAaETH ROBBEN MUKKAT, P.A. CXRJSTOPHEX HBLU:*, P.A. LAURA HENSUrr SMITH, P.A. ROBERT S. SHaPBR. P.A. wiluaM .m. caiFFiN in, p.a. MJCHaE1.S. MOORE. . X 01 ANU S. .MACKEY, P.A. Walter m. ebel dl p.a. xaviN A. CRASS, p.x attorneys at law A LIMITED LIASILITY PARTNERSHIP www.rridaydrm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL WAOOELU JK, F.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTE3L P.A. M. CaYLE CORLEY, P.x ROBERT II. OCaCK, JR.. P A. J, t-ee uhown. p.a. JAMBS C flAKER, JR.. P.x HAftav LICHT. SCOTT K TOCXER. P.A. OUY ALTON WADS. F,A PRICE C. GARDNER. KA. TONIA P. JONES. KA. DAVTO O. WILSON, P.A, LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 722Q1-34S3 telephone 501-376-2011 FAX S01-37S-2147 3125 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE. SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 727C3-411 TCLEFHONE 5Oi-aos-2Qii FAX 501.S0S.2147 IEFFR.EY H. MOORI'. F A- 0AV1O M CMAl'. r.A.  CARLA CUNNIIL\n! SI'AINKOUR. Ka. JOHN C. FUPOLHY. JR . Ka. lONANH ELIZAaeTH CONlGLlO. X.A. IL CHRISTOFHER LAWSON, r A. CRfCORY . TAYLOR. F.A TONY L. WILCOX. I'.A. FRAN C. HICKMAN. r,A. BETTY J. OUMOkY. I'.A. LYNDA M, JOHNSON. r.A,. JAMSS W. SMITW. P.A, CUFFORD W. FLUNKUTT. P.A. OANXEL L. IIEXXINCTON. F.a. MARVtN L. CHILOBRS JL COLEMAH wesTHROOIC. JIL ALLISON J. COrNWRLL SLLZN M. OWENS JASON U. HRNOREH naves a. nDweij. KJCHaELS. KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSE^H K MCKAV ALKXANOILA A J^Y T. TAYLOR IFRAH Martin a. kast.n BBVaH W, duke JOSUrMG NICW0I4I ROAERT T. SMITH RYAN A. QQWMaN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T MICHEXXS ATOR Karen s. halbert SaRaH M. cotton PHIUP a. MONTGOMERY KRISTEN 3. RJCCn^S ALAN C. aaVAN SOB NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLS. ARKANSAa 72315 TELEPHONE eT0.7B2\u0026gt;ZB8fl FAX a7O-7a2'2Bia r\u0026lt;F Ci'^UNdU. a.S. CUtRX WILUAM U TERRY WTLUAM L PATTON. JK H.T. LARZaUlRC. P.A JOHN C ECT-IOLS. KA. A D. mCavU.'JTER September 12, 2001 JOHN C. FENOLEY. JR. LITTLE ROCH TEL 5^1-370-3323 FAX 31-a44-S341 }andlay\u0026lt;S|rc.n( \\/ILUA ( Via FacsimUe/Mail) Mr. John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Dear Mr. Walker\nWe are in receipt of your letter dated September 12,20OD We agree that our communication On this issue should be in writing. Accordingly, please provide us a written proposal for a Protective Order. We will not make any e-mails responsive to your FOIA requests to principals available for your review until we reach an agreement on a Protective Order. Sincerely, John C. Fendley, Jr. JCF/bgb P\n\\H0MEU3BfDwn\\Fcn\u0026lt;lJey\\IJlSD\\w]ur twpd 200lg] IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS OCT 0 3 2001 WESTERN DIVISION JAMES vy McCQfiMACK By\nA '   ' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * * * No. 4:82CV00866 SWW OCT s 2001 OFFICE OF desegregation MONITORIMG ORDER On October 2, 2001, the Court held a hearing in this matter to address the Joshua Intervenors motion for definition and clarification of the issues and other relief. For the reasons stated at that hearing and the reasons stated below, the Court made the following rulings on the issues presented in that motion: The Little Rock School Districts second set of interrogatories and requests for production to Joshua are quashed except to the extent that the Court required Joshua to respond to the LRSDs contention interrogatories and requests for production during the hearing. Joshua is directed to provide the LRSD with any documents from Joshua monitors or members ofthe Joshua class that support or do not support an assertion that the LRSD has misled Joshua. If the LRSD cannot appreciate the significance of a witness or exhibit after Joshua provides its witness and exhibit lists to the LRSD for the upcoming hearing, the LRSD may ask Joshua for the significance of that witness or exhibit. The Court expects Joshua to stand by its 5 1 5 representation at the hearing that it will provide that information. The parties will submit an agreed protective order governing e-mails requested from the LRSD by Joshua. Concerning Joshuas access to e-mails beyond March 15, 2001, the LRSD is directed to notify the Court on or before Friday, October 5, 2001, which of the two options it will choose: Option 1: (A) Present evidence concerning the LRSDs activities with respect to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan beyond the date of March 15, 2001\nand (B) Produce the e-mails requested by Joshua beyond that date. Option 2: (A) Present evidence concerning the LRSDs activities with respect to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan up to the date of March 15, 2001, and not beyond\n(B) Correspondingly, the LRSD would have no obligation to produce the e-mails requested by Joshua beyond that date. Should the LRSD choose Option 1, it is directed to ensure that it does not delete e-mails without preserving copies for Joshua. Other than the requirement in this paragraph to preserve copies of requested e-mails for Joshua should the LRSD select Option 1, the Court will not suspend implementation of LRSD Administrative Directive EGAD (The Use and Deletion of Electronic Mail). By agreement of the parties as reflected at the hearing, the LRSD shall be permitted to take the depositions ofthe Joshua monitors and class representatives at a date and time to be agreed by the parties. If either party requests, the Court will be available to the parties during these depositions to address issues that cannot be resolved without the Courts intervention. The Court requests that the parties provide the Court advance notice of the dates and times for the depositions if the parties wish the Court to be available during the depositions. 2Joshua is directed to pay the LRSD the amount required for the FOIA requests pursuant to LRSD Administrative Directive KDB (Process for Making Requests for Information Under the FOIA). Because the LRSD has assured the Court that LRSD Administrative Directive KDB applies to any person requesting FOIA material from the LRSD, the Court will not suspend implementation of LRSD Directive KDB. Counsel for Joshua may, as always, participate in Joshuas continuing monitoring of the LRSD. The participation of counsel for Joshua in the monitoring shall be consistent with the Courts Order entered August 20, 2001, in which the Court stated: [T]he Court directs counsel for Joshua Intervenors to go through counsel for the Little Rock School District when seeking information from the district or district officials and personnel that is pertinent to the case, and to inform counsel for the Little Rock School District prior to contacting district officials and personnel about matters not currently before the Court. To clarify, counsel for Joshua is not required to inform counsel for the LRSD before visiting a LRSD campus\nhowever, if counsel for Joshua intends to communicate with district officials and personnel while visiting, counsel for Joshua shall be required to contact coimsel for the LRSD as set forth above. The LRSD Student Handbook shall govern issues relating to the presence of counsel for Joshua at individual student disciplinary hearings. IT IS SO ORDERED THIS DAY OF OCTOBER, 2001 CHIEF judg: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58, AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON BY. FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT^^^^R'^o'strictArkansas EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OCT 0 \u0026lt;1 2001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 4:82CV00866 SWW NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL RECEIVER MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL MRS. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL OCT 5 2001 OFFICE Of DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER JAMES By:___ : RK ----X DDEEPP CCLLEERR PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Court previously scheduled a hearing on Little Rock School District's motion for contempt against John Walker. In light of the correspondence received from Clay Fendley,  counsel for the LRSD, the contempt hearing will not be necessary. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the contempt hearing scheduled for Tuesday, October 16, 2001, is hereby canceled. and the motion for vs . contempt is denied as moot. DATED this day of October, 2001. susaH' wmeBKRWBTGHT / Chief United States District Judge THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE.58 AND/OR 7^) FRCP O N BY-----SSLI----- ^A copy of Mr. Pendley's faxed letter is attached to this order. RECEIVED OCT - 9 2001 omcta IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. LET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS RESPONSE TO ORDER FILED OCTOBER 3. 2001 Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Response to Order filed October 3, 2001, states: 1. LRSD objects to being forced to select from the two options offered by the Court. Joshua has requested all e-mails of the District's administrators and principals. This request is over broad and would place an undue burden on LRSD to respond. Every e-mail created by an administrator or principal is not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. LRSD also objects to the Court's selection of March 15, 2001, as a cut-off date for the presentation of evidence for two reasons. First, the term of the Revised Plan did not end until May 31, 2001, the last day for students for the 2000-01 school year. Second, late compliance could constitute substantial compliance, and LRSD should be granted unitary status if it has substantially complied with the Revised Plan. See Revised Plan, Section 11. 2. Without waiving these objections, LRSD states that it selects Option 2 with the understanding that documents \"concerning the LRSD's activities with respect to the Revised Desegregation Plan up to the date of March 15, 2001\" will not be excluded from evidence simply because the documents are dated after March 15, 2001. As LRSD understands the Court's decision, the Court does not want to hear evidence related to activities undertaken after March 15, 2001, which should have been performed before March 15, 2001.Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501)376-2011 BY: (L - leller (#81083) ' h la-,, T,- /'tiOOICTl Cl^uistopher Heller ^6hn C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail (unless otherwise indicated) on October 5, 2001: Mr. John W. Walker (hand-delivered) JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown (hand-delivered) Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 L . Christopher Heller J\u0026lt;^ C. Fendley, Jr. 3 RECEIVED OCT - 9 2001 omcfcOk IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING ALTERNATIVE MEANS FOR PREPARATION OF TRANSCRIPT OF THE OCTOBER 2, 2001, HEARING For its Motion, Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") states: 1. This Court's Order of October 3,2001 quashed LRSD's second set of interrogatories and requests for production \"except to the extent that the Court required Joshua to respond to LRSD's contention interrogatories and requests for production during the hearing\" of October 2, 2001. 2. Immediately after the October 2, 2001 hearing, counsel for LRSD approached the court reporter about obtaining a transcript and was advised that a hearing transcript could not be prepared before the November 19,2001 hearing due to preexisting obligations. Counsel asked the court reporter if someone else could transcribe the tape or if LRSD could obtain a tape of the proceeding and have it transcribed. We were advised that the court reporter was not authorized to release tapes of proceedings. 3. This Court has inherent authority to control proceedings before it and authorize some alternate means of having the transcript prepared prior to the November 19,2001 hearing, including authorizing another reporter to transcribe the tape or authorizing release of the tape to LRSD to have it transcribed. LRSD would agree to provide all requesting parties a copy of the transcript preparedfrom the tape and to return the tape to the court reporter so an official transcript can be prepared at her convenience. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that this Court issue an Order authorizing the court reporter to employ some alternate means of preparing a transcript of the October 2, 2001 hearing, and for all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-21114------y ChfisWpEer Heller (#81083\u0026lt; John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy ofthe foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail (unless otherwise indicated) on October 9, 2001: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Ms. Ann Marshall (hand-delivered) Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher FTeller John C. Fendley, Jr. 3A. received OCT 15 2001 ORRCEOF FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OCT 1 1 2001 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ...  .cdv WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By:. DEP CLERK C.P LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS RESPONSE TO THE LRSDS RESPONSE TO ORDER FILED OCTOBER 3, 2001 The Joshua Intervenors object to the response of the LRSD because it seeks to condition the Courts Order. The Courts Order was clear and unambiguous and should not be modified absent compelling cause which cause is stated for the record. Respectfully submitted. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (Tel.) (501) 374-4187 (Fax) By: .A- Joi Walker, Bar No. 64046 -1-4\u0026lt;  CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE counsel or record, postage prepaid on this I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the following // day of October, 2001. Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Arm Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Johtiz^. Walker -1-OCi 1 2001 ucOF KSEGREGAIiON MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS OCT 1 7 2001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. Let al.. Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al.. Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al.. Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * * * JAMEl By:_ B W. McCORMACK, CLERK V DEPTLERK No. 4:82CV00866 SWW RECElVbiJ OCT 18 2001 OIWEOF (OTESKnONMWRIHG ORDER The Court is in receipt of Little Rock School Districts response [docket no. 3517] to this Courts Order [docket no. 3515] filed October 3, 2001, as well as Joshua Intervenors response in opposition [docket no. 3520] to LRSDs response. LRSD states in its response that it objects to being forced to select from the two options offered by the Court. jii LRSD also states that it objects to the March 15, 2001 cut-off date for the presentation of evidence. The Court notes LRSDs objections. The Court acknowledges that LRSD may have evidence concerning its activities with respect to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan) subsequent to March 'In its October 3, 2001 Order [docket no. 3515], the Court directed LRSD to choose from two options as follows: Option 1- Present evidence concerning the LRSDs activities with respect to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan beyond the date of March 15,2001\nand produce the e-mails requested by Joshua beyond that date.\nOption 2- Present evidence concerning the LRSDs activities with respect to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan up to the date of March 15, 2001, and not beyond\nand correspondingly, the LRSD would have no obligation to produce the e-mails requested by Joshua beyond that date. Without waiving its objections, LRSD has informed the Court that it selects Option 2. 1 S 5 2 115, 2001 which may bear on the issue of whether LRSD has complied with the Revised Plan. The Court gave LRSD an opportunity to elect to present this evidence and LRSD has now rejected this opportunity. Should the Court ultimately sustain Joshuas objections to the Compliance Report and deny unitary status to LRSD, LRSD may in the future, when circumstances warrant. file additional motions in support of unitary status that would include compliance activities subsequent to March 15,2001. The Court wishes to reiterate to LRSD the significance of the March 15, 2001 deadline. On March 15, 2001, LRSD filed its Notice and Compliance Report (Compliance Report) [docket no. 3410], representing to the Court that as of that date, the district had achieved unitary status. Specifically, LRSD stated: LRSD hereby files the attached Compliance Report in accordance with Section 11 of its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan). LRSD has substantially and in good faith complied with terms of the Revised Plan.^ The Court reminds LRSD that the hearings scheduled on November 19 and 20, 2001, concern Joshuas objections to this Compliance Report. There is no reason to obfuscate the issue by complaining about Joshuas activities- Joshuas activities are not relevant unless such activities relate to the trustworthiness of evidence presented by Joshua. It is the Compliance Report, and Joshuas objections thereto, which are now before the Court, and upon which the Court will focus. The Compliance Report represents that LRSD had complied with certain requirements of the Revised Plan\nhowever, the evidence presented to date by Joshua demonstrates otherwise. The Court anticipates that LRSD will present evidence that the representations in the Compliance ^Docket no. 3410 (Notice of Filing Compliance Report and Request for Scheduling Order), Paragraph No. 1. 2Report are accurate and truthful. The truthfulness and accuracy of LRSDs representations in the March 15, 2001 Compliance Report could have bearing on the Courts disposition of the unitary status question. The Court assumes, without deciding, that if the district is in compliance, good faith will not be an issue. However, should the Court find compliance in some areas but a failure of compliance in others, the districts good faith will determine the extent to which the Court may withdraw its monitoring activities. See Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 491 (1992) (A courts discretion to order the incremental withdrawal of its supervision in a school desegregation case must be exercised in a manner consistent with the purposes and objectives of its equitable power. Among the factors which must inform the sound discretion of the court in ordering partial withdrawal [is] ... whether the school district has demonstrated, to the public and to the parents and students of the once disfavored race, its good-faith commitment to the whole of the courts decree ....). THEREFORE, the Courts Order [docket no. 3515] of October 3, 2001 is hereby clarified to bring into focus for LRSD the significance of the March 15, 2001 deadline. IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 17 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2001 CHIEF JUDG. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT The Court is mindful that the district has promised good faith in the revised plan: LRSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African-American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color, or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools. LRSD Revised Desegregation and Education Plan of January 16, 1998 at 2.1 [Exhibit A to 59 docket no. 3107]. 3 THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON BY. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT received PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 OCT 2 6 2001 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL Joshua failed to respond to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents within the time prescribed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3), failed to submit verified responses as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(1) and (2), and failed to fully respond as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(1). Because Joshua's responses were untimely. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4) prohibits Joshua from raising objections. It provides, \"Any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the party's failure to object is excused by the court for good cause shown.\" (emphasis supplied). Accordingly, Joshua should be compelled to provide full. complete and verified responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a) as requested in Plaintiffs letter of September 27, 2001, attached as Exhibit 3 to the accompanying Motion. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b).Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501)376-2011 BY: /Christopher Heller (#81083) / C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) / 2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify copy of the foregoing has been served on the following persons by mail on October Ao , 2001: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagameier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 ol ihopher Heller ' /I n C. Jr. \\J Fendley, FAHOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD 200I\\dcs-mol-compcl-cIarification-bri.wpd 3IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LRC 82 86,^gQ0yEO PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL oct 2 6 MB' DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL Plaintiff Little Rock School District for its Motion for Compel states: 1. Plaintiff served the Joshua Intervenors with Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents (Exhibit 1 attached) by mail on August 9, 2001, making Joshua's responses due on or before September 11, 2001. Joshua hand-delivered responses to LRSD on September 24, 2001. 2. Joshua's responses (Exhibit 2 attached) were unverified and otherwise failed to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff outlined the deficiencies in a letter dated September 27, 2001 (Exhibit 3 attached), and requested that Joshua supplement its responses. 3. Joshua has not responded to Plaintiffs letter of September 27, 2001. 4. Joshua should be compelled to provide responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents that comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 5. Joshua attached a copy of Plaintiffs September 27, 2001, letter to their Motion for Definition and Clarification of the Issues and for Other Relief. This Court held a hearing on that Motion on October 2, 2001, and issued an Order the following day. While the Court quashedPlaintiffs Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production, it did not address Joshua's responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that Joshua be ordered to provide full, complete and verified responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production to the Joshua Intervenors Regarding Joshua's Objections to Unitary Status\nthat Plaintiff be awarded its costs and attorneys' fees expended herein\nand that Plaintiff be awarded all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501)376-2011 BY: AJhristopher Heller (#810'^3)^ ^hn C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following persons by mail on October 25, 2001: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagameier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 JI istopher Heller n C. Fendley, Jr. F \\HOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD 200l\\des-fno(-compel-clarificatjon wpd 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS REGARDING JOSHUA'S OBJECTIONS TO UNITARY STATUS Comes the Plaintiff, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), and submits the following Interrogatories and Requests for Production to be answered within thirty days in accord with Rules 33 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. GENEIUKL DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS (A) \"you\" or\"your\" Shall mean the Joshua Intervenors' LRSD class representative and counsel for the Joshua Intervenors and any person (as defined below) acting on their behalf\n(B) \"person\" Shall mean any individual, corporation, partnership, joint venture, firm. association, proprietorship, agency, board, authority, commission, and other such entities\n(C) \"communicate\" or \"communication\" Shall mean every manner or means of disclosure, transfer or exchange, and every disclosure, transfer or exchange of information whether orally or by document or whether face to face, by telephone, mail, personal delivery, or otherwise\n(D) \"document z \u0026gt;  EXHIBIT IShall mean any original written, typewritten, handwritten, pnnted or recorded material, as well as all tapes, disks, non-duplieate copies and transcnpts thereof, now or al any time in your possession, custody or control\nand, without limiting the generality of the foregoing definition, but for the purposes of illustration only, \"document\" includes notes. correspondence, memoranda, business records, diaries, calendars. address and telephone records, photographs, tape recordings, videotapes and financial statements. Without limitation of the term \"control\" as used in the preceding sentence, a document is deemed to be in your control if you have the right to secure the document or a copy thereof from another thereof. person or a public or private entity having actual possession If a document that is responsive to a request for identification or production is in your control, but is not in your possession or custody, identify the person with or custody. possession If any document that is responsive to a request for identification or production was. but IS no longer, in your possession or subject to your control, state what disposition was made of it, by whom, and the date or dates or approximate date or dates on which disposition was made, and why\n(E) \"identify (i) As to a person (as defined), shall mean the person's name, business and residence address(es), occupation, job title\nand, if not an individual, state the type of entity and the address of its principal place of business\n(ii) As to a document, shall mean the type of document (letter, memo, etc.) the identity of the author or originator, the date authored each person to whom the original or copy was addressed or originated, the identity of or delivered, the identity of such 2The singular includes the plural number, and vice versa. The masculine includes the feminine and neuter genders. The past tense includes the present tense where the clear meaning is not distorted by change of tense. If you do not answer any Interrogatory or Request for Production because of a claim of privilege, set forth the privilege claimed, the facts upon which you rely to support the claim of privilege, and identify all documents for which such privilege is claimed. fNTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please identify all persons who participated in the preparation of the responses hereto. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please identify the Joshua Intervenors' LRSD class representative and the date on which that person became Joshua s class representative. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please identify all persons who performed monitoring for you during the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Please produce all of your monitonng reports that were shared with LRSD during the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. fNTERRQGATORY NO. 4: Please identify and describe in detail all areas of noncompliance and bad faith implementation communicated by you to LRSD dunng the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Please produce all documents pertaining to areas of noncompliance and bad faith implementation communicated by you to LRSD during the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 4interrogatory no. 5: Please state whether you received a copy of LRSD's Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999, on July, 1, 1999, and if not, please state when you received a copy of LRSD's Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Please identify and describe in detail all communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the format or content of LRSD's Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Please produce all documents pertaining to communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the format or content of LRSD's Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Please identify and descnbe in detail all communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the format or content of LRSD's Interim Compliance Report filed March 15, 2000. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Please produce all documents pertaining to all communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the content and format of LRSD's Intenm Compliance Report filed March 15, 2000. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Please identify and describe in detail all racial disparities revealed by your monitoring during the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\nand for each area of racial disparity state: (a) (b) (c) When you became aware of the disparity\nWhen you communicated your knowledge of the disparity to LRSD\nWhether LRSD's response to the racial disparity complied with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\nand if not, why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 5request for production no. 5: Please produce all documents to your response to the preceding Interrogatory regarding racial disparities. pertaining interrogatory no. 9: Please identify and describe in detail all incidents of racial discrimination in the imposition of discipline which occurred during the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, and separately with regard to each such incident, please state: (a) (b) (c) When you became aware of the incident\nWhen you communicated your knowledge of the incident to LRSD\nWhether LRSD's response to the incident complied with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\nand if not, why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 ofthe Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding Interrogatory regarding incidents of racial discrimination in the imposition of discipline. INTERROGATORYNO. 10: On average, about 85% of LRSD's suspensions are of African-American students (See Compliance Report, March 15, 2001, p. 24). Please explain how much of that 85%, if any, you contend results from racial discrimination by LRSD and identify all facts and documents with contention? support that REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding interrogatory. 6INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Please identify and describe in detail all incidents involving student discipline which you referred to the LRSD Ombudsman\nand separately for each such incident, please state: (a) (b) When you became aware of the incident\nWhen you communicated your knowledge of the incident to the ombudsman\n(c) Whether LRSD's response to the incident complied with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\nand if not, why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Please produce all documents pertaining to your communications with the LRSD Ombudsman. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Please identify all facts and documents which support your objection to LRSD's compliance with Section 2.5 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Please identify all facts and documents which support your objection to LRSD's compliance with Section 2.5.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding interrogatory. 7interrogatory NO, 14: Please identify all facts and documents which support your objection to LRSD's compliance with Section 2.5.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Please identify all facts and documents which support your objection to LRSD's compliance with Section 2.5.3 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Please identify all facts and documents which support your objection to LRSD's compliance with Section 2.5.4 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST EOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Please state whether you contend that the \"Program Evaluation Agenda\" and/or the \"Assessment Plan\" set forth on pages 53-57 in the Interim Compliance Report filed March 15, 2000, complied with LRSD's obligation under Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. If not, please: (a) identify and describe in detail all facts and documents supporting your contention\n(b) (c) state when you determined that they did not comply\nwhen you communicated to LRSD your belief that they did not comply\nand, 8(d) why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding interrogatory. fNTERROGATORY NO. 18: Please identify and describe in detail all programs, policies and procedures proposed by you pertaining to LRSD's obligations under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: Please produce all documents pertaining to programs, policies and procedures proposed by you pertaining to LRSD's obligations under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Please produce all documents received by you in the ordinary course of business (as opposed to in response to an FOIA request) during the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan pertaining to your participation on LRSD committees or in LRSD activities. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Please produce all documents pertaining to your invoking the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 37(UO+I-------. BT Christopher Heller 1083j John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 9CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on August 9, 2001: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 .Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm I 1800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1 895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sammye Taylor Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 ^Christopher Heller F HOME'FES'DLEY'LRSD 2CWJ\\(ks-uniian in( ffpJoshua00l ''pd 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO.4:82CV00866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ETAL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE lOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS JOSHUAS ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION REGARDING JOSHUAS OBJECTIONS TO UNITARY STATUS INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please identify all persons who participated in the prepar ation of the responses hereto. ANSWER NO. 1: John W. Walker as counsel for the Joshua Intei-venors and Joy C. Springer, Monitor. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please identify the Joshua Intervenors LRSD representative and the date on which that person became Joshuas class representative. ANSWER NO. 2: The Defendant LRSD is aware of the class representatives. There have been no new or additional persons identified as class representatives. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please identify all persons who performed mortitoring for you dming the term of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Educational Plan. ANSWER NO. 3: The following persons performed monitoring: John W. Walker, -1- I m  EXHIBIT zJoy C. Springer, Kirke Herman, Carolyn Cooley, Margaret Freeman, Lorene Joshua, Delois Sykes and Frances Caldwell. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Please produce all of your monitoring reports that were shared with LRSD during the term of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. RESPONSE NO. 1: The Joshua Intervenors counsel, in response to and at the request of Supeiintendent Les Camine and District counsel Chris Heller, in an effort to be cooperative with them did not publish any monitoiing reports of the concerns which he had with respect to LRSD Plan implementation between 1998 and 2001. See the written communications from Heller, Camine and Walker - Comi Exhibits 558 and 566. fNTERRQGATORY NO. 4: Please identify and describe in detail all areas of noncompliance and bad faith implementation communicated by you to LRSD \u0026amp; term of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 4\nPlease see Joshuas Opposition to LRSDs Motion for Unitary Status filed herein. The Agieement entered between Little Rock School District and the State of Arkansas regarding the 20 million dollar loan forgiveness. Also see the notes and files of Superintendent Les Camine, Distiict counsel Chirs Heller, Junious Babbs, James Washington, Sadie Mitchell, Marion Lacey, Linda Watson, Brady Gadberry, Victor Anderson, Bonnie Lesley and Gene Parker that contain correspondence and other documentation fiom Joshua. There is a partial list of items in the March 15, 2001 Compliance Report. In addition, undersigned counsel had numerous conversations with -2-Superintendent Camine and District Attorney Heller regarding noncompliance issues at Rightsell Elementary School involving discipline, lack of academic achievement, segr egation of boys from gir ls as a punitive measrrre\ndouble funding, maintenance and proper staffing, equipment and materials at the Incentive Schools\nthe proposed closing of Mitchell Elementary school\nthe closing of Ish School rmder the guise of it not being a repairable facility and later being refurbished to house the new Ish Instructional Resource Center\nPulaski Heights Middle School involving disparate treatment of Afiican American students and staff, disparate discipline, lack of academic achievement, use of racial slurs and r acial epitaphs by staff, assault of students by staff and discriminatory learning environment\nHall High School involving discriminatory learning environment. dispar ate discipline, lack of recognition of academic honors and lack of academic achievement\nCloverdale Middle School involving discriminatory learning environment, dispar ate discipline and lack of academic achievement\nthe creation and implementation of Office of Ombudsperson\ndiscriminatory practices mvolvmg the removal of the principal at J. A. Fan High School\nthe promotion of Gayle Bradford to School Services and of other principals who engaged in discriminatory conduct towar d Afiican American students and/or staff (Faith Donovan, Nancy Rosseaum etc.)