{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1732","title":"Court filings concerning Joshua intervenors' interrogatories and requests for production of documents by Supt. Les Carnine regarding Joshua's objections to unitary status, requests for admissions to Superintendant James, and status report regarding Baker Elementary School","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2001-09-26/2001-09-28"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Joshua Intervenors","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Baker Interdistrict School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School superintendents","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning Joshua intervenors' interrogatories and requests for production of documents by Supt. Les Carnine regarding Joshua's objections to unitary status, requests for admissions to Superintendant James, and status report regarding Baker Elementary School"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1732"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["46 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, Joshua intervenors' requests for admissions propounded to Supt. Les Carnine; District Court, Joshua intervenors' interrogatories and requests for production of documents propounded to Supt. Les Carnine; District Court, order; District Court, motion for withdrawal as counsel; District Court, plaintiff's second set of interrogatories and requests for production to the Joshua intervenors regarding Joshua's objections to unitary status; District Court, order; District Court, entry of appearance; District Court, Joshua intervenors' revised requests for admissions propounded to Supt. Les Carnine; District Court, Joshua intervenors' requests for admissions to Superintendant James; District Court, status report regarding Baker Elementary School; District Court, Joshua intervenors' motion for definition and clarification of the issues and for other relief; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, order  This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. 4: 82CV00866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNJGHT, ET AL. !,,.t ~ '\\ ) RECEIVED SEP 2 8 2001 lJfflCE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORJNQ PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS PROPOUNDED TO SUPT. LES CARNINE Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, for their Request for Admissions Propounded to Superintendent Les Carnine, as Chief Compliance Officer regarding Little Rock School District's compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, state as follows: REQUEST FOR ADNfISSION NO. 1: You did not establish a committee of staff members to regularly meet with the Joshua Intervenors in order to discuss compliance issues. REQUEST FOR ADNfISSION NO. 2: You represented to the public meeting Little Rock School District Board of Directors and the Joshua\"Intervenors that the commitments of Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR ADNfISSION NO. 3: You did not ask the Arkansas Department of Education to assist the Little Rock School District in meeting its obligations under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan between March, 1998 and March, 2001. 1 REQUEST FOR ADl\\lllSSION NO. 4: There is no writing from you which reflects that you requested the Arkansas Department of Education to monitor the Little Rock School District's compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR ADl\\lllSSION NO. 5: You and District counsel, Christopher Helle.c requested the Arkansas Department of Education to forgive the Little Rock School District's indebtedness to the Arkansas Department of Education of the 20 million dollar loan. REQUEST FOR ADl\\lllSSION NO. 6:  You and District counsel, Christopher Heller represented to the Department of Education Director, Ray Simon, that the Joshua Intervenors approved the District's efforts to obtain loan forgiveness. REQUEST FOR ADl\\lllSSION NO. 7: You and District counsel, Christopher Heller represented during the negotiations with Arkansas Department of Education on loan forgiveness that you and counsel Heller were authorized to represent the interest of the Joshua Intervenors. REQUEST FOR ADl\\lllSSION NO. 8: The subject ofloan forgiveness was inappropriate for the Little Rock School District Board of Direc!?rs to address in an executive session under the Arkansas Freedom oflnformation Act. REQUEST FOR ADl\\lllSSION NO. 9: The Little Rock School District Board of Directors never passed a motion or resolution regarding the District 's requested loan forgiveness to Arkansas Department of Education. REQUEST FOR ADl\\lllSSION NO. 10: Neither you nor the the Little Rock School District Board of Directors ever determined in a public meeting of the Board that the remediation . of achievement disparitiys as contemplated by the original Settlement Decree and the rulings of the Court of Appeals was impossible to achieve. 2 REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11 : The Ombudsperson did not have any role in the development of policies, programs or procedures with respect to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (fax) By~nf-~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the following counsel of record, p~th is ~ day of September, 2001 . Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III \"~ Mr. Christopher Heller Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 200 West Capitol Avenue 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 Ms. Ann S. Marshall ODM . One Union National Plaza  124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock; Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-73 88 3 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jones; Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeiemr Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 4 J IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED SEP 2 8 2001 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORINQ JOSHUA INTERVENORS INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PROPOUNDED TO SUPT. LES CARNINE ~t41.Ul.. RECEi E. SEP 2 8 200\\ OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORIN~ PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VENO RS INTERVENORS Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, for their Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents Propounded to Superintendent Les Carnine, as Chief Compliance Officer regarding Little Rock School District's compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, state as follows: INTERROGATORY NO. 1: State the contemplated involvement of the Joshua Intervenors in the development of policies, programs and procedures with respect to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Was the contemplated involvement referred to in_ Interrogatory No. 1 reduced to writing? If so, attach a copy of such writing and proof that such writing was delivered to Joshua Intervenors' counsel. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: If you contend that the identified writing, if any, is included 1 within the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, please specify the pages and paragraphs thereof which reflect the contemplated involvement of the Joshua Intervenors. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: What was the contemplated involvement of Dr. Terrence Roberts and Dr. Steve Ross with respect to the development of policies, programs and procedures as contemplated by the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Was that contemplated involvement reduced to writing and shared with Joshua counsel or anyone else? INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Specify by number or letter, or both, each policy, program or procedure that was developed in fulfillment of the commitments of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Please attach copies of each such policy, program or procedure in response to this interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Please state whether the Joshua Intervenors' counsel sought to be involved in the compliance committee activities. Do you have any writings which reflect such effort and your responses to same? Please attach copies of both. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Did you create a written de_~egregation compliance program which included standards identified on pages 19 and 20 of the revised plan. If so, please state how the compliance program was implemented identifying the person or persons responsible for its implementation, the date they were appointed to the position and whether these persons were members of the District staff Also please identify all compliance standards that were adopted for student achievement, discipline, and evaluation of programs identified in the revised plan. Also identify the person or persons responsible for monitoring implementation of the compliance standards, the date he/she (or they) were appointed to the position and whether these persons were members of the District staff. 2 INTERROGATORY NO. 8: In your opinion, does the Compliance Plan contemplate periodic monitoring reports to be developed by LRSD staff regarding the implementation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. If so, please state whether you and/or members of your staff produced any monitoring reports regarding the District's implementation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Were you made aware by Joshua Intervenors' counsel that Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Assistant Superintendent for Instruction, was constructing a plan which upon implementation would result in a set of in-school racially segregated class assignment programs? Please state the date you were so informed and what actions you took in response to those suggestions. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Were you aware of the professional conflicts regarding - implementation of the revised plan, remediation of achievement disparities and program evaluation which existed between Dr. Bonnie Lesley and other staff members, notably, Dr. Kathy Lease, Ms. Sadie Mitchell, Mr. Junious Babbs and Dr. Marion I:.acy? If so, please describe in detail each of those conflicts and duration of each and what steps you took to remedy them. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Was the District, in your opinion, obliged to maintain lower teacher pupil ratios in the former Incentive schools than in the more racially mixed schools. If so, please set forth any policies, programs and procedures which reflect that obligation. Also state whether the District was obliged to maintain greater resources of staff, materials, and programs in the former Incentive schools than in the other schools. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: In your opinion was the District obliged to develop policies, programs and procedures by which to remediate the academic achievement as that 3 existed between African American children in a class and other children. If so, please provide writings of each policy, program and procedure that was specifically developed to address remediation of African American students. INTERROGATORY NO. 13 : Were you aware of any racial disparities that existed in the LRSD during your tenure n the LRSD during your tenure? Please identify each disparity and what actions you specifically took to address each disparity by date, action taken, activities involved and any meetings which reflect that action. 1) INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Did you ever inform the ADE of any actions of the District which had a disparate impact upon African American students? Were you aware that the State of Arkansas was obliged to monitor the disparities referenced to above and to comply with the terms of what is known as the \"Allen\" letter. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: With respect to the loan forgiveness discussions with the ADE, please state in full detail who was involved in the negotiations, the dates, the positions that were taken by each participant. State whether Joshua counsel ~as involved with State counsel where negotiations took place with respect to loan forgiveness. Identify the Arkansas State Senators by name and residence and officials of the ADE who were involved in the loan forgiveness. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Please state the involvement of Dr. Steven Ross and Dr. Terrence Roberts with respect to the subject ofloan forgiveness. Also state Drs. Ross and Robert's positions regarding loan forgiveness and how you obtained that knowledge. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Did any LRSD board member request for you to seek loan forgiveness in a public meeting? If so, state the name of the board member and state the date of 4 such request. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Did you have private meetings with board members in order to obtain authority for your negotiations with the ADE regarding the loan forgiveness. If so, identify the Board members, date of the private meetings, places where the meetings were held and attach any notes you made regarding those private meetings. INTERROGATORY NO. 19: Did you ever inform the Joshua Intervenors that you and the Board were going to address the subject of loan forgiveness with the ADE. If so, please j identify each writing that was exchanged between you and/or Mr. Chris Heller and each of the other parties to the private meetings which were held about the subject of the AD E's loan forgiveness