\nMabelvale Middle School involving discr iminatory learning envirorrment, disparate discipline and lack academic achievement\nDunbar Middle School involving disparate discipline of students including the use of resource officer in investigation and determination of discipline decisions. assault of student by staff member, use of racial slru s by staff and lack of academic -3- achievement\nForest Heights Middle School involving disparate discipline, disciiminatory discipline practices\nWakefield Elementary involving the quality of education being delivered and discriminatoiy learning environment\nForest Park Elementary involving discriminatoiy learning environment, discriminatory practices regarding the participation in field tiip activities, racial comments by members of the PT A\nMeadowcliff Elementary involving dispar ate discipline\nWestern HiUs Elementary involving retaliatory treatment of staff member who complained about lack of and poor implementation of lEPs and education of African American students\nRockefeller Elementary involving disparate discipline of students and staff\nHorace Mann involving discriminatory grading practices. discriminatory discipline nrles established at the school level, dispar ate discipline practices, assault of student by staff member\nCentral High School involving discriminatory practices in student participation in extracrmicular activities- cheerleader tryouts, homecoming queens, mock court, student council, disparate discipline practices. one race AP classes and favoring white students hr these classes, lack of academic achievement and favoring white students in awards and activities\nParkview involving discriminatory practices in coimseling services, dispar ate discipline, discrinrinatory practices in student participation hr extracrrrricular activities (band and choir). discriminatory teaching assignments, lack of academic achievement\nMcClellan involving imequal facilities, staff, learning evtiorrment, resorrrces, and staff use of racial epitaphs\nseveral incidents of discriminatory assignment practices\nnumerous incidents of the Districts failm e to properly implement lEPs of African American students\nand Safety -4-and Secmity Director Bobby Jones staff use. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Please produce all documents to areas of noncompliance and bad faith implementation commimicated by you to LRSD during the teim of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. RESPONSE NO. 2: Refer to response given in Inteirogatory Answer No. 4. Documents are located in files entitled John W. Walker in the offices of Junious Babbs, Supeiintendent Cainine, Sadie Mitchell, and other central office administrators including the offices of Ombudsperson, James Wasliington. Copies of these files have been previously provided to counsel for the District. Also refer to Court Exhibits 556, 557, 558 and 566. Also see attached documents. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Please state whether you received a copy of LRSDs Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999, on July, 1, 1999, and if not, please state when you received copy of LRSDs Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999. ANSWER NO. 5: I obtained with difficulty and only after repeated requests of the plan from Disbict officials. Superintendent Cainine and Junious Babbs acknowledge that the compliance plan was not provided to counsel for Joshua Intervenors until after a request was made for it along with the compliance handbook.. See Com! Exhibits 559 and 562. (Plan was received shortly after the date indicated in Babbss letter of August 31, 2001, Coml Exhibit 562.) INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Please identify and describe in detail all communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the format or content of LRSDs -5-Compliance Plan dated Jxme 10, 1999. ANSWER NO. 6\nThere were no communications between the parties regarding the format or content of the Compliance Plan. District officials and other compliance committee members developed the plan without input from Joshua. District officials did not request any input from Joshua although Joshua sought on many occasions to be involved in the process. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Please produce all documents pertaining to commimications between you and LRSD pertaining to the format or content of LRSDs Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999. RESPONSE NO. 3: Refer to response given in Inteirogatoiy Answer No. 6. ENTERROGATORY NO. 7: Please identify and describe in detail all communications between you and LRSD pertaining to tlie format or content of LRSDs Interim Compliance Report filed March 15, 2000. ANSWER NO. 7: There were no communications between the parties. District officials and other compliance committee members developed the content and format of LRSDs Interim Compliance Report filed on Maich 15, 2000 without input from Joshua. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.4: Please produce all documents pertaining to all communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the content and format LRSDs Interim Compliance Report filed March 15, 2000. RESPONSE NO. 4: Refer to response given in Interrogatory Answer No. 7. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Please identify and describe in detail all racial -6-disparities revealed by youi' monitoring during the term of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\nand for each area of racial disparity state: (a) When you became awaie of the disparity\n(b) When you communicated your knowledge of the disparity to LRSD (c) Whether LRSDs response to the racial disparity complied with the Desegi egation and Education Plan\nand if not, why you did not invoke the process raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 8: Please refer to the Joshuas Response in Opposition to LRSDs Motion for Unitaiy Status filed herein. Also see Interrogatory Response No. 4. Distiict officials and members of the compliance committee withheld and refused to shai e the quailerly reports which were produced by the School Services division of the Distiict. These reports were indicative of the racial disparities that remained present in the Distiict. Also see the notes and files of Superintendent Les Cainine, District counsel etuis Heller, Junious Babbs, James Washington, Sadie Mitchell, Marion Lacey, Linda Watson, Brady Gadbeny, Victor Anderson, Bonnie Lesley and Gene Parker that indicate dates of communications. Joshuas coimsel was continually misled and misinformed by LRSD school officials including Camine and Heller regarding desegregation accomplishments. In addition, the Distiict did not regularly provide the semester by semester discipline statistics. The Joshua Intervenors counsel did invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to the revised plan which he had with respect to LRSD -7-Plan implementation between 1998 and 2001 involving several issues, however, in response to and at the request of and from Supeiintendent Camine and District counsel Chris Heller and upon promised of fair and adequate remedy thereof, he did not follow through on the compliance issues that were raised. Joshuas right to contest in a vigorous manner the Districts release from comt jurisdiction after the Districts report of March 15, 2001 is independent of the number of times Joshua invoked the process described in Section 8 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Please produce all documents pertaining to yom response to the preceding Inteirogatoiy regaiding racial disparities. RESPONSE NO. 5: Refer to response given m Interrogatory Answer No. 8. Also see Coml Exhibits 556, 557, 558, 566 and 582. Also see attached documents. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Please identify and describe in detail all incidents of racial discrimination in the imposition of discipline which occmred during the term of LRSDs Revised Desegiegation and Education Plan, and separately with regard to each such mcident, please state: (a) When you became awar e of the incident\n(b) When you communicated your knowledge of the incident to LRSD (c) Whether LRSDs response to the mcident complied with the Revised Desegiegation and Education Plan\nand if not, why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pur suant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. -8-ANSWER NO. 9\nJoshua received notice of numerous incidents involving racial discrimination over the three year period. See Response in Interrogatory No. 4. Also see the files of Ombudsman, James Washington. Also see letter addressed to Superintendent Camine with copies to James Washington and Dr. Linda Watson dated November 8, 2000, Coml Exhibit 567. There were munerous racial incidents during this period including, but not limited to the following schools: Hall High School, McClellan, Central, Parkview and Fair High Schools, Pulaski Heights, Marm, Cloverdale, Southwest Dunbar and Forest Heights Middle Schools, Brady, Western Hills, Carver, Forest Park, Dodd, Rightsell, Gibbs and Pulaski Heights Elementary schools. Many of these cases were referred to the office of the Ombudsman. Also see Answer to Interrogatory Nos. 8 and 11. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding Interrogatory regarding incidents of racial discrimination in the imposition of discipline. RESPONSE NO. 6\nSee the files of Dr. Linda Watson, Student Hearing Officer and those of the Ombudsperson, James Washington. Also see Com! Exhibits 567, 568 and attached docirments. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: On average, about 85% of LRSDs suspensions are of Afiican-American students (See Compliance Report, March 15, 2001, p. 2 Please explain how much of that 85%, if any, you contend results from racial discrimination by LRSD and identify all facts and documents with support that contention? -9-ANSWER NO. 10\nLRSD did not adopt specific compliance standards for the area of student discipline, or monitor such standar d at pailiculai' schools exhibiting problems of racial disparity in discipline. LRSD has this obligation under Section 6 of the revised plan. LRSDs failure in this regard diminishes Joshuas ability to segiegate instances of racial dispaiity in discipline. Not all black children who are disciplined are not included in the discipline reports. Fuilheimore, it is our opinion that when African American students engage in the same conduct as white students, the white students are not disciplined. In addition, the quarterly reports which confinn the continued disparity were withheld by Districts officials. REQLIEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Please produce all documents pertaining to yom response to the preceding mtenogatory. RESPONSE NO. 7: See response in Intenogatory No. 10. rNTERROGATORY NO. 11: Please identify and describe all incidents involving student discipline which you referred to the LRSD Ombudsman\nand separately for each such incident, please state: (a) When you became awar e of the incident\n(b) When you communicated your knowledge of the incident to the ombudsman\n(c) Whether LRSDs response to the incident complied with the Revised Desegr egation and Education Plan\nand if not, why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation a Education Plan. -10-ANSWER NO. 11\nJoshua handled a number of the cases mvolvmg student discipline during this period for several reasons: 1) the Ombudsman was not allowed to do so initially and 2) the Ombudsman was often working on other matters and was not available. The Ombudsman, James Washington, has reported to Joshua that he has an ongoing investigation of race based mistreatment at Pulaski Heights Middle School. The following cases were referred to the Districts Ombudsman: 1) Millard Russey at Forest Heights Middle School\n2) Alex ONeal at Forest Heights Middle School\n3) Peter Robinson at Hall High School\n4) East End Students attending Pulaski Heights Middle School\n5) Earnest Rump at Southwest Middle School\n6) Antonio Jackson at Pulaski Heights Elementary 7) Rodriquez Roy at Pulaski Heights Middle School\n8) Marcus Walker at Horace Maim Middle School\n9) Maim Middle Schools inles regarding participation in extracurricular activities which are driven by citizenship grades\n10) Cloverdale Middle School regarding its failure to apply appropriate discipline to a white female student. Miracle Null, for use of profanity towards to black teacher\n11) Christopher Murray at Cloverdale Middle School\n12) Calvin Leonard at Gibbs Elementary\n13) Eivvin Parchmann at Meadowcliff Elementary\n-11-14) Justin Simmons at Horace Mann\n15) Marcus Hemy at Pulaski Heights Middle\n16) Quention Bellows at Hall High School\n17) Cedric Beasley 18) Antonio Jackson at Hall High School\n19) Antione Bernard at Brady Elementary\n20) Tommy Bozemann at ALP - Philander Smith\n21) Felicia Duhail at Western Hills Elementary\n22) Brian Gray at Horace Maim\n23) April Hayes at Paikview\n24) LeeAngelo Jones at Rockefeller Elementary\n25) Ronald Payne at Pulaski Heights Middle\n26) Steven Taylor at Hall High School\n27) Peel at Forest Heights\n28) Clevonne Dixon at Hall High School\n29) Maicus Walker at Horace Mann\n30) ClC program implementation (suspensions expunged for white students but not for black students who pailicipated in this program)\nand 31) Letter dated October 9, 2000 regarding disparate treatment of black students bused into Pulaski Heights Middle School. This list may not exhaustive of all incidents of racial discrimination with respect to -12- discipline. Joshua reserves the right to supplement this list. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Please produce all documents pertaining to your communications with the LRSD Ombudsman. RESPONSE NO. 8: Please refer to the files of the Ombudsman including the attached documents. The attached documents, however, are not inclusive of all communications with the Ombudsman. The majority of our communication with the Ombudsman was through telephone conferences, visits to his office and his visits to this office. RefeiTals were made dming these communications. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Please identify all facts and documents which support your objection to LRSDs compliance with Section 2.5 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 12: The program, policies and procedmes identified in the Compliance Plan and the Mai ch 2000 and 2001 reports ai e in terms of such a level of generality as to not be meaningful with regard to achieving compliance with respect to the obligation. Interrogatories Numbers 9 and 11 and Requests for Production related thereto. Also refer to Joshuas Response in Opposition. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding inteiTOgatoiy. RESPONSE NO. 9: See Iiitenogatoiy No. 11 and 12. See also LRSD Compliance Plan, Comt Exhibit 544. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Please identify all facts and documents which -13- support your objection to LRSDs compliance with Section 2.5.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 13: Refer to responses in InteiTogatories Numbers 9 and 11 and Requests for Production related thereto. REQUEST EOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding interrogatoiy. RESPONSE NO. 10: Same as Interrogatory No. 13. See also LRSD Compliance Plan, Comi Exhibit 544. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Please identify all facts and documents which support youi' objection to LRSDs compliance with Section 2.5.2 of the Revised Desegiegation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 14: Compliance with Section 6 of the revised plan with respct to compliance standards and the Compliance Plan should have yielded data on paiticpular schools by way of example allowing Joshua, ODM and the Court to assess compliance. The LRSDs Maich 200 and 2001 reports do not provide any data with respect to this obligation. They report that policies adopted and cases are reviewed by the Assistant Superintendent for Discipline. LRSD has not substantially demonstrated that this provision has been complied with. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Please produce all documents in the preceding inteiTogatoiy. RESPONSE NO. 11: Same as InteiTOgatory No. 14. -14-INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Please identify all facts and documents which support your objection to LRSDs compliance with Section 2.5.3 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 15: Refer to Couil Exhibits 561, 564, and 565. See also documents attached hereto. Please refer to the testimony of James Washington dated August 2, 2001. (Testimony regai ding his lack of sufficient resources and authority). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NQ. 12: Please produce all documents in the preceding interrogatoiy. RESPONSE NO. 12: Refer to Answer to Intenogatoiy No. 15. fNTERROGATORY NO. 16: Please identify all facts and documents which support youi' objection to LRSDs compliance with Section 2.5.4 of the Revised Desegiegation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 16: Compliance with Section 6 of the revised plan with respct to compliance standards and the Compliance Plan should have yielded data on paiticpular schools by way of example allowing Joshua, ODM and the Coml to assess compliance. The LRSDs Maich 200 and 2001 reports do not provide any data with respect to this obligation. They report that these cases aie referred to the Pupil Services Team. Joshua contends that the LRSD has not substantially complied with this provisions. See attached documents. (Joshua requested data and counsel for the District rephed indicating that no data existed). REQUEST FQR PRQDUCTIQN NQ. 13: Please produce all documents in the -15-preceding intenogatory. RESPONSE NO. 13: Refer to Answer in Intenogatory No. 16. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Please state whether you contend that the Program Evaluation Agenda and/or the Assessment Plan set forth on pages 53-57 in the Interim Compliance Report filed March 15, 2000, complied with LRSDs obligation under Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. If not, please: (a) identify and describe in detail all facts and documents supporting your contention\n(b) state when you detennined that they did not comply\n(c) when you communicated to LRSD your belief that they did not comply\nand. (d) why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Educational Plan. ANSWER NO. 17: Evaluation under 2.7.1 was to reach all academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7. Also those listed in Section 5 of the plan, as well as others implemented by LRSD to fulfil its obligation under 2.7. Joshuas ability to respond to this intenogatoiy is hindered by the Districts failure to set forth one clear list of all of the progr ams implemented to comply with Section 2.7. In reviewing pages 53- 57, we do not find mention of the full extent of the revised cturiculrrm at grades 4 and above. There is no mention of evaluation of the use os SAJPs, or of the programs listed in Section 5 of the plan. Joshua contends that the LRSD has not substantially complied with this provision. Please refer to the testimony of Jrmious Babbs, Sadie Mitchell, -16-Bonnie Lesley and Superintendent Camine. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 14: Please produce all documents pertaining to yom response to the preceding inteiTOgatory. RESPONSE NO. 14: See tr anscript of the July and August, 2001 hearings. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Please identify and describe in detail all programs, policies and procedures proposed by you pertaining to LRSDs obligations under the Revised Desegr egation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 18: District officials and compliance committee members chose not to involve counsel for Joshua in the development of programs, policies and procedures. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO, 15: Please produce all documents pertaining to programs, policies and procedures proposed by you perlaining to LRSDs obligations under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. RESPONSE NO. 15: Refer to Com! Exhibits 552, 554, 560, 563 and attached documents regarding undersigned counsels complaints regarding non involvement in the development of programs, policies and procedrrres. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Please produce all documents received by you in the ordinary com se of business (as opposed to in response to an FOIA request) during the term of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan pertauring to your participation on LRSD committees or in LRSD activities. RESPONSE NO. 16: The following docrrments and notices were sent by the -17-Distiict without request: Distiict officials provided Boaid policies to these offices after they sent to the Board for approval. Quailerly notices were received regarding NSF grant and its agenda for the meeting. Notices of the Biracial Committee meetings. Notices regaiding Charter School Committee and agenda. Joshua counsel and Monitor Springer had to request many of the documents regarding LRSD committees and activities as a part of our ongoing monitoiing activities. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Please produce all documents pertaining to yom- invoking the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to 8.2 of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. RESPONSE NO. 17: See attached documents. Also see Court Exhibits 565,567,568 and 569. Joshua ftulher reserves the right to supplement the answers provided herein. Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (Tel.) (501)374-4187 By: ax) j / / 'J alker, AR Bar No. 64046 -18- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailei following counsel or record, postage prepaid on this A/ day of-* lostage prepaid to the ^t\n2001. Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jones, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Ms. SammyeL. Taylor Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 in W. Walker 4 -19- Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (I922-19P4) WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P.A. BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR., P.A. JOE D. BELL. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY, P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR., P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM III. P A LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR., P A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS, P A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. JAMBS M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL Hl. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD D. TAYLOR, P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR., P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P A. ROBERT S. SHAJTR. P A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN 111. P A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL, JR.. P A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER, P A M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR.. P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR.. P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT, P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER. P.A. TONIA P JONES. P.A. DAVID D. WILSON. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayfirm.CDm 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE. SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72703-4811 TELEPHONE 501-695-2011 FAX 501-695-2147 JEFFREY H. MOORE, P.A. DAVID M. GRAF. P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR, P.A, JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR., P.A. JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO, P.A. R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON, P A. GREGORY D. TAYLOR. P A. TONY L. WILCOX, P A. FRAN C HICKMAN. P A. BETTY J. DEMORY. P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON, P.A. JAMES W. SMITH, P.A. CLIFFORD W PLUNKETT, P A. DANIEL L. HERRINGTON. P.A. MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL MICHAEL E KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON PHILIP B. MONTGOMERY KRISTEN S. RIGGINS ALAN C. BRYAN OF COUNSEL B S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE. P A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P A. A.D. MCALLISTER 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2898 FAX 870-762-2918 JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-3323 FAX 501-244-5341 (ndleyQftc.ntl September 27, 2001 Hand Delivered Mr. John W. Walker Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 RE: LRSD V. PCSSD Dear Mr. Walker: We have received and reviewed your responses to our First Set of Intenogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. We find your responses inadequate and respectfully request that you immediately supplement your responses as follows: Interrogatory No. 2: Please provide the name and address of your class representatives. Interrogatory No. 3: Please provide addresses for the monitors identified. Interrogatory No. 4: Your reference to the files of LRSD personnel is nonresponsive. You then identify but fail to describe in detail areas of alleged noncompliance or bad faith implementation. Please describe in detail each allegation. Request for Production No. 2: Please identify the correspondence with Junious Babbs, Dr. Les Camine, Sadie Mitchell, James Washington and \"other central office administrators\" to which you refer. Your assertion that \"[c]opies of these files have been previously provided to counsel for the District\" is not true if you mean by you. We may have these files, but we have no way of know to what letters within these files upon which you rely. (D EXHIBIT $ I z  1Mr. John Walker September 27, 2001 Page 2 Interrogatory No, 5: Ne\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_304","title":"Compliance court orders","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2001-10/2001-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","School administrators"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance court orders"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/304"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nRECEIVED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION NOV 13 2001 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF DEPOSITION TO: Mr. Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Margie Powell Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that at beginning at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, November 14, 2001, at the law offices of Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, LLP, 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000, Little Rock, Arkansas, that the undersigned will take the depositions upon oral examination of Gene Jones, Ann Marshall and Margie Powell, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure before a notary public or other officer duly authorized to administer oaths.You are notified to appear at such time and place and take part in the examination as you may be advised. Respectfully submitted, John C. Pendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 TEL: (501)376-2011 FAX: (501)376-2147 Attorneys for Plaintiff By: :ndley, Jr. F:\\HOME\\BBrown\\Fcndley\\LRS D\\desegrcgation'Dqx)Notk:e2.wpd -2- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing pleading has been served by facsimile and U.S. mail on this 9* day of November 2001 upon: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Arm Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Sammye Taylor Office of the Atttomey General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Dr. Ken James Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 W Markham Little Rock, AR 72202 F \\HOME\\BBrown\\Fendky\\LRSD\\desegrcgation\\DepoNotice2 wpd -3- '. Fendley, Jr. AO 88 (Rey. 11/91) Subpoena in a Civil Case UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS TO: SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM MS. MARGIE POWELL Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the United States District Court at the place, date, and time specified below to testify in the above case. PLACE OF TESTIMONY COURTROOM DATE AND TIME [X] YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the place, date and time specified below to testify at the taking of a deposition in the above case. PLACE OF DEPOSITION Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, LLP 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 DATE AND TIME Wednesday, November 14, 2001 1:00 p.m. (until completed) [X] YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce and permit inspection and copying of the following documents or objects at the place, date, and time specified below (list documents or objects): See the attached Exhibit A. PLACE Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, LLP 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 DATE AND TIME Wednesday, November 14, 2001 1:00 p.m. (until completed) I I YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit inspection of the following premises at the date and time specified below. PREMISES DATE AND TIME Any organization not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shall designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may set forth, for each person designated, the matters on which the person will testify. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 30(b)(6). ISSUING OFFICER SIGNATURE AND TITLE (INDICATE IF ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT) , Attorney for Plaintiff DATE November 9, 2001ISSUING OFFICER'S NAME, ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER John C. Fendley, Jr. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, LLP 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-2011 AO 88 (Rev. 11/91) Subpoena in a Civil Case (See Rule 45, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Parts C \u0026amp; D on Reverse) PROOF OF SERVICE DATE PLACE SERVED ON (PRINT NAME) SERVED BY (PRINT NAME) SERVED MANNER OF SERVICE TITLE DECLARATION OF SERVER I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing information contained in the Proof of Service is true and correct. Executed on DATE SIGNATURE OF SERVER ADDRESS OF SERVER(Rule 45, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Parts C \u0026amp; D: (c) PROTECTION OF PERSONS SUBJECT TO SUBPOENAS. (0 A party or an attorney responsible for the issuance and service of a subpoena shall take responsible steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to that subpoena. The court on behalf of which the subpoena was issued shall enforce this duty and impose upon the party or attorney in breach of this duty an appropriate sanction, which may include, but is not limited to, lost earnings and a reasonable attorney's fee. axA) A person commanded to produce and permit inspection and copying of designated books, papers, documents or tangible things, or inspection of premises need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless commanded to appear for deposition, hearing or trial. (B) Subject to paragraph (dX2) of this rule, a person commanded to produce and permit inspection and copying may, within 14 days after service of the subpoena or before the time specified for compliance if such time is less than 14 days after service, serve upon the party or attorney designated in the subpoena written objection to inspection or copying of any or all of the designated materials or of the premises. If objection is made, the party serving the subpoena shall not be entitled to inspect and copy the materials or inspect the premises except pursuant to an order of the court by which the subpoena was issued. If objection has been made, the party serving the subpoena may, upon notice to the person commanded to produce, move at any time for an order to compel the production. Such an order to compel production shall protect any person who is not a party or an officer of a party from signiflcant expense resulting from the inspection and copying commanded. (3XA) On timely motion, the court by which a subpoena was issued shall quash or modify the subpoena if it 0) (ii) fails to allow reasonable time for compliance\nrequires a person who is not a party or an officer of a party to travel to a place more than 100 miles from the place where that person resides, is employed or regularly transacts business In person, except that, subject to (B) (Hi) (iv) If a subpoena (0 (ii) the provisions of clause (cX3XBXiii) of this rule, such a person may in order to attend trial be commanded to travel from any such place within the state in which the trial is held, or requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter and no exception or waiver applies, or subjects a person to undue burden. requires disclosure of a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information, or requires disclosure of an unretained expert's opinion or information not describing specific events or occurrences in dispute and resulting from the expert's study made not at the request of any party, or (iii) requires a person who is not a party or an offlcer of a party to incur substantial expense to travel more than 100 miles to attend trial, the court may, to protect a person subject to or affected by the subpoena, quash or modify the subpoena or, if the party in whose behalf the subpoena is issued shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met without undue hardship and assures that the person to whom the subpoena is addressed will be reasonably compensated, the court may order appearance or production only upon specified conditions. (d) DUTIES IN RESPONDING TO SUBPOENA. (1) correspond with the categories in the demand. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents shall produce them as they are kept in the usual course of business or shall organize and label them to (2) When information subject to a subpoena is withheld on a claim that is privileged or subject to protection as trial preparation materials, the claim shall be made expressly and shall be supported by a description of the nature of the documents, communications, or things not produced that is sufficient to enable the demanding party to contest the claim.Exhibit \"A' II Please produce the following: All documents pertaining to communications between the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Judge Susan Webber Wright or her law clerks pertaining to LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and/or LRSD's compliance therewith from January 21, 1998, to the present, not previously made available to the parties in this case. Incorporating the definitions set forth below, the documents to be produced include, but are not limited to, notes of any meetings between anyone from ODM and Judge Susan Webber Wright, briefing documents prepared by anyone from ODM for Judge Susan Webber Wright, calendar entries which reflect the dates and times of meetings between employees of ODM and Judge Susan Webber Wright\nany email communications between the ODM and Judge Susan Webber Wright and any other documents in any form which reflect the substance of communications between the ODM and Judge Susan Webber Wright which have not been previously made available to the parties in this case. Definitions \"Document\" shall mean any original written, typewritten, handwritten, printed or electronically recorded material, as well as all tapes, disks, non-duplicate copies and transcripts thereof, now or at any time in your possession, custody or control\nand, without limiting the generality of the foregoing definition, but for the purposes of illustration only, \"document\" includes notes, correspondence, memoranda, business records (stored electronically or otherwise), e-mails, diaries, calendars, address and telephone records, photographs, tape recordings and videotapes. \"Pertaining to \" shall mea n constituting, embodying, arising out of, incident to, referring to, mentioned, bearing upon, reflecting, evidencing, affecting, concerning, providing evidence for, or relating to the transaction, individual, entity, act, object, conference, contention, communication, allegation or activity identified. \"Communication \" shall mean every manner or means of disclosure, transfer or exchange, and every disclosure, transfer or exchange of information whether orally or by document or whether face to face, by telephone, U.S. mail, e-mail, personal delivery, or otherwise. \"Office of Desegregation Monitoring\" or \"ODM\" shall include all persons employed by or otherwise working on behalf of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas.AO 8S (Rev. 11/91) Subpoena in a Civil Case UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW__*_ RECEIVED NOV 1 3 ?001 DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL UlTlbL u. DESEGREGATION MONITOm INTERVENORS SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM TO: MS. ANN MARSHALL Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the United States District Court at the place, date, and time specified below to testify in the above case. PLACE OF TESTIMONY COURTROOM DATE AND TIME [X] YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the place, date and time specified below to testify at the taking of a deposition in the above case. PLACE OF DEPOSITION Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, LLP 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 DATE AND TIME Wednesday, November 14, 2001 9:00 a.m. (until completed) [XI YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce and permit inspection and copying of the following documents or objects at the place, date, and time specified below (list documents or objects): See the attached Exhibit A. PLACE Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, LLP 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 DATE AND TIME Wednesday, November 14, 2001 9:00 a.m. (until completed)  YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit inspection of the following premises at the date and time specified below. PREMISES DATE AND TIME Any organization not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the taking of a deposition shall designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and may set forth, for each person designated, the matters on which the person will testify. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 30(b)(6). ISSUING OFFICER SIGNATURE AND TITLE (INDICATE IF ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT) , Attorney for Plaintiff DATE November 9, 2001ISSUING OFFICER'S NAME. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER John C. Fendley, Jr. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, LLP 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-2011 AO 88 (Rev. 11Z9I) Subpoena in a Civil Case (See Rule 45. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Parts C \u0026amp; D on Reverse) PROOF OF SERVICE DATE PLACE SERVED ON (PRINT NAME) SERVED BY (PRINT NAME) SERVED MANNER OF SERVICE TITLE DECLARATION OF SERVER I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing information contained in the Proof of Service is true and correct. Executed on DATE SIGNATURE OF SERVER ADDRESS OF SERVERRule 45, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Parts C \u0026amp; D: (c) PROTECTION OF PERSONS SUBJECT TO SUBPOENAS. (1) A party or an attorney responsible for the issuance and service of a subpoena shall take responsible steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to that subpoena. The court on behalf of which the subpoena was issued shall enforce this duty and impose upon the party or attorney in breach of this duty an appropriate sanction, which may include, but is not limited to, lost earnings and a reasonable attorney's fee. (2XA) A person commanded to produce and permit inspection and copying of designated books, papers, documents or tangible things, or inspection of premises need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless commanded to appear for deposition, hearing or trial. (B) Subject to paragraph (dX2) of this rule, a person commanded to produce and permit inspection and copying may, within 14 days after service of the subpoena or before the time specifled for compliance if such time is less than 14 days after service, serve upon the party or attorney designated in the subpoena written objection to inspection or copying of any or all of the designated materials or of the premises. If objection is made, the party serving the subpoena shall not be entitled to inspect and copy the materials or inspect the premises except pursuant to an order of the court by which the subpoena was issued. If objection has been made, the party serving the subpoena may, upon notice to the person commanded to produce, move at any time for an order to compel the production. Such an order to compel production shall protect any person who is not a party or an officer of a party from significant expense resulting from the inspection and copying commanded. (3XA) On timely motion, the court by which a subpoena was issued shall quash or modify the subpoena if It (I) () fails to allow reasonable time for compliance\nrequires a person who is not a party or an officer of a party to travel to a place more than 100 miles from the place where that person resides, is employed or regularly transacts business in person, except that, subject to (B) (iii) (iv) If a subpoena (I) 00 the provisions of clause (cXJXBXUO of this rule, such a person may in order to attend trial be commanded to travel from any such place within the state in which the trial is held, or requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter and no exception or waiver applies, or subjects a person to undue burden. requires disclosure of a trade secret or other confldential research, development, or commercial information, or requires disclosure of an unretained expert's opinion or information not describing specific events or occurrences in dispute and resulting from the expert's study made not at the request of any party, or (iii) requires a person who is not a party or an officer of a party to Incur substantial expense to travel more than 100 miles to attend trial, the court may. to protect a person subject to or affected by the subpoena, quash or modify the subpoena or, if the party in whose behalf the subpoena is issued shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be otherwise met without undue hardship and assures that the person to whom the subpoena is addressed will be reasonably compensated, the court may order appearance or production only upon specified conditions. (d) DUTIES IN RESPONDING TO SUBPOENA. (1) correspond with the categories in the demand. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents shall produce them as they are kept io the usual course of business or shall organize and label them to (2) When information subject to a subpoena is withheld on a claim that is privileged or subject to protection as trial preparation materials, the claim shall be made expressly and shall be supported by a description of the nature of the documents, communications, or things not produced that is sufficient to enable the demanding party to contest the claim.Exhibit \"A\" Please produce the following: All documents pertaining to communications between the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Judge Susan Webber Wright or her law clerks pertaining to LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and/or LRSD's compliance therewith from January 21, 1998, to the present, not previously made available to the parties in this case. Incorporating the definitions set forth below, the documents to be produced include, but are not limited to, notes of any meetings between anyone from ODM and Judge Susan Webber Wright, briefing documents prepared by anyone from ODM for Judge Susan Webber Wright, calendar entries which reflect the dates and times of meetings between employees of ODM and Judge Susan Webber Wright\nany email communications between the ODM and Judge Susan Webber Wright and any other documents in any form which reflect the substance of communications between the ODM and Judge Susan Webber Wright which have not been previously made available to the parties in this case. Definitions \"Document\" shall mean any original written, typewritten, handwritten, printed or electronically recorded material, as well as all tapes, disks, non-duplicate copies and transcripts thereof, now or at any time in your possession, custody or control\nand, without limiting the generality of the foregoing definition, but for the purposes of illustration only, \"document\" includes notes, correspondence, memoranda, business records (stored electronically or otherwise), e-mails, diaries, calendars, address and telephone records, photographs, tape recordings and videotapes. \"Pertaining to\" shall mea n constituting, embodying, arising out of, incident to, referring to, mentioned, bearing upon, reflecting, evidencing, affecting, concerning, providing evidence for, or relating to the transaction, individual, entity, act, object, conference, contention, communication, allegation or activity identified. \"Communication \" shall mean every manner or means of disclosure, transfer or exchange, and every disclosure, transfer or exchange of information whether orally or by document or whether face to face, by telephone, U.S. mail, e-mail, personal delivery, or otherwise. \"Office of Desegregation Monitoring\" or \"ODM\" shall include all persons employed by or otherwise working on behalf of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas.G. Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1922-1994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P A. BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR., P.A. JOE D. BELL, P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY, P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY, P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR.. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM HI. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR., P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL Ill. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. F A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN, P.A. RICHARD D. TAYLOR. P.A JOSEPH B HURST. JR., P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P A. ROBERT S. SHAPER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN HI. P.A. MICKAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III, P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL, JR., P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER, P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH, JR , P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER, JR., P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT, P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER, P.A. TONIA P. JONES, P.A. DAVID D. WILSON. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE, SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703-4811 TELEPHONE 501-885-2011 FAX 501-695-2147 JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GRAF, P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR.. P.A. JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO. P.A. R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.A. GREGORY D. TAYLOR, P.A. TONY L. WILCOX. P.A. FRAN C. HICKMAN, P.A. BETTY J DEMORY, P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON, P.A. JAMES W. SMITH. P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT. P.A. DANIEL L. HERRINGTON, P.A. MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK, JR. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL MICHAEL E, KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON PHILIP B. MONTGOMERY KRISTEN S. RIGGINS ALANG. BRYAN OF COUNSEL B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE, P.A. JOHN C, ECHOLS. P.A. A D- MCALLISTER 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2898 FAX 870-762-2918 November 9, 2001 CHRISTOPHER HELLER LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-1508 FAX 501-244-5344 hellerQfec.nat HAND DELIVERED Ms. Aim Marshall Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza RECEIVED NOV 2001 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 OffICEOf DESESREGmMOIOyHG Re: ODM Depositions Dear Ann: Please find enclosed copies of our Motion in Limine and Brief, which were filed today, as well as Deposition Notices and Subpoenas for yourself and members of your staff. As you can see from our Motion in Limine, we believe that the people in your office should not be allowed to testify in this proceeding. The purpose of the depositions is not to learn what a particular witnesses testimony might be in court, but only to determine whether the court has received extra-judicial information on the merits of the case from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. We believe we are required to investigate the possibility of extra-judicial communications on the merits of this case before the hearing continues on November 19, 2001. We therefore have little flexibility in the scheduling of the depositions but, if Tuesday or Thursday would be more convenient for you than Wednesday, we would be amenable to rescheduling for one of those days. Finally, please let me know whether you will accept service of the enclosed subpoenas or if it will be necessary for us to secure service in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.RECEIVED KOV ' 2001 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION QiRGtOfr LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS TO: NOTICE OF DEPOSITION Mr. Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Margie Powell Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 1 Ms. Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that at beginning at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, November 14, 2001, at the law offices of Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, LLP, 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000, Little Rock, Arkansas, that the undersigned will take the depositions upon oral examination of Gene Jones, Ann Marshall and Margie Powell, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure before a notary public or other officer duly authorized to administer oaths.You are notified to appear at such time and place and take part in the examination as you may be advised. Respectfully submitted, John C. Pendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 TEL: (501)376-2011 FAX: (501)376-2147 Attorneys for Plaintiff By\nC. Fendley, Jr. 4- F:\\HOME\\BBrown\\Fendley\\LRSD\\dcsegrcgalion\\DepoNotice2 wpd -2- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing pleading has been served by facsimile and U.S. mail on this 9* day of November 2001 upon: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Sammye Taylor Office of the Atttomey General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Dr. Ken James Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 W Markham Little Rock, AR 72202 Jl C. Fendley, Jr. F:\\HOME\\BBrown\\Fcndley\\LRSD\\desegregation\\DepoNotice2.wpd -3- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION IN LIMINE TO PROHIBIT TESTIMONY BY OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The ODM was created under the courts inherent equitable powers, at the direction of the Eighth Circuit, to replace the Office of Metropolitan Supervisor. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (8th Cir. 1990). The purpose of the ODM is to function as an \"agent\" of the court for the ongoing \"supervision or monitoring\" of the settlement agreement. Id. at 1386,1388. Indeed, the Eighth Circuit has made clear that the ODMs monitoring of the parties compliance with the settlement agreement is equivalent to monitoring by the court itself under its retained jurisdiction to oversee implementation of the settlement agreement. Id. at 1390\ncompare Jenkins v. State of Missouri, 890 F.2d 65, 67-68 (8th Cir. 1989) (noting that the creation of a desegregation monitoring committee at the remedial stage was within the courts inherent equitable powers). The only intimation of a testimonial role for the ODM in the opinions of the Eighth Circuit is with regard to its budgetary process. In Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 971 F.2d 160, 166 (8th Cir. 1992), the Eighth Circuit held that the parties wereentitled to review the ODMs proposed budget and to submit recommendations and objections to the court. The Eighth Circuit noted that there might be \"rare occasions when issues are of such importance that an evidentiary hearing is required,\" id., but such a hearing clearly would be limited to issues involving the budgetary needs of the ODM and the allocation of its funds. Since its creation, the ODMs primary function has been to monitor the school districts progress in meeting the requirements of the settlement agreement. See Order entered 1/18/91, Docket No. 1418 (vesting the ODM with the authority \"to monitor the school districts compliance with the settlement plans and settlement agreement\"). The ODM discharges this obligation through periodic reports to the court and the parties, typically drawing upon statistical and other information provided by the school districts. The ODM also facilitates collaboration among the parties by serving as a conduit for informal communication and information-sharing. See Order entered 10/24/94, Docket No. 2319 (charging the ODM with \"coordinating among the parties the plan modification process\" for a proposed change in the Desegregation Facilitators title and duties)\nand Order entered 12/27/96, docket No. 2901 (authorizing the ODM to \"participate in negotiations as a facilitator\" with regard to proposed modifications to the LRSD desegregation plan). The ODMs collaborative function was given formal expression in Section 8.2.4 of the LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, dated January 16, 1998, which requires the ODM to attempt to facilitate agreement between the LRSD and a party seeking to resolve a compliance issue. The ODM cannot fulfill its functions of encouraging collaboration among the parties or facilitating agreement on compliance issues if it adopts a partisan position or is perceived as partisan. If the members of the ODM are called to testify, then the parties have a fundamental right to cross-examine them. See Reilly v. United States, 863 F.2d 149, 159 (1st Cir. 1988) (noting that 2the parties had no right to cross-examine a technical advisor appointed by the court, provided that 'the advisor was not an evidentiary source\"). Likewise, making reports available to the parties regarding the ODM witnesses findings and allowing depositions in advance of the hearing would be important procedural safeguards. Id. at 156 (noting that depositions and cross-questioning are inapposite if a court advisor makes no findings and supplies no evidence)\ncompare PRE 706(a) (setting procedural requirements for expert witnesses appointed by the court, including advising the parties of the witness findings, submitting to depositions, and being subject to cross-examination by each party, including the party calling the witness). Indeed, due process requires an evidentiary hearing before evidence supplied by the ODM or any other source may become the basis for findings of fact by the court. JuanF.v. lPe/cA:er, 37 F.3d 874, 880(2d Cir. 1994)\n^A:er5 v. Ohio Department of Liquor Control, 902 F.2d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1990). The LRSD will be at a significant disadvantage if it opposes the ODM witnesses testimony. yet it appears to have no other option. The Federal Monitor has already stated publicly that the LRSD \"is not ready for unitary status.\" Such a statement lies near the heart of the ultimate issue and cannot go unreported or unchallenged if the ODM becomes an evidentiary source at all. Since the Federal Monitor is an appointee of the court, not as an expert witness or technical advisor, but as an agent for \"supervision or monitoring,\" Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d at 1388, to oppose the Federal Monitor is very nearly to oppose the court itself. The ODM has further been clothed with neutrality by a decade of experience in interacting with the court and with the parties on an impartial basis. It is not to be expected that the court can impartially weigh a conflict in the evidence between its own agent and the LRSDs witnesses. Therefore, the ODM must be strictly circumscribed to its non-partisan, non-testimonial role. See In re Kansas City 3Star Co., 73 F.3d 191,193,196 (Sth Cir. 1996) (noting that a desegregation monitoring committee was an II arm of the court\" whose authority \"must be strictly monitored and carefully tailored to match the requirements of its mission\"). Finally, the change in the ODMs role from monitor to witness, which was alluded to by the court at the hearing on June 29,2001 and which has been raised formally by the Joshua Intervenors decision to name three ODM members as witnesses, raises serious questions concerning the courts impartiality. In Edgar v. K.L., 93 F.3d 256 (7th Cir. 1996), the Seventh Circuit disqualified a district judge in litigation challenging the constitutionality of the Illinois mental health system. The Seventh Circuit found that at least one ex parte meeting between the court and the members of a court- appointed panel of mental health experts had addressed the merits of the case. The Court noted that the \"discussions in chambers were calculated, material, and wholly unnecessary\" and that two members of the panel had become partisan by their public criticisms of the states mental health system. 93 F.3d at 259-260\ncompare Association of Mexican-American Educators v. State of California, 231 F.3d 572,591 (9th Cir. 2000) (finding no evidence that the district court relied upon a court-appointed technical advisor as \"a source of evidence\")\nand Liddell v. Board of Education of City of St. Louis, 105 F.3d 1208, 1211-1212 (Sth Cir. 1997) (noting a ruling by the district court that court-ordered negotiations between a settlement coordinator and the parties \"would be confidential from the court and outside parties\" and that the coordinator \"would not recommend to the court how the case should be resolved\"). The district judge in Edgar v. K.L. was disqualified on the basis of 28 U.S.C.  455(a) and (b)(1), which requires disqualification when the impartiality of the court might reasonably be questioned, or when the court has acquired personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts, respectively, and Canon 3A(4) of the Code of Conduct for United States 4Judges, which prohibits a judge from considering ex parte communications on the merits or on procedures affecting the merits. 175 F.R.D. 363, 367 (1998). CONCLUSION The LRSD seeks only an impartial hearing on its request for recognition of its achievements in complying with its desegregation obligations and its attainment of unitary status. Such a hearing cannot be had in fairness to the LRSD if the historic role of the ODM is now changed from that of a monitor and facilitator to that of a material adverse witness. For this reason, and for the reasons set forth above, the LRSD requests the court to prohibit testimony by the ODM at the hearing on the LRSDs request for unitary status. Respectfully submitted. Little Rock School District, Robert S. Shafer Christopher Heller and John C. Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 (501)376-2011 By- TSt^her Helie^j^^^^NA 81083 5CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following persons by mail on November 9, 2001: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Ms. Ann Marshall (Hand Delivered) Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagameier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller F:\\HOME\\BRENDAK\\lrsd\\deseg-mcmorandum wpd 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION NOV/ J ?00l LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MOTION IN LIMINE TO PROHIBIT TESTIMONY BY OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Comes the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), by its undersigned attorneys, and for its motion in limine to prohibit testimony by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\"), states: 1. Counsel for the Joshua Intervenors has given notice that three members of the ODM will be called as witnesses for the Intervenors at the hearing on unitary status. 2. The ODM was created as an arm of the court for the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the settlement agreement. Pursuant to that purpose, the ODM (i) operates under a budget approved by the court and subject to the courts broad discretion, (ii) has access to school district personnel and to information concerning the school districts, (iii) reports to the court and to the parties regarding progress with the requirements of the Districts desegregation plans, (iv) serves a collaborative function in identifying and facilitating discussion among the parties with regard to desegregation remedies, and (v) facilitates agreement between the Joshua Intervenors and the LRSD with regard to compliance issues under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 3. It is contrary to the purpose and function of the ODM for its members to testify as witnesses on adversarial issues between the parties, particularly the issue of unitary status. Testimony by ODM members regarding the factual predicates for unitary status will be perceived as either hostile or favorable to particular parties. It will be the duty of counsel to cross-examine the ODM witnesses for bias or impeachment. In short, appearing as a witness on the issue of unitary status is contrary to the ODMs long-standing and historic function as an agent of the court and destructive of its collaborative and facilitating role with the parties. 4. If the members of the ODM are permitted to appear as witnesses on the issue of unitary status, then the LRSD has a due process right, supported by Rule 706(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence (\"FRE\"), to depose them with regard to their expected testimony and to cross-examine them at the hearing. The LRSD will be entitled to explore (i) whether the ODM witnesses have formed conclusions or opinions regarding the LRSDs request for unitary status, (ii) the basis for those conclusions or opinions, and (iii) the witnesses credibility. 5. The issue of credibility will place the parties in the untenable and unfair position of asking the court to disbelieve witnesses who (i) represent the remedial arm of the court itself, and (ii) have had more than a decade of experience in working with the court and the parties in the role of monitor and facilitator. The working relationship over that period of time includes numerous ex parte contacts between the ODM and the court. 6. The court stated at the hearing held on June 29, 2001 (i) that counsel for the Joshua Intervenors was free to call the members of the ODM as witnesses \"to the extent ... they have knowledge on the matters at issue,\" and (ii) that the court had spoken informally with an ODM staff member and that the court had no objection to such member sharing with the parties \"the information she has.\" (Transcript of 6/29/01 Hearing, 27-28) These statements by the court necessarily indicate a belief that the ODM has evidence which is relevant to the issue of unitary status and that is not 2merely cumulative of evidence that may be presented independently by the parties. 7. The LRSD is aware of a recent statement by the Federal Monitor in a public forum to the effect that the LRSD \"is not ready for unitary status.\" This circumstance indicates that the Federal Monitor (i) has formed an opinion or conclusion that is not strictly within the ODMs charge to act as a monitor for the court and a facilitator for the parties, and (ii) has aligned herself publicly and to a significant degree with the position of the Joshua Intervenors on the issue of unitary status. 8. Independently of the ODM witnesses testimony on the merits, it is material to the LRSDs case whether the ODM and the court have had ex parte discussions on the issue of unitary status or related issues. If such discussions have occurred, issues arise concerning (i) whether the court has acquired personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.  455(b)(1), (ii) whether the impartiality of the court might reasonably be questioned, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.  455(a), and (iii) whether the court has considered ex parte communications on the merits or on procedures affecting the merits, within the meaning of Canon 3A(4) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. 9. The LRSD reserves it right to investigate whether there have been ex parte communications between the ODM and the court on any and all matters affecting the LRSDs right to an impartial hearing on its request for unitary status, and if so, to seek an appropriate remedy. WHEREFORE, the LRSD prays that the court prohibit testimony by members of the ODM at the hearing on the LRSDs request for unitary status, and for all other just and proper relief. 3Respectfully submitted, Little Rock School District, Robert S. Shafer Christopher Heller and John C. Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 (501)376-2011 Byf 'hristopher Heller, AR car No7 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following persons by mail on November 9, 2001: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 4Ms. Ann Marshall (Hand Delivered) Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagameier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller F:\\HOME\\BRENDAK\\lnd\\dcscg-motion in limine, wpd 5 FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NOV 14 2001 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMES By\n___: ! W. McCqRMACK, CLEF CLERK sw LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. Let al.. Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al.. Intervenors. * * * * * *   * * * * * No. 4:82CV00866 SWW RECEIVED NOV 16 200! Office OF OESEGREGOiMQSRGftijia ORDER Now before the Court is the motion of the Little Rock School District to compel responses by Joshua Intervenors to LRSDs first set of interrogatories and requests for production, as well as Joshuas response. The Court previously addressed these discovery issues in relation to LRSDs second set of interrogatories and requests for production in the October 2, 2001 hearing on Joshuas motion for definition and clarification of the issues. For the same reasons set forth in that hearing, LRSDs motion to compel is hereby DENIED. LRSD is once again reminded that the hearings scheduled on November 19 and 20, 2001, concern Joshuas objections to the March 15, 2001 Compliance Report, in which the LRSD represented to the Court that the district had achieved unitary status. There is no reason to obfuscate the issue by complaining about Joshuas activities- Joshuas activities are not relevant unless such activities relate to the trustworthiness of evidence presented by Joshua. The Court looks forward to the LRSDs presenting evidence on November 19 and 20,2001, that the representations made in the Compliance Report are accurate and truthful, particularly as to the I 3^5 4 0issues of program evaluation and student discipline. IT IS SO ORDERED THIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2001 THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP BY. 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION U.S OraTWCT COURT eastern district ARKANSAS NOV 1 4 2001 JAMES yv McCOHMACK, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. l,etal.. Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al.. Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al.. Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * * * By\nNo. 4:82CV00866 SWW NOV 16 21ISI ORDER On November 13, 2001, the Court held a hearing in this matter to address the Little Rock School Districts November 9, 2001, motion in limine to prohibit testimony by Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The Court received the Joshua Intervenors November 13, 2001, response in opposition and motion to quash the deposition subpoenas shortly before that hearing. On the basis of the motions and response, and the arguments made at the hearing, the Court issues the following Order consistent with the Courts rulings at the November 13,2001 hearing. The LRSD requests that the ODM monitors be excluded as witnesses on adversarial issues, particularly the issue of unitary status now before the Court. The LRSD further seeks to depose certain ODM monitors to investigate whether there have been ex parte communications between the ODM and the Court concerning LRSDs request for unitary status. The LRSDs motion in limine to exclude the ODM monitors as witnesses is hereby denied. The Court regards the ODM monitors as employees charged with assisting the Court in performing its monitoring function, as directed by the Court of Appeals. The ODM monitors 3 5 3 9 have testified in this case on several occasions,' and the Court has relied upon their written reports and their testimony in many rulings. Some of these reports have benefitted the LRSD, which has been released from monitoring in several areas. LRSD has never questioned the accuracy or thoroughness of any reports, and in the most recent hearings LRSD witnesses testified to the usefulness of these reports and that the recommendations in the report on discipline had been followed. In the eyes of the Court, the testimony of the ODM monitors concerning their monitoring activities and information derived therefrom does not differ from the ODMs published reports which may be entered into the record. The testimony is subject to cross examination and the reports are subject to challenge by the parties. Even though the ODM has served the Court extremely well in this case, the Court will not decide the pending motion for unitary status, or any other motion, on the basis of any opinions of the ODM monitors, none of whom are lawyers. While the ODM may work for the Court, and thus the Court may engage in ex parte communications with the ODM concerning monitoring duties, the Court does not rely on the ODM to assist the Court in finding the relevant law and deciding the districts compliance therewith. The Court assures the parties that it does not decide motions on the basis of conversations with the ODM monitors. The ODM monitors work for the Court but do not speak for it. Much like the Courts law clerk is charged with the special responsibilities of assisting the Court in ferreting out the applicable law and preparing orders and opinions in this case, the ODM is charged with the special responsibility of assisting 'By way of example, ODM personnel have previously testified in this case as follows: Ann Marshall, 01-21-92, 06-30-98\nMelissa Guldin, 01-23-92, 05-29-92, 03-29-93, 04-19-93, 01- 27-94\nBill Mooney, 06-23-95, 08-11-95\nBob Morgan, 12-18-91, 06-23-95\nMargie Powell, 03- 19-93, 04-19-93, 11-17-93, 01-26-94, 06-30-98\nHorace Smith, 01-22-92, 03-19-93, 04-19-93, 11-17-93\nConnie Tanner, 04-19-93, 06-09-93, 01-27-94. 2the Court in performing its monitoring duties. While the Court may rely on ODM to make recommendations to the parties as a result of its monitoring, the Court does not rely on ODM to make recommendations concerning the disposition of this case. The Court decides the motions in this case in light of the applicable law and solely upon the record in the case, which, in this hearing, may or may not depending on the parties decisions as to the evidence to be presented include the testimony of the ODM monitors and the ODMs reports. In the eleven years that this judge has presided in this case, no party before now has publicly accused the Court or the ODM of bias. In the interest of maintaining impartiality in this hotly contested matter, the Court directed the desegregation monitor to provide any information she had to both sides if she provided it to either side. The Court is well aware that any witness may be biased. If the ODM personnel testify in this case, they may be treated like any other witness, and the parties may impeach their testimony and/or demonstrate such bias if and when appropriate. The Court wishes to make clear that although the Court has engaged in ex parte communications with the ODM desegregation monitor concerning her monitoring duties, the Court is not relying on ODM-produced information on the student discipline and program evaluation issues now before the Court. If the ODM monitors might be called as witnesses, the LRSD may take their depositions as requested, and the Court would waive its privilege as to any information on student discipline and program evaluation provided the Court by ODM. As previously stated, the Court notes that it is not relying on the ODM in this proceeding- rather, the burden rests upon Joshua to demonstrate a failure in compliance by LRSD with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Although in this instance the ODM has published no report. 3the ODM may still have information pertinent to the issues before the Court. However, it is up to the parties, if they so desire, to elicit this information and to bring it before the Court as part of the record. The Court does not, and will not, seek out any such information independently. In conclusion, the LRSDs motion in limine is hereby DENIED\nand Joshuas motion to quash is also hereby DENIED. There is no need to obfuscate the issue before the Court by, this time, pointing a finger at the Court or the ODM. Once again, the Court must direct the LRSD to focus on presenting evidence that its representations made in the March 15, 2001 Compliance Report are accurate and truthful, particularly as to the issues of program evaluation and student discipline. The Court looks forward to hearing this evidence on November 19-20, 2001. IT IS SO ORDERED THIS DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2001 hi: JUD UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON .BY V\\ ?------------ 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS AFFIDAVIT OF DR. LINDA BROWN I, Linda Brown, after being duly sworn, state under oath: I am the Principal of Parkview Arts and Science Magnet High School in the Little Rock School District and have been since July, 1998. I am also a member of Trinity Episcopal Cathedral. I attended Trinity Episcopal Cathedrals annual meeting in January 2001 and heard Judge Susan Webber Wright address the meeting. I have read the February 9,2001 article in The Insider Section of the Arkansas Times Newspaper. That article acurately describes Judge Wrights remarks at Trinity Episcopal Cathedrals annual meeting. Further the affiant sayeth not. lown STATE OF ARKANSAS) ) SS. COUNTY OF PULASKI) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, on this ^U^ay of November, 2001. My Commission Expires: \u0026amp; sr EXHIBIT si RE^ ^'7.3 NOV 16 2001 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OFFICE 0. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS AFFIDAVIT OF DR. DON STEWART I, Don Stewart, after being duly sworn, state under oath: I am the Chief Financial Officer of the Little Rock School District and have been since February 2000. On January 16,1998, the Little Rock School District Board of Directors approved the Little Rock School Districts Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan was subsequently approved by the District Court. The Revised Plan states that the Little Rock School District would be declared unitary and released from federal court supervision at the end of the 2000-2001 school year if the District substantially complied with the terms of the Plan. Soon after the LRSD Board of Directors approved the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, the District established a Compliance Committee. I was a member of that Committee. The responsibility of the Committee was to assure the Districts compliance with the Revised Plan. The Committee developed a compliance plan and a compliance handbook and, with few exceptions, met on a weekly basis to determine the status of LRSDs compliance and to resolve any compliance issues. The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan required that LRSD report to the District Court the status of its compliance on March 15, 2001. The Compliance Committee was charged J exhibit f 1with the responsibility to prepare the required compliance report. During the time the Committee was in the process of preparing that report, I had a conversation with federal monitor Ann Marshall. Ms. Marshall expressed to me her belief that the Little Rock School District was not ready for unitary status because some aspects of the Districts operation needed further attention. Further the affiant sayeth not. STATE OF ARKANSAS) ) SS. COUNTY OF PULASKI) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, on this of November, 2001. 03 'Q. iires: F: \\H0ME\\BRENDAK\\lr8d\\des-affidavit-Stewart .wpd otary Public -2- (2^ /\\ioTARyV i ^esa^ fee'I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS AFFIDAVIT OF BONNIE LESLEY I, Bonnie Lesley, after being duly sworn, state under oath: I am the Associate Superintendent for Instruction of the Little Rock School District and have been in this position since June 1998. Ann (Brown) Marshall has, over the past three years, been very helpful to me in my role both as an Associate Superintendent and as a member of the Compliance Team. She provided me with background information, history, and frequent advice. both substantive and process. In at least three conversations in the last several months, Ms. Marshall has expressed to me several opinions relating to the Districts position for unitary status. She told me that the three-year period of the plan was too short to accomplish all the necessary changes. She told me that the District might regret losing the protection of the federal court, especially as it relates to finances. And she most recently told me that she believed we should withdraw from our pursuit of unitary status and go back and \"do it right.\" When I asked her what she thought we had not done, she said. \"program evaluation - page 148.\" (I understood this to be a reference to page 148 of the March 2001 Compliance Report.) In this last conversation, it was my impression that she wanted me to relay that advice to my superintendent and to the attorneys, which I did. EXHIBIT IFurther the affiant sayeth not. ,esle\nSTATE OF ARKANSAS) ) SS. COUNTY OF PULASKI) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, on this of November, 2001. Notary Public My Commi^jsjPft^xpires: X X **nnH*** F:\\HOME\\BRENDAK\\lrsd\\des-affidavit-lesley.wpd -2-RECEIVtu IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION NOV16Z001 QfDKOF OBtSRESROM**'* LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 4\n82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS AFFIDAVIT OF SUE STRICKLAND I, Sue Strickland, after being duly sworn, state under oath: I am a member of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors and have been since September 1994. I have served as President, Vice President and Secretary of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors. On January 16,1998, the Little Rock School District Board of Directors approved the Little Rock School Districts Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan was subsequently approved by the District Court. The Revised Plan states that the Little Rock School District would be declared unitary and released from federal court supervision at the end of the 2000-2001 school year if the District substantially complied with the terms of the Plan. The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan required that the District file a report in the District Court on the status of its compliance with the Plan on March 15, 2001. During the time LRSD was preparing the report which would show that the District had substantially complied with its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, I had a conversation with federal monitor Ann Marshall. She told me that I should not let our Superintendent, Dr.^ Les Camine, pursue unitary status because the District was not ready for it and if we tried to get it we would only make Judge Susan Webber Wright mad. 1 1 s X EXHIBIT 4Further the affiant sayeth not. \u0026gt;ue Stricfcfand STATE OF ARKANSAS) ) SS. COUNTY OF PULASKI) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, on this /t^^day of November, 2001. My Commission Expires: V Fs \\HOME\\BRENDAK\\ lrsd\\des-affidavit-Strickland, wpd -2- otary Public B Multi-Page TM IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et. al., PLAINTIFFS, VS. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, DEFENDANT, LORENE JOSHUA, et. al., INTERVENORS, KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, et. al.. INTERVENORS. -X ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) X LR-C-82-866 received 16 ^soi - -o- - BE IT REMEMBERED that the above-entitled proceedings came on to be heard on Tuesday, November 13, 2001 before the HONORABLE SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, United States District Judge. - -o- - LRSD: Motion to take depositions of ODM. Motion in limine. --O-- COURT REPORTER: WAUNZELLE P. PETRE, CCR Debbye L. Petre, CCR Post Office Box 1027 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203-1027 PETRES STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-14112 APPEARANCES: ON BEHALF OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT: CHRISTOPHER HELLER, ESQUIRE JOHN C. FENDLEY, ESQUIRE Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ON BEHALF OF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT: M. SAMUEL JONES, III, ESQUIRE Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ON BEHALF OF NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT: STEPHEN W. JONES, ESQUIRE JAMES A. CARNEY, ESQUIRE Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ON BEHALF OF JOSHUA INTERVENORS: JOHN W. WALKER, ESQUIRE JOY SPRINGER, (NON-ATTORNEY) John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 South Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 ROBERT PRESSMAN, ESQUIRE Attorney at Law 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Massachusetts 02173 ON BEHALF OF KNIGHT INTERVENORS: RICHARD ROACHELL, ESQUIRE (Not Present) Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol Avenue, Fifth Floor Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-14113 APPEARANCES: (Continued.) ON BEHALF OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS: MARK HAGEMEIER, ESQUIRE Assistant Attorneys General Office of Attorney General 200 Tower Building 323 Center Street, Little Rock, Arkansas Suite 200 72201 ON BEHALF OF THE OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING: ANN MARSHALL, Federal Monitor POLLY RAMER, Office Manager HORACE SMITH MELISSA GULDIN MARJIE POWELL GENE JONES (Not Present) Office of Desegregation Monitoring 124 West Capitol Street, Little Rock, Arkansas Suite 1900 72201 - -o- - PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-14114 INDEX   * * WITNESS: Page: (None Present.) - -o- - EXHIBITS *  * it k (None Marked.) - -o- - Reporter's Certificate 29 - -o- - PETRE'S STENOGRT^H SERVICE (501) 376-14111 5 PROCEEDINGS 2   3 *  TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2001 4   5 THE MARSHAL: Please rise. The United 6 States District Court is in session. The 7 Honorable Susan Webber Wright presiding. 8 You may be seated. 10 11 12 THE COURT: Good afternoon. ALL : Afternoon. THE COURT: matters. I think we are here on two One involves the issue of whether 9 13 the LRSD will take the depositions of the 14 monitors tomorrow. And the other involves 15 the Motion in Limine filed by LRSD, is that 16 correct ? 17 18 19 MR. WALKER: THE COURT: motion, Yes, Your Honor. All right. I have read the and I read the response. Now, does 20 anyone have anything else to add? 21 MR. HELLER: Your Honor, I have just a 22 brief response. 23 -24 THE COURT: All right. MR. HELLER: Does the Court wants us to 25 argue the issue or just say whether or not we PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-14116 10 11 12 rest on our briefs, but I would like to say that we don't seek to prohibit the testimony of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring unless the Court allows their depositions. We very specifically said we believe the monitors' testimony in this matter is inappropriate, depositions. whether or not we take their And we've specifically said that we wanted to take their depositions for another purpose, not to determine whether or not court, or what their testimony might be in but to determine whether or not there 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 13 had been an ex parte communications on the 14 merits with the Court. 15 16 So, I thought we made that clear in the deposition subpoenas. that was our only 17 purpose for the depositions. 18 THE COURT: Well, let me just say now. 19 I have ex parte conversations with the 20 21 22 23 24 25 monitors, as I do with my law clerks, and I always have. I have always decided the case the motions on the merits. And in this instance, in your motion you seem to say that the Court must have evidence that it is going to consider and has personal PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-14117 1 knowledge of evidence in the case, which is 2 not true. 3 All of the evidence I am considering so 4 far. on the issues before the Court, is the 5 6 7 evidence that you've presented. and that is your Compliance Report and also. the evidence Joshua has submitted, that Joshua did not get 10 11 12 13 14 through monitors really. from the monitors. If Joshua got it I am not aware of it being part of the record in this case. I am aware that both sides had approached Ms. Marshall about the possibility of talking to her. And my instructions to her, and I think I said this on the record. 8 9 15 was that if she has information that you want 16 her to share with you. she should not do it 17 except when both of you are present. In 18 other words. she should share it with both 19 sides. 20 And that does not mean that I know what 21 information she has, because Joshua, unlike 22 other proceedings where I have relied on 23 -24 25 monitoring reports and all, Joshua, in this case, because of the terms of the settlement. has the burden of proof. PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-14118 1 And so, I have not been acquainted with, 2 or I shouldn't say acquainted with, I have 3 not been familiar with any information the 4 monitors might have. And she has Ms. 5 Marshall had told me that you all had asked 6 her, and I said. \"Don't talk to them unless 7 you talk to both of them, because this is an 8 adversary proceeding\". 9 And I would never gather information and 10 consider it without making it part of the 11 record of this case. That is wrong. that is 12 something a judge should never do, and I 13 think that in the 11 years that I have had 14 this case. I have decided the merits of the 15 issues before the Court on the record and not 16 on conversations I have had with the 17 18 monitors. For one thing. one I talk with. Ms. Marshall is the She is not a lawyer. none 19 of the monitors are lawyers. 20 I am the one who has to decide the case. 21 that is what I am paid to do. that is what I 22 am supposed to do. 23 Just as I have conversations with my law -_24 clerk about what they are doing, I have 25 conversation with Ms. Marshall about her PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-1411 I1 monitoring activities, but when it comes to 9 2 evidence that is relevant to this issue, 3 I don't know what evidence she has, except the 4 evidence that Joshua has entered. 5 if I did. I wouldn't consider it. 6 7 8 And even Now, as far as her being a witness, she has been a witness. she has been a witness many or several times. I don't know how 9 recently, but she and the other monitors have 10 been. And they are usually, when they are 11 witnesses, they have submitted reports and we 12 are basing court decisions on their evidence, 13 and I don't intend to do that. 14 I am not even sure that Mr. Walker is 15 going to call any of the monitors, but they 16 have been on his witness list for a long 17 time. And I presume that they are on the 18 witness list now that he has rested, but they 19 20 21 22 are for rebuttal purposes. Mr. Walker, is that why? MR. WALKER: is that correct. I have two and a half hours, as I understood, to use as I please, 23 Your Honor. -,24 25 THE COURT: MR. WALKER: Well, you have to be But it will basically be PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-14111 10 for cross-examination and rebuttal. 2 THE COURT: And you know, rebuttal has 3 to be rebuttal of something he didn't 4 anticipate. So, as far as ex parte 5 conversations, I will tell you right now. 6 I have ex parte conversations with Ms. 7 Marshall, as I do with other people who work 8 for the Court. 9 And I think that the law would be that 10 would be, you know. that those conversations 11 are privileged. but I certainly do not go 12 behind the scenes and consider evidence that 13 is not in the record, that is not subject to 14 cross - examination. That is why we have these 15 lengthy hearings. 16 And I don't know, you know, what else to 17 say about it. And if she has some evidence. 18 I told her to share it with both of you, not 19 just to share it with one side. in the 20 interest of being fair. I don't know whether 21 she has any, because she was not charged in 22 your plan with monitoring your compliance. 23 All the objections come from someone -2 4 25 else, and so she is not a party to the litigation and her burden was not to come PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-14111 forward with evidence. And so, as far as I 2 know and she certainly 3 with any to me. The only 4 considered is what Joshua 5 presented. 6 MR. HELLER: 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 -.24 25 11 hasn't come forward evidence I and you have Your Honor, first of all, it is not fair to say that the monitors have been on Joshua's witness list for any extended period initial witness which the Court required Joshua Court, of time. They were on an list of about 50 people. pared down in a hearing, and to tell the parties and the who he really intended to call. And at that point, the monitors were deleted from the witness list. and at that point I wrote Ann Marshall to say. \"Since you won't be a witness, we won't have to meet with you.\" resolved. But we So, are several things. that is how that was concerned. Your Honor, about First of all, that ODM has had a role in this case. as a facilitator and collaborator. in addition to the monitoring role. The monitoring been very well described. It is PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-1411 formal role hasn't described12 1 generally in the executive orders and in this 2 Court's orders. But there are 10 THE COURT: Well, I think it is described also in the New Plan, isn't it, that they will remain available, as a resource? MR. HELLER: Well, the New Plan says in Section Eight, Your Honor, that concerning Joshua's obligations to bring issues of plan non-compliance forward. The only steps in 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 that process after he brings them to the 12 School District's attention is to go to ODM 13 for facilitation. 14 And that is a role. if you look at the 15 orders throughout the decade concerning the 16 Pulaski County School District for 17 development of our revised plan and other 18 situations. The monitor has played in some 19 situations a facilitating role and has to in 20 others. 21 And there is nothing in the Eighth 22 Circuit decision converting the Office of 23 Supervisor to the Office of Desegregation -2 4 Monitoring, which suggests the testimonial 25 role. PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-1411 I1 2 13 And we believe. in fact, there is discussion in some of the other cases. 3 Jenkins and Lavelle about the role of the 4 monitors and it has to be strictly 5 circumscribed to fulfill their function. 6 And we believe the job can be conformed without 7 them having to take a testimonial role, and 8 they had done that for years prior to the 9 time they testified in Pulaski County in the 10 unitary status hearing. 11 THE COURT\nWell, hold it. Now, we have 12 had monitors testify numerous times, haven't 13 we? It's not just in the unitary status 14 hearing. We have had them testify as fact 15 witnesses with respect to compliance 16 17 18 MR. WALKER: THE COURT: MR. WALKER: Your Honor, I have on numerous occasions. You probably remember the 19 Court's use of Mr. Mooney with respect to 20 Little Rock's budget issues. Most of the 21 testimony began with Little Rock being the 22 23 -2 4 25 party before the Court. THE COURT: This is before No, they have both been before the Court. MR. WALKER: Well, I understand, but for PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-1411 I1 14 the longest period it was Little Rock, and 2 you recall them having the Board Members come 3 and sit in? 4 THE COURT: Oh, yes, I do remember that. 5 yes . 6 7 MR. WALKER: All right. Well, then all the monitors. or virtually all of the 8 monitors had occasions to have something to 9 say to the Court at one time or another, and 10 it was in Little Rock. 11 MR. HELLER: Well, Your Honor, my 12 position is that the job that was set out in 13 the Eight Circuit's Order and this Court's 14 Order, the monitors can be done without their 15 testimony. 16 They can provide reports to the parties 17 and the Court, and I think that is their 18 19 primary function. They can work as facilitator. and if issues come to the 20 attention of the parties or the Court that 21 require a hearing. then we can have a hearing 22 and resolve those things. 23 And the problem with the monitors 24 becoming witnesses is that it puts the 25 parties in a very difficult position. because PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-141115 1 the monitors have been described repeatedly, 2 as an arm of the Court. 3 I think in one transcript the Court 4 says, \"The monitors are a part of the Court\". 5 And at another place, just before Ann 6 Marshall's testimony in the PCSSD hearings. 7 the Court says. \"People tend to think that 8 when the monitor speaks she speaks for me. 9 10 11 but she doesn't.\" common perception. for the parties. And I think that's a So, it creates a problem 12 And I think in the way communication is 13 perceived in the public, if the parties are 14 required to oppose the people. who are 15 described as an arm of the Court, hired by 16 the Court, and in whom the Court has placed 17 its confidence over the last decade. 18 THE COURT: Well, this is the first time 19 any party in this litigation has called into 20 question whether the monitor should testify. 21 22 23 -J24 25 as to what she finds in her monitoring. can't testify. no one in the Office of Desegregation Monitoring can testify. whether the District is unitary. suggest that. She as to I have to PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-141110 11 12 13 14 15 16 I don't know why she shouldn't be able to testify, as to what she has found, if anything, with respect to the representations that the Little Rock School District has made in it's Compliance Report, to the extent that the office has information about that. And  again, if they have specific information they have not shown it to me. and the reason is we are pursuing it from a different direction. I emphasize to all concerned that this was Joshua, who has to carry the burden of proof, and it is Joshua's evidence. Now, i f Ms . Marshall has some evidence, she has not shared it with me. I don't have it, and the only thing I am going to look at 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 16 is what has been presented and received in 17 this Court. 18 And the Court now, she might have 19 20 21 22 23 -J2 4 25 some, any. I have not specifically asked her for I just said, \"If you have anything. share it with both parties at the same time.\" That has been the extent of my involvement. because I put the burden, as I should, I believe, under the plan. on Joshua. therefore, I don't believe I am Now, PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-14111 17 going to overrule your request that the 2 monitor be excluded. The monitor will be 3 4 5 6 7 8 treated like any other witness. You are free to impeach the monitor. You claim in your motion she has made statements or a statement against your client, and you may impeach her and put that on the record, to see if that is her if 9 she made that statement, and if she is biased 10 11 against your client on that basis. you are entitled to do that. I think if you have a 12 good faith basis for asking her that 13 question. 14 Now, keep in mind that I am not even 15 certain that Mr. Walker will call them, that 16 is up to him. All of the evidence I have 17 looked at so far has been Joshua's evidence. 18 and mostly from your School District 19 employees. 20 And I want you and Mr. Pendley to focus 21 on evidence to show the Court that what you 22 have presented to the Court on March 15 with 23 24 respect to your compliance was truthful. accurate, and honest\nspecifically with and 25 respect to the evaluations and the discipline. PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-141118 1 Those are the two areas we are focusing 2 on. That is what I am going to be focusing 3 on, not on what Ms. Marshall said or 4 anything, but she hasn't I don't need to 5 talk with her about this, all I need to do is 6 focus on the evidence in this hearing and the 7 hearings we've had previously and the ones 8 that we will have next week. 9 That is the focus of the Court. 10 And I don't think I am going to need her 11 testimony to make a decision. And I don't 12 think that but if Mr. Walker wants to get 13 her testimony into the record, he may. 14 15 Now, with respect to her deposition. you want to if she is going to be a if 16 witness and you want to take her deposition, 17 I think that is fine. And you may ask her 18 about ex parte communications, except those 19 to the extent that she might have given me 20 evidence. 21 But usually, any ex parte -- anything 22 like that is going to be absolutely 23 privi1eged. But if you want her to share 24 with you any evidence she has given me, I 25 will say I waive the privilege. PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-14111 MR. HELLER: So, I can assume, Your 2 Honor, is that doesn't really provide us an 3 adequate way to get at the problem if, in 4 fact, there have been ex 5 in which the monitor has 6 evidence on the merits. 7 THE COURT: Well, I 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19 parte conversations. provided the Court tell you what. I don't know how else to deal with this. I know that years and years ago, when I believe there was an Arkansas Democrat reporter. that right. was it remember I was all had had some major Democrat reporter? IS MS . MARSHALL: Business. THE COURT: It I thought it Anyway, office, wanted of me is some then a Democrat reporter? laid up from surgery. surgery. Was it a I I I believe it was Arkansas was Arkansas Business? was the Arkansas Democrat. reporter went to Ms. Marshall's it was Ms. Brown's office, and to see all her records. And my direction to her was show him all your records. to you or you privileged. I but any communications from to me, don't show him. look upon her just as I PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-1411 That1 would a law clerk, in 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 terms of the privilege of the communication. But if she had anything else, you know, to show that reporter, show him. ever came of it. And nothing She showed him the whole. you know, all of her files and everything else. And you know, I would tell her the same thing. tell you the same thing, the Democrat Gazette is here. look at whatever she has. She has been very thorough in her 11 reports. 12 Usually when an issue is before the 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Court, it is something that she has investigated and reported. and we have an opportunity for you to object and all. am and I not intending to rely on her for that. am going to place the burden on Joshua. so. if you want to depose her. right with me. Now, Ms . And that's all I think Mr. Jones is not here, but Powell is. I think you wanted to depose I 22 Gene Jones, Marjie Powell, and Ann Marshall, 23 is that right? 24 25 MR. HELLER: THE COURT: Yes, Your Honor. And that is fine with me. PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-14111 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 21 If they might be witnesses, I will certainly permit you to depose them. MR. HELLER: Let me just say, Your Honor, the Court's description of the monitor. as similar to your law clerk. we think is exactly correct. And I think the case law IS clear that a law clerk can never be deposed and can never be a witness. in a 10 11 case before the THE COURT: correct, except Court. Well, that is absolutely in this case. The Eighth 9 12 Circuit has told me to appoint a monitor. I 13 14 did, that . and the Eighth Circuit directed me to do And I will recite into the record now 15 all the times that Ann Marshall and someone 16 in her office has testified in this matter. 17 The record will reflect that on January 18 19 21, 1992, and on June 30, testified. Also, Ms. 1998 Ms. Marshall Guldin testified on 20 January 23rd, 1992, May 29, 1992, March 19, 21 1993, April 19, 1993 and January 27, 1994. 22 23 24 Bill Mooney testified June 23, August 11, 1995 . December 18, 1995 and Bob Morgan testified 1991 and June 23rd, 1995. 25 Marjie Powell testified March 19, ' 93 , PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-14111 2 3 4 5 6 22 April 19, '93, November 17, '93, January 26, ' 94 and June 3 0, Horace Smith testified January 22nd, '92, March 19, '93, April 19, '93, and November 17, Connie Hickman Tanner, testified April 19, '93, June 6, ' 93 ' 98 . ' 93 . and January 27, '94. 7 Again, anything that I frankly don't 8 even know whether Ms. Marshall has any 9 personal knowledge about the issues that are 10 before the Court today. If she does, she may 11 testify about them. 12 And I know that this case is unusual, 13 14 but I've received her testimony before. have received it and I I've received stuff from 15 her before that was very favorable to the 16 District, and in fact you have been released 17 from some of our supervision based on her 18 - that was based on her reports to this 19 Court. And I don't know how her testimony 20 differs from her monitoring reports in terms 21 of its evidentiary value. 22 And you know, the Court has considered 23 evidence when it went in favor of the 24 25 District, some Intervenors. even against the Joshua So, this is the way I have PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-141123 1 handled it in the past, but I can assure you 2 I will decide any motion before the Court 3 solely on the record, not on conversations 4 that I have with my law clerk or with her. 5 or with Ms. Marshall that is. 6 I don't know how else to handle it. 7 If it need be. the Eighth Circuit I am sure. can 8 give me guidance with respect to the 9 procedures I should follow. 10 I have always tried to stay on the record with the parties. 11 and I will continue to do that. I don't have 12 ex parte conversations with the parties, but 13 I do with the monitor. 14 And so, my ruling is you may take the 15 16 depositions. Mr. Walker, are you available for deposition - I mean. are you available. 17 if they want to depose Ms. Marshall? 18 MR. WALKER: Yes, I am. I am available 19 tomorrow. 20 21 THE COURT: MR. WALKER: All right. Anyway I had understood that that 22 was the date that Mr. Heller wanted to take 23 24 her deposition. Your Honor, Your Honor, this I think. what Mr. Heller is really saying. 25 if you look at the last paragraph, the next PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-141124 1 to last paragraph of Mr. Heller's motion, he 2 is really asking the Court to recuse. 3 And his statement to the Court indicated that by 4 analogy to a law clerk, that that was the 5 Court's general view. he picked up on that. 6 I think that he should be man enough on 7 the record to reflect that he is really 8 asking the Court to recuse. And that way we 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 can address that issue. I don't think that we are here on the depositions tomorrow, they are to be taken. to afford him an if opportunity to inquire outside of the facts of this case about various things that are unrelated to this motion into the relationship of the monitor. THE COURT: I just said that any evidence that Ann Marshall has given me about the motions before the Court, which are your objections to the discipline and the evaluations, you know, she can give to him. MR. WALKER: THE COURT: Well, Your Honor I have your evidence, which is before the Court, but I don't anticipate receiving any, you know, I don't - I call Ms. Marshall, as sometimes a witness when I have 9 PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-141125 1 an issue, or call one of her monitors, and I 2 didn't anticipate calling them in this 3 matter. I frankly did not. 4 And sometimes I ask her for evidence and 5 documents and what have you before a hearing. 6 and I didn't, because I am counting on 7 because Mr. Walker has the burden of 8 proof. I can't make it clearer than that. 9 And it is up to Mr. Walker whether he wants 10 to call her. 11 MR. WALKER: Your Honor, my only concern 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 is that Mr. Heller not be in a position where tomorrow, anyway. he asks about the various communications and conversations that Ms. Brown or any of her staff have had directly with you. THE COURT: all the time. Well, I think we we talk You know, we get on the 19 telephone, and we talk a lot about this case. 20 21 22 about her monitoring activities. know, all of that is privileged. is privileged. And so, you All of that 23 But to the extent that she has provided 24 25 me with evidence about your case. her to show it to you. I direct because I don't PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-14111 2 3 4 26 remember what it was. Maybe she has given me something, and I don't remember it. MR. WALKER: That's fine, Your Honor. THE COURT: And I don't intend to rely 5 on anything she says or any opinion she has. 6 because I have always said it is up to 7 Joshua, you know, the compliance report was 8 filed as scheduled. and the Little Rock 9 School District at that point was 10 presumptively in compliance until someone 11 carries the burden of proof, to show that 12 they are not. 13 14 Mr. Walker filed his objections. now we are in the midst of whether and so of 15 finding whether his objections are well 16 taken. And all of this. pursuing Ms. 17 Marshall or the Court or anything like that. 18 trying to point the finger at me, when you 19 should be trying to determine whether, in 20 21 fact, you have evidence to support your compliance statement of March 15, 2001, 22 particularly with respect to those two 23 areas. That is what I am going to be looking 24 at . 25 And I anticipate that you will have PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-14111 27 evidence to show me that what you presented 2 3 4 5 is accurate, as I said earlier. Are there any other issues? MR. HELLER: No, Your Honor. MR. WALKER: No, Your Honor. 6 COUNSEL: (Indicated no or no response.) 7 THE COURT: If you want to take her 8 deposition or the deposition of Ms. Powell, 9 that is fine. Mr. Jones is out of town. she 10 tells me. 11 MS. MARSHALL: He is out of the state. 12 Your Honor. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 THE COURT: All right. MS. MARSHALL: can be located. THE COURT: MR. WALKER: I have no idea where he Okay. Your Honor, we will not impose an objection for us taking Mr. Jones' deposition after Court on Monday, if they want to do that, that's the 19th. THE COURT: All right. And keep in mind. this is not I am not going to 23 receive testimony in this hearing from a 24 monitor on that monitor's opinion on unitary 25 status . That is improper. and I would not do PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-141110 11 12 13 14 28 that. That is up to me to decide. I don't receive opinions like that, that is strictly a judicial determination. And keep in mind the monitors are not lawyers. And I am not even sure the extent to which the monitors are aware of what is going on in other courts, because their job is just to determine compliance with your plans, plural. And that is what they do, they just try to find out whether you are doing what you had promised to do in your Consent Decrees. And unitary status is something entirely different. And I am very aware of that, and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 15 I know that is why I am paid, although 16 nothing extra. I might add. 17 Anything else? 18 19 20 21 MR. HELLER: THE COURT: MR. WALKER: (THEREUPON, No, Your Honor. All right. No, Your Honor. at 3:00 p.m., the taking of 22 the above-entitled hearing was concluded.) 23 - -o- - 24 25 PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-141129 CERTIFICATE STATE OF ARKANSAS SS . : COUNTY OF HEMPSTEAD ) ) ) I, Waunzelle P. Petre, Certified Court Reporter and notary public in and for the County of Hempstead, State of Arkansas, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full. true and correct transcript of the proceedings had in the entitled and numbered cause on the date hereinabove set forth. The said proceedings were reduced to typewritten form by me or under my supervision and the same fully. truly and correctly reflects the proceedings had. WHEREFORE, I have subscribed my signature and affixed my notarial seal as such notary public at the City of Hope, County of Hempstead, State of Arkansas, this 15th day of November 2001. K iQiuui JU TV T TXT rz rn T T n WAUNZELLE IE . PETRE, CCR NOTARY PUBLIC IN ANIX-.FOR  SGUNTYT^ ARKANSAS HEMPS TE, LS CERT ICATE #119 i I I My Commission Expires: . December 19, 2009 . , PETRE'S STENOGRAPH SERVICE (501) 376-1411Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866SWW 6 7 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS 8 9 10 MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL RECEIVED INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL NOV 1 6 2001 INTERVENORS 11 12 13 UfriCt Or OeSEGREGATiON MOWTOflINQ k k k k k k Jr Jr  k * k k * * * * * * * -k * * 14 ORAL DEPOSITION OF ANN MARSHALL 15 (Taken November 14, 2001) 16 k k k k Jr k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k Jr k 17 18 APPEARTVNCES: 19 20 21 22 On Behalf of the Plaintiff MR. CHRIS HELLER and MR. CLAY FENDLEY Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 23 24 25 I? EXHiBIT 1 2 3 On Behalf of North Little Rock School District MR. J. ALLEN CARNEY Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Page 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 On Behalf of Intervenors Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al MR. JOHN WALKER Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ALSO PRESENT: JOY SPRINGER, TAMMY DOWNS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 4 ANSWERS AND DEPOSITION OF ANN MARSHALL, a witness produced at the request of the Plaintiff, taken in the above-styled and numbered cause on Wednesday, the 14th day of November, 2001, before Jerry R. Lawson, CCR, a Notary Public in and for Jefferson County, Arkansas, commencing at 2:40 p.m., at the offices of Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000, Little Rock Arkansas 72201, pursuant to the agreement hereinafter set forth. STIPULATIONS IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED BY and between the parties through their respective counsel that the deposition of ANN MARSHALL may be taken for any and all purposes according to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Page 3 Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 INDEX TOPIC Stipulations PAGE 4 Witness Sworn In: Ann Marshall Examination by Mr. Heller Examination by Mr. Walker Further Examination by Mr. Heller Further Examination by Reporter's Certificate Mr. Walker 5 5 118 125 129 133 EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Eidiibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 23 23 23 24 24 80 (Exhibits Attached Following Transcript.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS WHEREUPON, ANN MARSHALL, having been called for examination by counsel for the Plaintiff, and having first been duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: EXAMINATION BY MR. HELLER: Q. Would you tell us your name and address, please, Ms. Marshall. A. Ann Marshall, 1 Riviera Circle, Little Rock, Arkansas. Q. Okay. And how are you employed? A. Im a desegregation monitor for Judge Susan Webber Wright. Q. Would you review for us briefly your education. A. I have an undergraduate from Hendrix College in English. I have an advanced degree in volunteer management from the Arkansas Public Administration Consortium. I'm certified in planning and training with the Institute of Cultural Affairs. I'm a certified master trainer with the National Association of Partners in Education, which is headquartered in Washington, D C. Q. Do you have any other certifications relating to 2 (Pages 2 to 5)Page 6 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 \u0026lt;) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the field of education? A. Not that are current Q, Have you previously been certified in the field of education? A Q A Q A Q Yes. What certifications did you hold? English. Okay. And you're certified to teach English? Yes. And would you review briefly your employment history. A. How long do you want me to go  how far would you like for me to go back? Q. Well, let's- A. Do you want me to start now and go backwards? Q. Let's start at the beginning of the things related to education. A. I taught English and science in Forrest City from approximately 1970 to 1972. 1 moved to Little Rock and was the -- no, I'm sorry, that's incorrect. 1 was an order editor for Eaton Hoisting Equipment in Forrest City for approximately a year and a half. Then I moved to Little Rock, and 1 was the first woman employed as an epidemiologist in the field of venereal disease for the State Health Department. 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 8 Q. Prior to the time you assumed your position as the director of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, what was your highest salary, approximately? A. 1 don't recall. Are you saying as an associate in the -- Q. Well, let's say  A.  Office of Metropolitan Supervisor? Q.  before you went to work for the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor, what was the highest paying job you held? A. Probably coordinator of Volunteers in Public Schools and Partners in Education. Q. And approximately what did that pay? A. I have no recollection, Chris. I could - somewhere probably in the high 4O's. I'm not sure. It's been a long time. Q. And do you recall what your beginning salary was with the Office of Metropolitan Supervisor? A. No, I don't. Q. Okay. Do you recall what your beginning salary was as director of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring? A. I believe it was ninety-eight five in that - perhaps ninety-eight. 1 don't recall exactly. But that's close. Page? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Then I joined the Little Rock School District as the coordinator of Volunteers in Public Schools. I was in that position until approximately 1984, '85, when 1 was employed by the Arkansas Department of Education as a coordinator to develop the Arkansas School Volunteer Program. I remained in that position for about a year. 1 returned to the Little Rock School District as coordinator of Volunteers in Public Schools. Also during that time, I was coordinator of Partners in Education. I was employed by Mr. Revelle as an associate monitor in the Office of Metropolitan Supervisor beginning in 1989. '88 or '89. And since that time with the conversion of the office to the Office of Desegregation Monitonng, I've been employed steadily, assuming the position of monitor in April of 1991. Q. Okay. Did you teach in Forrest City for one year or two years? A. Approximately a year and a half. Q. Okay, And which school or school district did you  A. Forrest Academy. Q.  teach in? A. It was Forrest Academy. It was a private school. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 9 Q. So, you've never worked as a school administrator, principal or assistant principal or anything like that? A. Ive worked as an administrator in a school district by virtue of my employment, on the administrative salary scale, in Partners in Education, but I have not been a principal or an assistant principal. Q. Have you received any training from the Arkansas Department of Education related to their new ACTAP system and benchmark exams or Smart Start or anything related to that new state curriculum standards and benchmarks? A. Training  can you be a little bit more specific? Q. Well, was there any formal training that you attended to learn about the ACTAP standards or the benchmark exams? A. I think the sessions that 1 attended would be more accurately called awareness sessions. To me, there is a distinction behveen awareness and training. But 1 did attend a session that was to begin to help people understand what was coming. Q. Do you know whether or not ADE offers any formal training related to the implementation of ACTAP, the benchmark exams or the ciuriculum standards? 3 (Pages 6 to 9)Page 10 Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 (\u0026gt; 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Yes, they do for the  for the State's teachers and administrators. Q. Has anyone in your office received such training? A. I believe that Gene Jones has attended sessions. Q. How would you describe your relationship with Judge Wright? A. She's my supervisor. Q. Do you ever see Judge Wright socially? A. As far as--well, 1 see her at lunch. We share lunch. She's in - it's her custom to take staff members to lunch for their birthdays, and I'm asked to join that. She and I attend the same church\nand so we occasionally will see each other at services, although she tends to go to the early service and I tend to go to the later one. Q. Okay. Have you been to her home or has she been to your home? A, I was  she's never been to my home. 1 was in her home approximately maybe eight or nine years ago. It's been a long time. Q. And has Judge Wright ever been to your offices? A. She's been to the new offices one time, to see them. And before that in our old offices when we were over at the River Market, she was also there one time, to see  just to see what we've done with the space. 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 telling you what to do, because I'm not representing you. But I would suggest to you tliat's not within the scope of what she told Cliris that he could talk about. THE REPORTER: She told what? MR. WALKER: Chris that he could inquire into. THE REPORTER: Thank you. MR. HELLER: Well, unless I heard incorrectly  A. I said \"no.\" Q. (By Mr. Heller) Have you ever asked the judge for legal or personal advice on any matters? A. Never. Q. Have you ever made any public appearances with her or worked on any speeches for her or anything like that? A. I don't know if we are where we're supposed to be\nbut I certainly don't mind telling you, no. Q A. Q. A. How would you define your job? Hard. Could you give us the expanded version? Sometimes harder than others. My role is to assist the Court in monitoring the school case. Q. And how do you go about that? 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 11 Q. Besides your office and her chambers, what places have you been together with the judge? A. Q A. Q To lunch. Do you consider Judge Wright to be a friend? A colleague. Do you ever discuss family or personal matters with her? A. Well, I think that the judge was clear yesterday that what passes between us is privileged. So, I guess I would hesitate to go there. Q. Well, I'm not asking you what may have been said in that regard but only whether or not you and the judge have such discussions. A. In general terms. She has a school-age child and I have school-age children. So, comments in a general nature. Q. Did she discuss with you her decision about whether or not to put her child in private school? MR. WALKER: Objection - A. No. MR. WALKER: - to that. I don't think that would be a proper subject for inquiry, and I would just flag that for presentation to the judge for inquiry. And I would suggest to you  I'm not 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 13 A. Well, a number of approaches. Primarily we monitor in three main modes. We review a number of documents that are produced by the school districts, some on a routine basis, others may be exceptional in nature. We make visits to the schools, and we - we observ'e. We look around. .And thirdly, we will talk to individuals. Sometimes those people call us, unsolicited phone calls. But those are the three primary modes by which we collect infonmation. Sometimes we will target a specific topic by virtue of perhaps a provision in the desegregation plan, an issue that has become prominent by one means or another. And then oftentimes we will make a formal written report to the Court. And, of course, you've had  you've seen a number of those documents. Q. What's the purpose of assisting the Court in monitoring a school case? A. To enable the Court to fulfill  MR. WALKER: Just a - A.  its charge. MR. WALKER: -moment. I'm going to object to that, too. Tliat - that is something that the Court can only determine and the Court of Appeals and that's already specifically reduced to writing. 4 (Pages 10 to 13)Page 14 Page 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Now, if there is another purpose that Ms. Brown  Marshall has identified and reduced to writing and the Court has agreed on and it's pretty clear, then I don't think that there would be any objection to her answering that. But other than that, I think that that's a question properly  a question more properly directed to the Court. Q. (By Mr. Heller) Let me tell you this, Ms. Brown, since I believe that before we went on the record - I'm sorry, Ms. Marshall -- before we went on the record, you said you had not been deposed before, correct? A. I don't ever remember having been deposed. Q. Okay. Well, the way this works is Mr. Walker can make objections for the record, but you will still be required to answer the question unless you personally decide not to. But he's not your lawyer. MR. WALKER: That's right. A. I understand that. Q. (By Mr. Heller) 1 suppose he can advise you not to answer a question, but it's up to us whether or not to do that, so -- A. Well, 1 really don't -- MR. WALKER: Ms. Marshall - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 had -- I'm  that's been so long. But I started to say I think that it was perhaps based on that of the Metropolitan Supervisor, but I don't have direct knowledge of that. Q. Okay. Do you know  so, are you saying that this job description you're referring to was in existence when you assumed the office? A. No, not the same job description. It was certainly modified after the Eighth Circuit's ruling, and  and 1 don't have any direct knowledge. Q. Okay. How is your job described in that document? A. I haven't looked at it in years, and I didn't review it for today. I didn't anticipate that question. (5. Is it a document that Judge Wright has approved in any way, to your knowledge? A. As far as I know, it's  it came from her office. Q. Have you ever discussed your job description with Judge Wright? A. Q A. Q Years ago when 1 was hired, yes. Has your job description changed over the years? You mean the written document? Well, first the written document, has that  when Page 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A.  know the protocol. MR. WALKER: --1 would --1 would ask on that kind of question you recess the deposition to let the Court answer that question or be directed, because you're not represented by counsel. But you have to  of course, like he says, you have to exercise your own choice. A. 1 do know that the judge is available should we need a ruling\nbut candidly, this is a new procedure for me and I don't understand the - I don't know the protocol. Q. (By Mr. Heller) Well, my only question is that you described your job as assisting the Court in monitoring the school case\nand my question is: To what end? What's the -- what's the purpose of that work? A. In order to supply information to the parties and to the Court that can be helpful, particularly in promoting compliance with the commitments that the parties have made. Q. Okay. Do you have a written job description? A. Q. A. Ido. Where did that come from? 1 believe that it was a modification of what 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 17 is the last time the written document was changed'.^ A. I don't know that it has changed. Q. Has it changed in die last five years, to your knowledge? A. I don't believe so. Q. Do you ever have discussions with Judge Wright about exactly what your job is and what you're trying to accomplish? A. Well, certainly we'd discuss what it is that my job is. She is my supervisor, and 1 report to her. Q. Well, can you relate any discussions you've had about what your job is with Judge Wright? A. No. I guess perhaps I don't understand your question. I'm not trying to be coy. I'm just trying to understand what you're saying. Q. Well, I'm trying to understand what the understanding is between you and Judge Wright about what your job is. And if it's accurately described in a written job description, if you can tell me about that\nor if it's not, you can tell me about whatever discussions you've had with the judge. A. I believe that it's correctly embodied in the job description. And I don't have that with me, but it's something that's available. Q. Well, is there anything that you recall about it 5 (Pages 14 to 17)1 Page 18 or can relate now about the understanding between you 2 with Judge Wright about what your job is? 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. WALKER\nWell, let me say one other thing. As I understand it, this is about to get information in preparation for the hearing on Monday. It is not to deal with the question of disqualification, since Mr. Heller was not ambitious enough, if  if courageous enough to make a motion to recuse the Court. So, 1 ask, Ms. Brown, that you limit your questions or - or that you call the judge to see whether your questions should be limited to matters that relate to the evidentiary hearing that is set for the 19th and the 20th. If he wishes to challenge the Court and her authority based on her personal relationship with you or anjlJiing else, he'll have ample time beyond the time to prepare that we are supposed to be spending getting prepared for this hearing on Monday. MR. HELLER: Well, if you'll read the deposition subpoena, it's limited to matters concerning Ms. Brown's relationship to the Page 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 disqualify the Court. MR. HELLER\nYou are not required to sit here. MR. WALKER: So, I suggest that we recess the hearing and call the judge. I suggest we do that. MR. HELLER: There's no reason to. MR. WALKER: Ms. Brown, do you mind  Ms. Marshall, do you mind doing that? THE WITNESS: Well, actually considering what I've just told you, this varies considerably from what I had been given to understand by you yesterday. So, perhaps that will be best thing to do. MR. WALKER\nThe deposition notice says one thing and what Mr. Heller said in court is another thing, and they both have to be taken together. And the Court  MR. HELLER: You're absolutely incorrect. I pointed out to the Court that you were wrong when you suggested that I wanted to take these depositions about what their testimony might be. I pointed out in court -- and it will show up in the transcript -- that we specifically asked to Page 19 Page 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Court, not what her testimony might be on Monday. And that's what we intend to pursue. A. From our conversations jesterday, Chris, what I understood you intended to ask me was about documents that 1 had shared with the Court, which I've prepared. Any other area, I have not reviewed. Q. (By Mr. Heller) Okay. Well, I -- and I understand that, and I'm just asking you for as much as you can remember about these issues. And we're certainly going to talk about the documents, but our purpose is to talk about the communications generally and the relationship generally behveen your office and Judge Wright. MR. WALKER: Well, let us - I would like to suggest that we recess the hearing and call the judge. My understand is that we weren't to be wasting time on matters that the Court is not going to be addressing at this hearing. Even though she said you could depose her, I don't tliink I want to be sitting in a room listening to you take the time that we're supposed to be spending preparing for trial on the 19th and 20th, trying to  for you to find ways to try to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 take these depositions concerning the communications between the Court and the monitor's office. MR. WALKER: Well, that's concerning the hearing on Monday\nand she said very clearly on the issues that are before the Court on  on Monday and Tuesday, she can only  Ms. Brown's -- or Ms. Marshall's testimony can only relate to the issues that she told us both that we could present. THE WITNESS: Well, I'm happy to share what documents I found, Chris\nbut my understanding was that that was the thrust of your inquiry. And since I don't  I'm not represented by any counsel and I'm not eager to be in the middle of a disagreement between you hvo, maybe the best thing would be to call Judge Wright. MR. HELLER: Well, let's -- before we do that, let's at least take a look at the documents that you've brought with you in response to the deposition subpoena. ,. Two that I've sent to the Court  and these A. actually went to Julie, and I sent those today and they were the conununication that -- thank you, Tammy -- 1 6 (Pages 18 to 21)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 22 got from you. saying that the documents still weren't ready, so I informed Julie. Whether those were shared with the judge. I truly do not know. But I did send them to the Court, because we're responsible for organizing the documents and I can't get my work done without them, so I notified my boss. In July, Chris, you sent me a letter, which you copied to the parties\nand I shared that with the Court. MR. FENDLEY: Do you want to mark these separately? MR. HELLER: No, I want to take a look at them first. A. And I shared with the Court the response that I sent to you, Chris, with the errors that we had discovered in the compliance report. That, of course, also went to all counsel and to Dr. James\nand I notified her that we had, by means of a - of a copy of this letter, that we had shared this information with you-all. And then on the 23rd of July, which is the same day, I sent a letter to Dr. James, which I didn't copy to anybody\nbut 1 did ultimately share that with the Court, because 1 was very frustrated in my monitoring by not being able to procure  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Page 24 (Marshall Exhibit No. 4 was marked for identification.) MR. HELLER: And the July 23rd letter to Dr. Ken James from Arm Marshall will be No. 5. (Marshall Exhibit No. 5 was marked for identification.) (By Mr. Heller) Are those all the documents that you've brought here in response  A. Yes. Q.  to our request? A. Yes. Q. Have you ever provided any other written document to the Court that hasn't been provided to the parties? A. This is it. When you say \"ever,\" within the last recent time\nbut I have - I can recall nothing that has been shared with the Court that has not been shared with you-all and ultimately been a part of the record at no time. That's not my -- that's not the way I work. Q. Insofar as you can recall, these are the only written documents that you've provided the Court in the last several years\nis that fair to say? A. Yes, other than what's been public. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 23 THE WITNESS: And I dont know if you need these or not, Jerry. MR. HELLER: Well. let's go ahead and mark these as exhibits to the deposition in the order in which youve provided them, starting with  let's make No. 1 the  Q. (By Mr. Heller) Is this the first one, the one with the  the longer of the two? A. Yes, that's the first one. Q. Okay. MR. HELLER: Let's make this first E-mail document Exhibit 1. (Marshall Exhibit No. 1 was marked for identification.) MR. HELLER: The second one will be E?diibit 2. (Marshall Exhibit No. 2 was marked for identification.) MR. HELLER: Then the letter to Ann Marshall, dated July 16, 2001, will be No. 3. (Marshall E.xhibit No. 3 was marked for identification.) MR. HELLER: Tlie response from Ann Marshall, dated July 23rd, 2001, will be No. 4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 25 Q. What do you mean by \"what's been public\"? A. Just exactly what I said a minute ago. that either I have reported to the Court in a published report or its been part of the record. Q. What work is it that you're trying to get done that you need our exhibits to do? A. Because we are the repository for many court records and  and actually 1 think that's really a matter of space. But we are very organized, and we organize the library. And so, documents that might accumulate in the Court's chambers are sent to us. When we received the voluminous number of documents for the summer hearings, you-all delivered them to us and then we organized them for the Court. As a matter of fact, they are very unwieldy, and I'm sure you can appreciate that, because it was so many papers. You know, we've even joked about the  the time that I measured them and it was ox er 7 feet. Its now over 9 feet. But we organized them into notebooks so that they would be readily accessible for the Court and for you-all, too. As a matter of fact, Polly said - she suggested that you might want to organize them in notebooks rather than just individual documents. And so. to finish that job. to expedite the proceedings and 1 (Pages 22 to 25)Page 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 hopefully make it easier on all of us, we're trying to organize them. And that's why we didn't have this proceeding over there, because our table is full of documents that we're trying to get organized, so we know what we have. And, for example, you've given a list of exhibits\nand we're comparing that list with the documents that we have to find out what might be missing. Q. And what do you do once you've made your review- of those documents? Do you have any communication with the Court about the documents? A. We  they've been organized\nand they're all there, or if documents are missing  I'm not saying they're not  at this time, I don't know that we have documents missing. Just to let them know that they're in an organized order and we have them there with our little trolleys and boxes. Q. Do you have a routine that you follow to prepare for hearings in this case in your office? A. A general routine. It may vary from hearing to hearing. This hearing we've had little to do, because the burden of proof has been on Mr. Walker. Q. Do you usually meet with the judge before any hearing in this case? A. Sometimes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 28 upon me to let my supervisor know that I am about my work. Q, Have you ever said to anyone that part of your job is to help the judge, quote, \"prepare,\" closed quote, for court? A. I may have. Q. Well, do you understand that to be part of your job? A. That's what I do as part of my job when I can, like organizing documents. But I --1 don't have any legal training\nand so, legal matters are beyond my ken. Q. Well, I'm certainly not talking about legal matters\nbut my question is whether or not you have discussions with the judge concerning factual matters before or during any of the hearings in this case. MR. WALKER: Just a moment. I think that's another one of those questions that you should ask the judge. A. I think that's a little afield. I don't discuss  MR. WALKER: Well, let me say this. From time to time, the judge has said on the record when I've asked if Ms. Brown should  to give me this or give me that, to check the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 27 Q. It seems like you always enter the courtroom from the chambers. Is that part of the routine that you at least have some visit with the Court before the  A. Pleasantries. Q.  hearings? A. To be  she is my boss\nand so, 1 always want to be polite and speak. But many times there's absolutely nothing that passes between us about the proceedings. You know, it's, \"Hi, how's your job?\" Q. Have there been times when you have had substantive discussions about the issues with Judge Wright before a hearing? A. Q A. Q We've discussed monitoring issues many times. What do you mean by \"monitoring issues\"? The substance of my monitoring. That's my job. Do you mean that you've discussed the findings you've made during the course of your work? A. Those are published\nand once they've been published, yes. 1 mean, there are certainly times that - that - 1 mean, the best e.xample that 1 can give you right now was being Ihistrated and not being able to get the evaluation documents from Little Rock, communicating that to the judge in the form of a copy of the letter that 1 have written, and just to keep her posted about my efforts. 1 think it is incumbent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 29 record or do this or that. So, I think that that's the kind of thing that you should ask the judge. And she said that in public court. A. And, you know, that's routine is that type of thing. Nothing that's -- that's not part of how it is that we evolve on business together. Q. (By Mr. Heller) Do you recall the hearing held May 4 of this year concerning Pulaski County's plan for implementation at middle schools? A. There was a hearing, yes. Q. One of the first things that happened at that hearing was that Judge Wright talked to Sam Jones about\na chart that she intended to put in the record. Do you recall that discussion? A. I'm sorry, can you refresh my memory? Q. Okay. I'll read to you from page 9 of the transcript. \"The Office of Desegregation Monitoring has reviewed the materials, and so have 1, but not as carefully, of course, as ODM. But they have met with me\nand so, 1 am now prepared to hear any evidence that you have in support of your motion. Before I do that, though, I want to share with you  and I don't know whether Ms. Marshall has shared with you - some charts that her office has prepared with respect to this.\" 8 (Pages 26 to 29)Page 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q A. was. Does that help you remember - Yes.  what we were talking about? And 1  but 1 don't even remember what the chart Q. Okay. A. But that -- that was entered into the record. Q. All right. And my question is: What discussion about the case preceded the hearing that would allow Judge Wright to have a document at the very start of the hearing that she intended to introduce into evidence? MR. WALKER: 1 believe that's the kind of question that you would have to ask the judge. Ms. Bro^vn, I'd ask that you call the judge, because he's now just asking about the judge's conduct not yours. So, I would suggest that we interrupt this hearing and call Judge Wright. And I think the questions should be flagged, the last series of questions for sure, and any others that you have. Q. (By Mr. Heller) Would you be more comfortable if we did that, Ms. Brown, rather than proceed along these 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 32 with Clay Pendley, Allen Carney, Tammy Downs, Joy Springer, John Walker, Ann Marshall and our court reporter. THE COURT: Can 1 put you on a speakerphone, because Julie, the law clerk, is in here. MR. HELLER: Sure. THE COURT: Just a second. All right. MR. HELLER: Your Honor, we've had an issue raised by Mr. Walker  and Ms. Marshall seems to be concerned as well -- about the scope of the deposition. So, we thought it would be time to seek some clarification from you. 1 am asking about matters related to ODM's communications with the Court and was asking some particular questions about communications in your chambers related to the subject matter of the various hearings that have been held in this case. Mr. Walker says those are things 1 should not be able to inquire into. I've said that 1 thought I'd explained to everyone that the purpose of the deposition was to explore those types of things, rather than issues related to what Page 31 Page 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 lines? A. As I said, 1 don't want to be in the middle of your disagreement. So, perhaps that would be the best course. Q. I don't  you know, I don't want to go beyond what the judge has authorized us to do here. I understood the purpose of the deposition was to allow us to explore issues related to communications you've had with the judge. The judge said something yesterday about privileges. Mr. Walker seems to think this deposition is limited in ways that I don't think it is or should be limited. So, maybe the best thing to do is -- A. Yes, as a matter -- Q.  to discuss it with Judge Wright. A.  of clarification, I think that that would be the best course. MR. HELLER: I'll put it on the speakerphone so that you can transcribe it. (Short recess was taken.) (The following teleconference with Judge Wright was had, to wit:) THE COURT: Hello. MR. HELLER: Hello, Judge Wright. This is Chris Heller and you are on a speakerphone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ms. Browns testimony might be. So, that's our standoff at this point. THE COURT: Yesterday 1 told you that Ms. Marshall and 1 talk a lot about her monitoring, about her activities\nand so, 1 think that for the record you're trying to make, for the purposes you're trying to make it, my acknowledgment of that would be sufficient. Again, 1 regard her as an employee who is assisting me in my task of monitoring the compliance that the consent decrees. I'm charged with monitoring and she's charged with helping me do it. MR. HELLER: Well - THE COURT: 1 will acknowledge that, in fact, we talk about the  about the school case a lot. We have -- she does have conversations with me, and you call them ex parte. 1 look upon it the same way 1 do if 1 talk to a probation officer who works for the Court before I sentence someone or I talk to a law clerk before 1 sign an order. And so, to me that is the hpe of relationship 1 have with her, although in her 9 (Pages 30 to 33)Page 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 case 1 talk about her monitoring activities. I'm not going to permit you, in essence, that we have conversations outside the hearing of the parties. MR. HELLER: Well, we're trying to determine. Your Honor -- and maybe this is within the scope of what the Court's acknowledging - but we're trying to determine whether the conversations are about things like the budget and the staff or whether they touch on the merits of the issues before the Court. And that's the reason - THE COURT: Well, to the extent that they're  and not just pure questions of law. I mean, 1 don't -1 don't talk about questions  pure questions of law to her, but 1 do talk about her monitoring activities. But that's all I'm going to say, and that's all that she needs to say. I mean, we talk on an ongoing basis about what she's monitoring, what she might do next, areas of concern and that sort of thing. We talk about her budget, her staff, all of those things. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 36 have. And while it may later be appropriate, we're preparing for the proceeding on Monday and Tuesday. And if he wants to file a motion with respect to the impropriety of her working for you or her talking to you or anything like that or you're continuing on the case, that ought to be direct instead of indirect as it is appearing - appearing here to be. THE COURT: And 1 think that he's trying to make a record, and I think that my  my statement is - you know, if it's something that he wants a record he can use. And I, of course, try to  try to be fair to the parties, and I direct her to try to be fair to the parties. MR. HELLER: Well, if there aren't any other issues at the moment. Your Honor, we'll continue the deposition. THE WITNESS: May I ask a question? MR. HELLER: Yes. Just one moment. Ann Marshall wo\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1713","title":"Court filings concerning responses to order filed October 3, 2001, answers of Leslie V. Carnine to Joshua intervenors' interrogatories, and PCSSD complaince with Plan 2000","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2001-10"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Joshua Intervenors","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Arkansas. Department of Education","Little Rock School District","Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT)","Pulaski Association of Support Staff (PASS)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Court records","School management and organization","School integration","School superintendents","School improvement programs","School employees"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning responses to order filed October 3, 2001, answers of Leslie V. Carnine to Joshua intervenors' interrogatories, and PCSSD complaince with Plan 2000"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1713"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["79 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, two orders; District Court, response to order filed October 3, 2001; District Court, motion for order authorizing alternative means for preparation of transcript of the October 2, 2001, hearing; District Court, Joshua intervenors' response to the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to order filed October 3, 2001; District Court, two orders; District Court, plaintiff's motion to compel; District Court, memorandum brief in support of plaintiff's motion to compel; District Court, notice of audio-visual deposition; District Court, answers of Leslie V. Carnine to Joshua intervenors' interrogatories and requests for production of documents; District Court, responses of Leslie V. Carnine to Joshua intervenors' revised requests for admissions; District Court, Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT) and Pulaski Association of Support Staff (PASS) brief in support of motion to compet Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) complaince with Plan 2000, Section F (discipline); District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool  This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  u.f!JmfRRT EASTERN DISTRICT ARl\u003cANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OCT O 3 200l EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. * No. 4:82CV00866 SWW * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * RECEI\\IE01 Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * OCT s 2001 Intervenors, * * OFFICE OF KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * DESEGREGATION MONITORING Intervenors. * ORDER On October 2, 2001, the Court held a hearing in this matter to address the Joshua Intervenors' motion for definition and clarification of the issues and other relief. For the reasons stated at that hearing and the reasons stated below, the Court made the following rulings on the issues presented in that motion: The Little Rock School District's second set of interrogatories and requests for production to Joshua are quashed except to the extent that the Court required Joshua to respond to the LRSD's contention interrogatories and requests for production during the hearing. Joshua is directed to provide the LRSD with any documents from Joshua monitors or members of the Joshua class that support or do not support an assertion that the LRSD has \"misled\" Joshua. If the LRSD cannot appreciate the significance of a witness or exhibit after Joshua provides its witness and exhibit lists to the LRSD for the upcoming hearing, the LRSD may ask Joshua for the significance of that witness or exhibit. The Court expects Joshua to stand by its representation at the hearing that it will provide that information. The parties will submit an agreed protective order governing e-mails requested from the LRSD by Joshua. Concerning Joshua's access to e-mails beyond March 15, 2001 , the LRSD is directed to notify the Court on or before Friday, October 5, 2001 , which of the two options it will choose: Option 1: (A) Present evidence concerning the LRSD's activities with respect to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan beyond the date of March 15, 2001; and (B) Produce the e-mails requested by Joshua beyond that date. Option 2: (A) Present evidence concerning the LRSD's activities with respect to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan up to the date of March 15, 2001, and not beyond; (B) Correspondingly, the LRSD would have no obligation to produce the e-mails requested by Joshua beyond that date. Should the LRSD choose Option 1, it is directed to ensure that it does not delete e-mails without preserving copies for Joshua. Other than the requirement in this paragraph to preserve copies of requested e-mails for Joshua should the LRSD select Option 1, the Court will not suspend implementation ofLRSD Administrative Directive EGAD (\"The Use and Deletion of Electronic Mail\"). By agreement of the parties as reflected at the hearing, the LRSD shall be permitted to take the depositions of the Joshua monitors and class representatives at a date and time to be agreed by the parties. If either party requests, the Court will be available to the parties during these depositions to address issues that cannot be resolved without the Court's intervention. The Court requests that the parties provide the Court advance notice of the dates and times for the depositions if the parties wish the Court to be available during the depositions. 2 Joshua is directed to pay the LRSD the amount required for the FOIA requests pursuant to LRSD Administrative Directive KDB (\"Process for Making Requests for Information Under the FOIA\"). Because the LRSD has assured the Court that LRSD Administrative Directive KDB applies to any person requesting FOIA material from the LRSD, the Court will not suspend implementation ofLRSD Directive KDB. Counsel for Joshua may, as always, participate in Joshua's continuing monitoring of the LRSD. The participation of counsel for Joshua in the monitoring shall be consistent with the Court's Order entered August 20, 2001 , in which the Court stated: [T]he Court directs counsel for Joshua Intervenors to go through counsel for the Little Rock School District when seeking information from the district or district officials and personnel that is pertinent to the case, and to inform counsel for the Little Rock School District prior to contacting district officials and personnel about matters not currently before the Court. To clarify, counsel for Joshua is .not required to inform counsel for the LRSD before visiting a LRSD campus; however, if counsel for Joshua intends to communicate with district officials and personnel while visiting, counsel for Joshua shall be required to contact counsel for the LRSD as set forth above. The LRSD Student Handbook shall govern issues relating to the presence of counsel for Joshua at individual student disciplinary hearings. r:53, IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 0 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2001 ~~:~ CHIEFWDG UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 ANO/OR 79(a) FRCP oN iO - 3 --0 I sv__.\\2t.....,_ _ _ FILED . U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OCT O 4 2001 ~~~ES\\1~~~~ ~ljRK DEPCLeRT\u003c LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs . 4:82CV00866 SWW NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL MRS. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED OCT !') ZOO! OfflCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 0 RD ER DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Court previously scheduled a hearing on Little Rock School District's motion for contempt against John . Walker. In lignt of the correspondence received from Clay Fendley, 1 counsel for the LRSD, the contempt hearing will not be necessary. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the contempt hearing scheduled for Tuesday, October 16, 2001, is hereby canceled, and the motion for contempt is denied as moot . . -t_{ DATED this -1- day of October, 2001 . r Chief United States District Judge THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE.58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON !O -() '-1-tJ I BY D'C ' 1A copy of Mr. Fendley's faxed letter is attached to .. - 516 RECEIVED OCT -9 2001 (1111(1- _ ___ IIIIJORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RESPONSE TO ORDER FILED OCTOBER 3, 2001 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Response to Order filed October 3, 2001, states: 1. LRSD objects to being forced to select from the two options offered by the Court. Joshua has requested all e-mails of the District's administrators and principals. This request is over broad and would place an undue burden on LRSD to respond. Every e-mail created by an administrator or principal is not relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. LRSD also objects to the Court's selection of March 15, 2001 , as a cut-off date for the presentation of evidence for two reasons. First, the term of the Revised Plan did not end until May 31, 2001, the last day for students for the 2000-01 school year. Second, late compliance could constitute substantial compliance, and LRSD should be granted unitary status if it has substantially complied with the Revised Plan. See Revised Plan, Section 11. 2. Without waiving these objections, LRSD states that it selects Option 2 with the understanding that documents \"concerning the LRSD's activities withrespect to the Revised Desegregation Plan up to the date of March 15, 2001\" will not be excluded from evidence simply because the documents are dated after March 15, 2001 . As LRSD understands the Court's decision, the Court does not want to hear evidence related to activities undertaken after March 15, 2001 , which should have been performed before March 15, 2001. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY: C\"{~l-~ }Z:,nristopher Heller ( #81083) ' t}ohn C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail (unless otherwise indicated) on October 5, 2001: Mr. John W. Walker (hand-delivered) JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown (hand-delivered) Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 3 RECEIVED OCT ~ 9 2001 - (IIU:lir ll\u0026BtllD'amtllG IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS MOTION FOR'ORDER AUTHORIZING ALTERNATIVE MEANS FOR PREPARATION OF TRANSCRIPT OF THE OCTOBER 2, 2001, HEARING For its Motion, Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") states: 1. This Court's Order of October 3, 2001 quashed LRSD's second set ofinterrogatories and requests for production \"except to the extent that the Court required Joshua to respond to LRSD's contention interrogatories and requests for production during the hearing\" of October 2, 2001 . 2. Immediately after the October 2, 2001 hearing, counsel for LRSD approached the court reporter about obtaining a transcript and was advised that a hearing transcript could not be prepared before the November 19, 2001 hearing due to preexisting obligations. Counsel asked the court reporter if someone else could transcribe the tape or if LRSD could obtain a tape of the proceeding and have it transcribed. We were advised that the court reporter was not authorized to release tapes of proceedings. 3. This Court has inherent authority to control proceedings before it and authorize some alternate means of having the transcript prepared prior to the November 19, 2001 hearing, including authorizing another reporter to transcribe the tape or authorizing release of the tape to LRSD to have it transcribed. LRSD would agree to provide all requesting parties a copy of the transcript prepared from the tape and to return the tape to the court reporter so an official transcript can be prepared at her convenience. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that this Court issue an Order authorizing the court reporter to employ some alternate means of preparing a transcript of the October 2, 2001 hearing, and for all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376- BY. C  p er Heller (#8108 John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail (unless otherwise indicated) on October 9, 2001: Mr. John W. Walker JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 3 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Ms. Ann Marshall (hand-delivered) Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 FILED, E~ 'i,11m~'ilt~SAS OCT 15 toot QfflCECI DESBH6A1Dlld_H_IIIE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OCT 1 1 2001 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ... ~ W a~RMACK, QERK WESTERN DIVISION J~  RMN . _ Sy: OE1' Cl11llt LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL J\\.1RS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO THE LRSD'S RESPONSE TO ORDER FILED OCTOBER 3, 2001 The Joshua Intervenors object to the response of the LRSD because it seeks to condition the Court's Order. The Court's Order was clear and unambiguous and should not be modified absent compelling cause which cause is stated for the record. By: Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (Tel.) (501) 374-4187 (Fax) -1- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the following counsel or record, postage prepaid on this A day of October, 2001. Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201~ Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol . Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Jo 1  Walker (._/ -2- QC I J  2001 FILED .. , .IJtOF IIEREGATION MONITORlf~G IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS OCT 17 2001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICTNO. 1,etal., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER No. 4:82CV00866 SWW -.ECEIVEt  OCT 18 200\\ QfflCE OF oES6EMlll talilllNG The Court is in receipt of Little Rock School District's response [docket no. 3517] to this Court's Order [docket no. 3515] filed October 3, 2001, as well as Joshua Intervenors' response in opposition [docket no. 3520] to LRSD's response. LRSD states in its response that it objects to \"being forced to select from the two options offered by the Court.\"1 LRSD also states that it objects to the March 15, 2001 cut-off date for the presentation of evidence. The Court notes LRSD's objections. The Court acknowledges that LRSD may have evidence concerning its activities with respect to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\") subsequent to March 1In its October 3, 2001 Order [docket no. 3515], the Court directed LRSD to choose from two options as follows: Option 1- Present evidence concerning the LRSD's activities with respect to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan beyond the date of March 15, 2001; and produce the e-mails requested by Joshua beyond that date.; Option 2- Present evidence concerning the LRSD's activities with respect to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan up to the date of March 15, 2001, and not beyond; and correspondingly, the LRSD would have no obligation to produce the e-mails requested by Joshua beyond that date. Without waiving its objections, LRSD has informed the Court that it selects Option 2. ,. ' , 15, 2001 which may bear on the issue of whether LRSD has complied with the Revised Plan. The Court gave LRSD an opportunity to elect to present this evidence and LRSD has now rejected this opportunity. Should the Court ultimately sustain Joshua's objections to the Compliance Report and deny unitary status to LRSD, LRSD may in the future, when circumstances ~arrant, file additional motions in support of unitary status that would include compliance activities subsequent to March 15, 2001. The Court wishes to reiterate to LRSD the significance of the March 15, 2001 deadline. On March 15, 2001, LRSD filed its Notice and Compliance Report (\"Compliance Report\") [ docket no. 341 0], representing to the Court that as of that date, the district had achieved unitary status. Specifically~ LRSD stated: LRSD hereby files the attached Compliance Report in accordance with Section 11 of its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"). LRSD has substantially and in good faith complied with terms of the Revised Plan.2 The Court reminds LRSD that the hearings scheduled on November 19 and 20, 2001, concern Joshua's objections to this Compliance Report. There is no reason to obfuscate the issue by complaining about Joshua's activities- Joshua's activities are not relevant unless such activities relate to the trustworthiness of evidence presented by Joshua. It is the Compliance Report, and Joshua's objections thereto, which are now before the Court, and upon which the Court will focus. The Compliance Report represents that LRSD had complied with certain requirements of the Revised Plan; however, the evidence presented to date by Joshua demonstrates otherwise. The Court anticipates that LRSD will present evidence that the representations in the Compliance 2Docket no. 3410 (\"Notice of Filing Compliance Report and Request for Scheduling Order\"), Paragraph No. 1. 2 Report are accurate and truthful. The truthfulness and accuracy ofLRSD's representations in the March 15, 2001 Compliance Report could have bearing on the Court's disposition of the unitary status question. The Court assumes, without deciding, that if the district is in compliance, good faith will not be an issue.3 However, should the Court find compliance in some areas but a failure of compliance in others, the district's good faith will determine the extent to which the Court may withdraw its monitoring activities. See Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467,491 (1992) (\"A court's discretion to order the incremental withdrawal of its supervision in a school desegregation case must be exercised in a manner consistent with the purposes and objectives of its equitable power. Among the factors which must inform the sound discretion of the court in ordering partial withdrawal [is] . . . whether the school district has demonstrated, to the public and to the parents and students of the once disfavored race, its good-faith commitment to the whole of the court's decree . . .. \"). THEREFORE, the Court's Order [docket no. 3515] of October 3, 2001 is hereby clarified to bring into focus for LRSD the significance of the March 15, 2001 deadline. -tr~ IT IS SO ORDERED THIS / I DAY OF OCTOBER, 2001 CHIEF JU~' UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3Toe Court is mindful that the district has promised good faith in the revised plan: \"LRSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African-American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis ofrace, color, or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools.\" LRSD Revised Desegregation and Education Plan of January 16, 1998 at 2.1 [Exhibit A to docket no. 3107]. 3 THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 ANO/OR 79(a) FRCP oN ID-- \\1-0\\ sv_sf( ____ ~ECEIVED OCT 19 2001 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS - OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OCT 1 7 2001 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ~~:M_E_S-'--~~f..J..A~~44-~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * VS. * * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * * * * * No. 4:82CV00866 SWW ORDER Before the Court is the request of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\") for - approval of the ODM budget for 2001-02. 1 Without objection, the Court hereby approves the ODM budget for 2001-02. fr..__ IT IS SO ORDERED THIS /7 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2001 ~#A~~ HIEFJUDGE ~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULJ: 58 AND/O~a) FRCP ON JO\"'( \"rf \"0 I 5y_V-'--\\ __ _ 1 The ODM communicated the proposed budget to the Court in a letter dated September 25, 2001. See docket no. 3509 [September 28, 2001 Order giving parties 15 days to object to the ODM budget for 2001-02], attachment. ra 5 2 2 10 - 30 -o I I .'30Jwt f, -c.l~- i-;J }r-e1 rVJ ~J:Je, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN.DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866RECE\\VED PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Orr\\CtOf OESEGRf.GA1\\0ll lAOmt0mi\u0026 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL Plaintiff Little Rock School District for its Motion for Compel states: PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS 1. Plaintiff served the Joshua Intervenors with Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents (Exhibit 1 attached) by mail on August 9, 2001, making Joshua's responses due on or before September 11, 2001. Joshua hand-delivered responses to LRSD on September 24, 2001. 2. Joshua's responses (Exhibit 2 attached) were unverified and otherwise failed to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff outlined the deficiencies in a letter dated September 27, 2001 (Exhibit 3 attached), and requested that Joshua supplement its responses. 3. Joshua has not responded to Plaintiffs letter of September 27, 2001. 4. Joshua should be compelled to provide responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents that comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 5. Joshua attached a copy of Plaintiffs September 27, 2001, letter to their Motion for Definition and Clarification of the Issues and for Other Relief. This Court held a hearing on that Motion on October 2, 2001, and issued an Order the following day. While the Court quashed Plaintiffs Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production, it did not address Joshua's responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that Joshua be ordered to provide full, complete and verified responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production to the Joshua Intervenors Regarding Joshua's Objections to Unitary Status; that Plaintiff be awarded its costs and attorneys' fees expended herein; and that Plaintiff be awarded all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501_) 376-2011 BY:_....,q.::c:..:;_::......::t:....,;,__J~=...,,..\u003cC\u003eo\u003c...f,.-4.---H_,.__ 2 hristopher Heller (#810 3). hn C. Fendley, Jr. (#9218 ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following persons by t.if _.. mail on October 25, 2001: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagameier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 F:\\HOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD 2001\\dcs-mot-compcl-clarification.wpd ,, 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL 8-9- o I PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VENO RS PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGA TORJES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS REGARDING JOSHUA'S OBJECTIONS TO UNITARY STATUS Comes the Plaintiff, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), and submits the fo ll owing Interrogatories and Requests for Production to be answered within thirty days in accord with Rules 33 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. GENERAL DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS (A) \"you\" or \"your\" Shall mean the Joshua Intervenors' LRSD class representative and counsel for the Joshua Intervenors and any person (as defined below) acting on their behalf; (B) \"person\" Shall mean any individual, corporation, partnership, joint venture, firm , associa tion, proprietorship, agency, board, authority, commission, and other such entities; (C) \"communicate\" or \"communication\" Shall mean every manner or means of disclosure, transfer or exchange, and every disclosure, transfer or exchange of information whether orally or by document or whether foce to face, by telephone, mail , personal deli very, or otherwise; (D) \"document\" EXHIBIT Shall mean any original written, typewritten, handwritten, printed or recorded material, as well as all tapes, disks, non-duplicate copies and transcripts thereof, now or at any time in your possession, custody or control; and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing definition, but for the purposes of illustration only, \"document\" includes notes, correspondence, memoranda, business records, diaries, calendars, address and telephone records, photographs, tape recordings, videotapes and financial statements. Without limitation of the tenn \"control\" as used in the preceding sentence, a documen t is deemed to be in your control if you have the right to secure the document or a copy thereof from another person or a public or private entity having actual possession thereof. If a document that is responsive to a-request for identification or production is in you r co ntrol , but is not in your possession or custody, identify the person with possession - or custody. If any document that is responsive to a request for identification or production was, bu t is no longer, in your possession or subject to your control, state what disposition was made of it, by whom, and the date or dates or approximate date or dates on which disposition was made, and why; (E) \"identify\" (i) As to a person (as defined), shall mean the person's name, business and residence address( es), occupation, job title; and, if not an individual, state the type of entity and the address of its principal place of business; (ii) As to a document, shall mean the type of document (letter, memo, etc .) the identity of the author or originator, the date authored or originated, the identity of each person to whom the original or copy was addressed or delivered, the identi ty of such 2 The singular includes the plural number, and vice versa. The masculine includes the feminine and neuter genders. The past tense includes the present tense where the clear meaning is not distorted by change of tense. If you do not answer any Interrogatory or Request for Production because of a claim of privilege, set forth the privilege claimed, the facts upon which you rely to support the claim of privilege, and identify all documents for which such privilege is claimed. fNTERROGATORY NO. I: Please identify all persons who participated in the preparation of the responses hereto. fNTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please identify the Joshua Intervenors' LRSD class representati ve and the date on which that person became Joshua's class representative. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please identify all persons who performed - monitoring for you during the term of LRSD's Revi sed Desegregation and Education Plan . REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. I: Please produce all of your monitoring reports that were shared with LRSD during the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. fNTERROGATORY NO. 4: Please identify and describe in detail all areas of noncompliance and bad faith implementation communicated by you to LRSD during the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Please produce all documents pertaining to areas of noncompliance and bad faith implementation communicated by you to LRSD during the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 4 fNTERROGATORY NO. 5: Please state whether you received a copy ofLRSD's Compliance Plan dated June IO, 1999, on July, I, 1999, and if not, please state when you received a copy of LRSD's Compliance Plan dated June I 0, 1999. fNTERROGATORY NO. 6: Please identify and describe in detail all communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the format or content of LRSD's Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Please produce all documents pertaining to communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the format or content of LRSD's Compliance Plan dated June I 0, I 999. fNTERROGATORY NO. 7: Please identify and describe in detail all communica tions between you and LRSD pertaining to the format or content of LRSD's Interim Compliance Report filed March 15, 2000. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Please produce all documents pertaining to all communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the content and format of LRSD's Interim Compliance Report filed March I 5, 2000. fNTERROGATORY NO. 8: Please identify and describe in detail all racial di sparities revealed by your monitoring during the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan; and for each area of racial disparity state: (a) When you became aware of the disparity; (b) When you communicated your knowledge of the disparity to LRSD; (c) Whether LRSD's response to the racial disparity complied with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan; and if not, why you did not invoke the process for ra ising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 5 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding Interrogatory regarding racial disparities. fNTERROGATORY NO. 9: Please identify and describe in detail all incidents of racial discrimination in the imposition of discipline which occurred during the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, and separately with regard to each such incident, please state: (a) When you became aware of the incident; (b) When you communicated your knowledge of the incident to LRSD; ( c) Whether LRSD's response to the incident complied with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan; and if not, why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Please produce all documents per1aining to yo ur response to the preceding Interrogatory regarding incidents of racia l discrimination in the imposition of discipline. fNTERROGA TORY NO. I 0: On average, about 85% of LRSD's suspensions nre of African-American students (See Compliance Report, March I 5, 2001, p. 24). Please explain how much of that 85%, if any, you contend results from racial discrimination by LRSD and identify all facts and documents with support that contention? REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Please produce all documents pertaining to you r response to the preceding inte "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_185","title":"Enrollment, LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD, gender and racial count, school capacity, and transfers","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2001-10-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Educational statistics","Education and state","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Enrollment, LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD, gender and racial count, school capacity, and transfers"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/185"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n,._, ,....JA./ r .... ~,...,,,\u0026gt; ,J.._,.,,._ _,._, ,v MAGHET GTUDEIIT QUARTEJU.YA TI\"EllllANCER !PORT FY 2001/02 (f'OR CAI\n..\"U\"..Al'ING ADT. AJ)A, AND ADM OF l'JICNP SCHOOL S.v\"DEITTS tN GRADE$ K-12) v\n,., 6001000 COUl\u0026lt;'N, P!JI.ASXI DISTlUCT: L1ttle Jloc:Jt School l)ist:nct OUIIRT6'l. 1(0. l l 2 4 5 6 OA\".(S DAYS DAYS PRES~ IN l'RtSENT NOif DAY$ Mrt ADA crra TAA\u0026gt;ISPOR'IXD TIU\\NSPOR'IED MSElfT 2/1 2+3/1 7601 LI rn.E ROO. S'tUDBNTS SENT TO 1~01 Lil\"?LE J!.00( HAGN!IT SOJOOJ:.S tO 5739:Z 15896 2995 H34.80 233:2,21. 1,02 NOaTii LITTLt ROCK ST1.ltlDITS SENT TO 7601 LlTil. l!OClC Ml',C:-,r: SO!OOLS ,o 124 191,2 778 3.ll l72.90 1so3 PULI\\SlCl co spgc1111. STUDEHTs SENT TO '7601. Liffi.X IIOCK MAGNET SCIIOQLS 40 241 35797 1.212 6,03 900.96  !OTl\\1, lU7I, ~, AND ADM OF \u0026amp;TUDBNTS A'I'I'WDUIG MAGNf Soro\u0026lt;)t.S : 1443.9,t 3706. 0? , 1'%lN 2.J,./1 2,01.01 .,:z,33 n1.2i\nlBJO 66 SI1JPJ\nN1'S ELIOUII.J: T0 BE: c= 115 nv.NSPOR'ttl) INCUJDE RESIDf.lff STUDl!NTS ~IJUNG T1IO ROtJTt! MILKS OR ~ FROH TRl\u0026gt;Ilt R.':PJE:CT:rvi: ASSIGNl!D S~OOI.S l M TOM STIJDEl'T Q\nMTERL\"!\n-:-:rt:,ro:cr 'l':VOR.T FY 2001/0i '-' ~ -Ll'lt-tl,,,__,_., .,._ -''-' ~V (FOR CALCUJATIUG l\u0026gt;.D'I. 11:)ll., l\\IO kOl'I OF M TO M 8C1!COL STUt\u0026gt;~'l:S IN GRl\u0026gt;.Pi:S K-12) !..EA, 600~00C COUNTY: PUI..ASKI DISTRICT: Little Rock School Oi~~riec QUA.TtTEI\\ NO. l NON-RESID~)l'l' STu\"IlWTS RliCE!V!:D TO (BY M TO M 1'RANSFE!ll 7701. LITn,E ROClt 7702 NORrH LITTLE ROC1' 7103 PUIASKI CO SPACIAL l DAYS IN 2 DAYS PRE8ellT QrR TRANSPORT),,() o 0 40 0 \u0026lt;0 0 'IOT!\u0026gt;,L APT, ADA, Al ADM OF M 'IO M l'..CEIVED .3 DA1(S PRESENT NON- DAY6 TRANSPORTJ.P ABSEJ-11' 0 508 17 l'.l2GS \\007 Al)'!' 2/1 0 00 0 00 0 00 o. 00 C.00 1:._59 331,)7 J~.3. 76 I 7 o.oc 13 00 356. 32 309.32 Sl\"UDfillTS L:GIB\n,,E TO\nill: COU?ITED T,$ TRM'SPORTED !ltCLUDE RESIDENT STUIJEl\"T6 RESIDING TWO ROUT\n)'IILS OR MOR FR.OM THEIR RSPC':'IVl'.: ASSIGNE!l SCHOOLS uec 1~ -UJ. J.U! ::.'ta NLI\u0026lt; !:,L,HUULS 5017718056 p. 1 (\\J Q., CD in M TOM STUDENTQ UARTERLJYIT BN:\u0026gt;ANCER EPORT FY 2001/02 (FOR CALCULATINAGD T, ADA, ANDA DMO F M TO M SCHOOLS TUDENTSI N GRADESK -12) LEA: 6002000 COUNTY: PULASKI NON-RESIDENTS TJDENTS RECEIVEDT O (BY M l'O M TRANSFER) 7701 L:TTLE ROCK 7702 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 7703 l?OLAS~I CO Sl?ECIAL 1 DAYS IN QTR 40 40 40 DISTRICT: N. Little Rock School 2 3 4 uAYS DAYS ?RESENT !?RESENT TRANSl?ORrED 0 0 0 NON-TRANSPORTED 444 0 10735 DAYS ABSENT 42 0 491 DistrictQOARTER NO. 5 ADI' 2/1 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 ADA 2+3/1 1.1.10 0.00 268. 40 1 7 ACM 2+3+4/1 12 .13 o.oo 280.64 TOTAL ADT, ADA, AND ADM OF M TO~ RECEIVED: 0.00 279.50 292.77 STUDENTSE LIGIBLE TO BE COUNTEDA S TRANS?ORTEDIN :'.:LODER ESIDENTS T'JDENTS: :i.ESIDINGT WOR OUTSM ILES OR )~OREF ROM ':'HEIR RESPECTIVE ASSIGNED SCHOOLS PAGE: 1 Date: To: Fax: Re: Sender: EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE ... ' ' ... Pulaski County Special School District Equity and Pupil Se11Jices 925 E. Dixon RtlJP.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, Arkamas 7221 6 (501) 490-6215 (501) 490-1352 Fax FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET 1i-11-oi 311-0100 PAGE 01/0~ YOU SHOULD RECEIVE Q PAGE(S). INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL (501) 490-6215. MESSA.GE: w (!) \u0026lt;r a.. uw H ii: w l!l _J H a.. J a.. ?.: H J 0 w M TOM STUDENT QUARTERLY ATTENDANCB RBPORT FY 2001/02 (FOR CALCULATING ADT, ADA, AND ADM OF M TO M SCJ!OOL STUDENTS IN GRADES I\u0026lt;-12) LEA: 6003000 COUNTY: PULASKI DISTRICT: Pulaski Co. Spec. School Dist.QUARTER }JO. l 2 3 4 5 6 DAYS DAYS DAYS PRBSBNT IN PRESENT NON- DAYS ADT ADA QTR TRANSPORTBD TRANSPORTED ABSHNT 2/1 2+3/1 NON-RBSIDBNT STUDENTS RECBIVBD TO {BY M TON TRANSFER) 7701 LITrLE ROCK 41 0 45602 1324 0.00 1112.24 7702 NORTH LITTLE ROCK 41 0 7409 173 0.00 1B0.71 7703 PULASKI CO SPECIAL 41 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 1 7 ADM 2 ~3+4/1 - ---~ (1141.51) ~---- ( 184--:-94) 0.00 TOTAL ADT, ADA, AND ADM OF M TO M RECEIVED: 0 .00 1292. 95 1329. 45 STUDENTS ELIGIBLE TO BE COUNTBDA S TRANSPORTE:DIN CLUDE RBSIDBNT STUDBNTSR ESIDING TWO ROUTE MILES OR 1-!0RBF ROMT HEIR RBSPBCTIVE ASSIGNED SCHOOLS PAGE: 1 t-'A\\:lt:. tll/0~ STUDENT REGISTRATION OFFICE --- ~--- - LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 SHERMAN ST. LITTLE ROCK AR 72202 PHONE: 324--2272 FAX: 324-2281 FAX COVER SHEET \" To: ToQ ~ J M Ck! FaxNumber:_ _ 3.\n::\n7,.._ _ I_ _- 0 I C~r ' J __ ..,..--_.1 From: ~ lOJvCl L Da1e_: __,_l-=.--'O-- \"\"'2---.'.-Ll---(_ o # Pages Including Cover Sheet. _ ___.\n.....__ Re:, _...:....F________, _'/-=-I_-_ cc:. ____________________ _ ACC ALC LRSD2 0012 002O fficial EnrollmentC ount Al T AGENCIES SUBTOT~ CLOVERO DUNBAR FORESTH HENDERS SUBT OTAL- ~~--4-082 1423 2tl0 5765  Counto oesn o! includeP 1,P 2, P3 alil He9dS tartP 4 students. 1 \u0026gt;1\\,..U... U.L/ CJ ... 95% 85')', 43% 71% 10-15-01 ~ae- 383 I r'R~C'~li.,,. \\..CQ s~0i~\n- 6~., I Carver I Chicot Cloverdale I Dodd 'fair Park 1 Forest Park  Franklin ru1bnght , Gc:)er Sprlllgs 0100\nI- - 1 ,efferson :\\..ir.g ~ ..c. e:,a\n' k.::)eIT'.:~tt i 'vt.:,adoYcli ff ',f':che'.l L C'rrer Cree1- !'uhs1\u0026lt;:i Heights r R.i!.'\"tse! 1 ll..o~kefel!er 1 Romine I Stephens . Terry. I Wakefield I Washmgton tWatson I Western Hills I \\villiams I kW1lson l I Wvodrutf I Grand Total Stwd~nt Registratiun 05.c~ Septerober 27, 2001 409 i 4llQ 271 304 400 532 491 358 324 471 715 .',. ..,. , 453 3:,8 :?.33 -lJ.5 350 j '.:96 481 l 403 646 597 416 678 534 320 490 340 314 15275 - L' - - / t r V TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: FAX# 37/- )/tz\u0026gt;O ~/\u0026lt;- u-:::,u 1-!NAl\u0026lt;\\..:lAL SE.RV #PAGES INCLUDING COVER:___,::i\u0026lt;.~------- PAGE Ell MY PHONE# _____________ _ THE CONTENTS OF THIS FAX IS CONFIDENTIAL AND IS ONLY FOR THE PERSON LISTED ABOVE. PLEASE DELIVER AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. COMMENTS ----------------------------- .,_.,_u,, , ..::...uuJ. J.C. ~I ~t:.1.1...:,_4L.01~ Lt-'.:i!J 1-lllAllCIAL SERV PAGE 0~ Rockefeller October 1, 2001 GRADE AF AM BF BM Hf HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! Pl 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 3 3 12 P2 0 5 3 0 0 Q 0 4 3 16 --~- ~\n:,7r, P3 7 9 0 0 0 0 s ,,.7. 30 ,tt:\n)97~ !'4 7 0 0 ti 11 Q 0 0 7 /?8 '3' 34 GR.AND TOTAL: 8 3 15 25 0 0 0 19 21 92 -Y: ...l .). 0 /_\nJ., _, RECEIVED I ' STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OC2T 9 2001 OCTOBER 1, 2001 ENROLLMENT REPORT OFFOICfE DESEGREMGAOTNIIOTNO RING WITH PRE-K STUDENTS r------- r.01 - CENTRAL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! 09 5 7 184 195 2 3 0 110 123 630 10 6 3 141 138 2 2 94 97 485 11 4 4 121 91 0 2 0 I 05 102 430 120 ~ -~2 I) 12 6 0 0 89 91 401 --\u0026gt;-- ~ TOTALFOR:CENTRAL 21 15 566 516 5 8 2 2 398 413 f 1,946 \\002 - HALL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! ! 09 0 2 143 161 17 16 0 0 37 41 417 10 2 140 138 8 17 0 53 24 384 II 3 0 125 129 7 10 0 0 34 33 341 12 0 3 94 81 4 8 0 0 35 34 259 ~ ss 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 3 ~ 5 18 ,~ TOT AL FOR: HALL 4 7 503 518 36 51 0 162 \\ 13~ 1,419 .- 1003 - ~NN M/S GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTALj 06 6 3 82 65 4 0 0 77 50 288 07 3 3 79 72 2 4 0 2 74 41 280 .. 08 8 4 74 68 0 0 56 56 268 ~ 23s t2os 201 \"l141 ~ TOT AL FOR: MANN MIS 17 10 7 5 0 3 836 r---- 1 n~J!ARK1RW GRAD~ AE. .AM _B.E_ BM HF HM NF NM wi\n: WM TOT!-L I - 09 3 5 78 72 8 5 0 0 79 53 303 ---- -- -------- -- 10 5 5 71 72 6 0 0 80 47 287 -------- - ---- - - --- II 3 3 84 61 2 0 0 0 64 67 284 12 5 0 70 58 3 0 82 50 ~! 270 303 { ' p TOTAL FOR: PARKVJEW 16 13 263 17 9 0 305 I 217 ) 1,144 COMPlITER INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, October 16, 200 I Page 1 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2001 ENROLLMENT REPORT WITH PRE-K STUDENTS [~__6_o_ - _B_o_o_K_E___R G_RA_D__E A__F_ A_M__ BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL j 14 78 TOTAL FOR: BOOKER !001 - DU BAR MIS I TOT AL FOR: DUNBAR M/S I \\008-FAIR I 01 0 02 2 03 0 0 04 0 0 05 2 0 K 0 6 19 24 33 23 30 26 35 25 31 18 20 '- 27 '\u0026gt;' 168 ' 143 0 2 2 2 0 7 0 17 0 0 18 14 0 0 39 17 0 0 0 33 19 0 0 22 II 2 2 17 19 6 2 2 146 ~ 94 GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM 06 10 6 80 84 9 0 0 29 36 07 6 80 72 6 4 36 43 08 4 62 64 4 3 0 0 30  52 20 19 222 ' 220 15 16 95 131 GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM 09 0 0 101 120 7 27 24 10 0 0 87 105 2 0 2 19 30 II 0 0 94 89 3 0 0 0 20 19 12 0 70 64 4 0 JO 16 92 115 114 87 89 p. 575 259 254 227 \\ 740 282 246 225 167 ss 0 0 12 ~ ,._ 8 0 0 9 ~10 0 0 0 4 ~ 24 . TOTAL FOR: FAlR 0 364 386 4 16 1009-FO\n~~s Mts--G~\n--A-\n--:-M ---\nF -~~\n~ -HM--N-\n-- ~~---w-F_W_M __ T__o_T A~i i'- -- - -- ----------------------- - -- - --- ----- ------------- 06 0 0 91 88 0 0 0 43 36 259 07 0 2 80 93 0 0 42 39 258 08 0 5 84 80 2 0 44 31 247 3 f!L2 TOT AL FOR: FORST HTS MIS-----0 --8--25-8 ~ 27-3--4--3-- 0 SM 0 0 0 0 3 6 26 132 112 790 C:OMPUTER INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, October 16, 200 I Page 2 of I 7 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2001 ENROLLMENT REPORT WITH PRE-K STUDENTS jo10  PUL HTS M/S 7 GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! J 06 2 2 65 65 0 0 0 47 44 226 07 0 62 58 3 0 39 61 226 08 0 3 62 64 0 0 56 56 243 1-.. SM 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 I 2 9 ~ 190 ~ 192 \"' ~, TOT AL FOR: PUL HTS MIS 2 6 4 2 2 0 143 '1 163 704 tl 1  SOUTHWST MIS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! 06 0 O' 95 107 2 0 0 4 5 214 07 0 0 82 78 2 2 0 0 4 2 170 08 0 0 76 78 0 2 0 0 4 161 I SM 0 0 4 II 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 257 ~ 1' 274 ~ (,.~ TOT AL FOR: SOUTHWST MIS 0 0 3 6 0 0 12 8 560 jo12. ~CCLELLA GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! 09 0 0 130 159 2 5 0 0 5 15 316 10 0 0 148 129 3 0 0 9 5 295 11 0 0 102 126 0 0 0 8 18 255 12 0 0 104 78 2 2 0 0 10 5 201 ss 0 0 6 9 0 0 0 0 1 ~ \" 0 16 TOTALFOR:MCCLELLA 0 0 490 ~501 7 9 0 0 33 (\\ 43 ~\\,os3 l013  HENDERSN M/S GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL I --------- ---- ---- ----- 06 0 2 74 87 4 7 0 15 30 220 -- -- - -- -- -- - - --- ~------ 07 0 75 95 4 6 0 0 18 18 217 08 2 73 88 2 0 0 14 13 194 J .,._ (, SM 0 0 12  25 0 0 0 0 1 4 0- 42 ['I ~ 48 ~ TOTAL FOR: HENDERSN MIS 2 4 234 ~ 295 JO 13 65 iflj6 73 COMPUTER INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, October 16, 2001 Page3of17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2001 ENROLLMENT REPORT WITH PRE-K STUDENTS f -- - 1015 - CLOVR MIS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM 'TOTAL I 06 0 07 08 0 SM 0 TOT AL FOR: CLOVR M/S 0 121 131 2 127 125 0 115 99 0 2 0 ~ 1 363 ~ 356 II 4 6 0 21 15 10 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 6 6 7 8 0 0 19 ~ 20 290 281 243 I ~ 815 r-----------------------------------~ GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM F NM WF WM TOTAL r16-MABEL MIS 06 0 07 0 08 0 SM 0 TOT AL FOR: MABEL M/S 0 0 0 0 91 70 69 87 61 57 I \\l 10 222 t 224 2 2 0 0 20 20 0 2 II 15 2 2 18 14 0 0 0 I (} 1 6 6 2 3 50 50 I \\017 - BALE GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM 01 0 17 16 0 0 0 02 0 0 18 22 0 0 0 03 0 0 19 18 2 0 0 04 0 0 15 15 0 0 0 0 05 0 0 21 23 2 0 0 EE 3 3 0 0 0 0 K 0 0 21 27 0 0 p 0 TOTAL FOR: BALE ----- 2 ~ ---------- 13 14 2 0 --- --- --------- 127 138 9 6 0 I 0 COMPUTER INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, October 16, 2001 6 4 2 2 3 4 4 3 3 ~ 0 29 1-17 206 186 158 14 ~ 564 TOTAL\\ 42 50 45 35 54 15 Page 4 of 17 f\\\u0026lt;J STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2001 ENROLLMENT REPORT WITH PRE-K STUDENTS r- 1018- BRADY GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL L ___ 01 0 0 29 30 0 0 0 0 3 67 02 0 17 19 0 0 0 0 7 2 46 03 0 16 9 0 0 5 3 36 04 0 0 20 19 0 0 0 0 4 44 05 0 17 29 0 0 0 0 4 4 55 EE 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 K 0 0 27 21 0 0 4 5 59 A.\" p 0 0 2 ~ 7 0 0 0 6 2 18 TOTAL FOR: BRADY 2 130 -136 3 2 0 0 33 Y)2 5 ~ 332 ~ r---- 1019- BADGETT GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTALI I _ 01 0 0 11 9 0 0 0 0 0 21 02 0 0 15 16 0 0 0 0 33 03 0 0 16 14 0 0 0 0 0 31 04 0 0 14 11 0 0 0 0 27 05 0 0 9 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 K 0 0 7 11 0 0 0 19 ~ 0 0 1 ~ ~ TOTAL FOR: BADGETT 0 0 72 74 0 2 0 0 4~ 153 \\020 - MCDERMOT GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL\\ 01 2 2 18 12 2 2 0 0 13 12 63 - ----------- --- --------- - --- 02 0 18 9 5 0 17 9 63 ----------- ---- -- --- ----------- .. ---- ------ ----- 03 17 14 3 0 0 0 14 12 62 04 0 15 15 0 0 8 10 51 05 0 17 16 0 0 10 16 66 K 4 9 14 0 0 0 0 12 11 51 p 3 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 2 4 18 TOTAL FOR: MCDERMOT 13 4 98 85 12 11 0 76 ~ 74 374 COMPlITER INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, October 16, 2001 J\u0026gt;age 5 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2001 ENROLLMENT REPORT WITH PRE-K STUDENTS \\021 - CARVER GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL I ----' 01 0 21 17 0 0 0 0 15 24 78 02 2 0 19 24 0 0 0 14 25 85 03 0 0 22 28 0 0 9 24 85 04 0 25 21 0 0 0 0 16 21 84 05 3 25 24 0 0 0 0 13 25 91 ~ K 0 0 12 1/) 27 0 0 0 12 lo 20 ~ 72 {1 124 ~ 141 ' TOT AL FOR: CAR\\:'ER 6 2 0 2 79 r~ 139 495 022 - BASELINE GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 20 15 0 0 4 6 47 02 0 0 21 14 0 0 0 0 2 3 40 03 0 0 25 10 0 0 0 0 3 39 04 0 0 16 13 0 2 0 0 4 3 38 05 0 0 17 14 0 0 0 0 4 3 38 EE 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 6 K 0 0 18 18 0 0 0 0 2 39 p 0 0 14~ 18 0 0 0 2 \u0026amp;J 0 35 (Jc, TOTAL FOR: BASELINE 0 0 133 f1J1 05 2 4 0 0 21 , 17 ~ 282 1023 - FAIR PRK GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL] 01 0 17 17 0 0 Q 0 2 2 39 --- - - ____ ,.. __ _. 02 0 0 14 IO 0 0 0 0 4 7 35 -------- --------- ------- 03 0 0 11 9 0 0 0 0 2 2 24 04 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 2 0 21 05 0 0 8 9 0 0 0 0 2 3 22 K 0 0 I 8 10 0 0 0 0 5 4 37 r-e p 0 2 IO 12 0 0 0 0 5 {\\ 2 31 kl TOTAL FOR: FAIR PRK 2 89 ~ 75 0 0 0 0 22 ' 20 ~ 209 f\\ COMPlITER INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, October 16, 2001 Page 6 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2001 ENROLLMENT REPORT WITH PRE-K STUDENTS r~\n-F~O RSTP K GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL] ' 01 0 9 14 0 0 0 0 8 15 47 02 0 12 15 0 0 0 8 13 50 03 0 0 7 8 0 0 0 0 19 15 49 04 0 7 II 0 0 0 0 12 16 47 05 0 0 9 9 0 0 0 0 8 15 41 K 0 3 6 7 0 0 0 18 18 53 '\\ p 0 I ~ 0 0 0 0 4 Q II 0 18 t TOT AL FOR: FORST PK 6 51 ~ 64 2 0 0 77 ~ 103 \"' 305 1025  FRANK.LIN GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! 01 0 24 37 0 0 0 0 0 63 02 0 0 IS 29 2 0 0 0 0 47 03 0 0 19 19 0 0 0 0 0 39 04 0 0 31 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 05 0 29 30 0 0 0 0 0 61 EE 0 0 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 IO K 0 0 26 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 60  p 0 19 r\\. 28 0 0 0 0 0 2 50 I\\. 3 .-:) 2 ~388 Q\\ TOT AL FOR: FRANKLIN 3 0 166~ 210 2 2 0 0 xn futi~trnM- GRAD\"-Ex , A:M\"' '.EOHI BP- Bih IIF mv~!M \\l\nsF .-fJ.4 l ~ 01 0 2 20 I 5 0 0 13 17 69 ------ - ---- 02 0 14 18 2 0 0 16 9 61 03 0 0 9 14 2 0 0 0 8 12 45 04 0 0 13 13 0 0 0 IO 8 45 05 0 0 14 9 0 0 0 8 15 47 r..:: K 0 13 ~ 8 0 0 0 6 II ~o ~ TOTAL FOR: GIBBS 3 83 ~ 77 5 4 0 61 i,e7 2 307 COMPUTER INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, October 16, 2001 Page 7 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2001 ENROLLMENT REPORT WITH PRE-K STUDENTS I --- 1028 - CHICOT GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! 01 0 0 27 30 8 10 0 4 3 83 02 0 0 30 27 5 9 0 0 3 2 76 03 20 29 3 8 0 0 4 7 73 04 0 23 27 7 7 0 0 2 6 73 05 0 20 30 4 7 0 0 8 5 75 EE 0 0 5 8 0 0 0 2 3 19 K 0 0 34 21 7 0 0 4 2 73 p 0 0 14 Q 15 2 3 0 0 !ti 36 ~ 173 ~ 187 ~ ('\\ TOTAL FOR: CHICOT 3 34 52 0 28 -29 508 r----- e9-WESTHIL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! 01 0 0 10 20 2 0 0 6 3 42 02 0 0 15 20 2 0 0 0 7 45 03 0 0 18 14 0 0 0 9 5 47 04 0 13 17 0 0 0 4 37 OS 0 0 19 15 0 0 0 8 6 49 K 0 0 15 11 2 0 0 7 3 39 I\\: p 0 0 7 Q 7 0 0 0 0 4 0 18 ~ p. TOTAL FOR: WEST HIL 0 97 104 5 6 0 0 39 '\\'.\n25 'V 277 r030 -JEFFRSN GRADE AF AM BF BM m HM NF===r-cM W?62w1Vl' =11'ffl 01 0 0 14 15 0 0 0 17 16 63 ... -- ----- ------ ---- ------- - -- ------  - - - ------ --------- 02 0 0 20 15 0 0 0 0 19 18 72 03 0 0 20 10 0 0 0 0 15 21 66 04 0 13 14 0 0 0 28 19 76 05 2 16 10 0 0 0 0 g 14 51 EE 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 7 K 0 12 11 0 0 0 17 14 56 p 0 0 I'-. 2 0 0 0 0 51 IO 18 110 ~ 112 ~ TOTAL FOR: JEFFRSN 2 3 98 81 2 0 0 409 COMPUTER INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, October 16, 200 I Page 8 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2001 ENROLLMENT REPORT WITH PRE-K STUDENTS [031 - CLOVR EL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! -------- 01 0 31 29 5 4 0 0 2 2 74 02 0 0 30 34 4 0 0 3 73 03 0 0 27 22 3 4 0 0 0 57 04 0 0 26 21 0 2 0 0 0 50 05 0 0 30 28 3 5 0 0 2 2 70 K 0 24 28 6 2 0 0 2 3 66 0 u, 36 J/ p 0 16 13 4 0 0 0 2 :t 184 ', 115 6114 TOTAL FOR: CLOVR EL 0 2 19 25 0 426 I TOTAL\\ 1032-DODD GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM 01 0 0 5 12 0 0 0 0 5 8 30 02 0 0 11 8 0 0 0 10 4 34 03 0 9 7 0 0 0 4 4 26 04 0 0 9 5 0 0 0 2 6 23 05 0 0 10 5 0 0 2 2 21 EE 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 8 ------ K 0 0 5 10 0 0 5 7 29 '6 p 0 0 8 4 0 0 2 \\. l 17 \\5 TOT AL FOR: DODD 0 59 ~ 55 5 4 0 0 31 ,, 33 ~ 188 1033 - MEADCLIF \"GRJ!Wi,, Ar ~ .. Dr BM HF-\"IIM__.NF~M )}IF WM IQTAJ I I 01 0 0 15 24 0 0 0 4 5 49 -- - -- - --- - - - . - --------- 02 0 14 12 0 0 0 4 10 42 03 0 0 21 10 0 0 0 5 2 39 04 0 0 19 17 0 0 3 2 43 05 0 0 23 18 0 0 0 0 8 50 K 0 13 17 0 0 0 0 3 6 40 ~ p 0 0 3 C'--,1_1 0 0 0 1 ~- 17 TOTAL FOR: MEADCLIF 108 ...~.. 109 ~ l 34 ~ 4 2 0 0 21 280 COMPUTER INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, October 16, 2001 Page9 ofl7 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2001 ENROLLMENT REPORT WITH PRE-K STUDENTS j034 - MITCHELL ------ GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTALI L ____ -- 01 0 0 25 16 0 0 0 0 0 42 02 0 0 23 23 0 0 0 0 0 47 03 0 0 21 25 0 0 0 0 0 47 04 0 0 23 19 0 0 0 2 46 05 0 0 23 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 EE 0 0 3 9 0 0 0 0 14 K 0 0 17 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 ~ p 0 0 14~ 3 0 0 0 0 0 18 ~ TOT AL FOR: MITCHELL 0 0 149 r) 139 0 0 4 .\\} 4 ~ 298 f\n-~~~~NG GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL I 01 2 20 22 0 2 20 13 82 02 2 2 21 18 2 0 26 15 88 03 21 23 0 19 18 86 04 2 0 22 20 2 0 0 0 11 19 76 05 0 0 19 24 0 2 0 22 19 87 K 21 23 0 0 0 21 14 82 190\"-. 16 11 ' 19 11\\'ll p 2 0 2 0 0 YJ 70 ~ ~ TOTAL FOR: ML KING 8 8 143 !~ 146 6 8 3 2 130 rr 117 lf~ 571 [[[}~~FEEGRRXDE AF kM'\"''-'\"ffl'\"lffil''\"'\"'\"'l',.L, Pl~IM ~~l\\!M T-0.-H-1I -- 01 0 0 12 19 0 0 0 0 9 8 48 -- --- -- ------------------- 02 0 17 16 0 0 0 7 7 49 03 0 0 18 11 0 0 0 0 13 7 49 04 0 0 15 15 0 2 0 0 7 8 47 05 0 18 12 0 0 0 12 49 K 0 0 16 15 0 0 0 9 14 55 ' 19  21 ~ p 3 22 l'q 25 0 0 0 ~ 92 TOTAL FOR: ROCKFELR 2 4 118 Ct1)1 3 2 3 0 69 ' 77 389 ~ COMPUTER INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, October 16, 2001 Page10of17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2001 ENROLLMENT REPORT WITH PRE-K STUDENTS\n--- TOTAL I i037 - GEYER SP GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM l__ _ 01 0 0 27 22 0 0 0 0 0 50 02 0 0 22 20 0 0 2 3 49 03 0 0 23 18 0 0 0 4 4 50 04 0 0 19 29 0 0 0 0 52 05 0 0 15 25 2 0 0 2 3 48 K 0 0 IS 10 3 0 0 7 2 38 ,0 p 0 0 19 ~ I I 0 0 OQ 0 ~ 33 ~ ~ TOT AL FOR: GEYER SP 0 0 140 '1 135 4 10 0 11 \"D 13 320 1038-PULHTE GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTALI OJ 9 10 0 0 0 0 13 10 44 02 12 9 0 0 0 0 14 6 43 03 0 II JI 0 0 0 0 10 17 50 04 0 0 9 9 0 0 0 0 13 9 40 05 0 19 16 0 0 0 0 13 12 61 .. K 0 0 8 14 0 0 0 8 ~ 13 {\\ 44 t 68 ~ 71 ~ 67 TOTAL FOR: PUL HT E 3 3 69 0 0 0 282 \\039 - RJGHTSEL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF M WF WM TOTAL\\ 01 0 0 16 23 0 0 0 0 0 40 M (\\ n ?1 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 .,, 03 0 0 26 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 --- . --- ----------- - -- ------ -- - - ---------- 04 0 0 19 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 -------- 05 0 0 17 21 0 0 0 0 0 39 K 0 0 17 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 p 0 0 17 19 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 36 ~ 133 ~ 133 ~ ~ TOTAL FOR: RlGHTSEL 0 0 0 0 0 0 268 COMPUTER INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, October 16, 200 l Page 11 ofl 7 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2001 ENROLLMENT REPORT WITH PRE-K STUDENTS r-- TOTAL\\ \\040 - ROMINE GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM \\VF WM I 01 0 0 17 21 5 0 0 5 4 53 02 0 II 22 3 0 0 4 43 03 0 18 9 2 0 0 2 4 37 04 0 7 15 4 5 0 0 2 6 40 05 0 8 18 2 4 0 0 2 36 EE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 K 0 0 16 14 2 0 0 3 5 41 \\) p 0 0 8 td 11 0 0 0 9 4 \\J. 33 ~ TOT AL FOR: ROMINE 3 85 ~ 110 13 19 0 0 23 ~ 30 1l'J 284 lo,-\nS\nT EPHENS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTALI L__ ___ 01 0 0 36 35 0 0 75 02 0 0 42 41 0 4 0 0 89 03 0 0 40 26 2 2 0 0 0 71 04 0 0 37 36 0 0 0 0 0 74 05 0 0 34 35 2 0 0 0 73 EE 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 9 K 0 0 51 41 3 0 0 2 2 100 ' p 0 0 28 24 0 0 0 0 1  I 54 ' V1 ~ ~ _:rOTAL FOR: STEPHENS 0 269 ~ 242 8 8 0 9 545 .... COMPUTER INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, October 16, 2001 Page 12 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2001 ENROLLMENT REPORT WITH PRE-K STUDENTS l~\n~\nA-S_HN GTN GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! 01 3 16 24 6 6 0 0 8 11 75 02 0 3 13 20 0 3 0 0 8 5 52 03 15 17 6 2 0 0 7 12 61 04 0 13 20 6 7 0 0 II 63 05 18 12 3 4 0 0 10 16 65 EE 0 7 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 13 K 3 0 31 26 2 2 0 0 7 7 78 15 \\ 12  p 0 0 0 0 13 ? 10 f\\ ~ TOTAL FOR: WASHNGTN 7 11 128 I ij 134 23 24 0 0 60 ~ 72 459 [043 ~~ILLlAMS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 2 0 17 15 0 0 0 0 12 15 61 02 3 3 21 13 0 0 11 14 67 03 2 7 16 24 0 0 0 0 20 11 80 04 5 5 24 21 0 0 0 0 10 22 87 OS 27 24 0 0 0 19 18 91 12 a (\\_ K 18 0 0 0 0 17 'v 11 \u0026gt;-60 1) I!: TOTAL FOR: WILLIAMS 14 17 111'ft11s 0 89 91 110 446 044-WILSON GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 14 25 0 0 0 0 0 r---42---..- 02 0 0 19 23 0 0 0 45 --- ---------- 03 0 19 19 0 0 0 0 0 40 04 0 13 17 0 0 0 2 0 34 05 0 0 12 13 0 0 0 0 2 28 EE 0 2 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 K 0 0 II 17 0 0 0 2 0 31 I\\ 0 p 0 0 9 \"Q 7 0 0 0 0 0 17 ~ TOTAL FOR: WIL ON 4 0 99 'Jr1 33 2 2 0 5 6 f\\ 252 COMPUTER INFORMATION SER VICES DEPT Tuesday, October 16, 2001 Page 13 of 17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2001 ENROLLMENT REPORT WITH PRE-K STUDENTS 1045 - WOODRUFF GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTALI I L ____ +_ 01 0 0 19 22 0 0 0 0 2 44 02 0 0 19 14 0 0 0 0 35 03 0 0 20 II 0 0 0 0 2 0 33 04 0 0 23 14 0 0 0 0 3 2 42 05 0 0 16 18 0 0 0 2 38 K 0 0 20 14 0 0 0 4 40 p 0 0 9 ~ 12 2 0 0 7 4 35 ~ TOTALFOR:WOODRUFF 0 0 1261 105 3 0 18 ~ 13 ~ ~ 046 - MABEL EL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 0 17 10 0 0 0 7 36 02 0 0 12 13 2 0 0 7 7 42 03 0 0 21 10 0 0 0 0 2 34 04 0 0 16 10 0 0 0 0 6 37 05 0 0 15 19 3 0 0 8 9 55 EE 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 0 2 2 12 - ----- ---- K 0 0 ll 19 0 0 0 5 37 ---------- ~ p 0 0 8 5 0 0 0 0 4 18 ~ \"i\n: 37 ~., ' . TOTAL FOR: MABEL EL 0 0 103 91 3 6 0 0 31 271 ---- io41:TERR -- GRAITT:-AF A\"M\"\"-BF BM HF HM NF -NM- WF WM TOTAL 01 2 4 22 14 2 0 0 16 I 3 74 --------- --------------- --- - .. - - - ~ ----- ---- 02 6 18 17 6 0 0 19 17 85 ---------- 03 4 15 17 4 4 0 0 13 10 68 04 5 0 26 24 0 3 0 0 II 13 82 05 26 12 3 2 0 0 20 15 80 K 4 7 18 26 0 4 0 0 20 21 JOO p 4 5 3 0 0 0 0 4 ~ I 18 ~ ~ 90 r'- TOTAL FOR: TERRY 23 1_8 130 f'a11 3 14 16 0 0 103 \\ 507 COMPUTER INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, October 16, 2001 Page 14 of17 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2001 ENROLLMENT REPORT WITH PRE-K STUDENTS 1048 - FULBRIGH GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL! I 01 2 0 12 6 0 0 0 17 33 71 02 2 l3 16 0 0 0 0 24 15 71 03 0 0 17 17 0 0 0 0 20 17 71 04 0 0 16 15 0 0 0 0 22 20 73 05 0 17 14 0 0 0 32 13 78 EE 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 2 7 K 0 0 11 8 0 0 0 23 34 77 Cl p I('\\ 5 0 0 0 4~5 ~ 18 f\\. TOTAL FOR: FULBRIGH 6 2 87 84 2 0 144 ~ 139 466 ~ 050 - OTTER CR GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 01 0 17 22 0 0 0 17 11 69 02 0 22 19 0 0 0 14 9 66 03 0 17 15 0 0 0 17 17 68 04 0 0 12 I 7 0 0 12 12 55 05 0 0 14 16 0 0 0 9 10 50 K 0 2 24 16 0 0 0 0 II 19 72 ~ p 0 6 0 0 0 0 5 I\\. 4 ~ 17 TOTAL FOR: OTTER CR 2 4 112 1106 3 0 2 85 ~ 82 397 ~ \\os1-W AKEFIEL GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM ~OTALL 01 0 0 28 27 5 7 0 0 2 70 ------------- ----- -- --- ----- -- . 02 0 0 22 24 4 4 0 0 0 6 60 03 0 0 30 22 7 4 0 0 0 3 66 04 0 0 25 21 2 6 0 0 56 05 0 0 32 18 3 2 0 0 0 56 K 0 0 20 27 5 4 0 0 58 4~ ~ p 0 0 5 3 6 0 0 0 (\\ 0 ~ 18 V\\ -- ' \\7 f\\ TOTAL FOR: WAKEFIEL 0 0 161 144 29 33 0 0 4 13 384 COMPlJfER INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, October 16, 200 I Pagel5ofl7 r 1052- WATSON STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2001 ENROLLMENT REPORT WITH PRE-K STUDENTS GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM 'T~ 01 0 0 36 32 2 0 0 73 02 0 0 32 29 0 0 0 0 63 03 0 0 36 43 0 0 0 0 81 04 0 0 24 26 0 0 0 2 54 05 0 0 30 36 2 0 0 2 72 K 0 0 40 33 0 0 2 0 77 p 0 0 0 0 0 TOT AL FOR: WATSON 0 0 13 I\\ 11 211~ 216 6 4 0 32 ~ 452 1124 - LRSD RE CHRTR GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 03 0 0 3 10 0 0 0 0 0 14 04 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 3 0 34 05 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 35 {',, TOT AL FOR: LRSD RE CHRTR SC 0 0 3 \\,_ 29 16 (\\ 60 0 0 0 5 - 2 83 1766-ALC GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 06 0 0 I 6 0 0 0 0 2 0 07 0 0 5 14 0 0 0 0 0 3 22 ---------\"\"A ~------------~~-~~~--r- rj 08 0 0 6 ~ 21 0 0 0 0 2 \" 2 I 31 t - 09 0 0 9 20 0 0 0 0 30 ----------- ------------------ 10 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 17 TOTAL FOR: ALC COMPUTER INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT Tuesday, October 16, 2001 Pagel6ofl7 STATEWIDE INFORMATION SYSTEM OCTOBER 1, 2001 ,- I ENROLLMENT REPORT WITH PRE-K STUDENTS r-------- TOTAL\\ t_::_-ACCLP GRADE AF AM BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM ------ 09 0 0 \\\\ 9 0 0 0 0 28 ------ \\0 o. 0 \\8 15 0 0 0 3 7 44 ------------ \\l 0 0 28 24 0 2 0 0 5 7 66 ~ 12 0 0 44 it~ 3 0 0 1 8 I) l 7 \\ 09 ~ TOT AL FOR: ACC LP 0 0 101 '- 84 4 2 ---0 - l __ 19V36l-L-~ 17\n.,Y\n\u0026amp;' I /~~-3/ (/17, TOTAL WITHOUT AGENCY STUDENTS 195 185 8690 8738 379 441 26 28 3371 3314 25,367 K 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 03 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 05 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 p 06 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 07 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 6 9 08 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 8 09 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 5 5 14 10 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 0 3 6 18 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 12 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 GRANDT OTAL: 195 185 8704 8755 379 441 26 28 3383 3346 25,442 ----------------------------- --~  ,..T\"\",.,.,,r,o C\" f\"\\t:'PT Tuesday, October 16, 2001 Page 17 of l 7 Grade Totals K 44 01 33 02 38 03 38 04 55 05 39 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 Totals 247 North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 2001 Pupil Enrollment as reported to the State Department of Education October 15, 2001 Park Hill Elementary 6002-064 M F M F M F M 15 8 9 12 0 0 0 6 5 9 13 0 0 0 8 8 11 10 0 1 0 9 11 8 8 2 0 0 13 10 18 12 1 1 0 7 12 8 11 0 1 0 !!oL l:J. '1 (.., 58 54 63 66 3 3 0 45.34% 52.23% 2.43% 0.00% F M F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 2001 Pupil Enrollment as reported to the State Department of Education October 15, 2001 Pike View Elementary 6002-065 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Am Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 60 9 13 21 15 1 1 0 0 0 0 01 59 12 7 19 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 61 11 10 19 19 1 0 1 0 0 0 03 71 9 9 20 31 0 2 0 0 0 0 04 56 9 9 18 18 1 0 0 1 0 0 05 66 16 11 26 10 1 1 1 0 0 0 06 07 08 09 10 11 12\n,?.5 1~7 JI Totals 373 66 59 123 114 4 4 2 1 0 0 33.51% 63.54% 2.14% 0.80% 0.00% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 2001 Pupil Enrollment as reported to the State Department of Education October 15, 2001 Seventh Street Elementary 6002-069 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac ls Am Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 48 0 1 24 22 0 1 0 0 0 0 01 51 0 0 26 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 53 2 1 20 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 03 64 2 3 34 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 59 7 4 25 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 48 3 2 17 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 ~ ,\ny1 I Totals 323 14 11 146 151 0 1 0 0 0 0 7.74% 91.95% 0.31% 0.00% 0.00% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 2001 Pupil Enrollment as reported to the State Department of Education October 15, 2001 Redwood Pre-School 6002-067 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Am Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 16 0 0 6 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 - ,01'\" :-J /\u0026amp;-1/ .5 0 .-Y /-.3 I / 0 t:) 0 0 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 ~ ,~~. ~ 12 M~ ~ 0 l',,,,(C 7~ I / V C 0 .:_) Totals ..A-0' .A ....a..-. - ...e.- -- ~- _Id, i, _o.,. . __.e~ _-0- _o _..e ~ 1.0~0% jl.00% ..Q.~ 0:00% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 2001 Pupil Enrollment as reported to the State Department of Education October 15, 2001 Poplar Street Middle School 6002-059 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Am Ind/A/a Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 01 02 03 04 05 06 658 110 104 222 204 10 6 0 2 0 0 07 08 09 10 11 , 12 :~/.,J./ -\"'~ JI( Totals 658 110 104 222 204 10 6 0 2 0 0 32.52% 64.74% 2.43% 0.30% 0.00% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 2001 Pupil Enrollment as reported to the State Department of Education October 15, 2001 Lakewood Middle School 6002-070 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Am Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 313 96 103 59 50 1 2 1 1 0 0 08 253 84 97 38 30 3 1 0 0 0 0 09 10 11 - 12 ~ /1// ? Totals 566 180 200 97 80 4 3 1 1 0 0 67.14% 31.27% 1.24% 0.35% 0.00% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 2001 Pupil Enrollment as reported to the State Department of Education October 15, 2001 Ridgeroad Middle School 6002-072 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Am Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 287 50 38 102 85 6 5 1 0 0 0 08 283 49 42 98 82 9 3 0 0 0 0 09 10 11 J 12 171 ,3~'1 ~ Totals 570 99 80 200 167 15 , 8 1 0 0 0 31.40% 64.39% 4.04% 0.18% 0.00% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 2001 Pupil Enrollment as reported to the State Department of Education October 15, 2001 Rose City Middle School 6002-077 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Am Ind/A/a Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 143 17 11 59 51 2 2 1 0 0 0 08 134 17 12 52 51 1 1 0 0 0 0 09 10 11 12 I~' ,_:)J.~ '/ Totals 277 34 23 111 102 3 3 1 0 0 0 20.58% 76.90% 2.17% 0.36% 0.00% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 2001 Pupil Enrollment as reported to the State Department of Education October 15, 2001 North Little Rock High School East Campus 6002-075 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Am Ind/A/a Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 586 142 125 169 137 7 4 1 0 0 1 10 673 158 177 157 158 5 10 3 5 0 0 11 12 (r:,~ (~/ ..aG,, Totals 1259 300 302 326 295 12 14 4 5 0 1 47.82% 49.32% 2.07% 0.71% 0.08% North Little Rock Public Schools October 1, 2001 Pupil Enrollment as reported to the State Department of Education October 15, 2001 North Little Rock High School West Campus 6002-076 White Black Hispanic Asian/Pac Is Am Ind/Ala Ntv Grade Totals M F M F M F M F M F K 01 02 03 04 05 06 6 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 07 22 2 1 16 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 08 22 4 0 11 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 09 74 13 3 41 15 2 0 0 0 0 0 10 204 36 17 85 60 1 3 0 0 0 2 11 668 158 156 154 187 9 3 0 1 0 0 ?o.:3.. ?J'l / --'r/ ,1_2_ 625 156 157 123 165 5 10 1 6 1 1 Totals 1621 369 334 434 437 18 16 1 7 2 3 43.37% 53.73% 2.10% 0.49% 0.31% Nov 30 01 10:13a NLR SCHOOLS 5017718058 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATI01'1 OFFICE 2700 POPLA STREFT NORTH LITTLE ROCK AR 72114 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO, FROM. MellisaG uldin BobbyJ .A cklin COMPANY DATE, ODM 11/30/01 FAX NUMBER, TOTAL NO OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER, 501 371-0100 2 . OTES/COMMENTS, [Cl !C. HERE AND TYPE RETIJR 'ADDRCSSl p. 1 Nov 30 01 10: 13a NLR SCHOOLS Building Capacities 2001-2002 5017718056 I Locat10n West ---- _ I Building Capacity 11321 L East I 1261 I Lakewood Middle 598 Ridgeroad Mi_ddle 666 Rose City Middle j 457 Poplar Street Middle 814 I Argenta Academy 192 1 Amboy Elementary - - 419 Belwood Elementary 191 13oone Park Elementary 468 Crestwood Elementary 320 Glenview Elementary 209 Indian Hills Elementary 426 Lakewood Elementary 254 tJ,ynch Drive Elem~!).tary 1506 I Meadow Park Elementary 203 North Heights Elementary 509 Park Hill Elementary 295 Pike View Elementary 370 Seventh Street Elementary 434 -- - - p.2 j i 7 I I I I I l - \"\"' .... Of.ice of Student Affairs North Little Rock 5 choolD istrict 2700 PoplaSr treet North Little Rock, AR 7 2115-0687 (501) 771-8010 Francical J. Jackson, Director DATE: if-30 -D I TO: =-fbo~ RE: Dek I e'Ll, I( FAX 31/ - o IOO FAX: 'J 7 I - ':il?O PHONE: ______ _ PHONE: :J\"l I-go 14 COMENT _______________ _ This fax is __ page (s) induding the cover page. If you do not rec-eive all the pages, please call our ollice at (501) 771-8010_ PAGE 01/02 ..JU~ I f.l.l.\u0026gt;JU.l. NLRSD To: Francical J .Jackson/NLRSD@NLRSD cc: 1 ~ Greg Danlslr. ~ 11/30/01 09:31 AM Sub1ect: Oct 1 Pre-K Pre-K as of Oct 1 17 /t pl? Greg Daniels Director-Computer Services Greg.D1miels@mai1.nJrsd.k12.ar.us 501 771-8025 1 1 PAGE 02/0'.:: otaJ 7 124 NOV-29-T01H U1 1:47A M FAXN O. P. 01 Pulaski County Speci~I School Distric.t FAX COVER Time: // :yo I Number of Pages: (including cover sheet) --- Message: _______________ _ P.O. Box 8601  little Rock, A,.kansas 72216-8601 925 East Dixon Rd. (501) 490-2000  http://pessdweb.k12.ar.us HOV-29-T01H U1 1:47A M FAXN O. C ~\u0026lt;t, + ~ SCHOOL CAPACITY INFORMATION PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEPTEMBER 181 2001 HIGH SCHOOL Jacksonville Mills North Pulaski Oak Grove Jr./Sr. Robinson Sylvan Hills JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Fuller Middle Jacksonville Middle Jacksonville Junior High Northwood Middle Robinson Middle (2-rooms devided) Alpha Academy Sylvan Hills Middle ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Adkins Arnold Drive Baker Bates Bayou Meto Cato Clinton College Station Crystal Hill Dupree Harris Jacksonville Landmark Lawson Oak Grove Oakbrooke Pine Forest Pinewood  Robinson Scott Sherwood Sylvan Hills Murrell Taylor Tolleson SCHOOL CAPACITY 1025 780 900 935 506 998 SCHOOL CAPACITY 945 800 800 964 486 300 925 SCHOOL CAPACITY 370 420 330 800 660 576 833 340 820 465 525 785 568 325 476 500 556 523 450 280 460 456 450 570 P. 02 NOV-29-0T1H U1 1:4 7 AM FAXN O. P. 02 SCHOOL CAPACITY INFORMATION PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 HIGH SCHOOL Jacksonville Mills North Pulaski Oak Grove Jr./Sr. Robinson Sylvan Hills JUNIOR H1GH SCHOOLS Fuller Middle Jacksonville Middle Jacksonville Junior High Northwood Middle Robinson Middle (2-rooms devided) Alpha Academy Sylvan Hills Middle ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Adkins Arnold Drive Baker Bates Bayou Meto Cato Clinton College Station Crystal Hill Dupree Harris Jacksonville Landmark Lawson Oak Grove Oakbrooke Pine Forest Pinewood Robinson Scott Sherwood Sylvan Hills Murrell Taylor Tolleson SCHOOL CAPACITY 1025 780 900 935 506 998 SCHOOL CAPACITY 945 800 800 964 486 300 925 SCHOOL CAPACITY 370 420 330 800 660 576 833 340 820 465 525 785 568 325 476 500 556 523 450 280 460 456 450 570 10/31/2001 16:04 501-490-1352 EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE Date: To: Fax: Re: Sender: Pulaski County Special School District Equity and-Pupil Services 925 E. Dixon Rd/P.O. Box 8601\" Littlr: Rock, A.rkansas 7221 6 (501) 490-6215 (501) 490-1352 Fax FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET 31 \\- 0\\0 o PAGE 01/13  YOU SHOULD RECEIVE \\ 3 PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL (501) 490-6215. MESSAGE: 10/31/:001 16:04 501-490-135'.: EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE PAGE 0'.:/13 ,,  ' .'Pulaski c_ountyS pecial .School District {?ctober 31, 2001 Mrs: Ann Marshall  . Office of .Desegi:egatioMno ni~ring On.eU nion ~atiqnal Plaza ... . .  -124 Westcapitol, Suite 1895 Little Roe~, AR 72201  Dear Mrs. Brown,: . . . . . . Attached is theoctober 1, 2001 enrollment counts for Pulaski County Special  School Distrjct:  The following schools are out side the racial balance guidelines: Ad.k i.n s Elementary- _59% ,. . . Baker Elementary - 16% Bates Elementary -\" 52% .College Station Elementary- 50% _   Folier Middle-'-50% Harris Elementary - 65% Jacksonville Elementary - 51 % . Land.mark Elementary ..:.4. 8% Lawson Elementary - 18% Sincerely, . w~ - Kart Brown . Assistant Superi~tendent Equity and. Pupil Services ch. c Houston Yuille Sam Jones John Walker . P.O. Box 8601  .J,ittle Rock, Arkansas 72216-8 1 92S East Dixon Road .  (501) 490-2000- http://pcssdweb.kl2.ar.us . ..... - 10/31/2001 15:04 501-490-1352 EQUITYP UPIL SERVICE PAGE 03/13 - 0 Pulaski County Special School District Enrollltnent Counts for 1 October 2001 WHITE Bl.ACK OTHER GRADE SCHOOL/GRADE MALE FEMALE MAL.E FEMALE MALE FEMAL.E TOTAL 01 ~dkins Elementcry 6003090 PK* 2 (1 5 4 (J'\nJ..) 8 1 '1) 0 t cf 20 K 6 6 21 14 0 0 47 1 IO 7 12 13 0 1 43 2 7 9 12 11 1 0 40 3 10 5 12 11 0 0 38 4 9 9 12 6 0 0 36 5 13 12 12 10 Q Q 47 SCHOOL TOTAL 57 I () 53 85 ,t' 73 z ~ 1 271 ~~ 03 {aker Interdistrict 6003092 I( 21 23 2 2 0 1 49 1 23 19 4 4 0 0 50 2 23 13 5 5 0 0 46 3 17 17 4 4 0 0 42 4 24 21 3 2 0 0 50 5 17 1 9 ~ \u0026gt;19 1 Q 0 36 SCHOOL TOTAL 125\n/J. 102 24 21 Q I 1 273 /tb\nJI. 02 {rystaf Hill Magnt 6003093 PK* 19 (\n. ~ 9 13 (\nt,.) 13 0 ()) 0 \u0026gt;Pl~ 54 I( 36 25 20 30 3 115 1 27 25 21 24 1 0 98 2 25 22 31 20 0 0 98 3 24 17 29 23 1 2 96 4 22 22 23 32 0 0 99 5 31 26 22 28 0 0 107 6 18 13 23 20 } Q 77 SCHOOL TOT AL 202 J~I 159 182 1'~190 l JI i 744 ~0J1 Pagel of 11 Date: 10/31/2001 10/31/2001 15:04 501-490-1352 EQUITYP UPIL SERVICE PAGE 04/13 Pulaski County Special School District Enrolllment Counts for 1 October 2001 WHITE Bl.ACK OTHER GRAJ:)E SC~OI../GRA()E MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE TOTAL. 05 Bayou Meto Elementary 6003094 K 36 31 2 1 2 2 74 1 47 31 2 1 2 2 85 2 31 38 2 1 2 1 75 3 32 44 2 1 0 1 80 4 34 49 l 2 1 l 88 5 ~ 28 .f. ! '- .f. 70 SCHOOL TOT AL 215 ~\n/.f2 21 ll 18 z 2 ,g ~ 472 -Yl 42 f linton Mo.gnet School 6003095 PK* 11 14 20 (1~ 22 0 2 (,,7/  69 IC 20 27 24 23 1 2 97 1 23 18 22 17 2 1 83 2 22 22 18 22 4 2 90 3 24 31 29 33 1 0 118 4 16 21 17 23 2 3 82 5 22 24 27 31 l 1 106 SCHOOL TOT AL 138 /'1~ 157 157 j\n,~ 171 11\n-\nyll 645 cJJ- 11 Jbupree Elementary 6003099 \" 14 14 14 7 1 0 50 1 16 16 5 5 0 0 42 2 10 19 12 6 2 0 49 3 13 15 8 7 3 3 49 4 26 12 11 15 l 2 67 5 9 21 ~ ,~4~ f. ,4 0 46 SCHOOL TOT AL 88 ~ 97 56 48 2 ~ 303 ~-IT Page 2 of 11 Dote: 10/31/2001 10/31/:001 16:04 501-490-135: EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE PAGE 05/13 Pulaski County Special School District Enrolllment Counts for 1 October 2001 WHITE Bl.ACK OTHER GRADE SC~L/GRADE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE TOTAL 15 Harris Elementary 6003102 IC 7 4 11 5 0 0 27 1 7 l 6 7 0 0 21 2 9 3 9 16 0 0 37 3 6 3 12 5 0 0 26 4 5 3 7 12 0 0 27 5 2 ~ 12 ~ ! Q 33 SCHOOL TOT AL 40 ti\u0026gt; 20 57 ,,o 53 l 0 171 G-1, ~ 8 J ccksonville Elementary 6003103 K 26 12 31 22 1 1 93 l 28 27 23 22 l 2 103 2 24 23 21 ?2 1 92 3 23 15 31 26 1 2 98 4 22 25 32 19 2 1 101 5 20 19 29 19 0 2 89 6 2 0 1 0 Q Q 3 SCHOOL TOTAL 145 ?~ 12\n16\n.ef! 13~ ~ 11:\u0026gt;~ 579 17- 21-t.ondmarkE le~ntary 6003104 PK- 3 f? 10 9 _\n,\n)) 13 0 9 0 t.Jl 35 IC 11 11 11 19 0 0 58 1 15 8 8 14 0 0 45 2 17 15 10 14 1 0 57 3 12 18 9 11 0 0 50 4 19 21 8 16 1 1 66 5 12 fl~ 15 15 16 Q\n.j l 59 SCHOOL TOTAL 95 98 70 11? 103 2 f 370 -17T-Page 3 of 11 Dote. 10/31/2001 lf)/31/:001 16:04 501-490-135: EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE PAGE 06/13 Pulaski County Special School District Enrolllment Counts for l October 2001 WHITE BLACK OTHER GRADE SCHOOUGRAt\u0026gt;E MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE TOTAL 22{cwson Elementary 6003105 K 16 11 4 4 0 0 35 1 22 18 5 2 0 1 48 2 18 13 1 3 0 1 36 3 17 11 5 4 0 0 37 4 21 12 5 2 0 0 40 5 15 1'6i{ 12 2. -4~ 1 1 0 37 SCHOOL TOT AL 109 17 26 18 1 p ~ 233 11'- 234-olleson Elernentcry 6003106 K 23 22 5 6 3 1 60 1 31 19 4 12 1 l 68 2 27 20 6 7 2 2 64 3 20 16 10 10 4 2 62 4 12 24 6 lO 1 1 54 5 19 15 10 2 1  55 SCHOOL TOT AL .ill~ 116 41 \"\"' 51 14 i?. 9 363 ~~l 28 \"6ak Grove Elein ntary 6003108 Pk* 27 26 11\n\u0026gt;.~ 12 0 0 0 ,?-07  76 I( 18 21 6 2 1 0 48 1 18 16 5 4 0 0 43 2 12 18 5 6 2 1 44 3 11 19 5 5 1 0 41 4 10 22 4 5 1 0 42 5 21 17 4 7 0 0 49 6 12 rtJ\" 21 I ~ 1 Q 46 SCHOOL TOTAL m ~ 160 47 ~~ 46 ~ 1 1 ~ ,,)./?. Page 4 of 11 Date. 10/31/2001 HJ/31/:001 16:04 501-436-135: EQUITYP UPIL SERVICE PAGE 07/13 Pulaski County Special School District Enrolllment Counts for 1 October 2001 WHITE BLACK OTHER GRADE SCl.OUGRADE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE TOTAL 31 Robinson Elementary 6003110 K 20 14 5 5 1 1 46 1 17 20 4 5 0 2 48 2 23 22 6 3 0 0 54 3 31 15 12 6 l 1 66 4 28 19 5 14 0 0 66 5 28 25 10 7 Q 1 71 SCHOOL TOT AL 147 ,\"~115 42 i~40 i 1 ~ 351 -2~7. 34 lott Elementa.ry School 6003111 IC 7 4 2 0 0 0 13 1 14 7 1 3 0 0 25 2 13 11 1 8 0 0 33 3 4 3 3 6 0 0 16 4 6 7 5 3 0 0 Zl 5 z z i 2 Q Q 21 SC~OOL TOTAL _ Cfe\u0026gt; 39 14 ii 25 Q D Q m ~t\u0026gt;?. i 37 Sherwood Elememtary 6003112 K 16 19 5 5 0 0 45 l 28 16 9 10 1 l 65 2 17 19 6 11 0 0 ~3 3 14 18 7 4 1 0 44 4 27 17 10 5 1 0 60 5 16 16 ~ 13 l Q 5-4 SCHOOL TOT AL 118 -\n\"J'?1 05 5 1~ 48 1 ~ 1 321 ~ \u0026lt;r1. Page 5 of 11 Date: 10/31/2001 10/31/:001 16:04 501-490-135: EOUITV PUPIL SERVICE PAGE 08/13 Pulaski County Special School District Enrolllment Counts for 1 October 2001 WHITE SCHOOUGRADE MALE FEMALE 39-.{ylvan Hills Elementary 6003113 K 25 20 1 20 13 2 3 4 5 SCHOOL TOT AL ---9 Jacksonville Middle School 6 7 SCHOOL TOT Al. - ~8 Jacksonville Jr High 8 9 SCHOOL TOT AL {3 Fuller Middl School 6 7 8 SCHOOL TOTAL j40 .Sylvan Hills Middl School 6 7 8 SCHOOL TOT AL Page 6 of 11 12 11 23 6003116 13 14 15 94 93 87 100 181 ~ 193 6003117 91 104 106 89 197 ~ 193 6003120 59 64 61 55 43 59 163 ~I 17s 6003122 104 72 95 68 102 77 301 :\n1\u0026lt;\"6 ill BLACK MALE FEMALE 7 7 9 11 5 8 10 13 9 16 13 J 6 53 ,,\u0026gt;t ~ 76 64 73 J 11 149\n/tlf 135 65 64 88 gl 1~3\ni11 125 65 56 62 55 56 46 183 y 157 57 62 69 60 61 ~ 187 51-Y1e5 OTHER GRADE MALE FEMAlE TOTAL 2 0 3 0 1 0 3 1 3 0 2 1 1 2 2 l 2 Q  1 'I ~ 61 ~6 42 51 64 62 336 ~~,_ 334 338 672 _/\n.?- 327 345 672 -/17, 248 236 206 690 --j\"t.J1,, 301 299 310 910 Date\n10/31/2001 Hl/31/2001 15:04 501-490-1352 EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE PAGE 09/13 Pulaski County Special School District Enrolllment Counts for 1 October 2001 WHITE BLACI{ OTHER GRADE SC~OOL/GRADE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE TOTAL 20 Jacksonville Sr High 6003123 10 94 95 64 71 0 1 325 11 98 94 49 52 2 4 299 12 83 78 42 62 ! z 273 SCHOOL TOTAL 275 ~1\ny267 155 ,9\u0026gt;1185 1 rf\n, ll 897 ~rfk / 47 Mills University High 600312!5 9 91 68 83 68 2 4 316 10 78 58 55 59 6 3 259 11 49 52 56 49 4 3 213 12 67 36 30 37 5 3 178 SCHOOL TOT At. 285 ~~~ 214 224 \u0026gt;/?12 13 1\nJ6 1i 966 -15'0 29/0ak Grove Jr/Sr High 6003126 7 47 40 20 17 3 1 128 8 42 50 14 25 0 0 131 9 60 50 28 20 3 0 161 10 63 54 25 19 3 0 164 11 60 50 17 22 1 3 153 12 45 45 15 0 11 1 0 117 SCHOOL TOT AL 317 l 0 /.f 289 119 ~~ 114 .li ,~ 1 854 ~71 3l~obinson Sr. High 6003127 9 56 52 24 34 1 0 167 10 50 59 28 21 0 0 158 11 70 57 24 14 1 0 166 12 48 38 23 19 Q _Q 128 SCHOOL TOT AL 224 ~?I 206 99 1z1 88 ~ ~Q 619 ~o7 Page 7 of 11 Date: 10/31/2001 10/31/2001 16:04 501-490-1352 EQUITYP UPIL SERVICE PAGE 10/13 Pulaski County Special Sc:hool Distl'ict E\"rolllment Counts for 1 October 2001 WHITE BLACK OTHER GRAC\u0026gt;E SCHOOUGRADE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE TOTAL 41..fsylvan Hills Sr High 6003128 9 112 79 47 58 3 3 302 10 76 87 45 36 0 1 2-45 11 108 91 34 36 0 0 269 12 92 i 83 30 34 0 0 239 0- 1 ~\u0026lt;\u0026gt;,.. SCHOOL. TOT AL 388 1J- 340 156 J'\n)- 1M 1 4 1.055 45JCcto Elementary 6003129 \" 25 24 6 4 0 0 61 l 27 15 5 7 2 0 56 2 27 29 5 8 1 3 73 3 17 23 9 8 3 0 60 4 34 23 9 10 1 78 5 30 23 ~ ~ 1 I~ Q 73 SCHOOL TOT AL 160\n.'113 7 45 qo 4~ 10 ~ 401 ~-\n,-7- 461inewood Elementary 6003130 K 26 18 13 15 2 75 1 21 17 15 14 1 2 70 2 20 19 13 11 3 0 66 3 22 16 10 14 2 0 64 4 19 25 12 15 0 2 73 5 14 -\ny15 ~ ,(p) 17 1 1 65 SCHOOLT OT AL 122 ~?\n110 78 86 ll I( 2 413 \u0026gt;/D 7. oe{o llege Station Elementory 600313~ '{'d PK* 2\n1 5 /J 7 0 0 0 15 \" 1 5 4 6 0 1 17 1 4 3 1 5 0 0 13 z 2 l 5 4 0 0 12 3 6 9 13 11 3 1 43 4 19 16 9 19 0 2 65 5 .il L ll 10 ~ l 5Z SCHOOLT. OTAL 55 o,1 42 48 ,,o ~ ~ ,o ~ 217 ~,7. Page 8 of 11 Date. 10/31/2001 10/31/~001 15:04 501-490-135~ EOUIT .' PUPIL SERVICE PAGE 11/13 Pulaski County Special School District Enrolllment Counts for 1 Odobe.r 2001 WHITE BLACK OTHER GRADE SCHOOL/GRADE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE TOTAL 49jNorth Pulaski High 6003136 9 99 73 43 44 5 3 267 10 125 75 31 36 5 7 279 11 86 66 35 40 4 5 236 12 68 ~ 63 20 '!) 26 2. 1 186 SCHOOL TOT AL 378 ~? 2,.77 129 ~'1 146 20 ?J'D18 968 ~'81- 27~rnold Dri\\le Elementary 6003137 \" 25 27 6 10 6 3 77 1 23 23 3 12 3 2 66 z 30 18 5 5 6 4 68 3 21 21 7 7 1 2 59 4 21 14 6 10 4 1 56 5 24 13 l 2 l 1 54 -- 0 - SCHOOL TOT AL 144\nI, lli 34 ~~ 49 2\n~1 16 380 ~'\n),,7- 11 loakbrooke Elementary 6003139 \" 17 16 5 6 0 1 45 1 14 17 8 8 0 0 47 2 13 16 7 12 0 0 48 3 21 10 12 9 0 3 !5!5 4 15 24 12 10 1 1 63 5 19 13 z 2 Q Q 48 SCHOOL TOt AL 99 ,Cl~ 96 51 10~ 54 ! Cr ~ 306 ~,. \"16 Northwood Middle School 6003140 6 93 85 44 31 7 3 263 7 102 75 40 30 2 4 253 8 87 67 37 \\ 39 i 2 236 SCHOOL TOTAL 282 ~o'\\ 227 121 ~~ 100 13 i~ 2 752\nXtl Page. 9 of 11 Date: 10/31/2001 10/31/2001 16:04 501-490-1352 EQUITYP UPIL SERVICE PAGE 12/13 Pulaski Coui,ty Special School District Enrolllment Counts for- l October 2001 WHITE BLACK OTHER GRADE SCt'OUGRADE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE TOTAL 51 Murrell Taylor Elementary 6003141 I( 13 15 11 15 0 0 54 1 14 14 8 10 l l 48 2 14 15 11 11 0 0 51 3 18 10 16 14 1 0 59 4 17 17 17 7 0 0 58 5 27 ~ 18 13 ,~l 8 Q Q 66 -1~1. SCHOOL TOT AL 103 { 11 89 76 65 i ?\u0026gt; ! 336  52 Pine Forest Elementary 6003142 k 33 28 9 2 0 0 72 1 22 20 12 9 1 1 65 2 28 28 3 6 1 l 67 3 25 13 11 4 0 0 53 4 44 26 6 ll 0 3 90 5 25 22 5 5 1 3 61 6 27 ~ i ~ .f ,j 1 69 SCHOOL TOTAL 204 ?' 163 55 q~ 41 ~ 2 477\n.\" 7 - ~O R.obinson Middle School 6003143 6 60 47 26 29 I 1 164 7 62 58 31 24 1 1 177 8 62 52 30 ,~4 19 1 0 164 SCHOOL TOT AL 184 J~ I 157 87 72 1 ~ 2 505 ,\n17- 53 ~ates Elementary 6003146 PK\" 13 J 11 17 (31) 14 0 u 0 G 55 IC 31 21 21 15 1 l 90 1 26 18 17 23 2 0 86 2 23 15 32 19 0 0 89 3 20 13 29 21 1 3 87 4 25 15 23 21 3 2 89 5 20 J.Q B. ~ Q ,,} ! 121 SCHOOL TOTAL 158 7 123 171 , !fil. z z 617 7o Page 10 of 11 Dote: 10/31/2001 10/31/2001 16:04 501-490-1352 EQUITYP UPIL SERVICE PAGE 13/13 Pulaski County Special School District Enrolllment Counts for 1 October 2001 WHITE BLACK OTHER GRADE SCHOOL/GRAOE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE TOTAL TOT AL OISTIUCT ENROLLMENT t~~ 76 1 Pl(* 77 79 1 (, 89 ', 1 :, i P 324 K 479 418 247 225 24 16 1,409 1 497 388 209 242 18 zo 1,374 2 447 421 231 239 29 17 1,384 3 419 376 295 257 24 23 1,394 4 498 459 252 285 20 21 1,535 5 474 410 ZBJ 272 22 21 1,482 6 469 '\\ 421 308 ~J 271 24 \"~ 12 1,505 3.2s3l? z.s93 1 825 -,,'l - ELEMENTA RY TOTALS 1,791 ill~ UQ ~ ~lo 1 7 8 9 10 11 12 SECONDARY TOTALS DISTIUCT TOTALS AS REPORTEbT O THE STATE (WITHOUT \"PRE IC\" STUDENTS) 454 396 427 409 5Z4 4/1 486 428 471 410 403 I,~ J4J 2,765 ' 2,397 295 257 263 256 313 ,?85 248 242 215 213 160 4'J'1\u0026lt;8 9 1,494 ~ 1,442 3,319 3,233 -=== 0 17 12 1,-431 9 JO 1,374 1-4 I.I 1,558 14 12 1,430 12 15 1,336 13 '1.J l ,121 79 ,~ 73 8,250 e9tl 240 -203 [ DISTRICT TOTALS ----------- ... --- ~q-------------(-7, -1--lf----- : !,WITH \"PRE-K\" \u0026amp;,.!25111 ~ ~ 3,323 '241 205 ~ 1 ~(, ?.. :.STUDENTS - - == _, -\nL ---------------------------------- ----------------- .. ------------------ .. ---- _, ---J ,-----------------MOR~NrNOrES~----------------, : (1) PK* - ''l'RF-K\" CHIU\u0026gt;RtN AR NOT INal/l\u0026gt;ED IN TH STATE'S OCTO8tR J I I 0/ROllMENr ?'Ol/NT FOR Pt/LASKI COVNTY SPCIAl SCHOOi,, l\u0026gt;I$TRICT I : (.2) THE ALPHA ACADEMY WAS NOr REPOR11:DB, CAVS THE 5TVl\u0026gt;NTS WFREC OUNTtl\u0026gt; : I~ ------A-S -PA-RT- O-F- TH-t -.S-CH-OO-i. -WH-IC-H- T-HE-Y N-O-RM-A-/.J.-Y A-TT-EN-D-. --------I ---- Page 11 of 11 Date: 10/31/2001\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"hbcula_becu_44","title":"Voice of the Wildcats Newsletter, October 2001","collection_id":"hbcula_becu","collection_title":"Bethune-Cookman University Digital Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Florida, Volusia County, Panama Beach, 28.86832, -81.22778"],"dcterms_creator":["Bethune-Cookman University"],"dc_date":["2001-10"],"dcterms_description":["The student newsletter of Bethune-Cookman College, now Bethune-Cookman University, highlighting student voices, campus and community activities, and current events."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American universities and colleges","African American students","Campus life","College student newspapers and periodicals","Civil rights movements"],"dcterms_title":["Voice of the Wildcats Newsletter, October 2001"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Library Alliance"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://hbcudigitallibrary.auctr.edu/digital/collection/becu/id/44"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["All rights to images are held by the respective holding institution. This image is posted publicly for non-profit educational uses, excluding printed publication. For permission to reproduce images and/or for copyright information contact University Archives, Bethune-Cookman University, Daytona Beach, FL 32114 (386) 481-2186. https://www.cookman.edu/library/index.html"],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1552","title":"\"Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["2001-10"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational innovations","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","School management and organization","Student assistance programs","Education, Elementary"],"dcterms_title":["\"Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001''"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1552"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["101 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1084","title":"\"Extended Year Education (EYE) Report: SY 2000-2001\" Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2001-09-28"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["\"Extended Year Education (EYE) Report: SY 2000-2001\" Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1084"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nEC IVE DEC 13 2001 Extended Year Education (EYE) Report SY2000-2001 Planning, Research, and Evaluation September 28, 2001 Abstract National research on Extended Year Education (EYE) programs has indicated a number of key variables.  Achievement is similar to or better than traditional calendar year schools.  Students and teachers have a positive perception of their school.  Most parents are satisfied with the EYE program.  EYE schools cost more to operate than traditional calendar year schools. Demographically the three EYE schools (i.e., Mabelvale, Stephens, and Woodruff) are more different than similar.  They share similar ethnic and SES ratios.  The schools are of different size, their instructional programs are different, and they are allocated varying levels of resources.  Stephens is a new school that opened in January 2001. Achievement data is mixed.  4th grade Benchmark scores improved at Mabel vale.  On some subjects measured by the Achievement Level Test (ALT), schools are growing faster than the national comparison sample.  The three schools also performed well in comparison to other schools in the District on the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) readiness to read percent. Other variables indicate mixed results.  Discipline sanctions, compared to Woodruff, appear high at Mabelvale and Stephens.  Surveys of EYE parents, students, and teachers indicated a positive perception of the EYE program and in particular, parents are satisfied with the EYE program.  The cost of implementing the EYE program adds $23,993 to each school's operating budget.  Teacher behavior (i.e., sick and personal leave, professional development, and inservice days) has not measurably changed. The new District reporting system indicates mixed results, with Woodruff performing above the District average in the percent of teachers with 30+ professional development hours It is uncertain whether the aforementioned results were due to calendar change or to the continuity of instruction (e.g., intersessions). Continued annual reports will help to validate EYE program success or lack thereof. Concluding remarks indicate a need for the District and schools to review their allocation of resources and intervene where possible, to work on improving the amount of professional development, and to incorporate not only achievement goals and data, but also EYE survey goals and data into each school's improvement plan. 2 Introduction and Method Description of the EYE Program In August of 2000, Little Rock School District opened the school year with three of its elementary schools (i.e., Mabelvale, Stephens, and Woodruff) operating on an extended year calendar. Below is the calendar for the upcoming SY2001-2002. August 8 - School begins October 15-18 - 1st intersession October 22-26 - Vacation Dec. 2-January 1 - Winter break February 4-8 - 2nd intersession February 11-13 - Vacation March 25-29- Spring break April 17-19 - 3rd intersession June 19 - Last day June 24-29 - 4th intersession EYE is a concept, which reorganizes the school year so that the standard instructional period is distributed throughout the year with regularly scheduled breaks or vacations interspersed. Educational instruction and vacations are organized into smaller segments and spaced throughout the year for more continuous learning and more frequent breaks. EYE has emerged nationally as a way to offer all students a better education, regardless of their ethnic background, social status or academic performance. This is just another avenue that the Little Rock School District is employing to offer all students an opportunity for outstanding achievement. Little Rock's design is a single track 45-10 calendar where all students and teachers in the school are in class or on vacation at the same time. The 45-10 refers to 45 days in a quarter then 10 days of intersession/vacation. Intersession is a five-day program and attendance is voluntary. Comparison of EYE and Traditional Calendars EXTENDED YEAR CALENDAR 178 STUDENT DAYS 30 STUDENT INTERSESSION DAYS ONE MONTH SUMMER VACATION (JULY) 4 NINE WEEK QUARTERS 3 TRADITIONAL CALENDAR 178 STUDENT DAYS SUMMER SCHOOL 2  MONTHS BREAK 4 NINE WEEK QUARTERS Expected Outcomes from Implementing EYE Section 2. 7 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan. Less time needed to reteach. In order to start a new year effectively, teachers tend to devote four or more weeks on reviewing and reteaching. Time is recognized as a major factor that leads to loss of learning. Increased reading skills. Reading is the biggest hurdle for disadvantaged children in the primary grades. The gap between disadvantaged and average children widens between September and June as well as over the span of several calendar years. Studies show that low socioeconomic students lose as much as 1 to 2 months during the summer without the benefit of compensatory programs. It is true that all students regardless of ability or background forget, but for the disadvantaged the problem is greater. Disadvantaged children acquire new skills and knowledge during the school year only to have their gains dissipate over the months when schools are not in session. Intersession. For students working below grade level, extended year schedules offer an opportunity to gain individual help. The traditional calendar makes these students wait until the end of the year for summer school. It does not provide the opportunity for additional help close to the times of the learning problem. Balanced holidays. Most people in a working community are not limited only to summer vacation. Scheduling vacations during times other than when most people travel is attractive to many\nthe cost of travel, lodging and admission costs are often reduced. Large crowds can be avoided. Vacations can be scheduled at times that are better for the working parent and the employer. Families whose children attend extended year schools can easily plan for a wider variety of family vacation experiences. Children in schools on the traditional calendar and the extended calendar will find that all of the major holiday periods are the same. Less burnout. Frequent breaks result in less stress and burnout. The intersession/vacation periods refresh teachers and students, resulting in improved teachers' and students' attitudes and decreasing teacher burnout. Teachers and students return from breaks refreshed and motivated. Results of National Research National research has indicated that EYE type schools have outcomes similar to or better than traditional calendar schools. This national research has reached the following conclusions.  Achievement is similar to or better than traditional calendar year schools.  Students and teachers have a positive perception of their school.  Most parents are satisfied with the EYE program.  EYE schools cost more to operate than traditional calendar year schools. 4 National research is uncertain as to the reasons that certain EYE type schools have demonstrated an increase in achievement schools versus traditional calendar year schools. Researchers have speculated that the remediation and enrichment activities provided during intersession have an effect and also, the reduction of the summer vacation may contribute to a lessening of the traditional summer fall off (Kirk, 2000). Methodology This report will examine a number of variables to determine the impact of EYE on student achievement, teacher behavior, parent, teacher, and student attitudes toward the EYE program, and the cost of the EYE program. The variables to be reported and discussed in this report are: 1. Demographic and equitable allocation data. 2. Observation Survey (OS) and Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) scores for grades K-2. 3. Achievement Test Level (ALT) growth scores in reading, language usage, mathematics, and science for grades 2-5. 4. SAT-9 for grade 5 and Benchmark scores for grade 4. 5. Teacher use of sick, personal, professional development, and inservice days. 6. Survey data of EYE program parents, students, and teachers. 7. Additional EYE program costs. Data will be reported in aggregate and disagregate form. However, given the high percentage of Black students at the three EYE schools and the importance of improving the achievement scores of Black students, concluding remarks will focus on Black student performance. 5 Results Demographic Data 10/1/00 Enrollment by Grade level and Ethnicity PreK Kindergarten 1st 2nd 3rd 4tn 5'n Black/Non-Black Black/Non-Black Black/Non-Black Black/Non-Black Black/Non-Black Black/Non-Black Black/Non-Black Mabel vale 919 35 / 14 35 / 15 46 / 5 40 I 13 46 I 20 47 I 12 Stephens 32 / 3 54 / 3 45 / 3 36 / 4 45 / l 49 / 4 46 / 2 Woodruff 42 /l 1 35 / 4 37 / 3 35 / 4 34/7 27 /7 30 I 5 Ethnicity, SES, and Instructional Program School N Ethnicity %SES Instructional (PreK) Black/ Non-Black Strategies Mabel vale 346 75%/25% 83% (18) ELLA Stephens 327 94%/6% 90% ELLA (35) Woodruff 281 85% / 15% 85% SFA (53) 6 Equitable Allocation Worksheet Data Scores are based on a 1-8 scale, with the higher score indicating more resources allocated to that school. Scores were calculated in December 2000 and derived from the 10/1 /00 enrollment report. Caution is advised in comparing Stephens to Garland. The mid-year changeover from Garland affected several of the variables ( e.g .. % of new teachers, computer/pupil ratio, and sq. ft. per pupil). Except for these three variables, scores tend to reflect the status of Garland at 10/1/00 rather than Stephens. Given that most data is based on 10/1/00 enrollment, it will be at least another two years before a reliable comparison is available for Stephens. Mabel vale Stephens Woodruff 98-99 99-00 00-01 98-99 99-00 00-01 98-99 99-00 Teacher/Pupil Ratio 4 3 4 6 6 6 5 6 Staff/Pupil Ratio 4 5 6 7 8 8 6 6 Sq. Feet per Pupil 5 7 8 5 6 3 5 5 % of Staff with MA, +9 1 1 I I I 2 3 I years Experience % of new Teachers 6 4 7 3 .., ., 1 2 4 School Size 4 3 4 6 7 5 6 7 Computer/Pupil Ratio 6 5 7 4 3 8 3 1 Per Pupil Expenditure 5 3 3 6 7 6 5 6 Volunteer hours per Pupil 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 4 Donations per pupil 5 4 6 4 5 4 2 2 Total Score 41 36 44 46 50 47 41 42 Conclusions  Woodruff is the smallest school but has the largest Pre-K program and is due to the temporary placement of some Pre-K students from Stephens until Stephens opened in January 2001.  There is some variability in ethnicity with a range of 75% Black students at Mabelvale to 94% Black students at Stephens. However, all three schools are above the District average of 68% Black.  With a range of 83% to 90%, there appears to be less variability for the SES variable.  Woodruff is the only SF A school, with Stephens and Mabelvale using ELLA instructional strategies.  Mabel vale has a lower enrollment in Kindergarten and 1st grade than other grade levels at Mabelvale. Woodruff has consistent grade level enrollments. Stephens has a comparatively large Kindergarten class.  Equitable allocation worksheet scores for Mabelvale and Woodruff have increased over time.  For SY2000-200 I, Mabelvale had an increase in the computer to pupil ratio, and donations per pupil. 7 00-01 7 7 5 5 5 7 2 5 2 7 52  There was less teacher turnover at Mabelvale.  Mabelvale has remained consistently low on the volunteer hours per pupil variable and % of staff with MA +9 years experience, with a score of 1 for all three years.  Woodruff had an increased number of staff with MA +9 years experience and per pupil donations. However, Woodruff has remained consistently low in the ratio of computers per pupil. With some minor variation, the three EYE schools are similar on the other allocation variables. There appears to be more differences than similarities in the demographic make-up of the three EYE schools. The three schools share similar SES and ethnic makeup, teacher and staff per pupil ratio, and per pupil expenditure. Differences between the schools are  Enrollment and grade level size.  The instructional programs, with two schools using ELLA and one a SF A school.  The ratio of computers, volunteer hours, donations, and % of staff with MA +9 years experience. Observation Survey (OS) and Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) scores for grades K-2 The OS and ORA are observational measures used to guide student work on tasks related to reading and writing. The OS consists of five measurable tasks:  Letter Identification (Letter) records the letters a student knows.  Word Test (Word) records the number of words a students knows.  Concepts in Print (Cap) records what a student is attending to on the printed page.  Writing Vocabulary (Voe) records all the words a student can write in ten minutes.  Writing Records (Diet) identifies a student's writing behavior. The ORA is considered a pivotal task in which student reading behavior is recorded as text is read aloud. During this observation students read materials that are typically used within the classroom and the observer (i.e., the classroom teacher) records the directional movements that are made and errors or miscues. The student is assessed on deriving meaning, structure and information from the material. The OS and DRA were administered in the fall and spring to Kindergarten through 2nd grade students. The OS and DRA is written for classroom teachers who want to become careful observers of young children as these students learn to read and write. The OS and DRA are useful to teachers who work one-on-one with students who are having difficulty in learning to read and write. Where appropriate, the OS and DRA are administered to all students. A student is considered to be ready to read at the next grade level with a DRA score of 2 in kindergarten, 16 in 1st grade, and 24 in 2nd grade. Growth scores on the OS and DRA by District and the three EYE schools are reported in Appendix A. The table below reports the percent of students by ethnicity and grade level who are considered to be ready to read at the next grade level. SY2000-2001 scores are derived from 8 the DRA assessment completed during April 2001. Data for schools in which there were less than five non-black students will not be reported. Percent of students at the readiness level Kindere:arten 1st Grade 20 Grade Black Non-Black Black Non-Black Black Non-Black 99-00 00-01 99-00 00-01 99-00 00-01 99-00 00-01 99-00 00-01 99-00 Mabel vale 61.5 86.4 75 100 51.1 87.5 66.7 87.9 32.4 60 68.8 Stephens 40.4 87.5 24.1 36.6 39.3 58.5 ,, Woodruff 68.6 48.6 - 84.4 65.7 . 82.9 84.8 District 69.3 77 84.7 88.8 48.3 57.4 71.2 77.3 63.8 69.8 81.6 Conclusions For Black students, at the kindergarten level, Mabelvale and Stephens exceeded the District cohort improvement scores. At the kindergarten level, Mabelvale and Stephens exceeded the District average in percent of students at the readiness level. At the I st grade level Mabel vale and Woodruff exceeded the District cohort improvement scores and the District average in percent of students at the readiness level. At the 2nd grade level Mabelvale and Stephens exceeded the District cohort improvement scores, with only Woodruff exceeding the District average in percent of students at the readiness level. Except for Mabelvale the number of Non-Black students is small. Actual Black student growth performance from Fall to Spring is mixed (See appendix A). In Kindergarten:  Mabelvale performed above the District in hearing and recording sounds and the DRA.  Stephens performed above the District average in letter identification, word test, writing vocabulary, and hearing and recording sounds.  Woodruff performed better in letter identification and word test. In I st grade:  Mabelvale preformed better than the District in word test, writing vocabulary, and DRA.  Stephens performed better in concepts in print and hearing and recording word sounds.  Woodruff performed better in letter identification. In 2nd grade:  Mabelvale performed better than the District in letter identification and hearing and recording word sounds. 9 00-01 83.3 ' 86.8  Stephens performed better in writing vocabulary, hearing and recording word sounds, and DRA.  Woodruff performed better in hearing and recording word sounds. Achievement Level Test (ALT) Growth Scores The AL Ts include a series of mathematics, reading, language usage, and science achievement measures that increase in difficulty across levels. The tests are designed to document growth by assessing students at the \"cutting edge\" of their individual achievement level. Spring administration across grades 2 - 9 permit measurement of growth within and across school years expressed in two kinds of scores: percentile scores and scale or RIT (Rasch Interval Scale) scores. Percentile scores can be used to compare students to the large group of test takers using the ALT developed by the Northwest Evaluation Association. This is a \"comparative group\" currently involving 104 schools districts and 500,000 students and growing 4 to 13 points annually. This is not a norm group configured to represent public school populations. Demonstration of growth within and across an individual's matriculation, spring to spring, in grades 2 - 9 is documented using the RIT score designed to make direct comparisons to a criterion performance level along a scale from 160 to 250. Students typically start at a RIT score of about 160-190 in the spring of the 2nd grade and progress to the 230-260 range by high school. Along the scale, scores have the same meaning regardless of the individual student's grade level. This type of measurement allows some students to start at a higher RIT level and some low-achieving students to never reach the top level. The design provides an accurate measure of each student's achievement where the typical standardized test, by its nature, provides inadequate measures for many students, especially those at the high and low ends of the scale. The AL Ts are aligned with The Arkansas Mathematics, Reading, and English/Language Arts, and Science Curriculum Frameworks, thus enabling the District to determine impact and effectiveness of its instructional programs. The pool of test questions, developed by the Northwest Evaluation Association, has been extensively field tested to insure items of the highest quality and fairness. Teachers and curriculum specialists balanced by race, gender, and grade level matched the pool of questions to the standards and their attending benchmarks included in the aforementioned Frameworks. During test development activities, questions were calibrated for difficulty and assigned to a level ( e.g., Math levels 1-8). For example: An appropriate expectation of a Level 1 student is to multiply whole numbers, while a Level 6 student should be able to multiply fractions. This calibration makes it possible to calculate the RIT score which is tied directly to the curriculum. ALT median and median growth scores by District and the three EYE schools are reported in Appendix B. A median score represents data in which 50% of the students scored above the median score and 50% of the students scored below the median score. The outcome scores for this report are the Spring 2001 results. EYE Spring 2001 results for Black students will be compared to District Black students. The target scores listed in appendix B were derived from a nationwide comparison group of 500,000 students that have taken the AL Ts. ALT data will be reported in two ways. First, Black student scores will be reported by school, grade level, and subject in which these students performed equal to or better than the District median scores. None of the EYE schools met or exceed the comparison group median target scores. Secondly, Black student scores will be reported by school, grade level, and subject is which these students performed equal to or better than the District and comparison group growth scores (i.e., target scores). Below are the Black student median outcome results for Spring 2001 that were equal to or greater than the Black student District median. Mabel vale Reading 2nd grade 4th grade Garland/Stephens Reading none Woodruff Reading 2nd grade 3rd grade 4th grade 5th grade Language none Language none Language 2nd grade Math 2nd grade 4th grade Math none Math 2nd grade 5th grade Science 3rd grade Science none Science 3rd grade 5th grade Below are the Black student one-year growth results or EYE schools that were equal to or greater than the Black student District median. An * means than the students grew at or above the target score. Mabel vale Reading 3rd grade* 4th grade* 5th grade* Garland/Stephens Reading 4th grade* Language 3rd grade 4th grade Language 3rd grade 4th grade* 5th grade* 11 Math 4th grade* Math 3rd grade* 4th grade 5th grade* Science 5th grade Science 4th grade Woodruff Conclusions Reading 3rd grade* 4th grade* 5th grade* Language 4th grade* Math 3rd grade Science 4th grade While median outcome results for Black students at Mabelvale and Woodruff had mixed results, reading appears to be a strong subject primarily at Woodruff. Growth scores appear optimistic. In all three schools a number of grades are growing not only faster than the District median, but also faster than the target score. SA T-9 for grade 5 and Benchmark scores for grade 4 SAT-9 and Benchmark data report a cohort of students in time. The SA T-9 is given in the fall to 5th grade students and the Benchmark is given in the spring to 4th grade students. SA T-9 for the District and three EYE schools are reported in Appendix C. Black student percentile scores for SAT-9: Complete battery 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 Mabel vale 29 28 24 19 17 Garland/ 18 17 23 24 24 Stephens Woodruff 30 32 22 14 34 District 26 25 30 26 29 Percent of Black students at or above the proficient level on Benchmark exam Mathematics Literacv 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 1998-1999 1999-2000 Mabel vale 0% 16% 18% 15% 21% Stephens 0% 0% 0% 13% 13% Woodruff 4% 20% 19% 4% 34% District 8% 15% 16% 20% 29% Conclusions The SAT-9 data for 2000-2001 was collected at the beginning of the EYE program and will be useful in future EYE reports. The Benchmark data was collected in the spring 200 I and is somewhat a reflection of the change to EYE. Obviously what a student has incurred in the years prior to the EYE program will have as equal or greater affect than the one year in EYE. Mabel vale had an increase in the number of Black students at or above the proficient level, while Stephens and Woodruff had no change or a decrease 12 2000 2 4 1 2 4th Grade Benchmark Exam - -~ Grade 4 Benchmark Examination Mathematics School Summary Report: General Population Mabelvale Elementary Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 All Students 42 81% 34 67% 33 66% 10 19% 6 12% 7 14% 0 0% 7 14% 8 16% 0 0% 4 8% 2 4% Asian/Pacific Islander 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% African/American 22 76% 30 75% 26 76% 7 24% 4 10% 2 6% 0 0% 5 13% 4 12% 0 0% 1 3% 2 6% Hispanic 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Native American 5 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% White 12 80% 4 40% 6 43% 3 20% 2 20% 4 29% 0 0% 1 10% 4 29% 0 0% 3 30% 0 0% Grade 4 Benchmark Examination Literacy School Summary Report: General Population Mabelvale Elementary Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 All Students 29 60% 27 53% 22 44% 14 29% 13 25% 17 34% 5 10% 10 20% 11 22% 0 0% 1 2% 0 0% Asian/Pacific Islander 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% African/American 15 58% 25 63% 17 50% 7 27% 7 18% 11 32% 4 15% 7 18% 6 18% 0 0% 1 3% 0 0% Hispanic 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Native American 3 60% 0 0% 0 0% 1 20% 0 0% 0 0% 1 20% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% White 10 71% 2 20% 4 29% 4 29% 5 50% 6 43% 0 0% 3 30% 4 29% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 13 - - Grade 4 Benchmark Examination Mathematics School Summary Report: General Population Stephens Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 All Students 24 89% 28 88% 43 91% 2 7% 4 13% 4 9% 1 4% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Asian/Pacific Islander 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% African/American 22 92% 28 88% 42 93% 2 8% 4 13% 3 7% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Hispanic 2 67% 0 0% 1 50% 0 0% 0 0% 1 50% 1 33% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Native American 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% White 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Grade 4 Benchmark Examination Literacy School Summary Report: General Population Stephens Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 All Students 16 62% 17 53% 35 74% 6 23% 11 34% 9 19% 4 15% 4 13% 3 6% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Asian/Pacific Islander 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% African/American 14 61% 17 53% 35 78% 6 26% 11 34% 8 18% 3 13% 4 13% 2 4% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Hispanic 2 67% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 50% 1 33% 0 0% 1 50% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Native American 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% White 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 14 - Grade 4 Benchmark Examination Mathematics School Summary Report: General Population Woodruff Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 All Students 25 76% 23 68% 19 66% 4 12% 3 9% 4 14% 2 6% 6 18% 2 7% 2 6% 2 6% 4 14% Asian/Pacific Islander 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% African/American 22 81% 20 69% 17 77% 4 15% 3 10% 1 5% 1 4% 5 17% 1 5% 0 0% 1 3% 3 14% Hispanic 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Native American 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% White 3 50% 3 60% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 67% 1 17% 1 20% 0 0% 2 33% 1 20% 1 33% Grade 4 Benchmark Examination Literacy School Summary Report: General Population Woodruff Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 # 98-99 # 99-00 # 00-01 All Students 20 59% 11 32% 11 38% 12 35% 11 32% 10 34% 2 6% 12 35% 8 28% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Asian/Pacific Islander 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% African/American 18 64% 10 34% 10 45% 9 32% 9 31% 8 36% 1 4% 10 34% 4 18% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Hispanic 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Native American 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% White 2 33% 1 20% 0 0% 3 50% 2 40% 0 0% 1 17% 2 40% 3 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 15 Discipline Sanctions Number and Percent to student population . Sanctions minus repeat offenses School of Sanctions (Grades 1-3) Mabel vale 30 (19.5%) 23 (15%) Stephens 55 (41%) 32 (23.9%) Woodruff 2 (1.7%) 2 (1.7%) Conclusions Both Mabel vale and Stephens had a number of repeat offenses. However, Stephens had almost 25% of their 1st through 3rd grade students sanctioned. In addition, the 15% single sanctions at Mabelvale is also high. Teacher use of sick, personal, professional development, and inservice days Data from Garland is used for SY's 1998-1999 and 1999-2000. There appears considerable variability in the tables for professional development and inservice days. Since this appears to be so, the last table combines both these data. The first set of tables are data received from the Financial Services Department and reflect the number of days a teacher was out of the school. The last table are data received from the Staff Development Department and reflect staff development hours teachers received either during or after school hours. Average Sick Days School 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 Mabel vale 12.45 9.69 11.1 Stephens 7.21 * 8.11 * 7.99 Woodruff 12.8 9.13 7.12 District 8.84 8.74 8.99 Average Personal Days School 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 Mabel vale .76 .87 .94 Stephens .89* 1.12* .86 Woodruff 1.06 1.29 1.16 District 1.01 1.05 1.13 16 Average Professional Development Days School 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 Mabel vale 1.61 3.00 .17 Stephens 1.62* 1.80* .37 Woodruff 1.13 1.03 .49 District 1.61 1.68 2.42 Average Inservice Days School 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 Mabel vale 0 0 2.34 Stephens .13* .14* 1.67 Woodruff .35 1.5 1.61 District .33 .57 .32 Average Combined Professional Development and Inservice Days School 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 Mabel vale 1.61 3.00 2.51 Stephens 1.75 1.93 2.04 Woodruff 1.48 2.53 2.09 District 1.94 2.25 2.74 Average Staff Development Hours, using the District's new reporting system, provided by the Staff Development Department. Data is not available for years prior to 2000- 2001. School 2000-2001 Mabel vale 33.4 Stephens 40.3 Woodruff 50.1 % below 30 hours % 30 to 60 hours % above 60 hours Mabel vale 35% 35% 31% Stephens 27% 33% 40% Woodruff 4% 39% 57% District 32% 38% 31% 17 Conclusions Average sick days. The District trend is mixed, but appears to be on the increase. Woodruff s use of sick days shows a decreasing trend, while Mabel vale and Stephens are mixed. Stephens and Woodruff are below the District average, with Mabel vale above the average. Average personnel days. The District trend is on the increase and also at Mabel vale. Stephen's data may indicate a downward trend, with Woodruff data mixed. Mabelvale and Stephens are below the District average, with Woodruff above. Combined professional development and inservice days. While both the District and Stephens have an increase trend in these days, all three schools are below the District average. Staff Development. The minimum required yearly hours for teacher certification is 30. Woodruff by far has the highest average staff development hours and the most teachers with 30+ hours of professional development. Survey data of EYE program parents, students, and teachers The survey results by the combined three schools and the individual schools are reported in Appendix D (parents), E (students), and F (teachers). Typically school results do not vary greatly from the combined report. Thus, concluding remarks will be directed towards the combined data. The purpose of the EYE program survey was to determine parent, student and teacher perception of their school. Several key survey questions, asked across all groups, are reported below by combined results. Interest in educational program. Parents, students, and teachers perceive a greater interest by students in the educational program this year as opposed to last year. Short vacation periods. Most parents and teachers feel that their children/students like the shorter periods. A little over half (56%) of the students liked the shorter periods. Students achieve higher than at their traditional school year. Many parents (57%) felt their children performed better during the EYE calendar year rather than during a traditional calendar. Less than half ( 46%) of the teachers felt that their students did better during the EYE calendar. However, 68% of the students felt they performed better during the EYE calendar. Continuation of the EYE program. Most parents (76%) want the EYE program to continue. Students (63%) as well as teachers (83%) felt the same way as parents. Value of intersessions. The perceptions of intersessions are mixed. Parents have ambivalent feelings towards intersession, with 52% of parents feeling that an intersession has more value than a summer vacation. Students (65%) enjoyed the intersessions. Teachers (63%) felt that students benefited more the intersession than other typical summer programs. Expansion of the EYE program. Parents, students and teachers agree than the program should be expanded to other District schools. 18 Teachers felt the EYE program reduced the need to reteach, the program reduced stress levels, and provided for continuity in instruction. However, teachers felt that parents are not any more involved than before with their children's education. Students reported they had more time to learn and get extra help. However, these same students (50%) were ambivalent as to the benefit of Voyager lessons. Parents felt there were more programs available to help their children, that the EYE calendar did not effect the family life, and that their children had attended at least one intersession. Most reporting parents had sent their child to at least one intersession. Conclusions By and large parents, students, and teachers have a positive perception of the EYE program. These groups feel that there is more interest in school because of the EYE program, they like the shorter vacation periods, and would like not only to continue the EYE program at these three schools, but to also see the program expanded to other District schools. However, parents and teachers are not yet convinced that the EYE program is improving student achievement. Also, there are mixed feelings towards the benefits of intersession. Additional EYE program costs Intersession Payroll Cost #1 Mabelvale $11,403.45 Stephens $31,649.76 Woodruff $20,461.13 Total by intersession $63,514.34 #2 $8,382.45 $6,192.51 $7,590.38 $22,165.34 #3 Total by school $14,930.76 $34,716.66 $9,884.26 $47,726.53 $11,012.59 $39,064.10 $35,827.62 $121,507.30 Each school used $10,000 each from their summer school budget. The only additional cost was transportation with an average cost per school of $23,993. Total additional transportation costs were $71,979. Special education transportation costs were not billed to the EYE schools, but rather were paid by the transportation department. Budget 2000-2001 Mabel vale $1,663,685.09 Stephens $1, 770.258.07 Woodruff $1,313,414.06 Conclusions The only additional cost incurred by the schools that was not in their yearly budget was the cost of intersession transportation. 19 Concluding Remarks Other than similarities in ethnicity and SES, the three EYE schools are more different than similar. The fact that Stephens is a new school makes comparison analysis very difficult. In terms of the allocation ofresources, Mabel vale continues to rank low in% of teachers with an MA and experience, and volunteer hours. Woodruff has remained low in the ratio of computers to pupils. Achievement data is mixed. While the schools generally outperform the District in the percent of students ready to read at the next grade level, as measured by the DRA, these schools do not necessarily outperform the District average in actual growth on the OS and DRA. Median ALT scores for Spring 2001 are not that impressive. However, the bright spot is the ALT growth from Spring 2000 to Spring 2001. All of the schools, on a number of subjects and grade levels, not only outperformed the District median scores, but also the target median scores. Benchmark and SAT-9 data indicate mixed improvement in scores. Teacher behavior data is mixed. While the District is experiencing an increasing trend in the use of sick, personnel days there is also an increase in professional development and inservice days. EYE schools' use of sick and personal days is mixed. There is no downward trend. Also, these schools are below the District average in combined professional development and days. The new District reporting system indicates mixed results, with Woodruff above the District average in the percent of teachers with 30+ hours in professional development. Overall, the data tends to indicate that while staff may like the concept of EYE, it in of itself is not sufficient enough to change teacher behavior. The surveys of parents, teachers, and students indicated a positive perception of the EYE program. However, teachers continue to perceive a lack of parental involvement and they also feel that their students may not be performing as well as during the traditional year. Parents are not sure that the intersessions are that beneficial. However, they feel that the EYE program is not disruptive to their lives. The cost of the EYE program adds approximately 1.5 percent (1.5%)  to the budgets of each school. While achievement data is mixed, there is a phenomenon occurring that has affected the ALT growth median scores and percent readiness scores on the DRA. These results could be the product of calendar change itself, or it could be the continuity of instruction time via intersessions. The phenomenon has not produced measurable change in teacher behavior. Staff development hours should be a priority for these three schools. Also, at this point in time, parents, students, and teachers have a positive perception of the EYE. The EYE program has gotten off to an optimistic start. The District and schools need to review their allocation of resources and work towards improvement ( e.g., volunteer hours at school level and targeting Woodruff for computers). In addition to achievement goals and data, each school 's improvement plan needs to incorporate the EYE survey goals and data. The District's EYE program results are very similar to national research results and as thus, the EYE program should continue. Annual reports such as this one will help establish whether the results are due to the phenomenon of change itself or to the continuity of instruction time. 20 References Kirk, Phillip J. Jr. (2000, February). Year-round schools and achievement in North Carolina. Evaluation Brief, 2 (2). Retrieved March 27, 2001 from the World Wide Web :http:/ /ncpublicschoo ls .org/ accountability I evaluation/ eval brief s/vo 12n2-yr. html. 21\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":360,"next_page":361,"prev_page":359,"total_pages":6766,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":4308,"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}}]}}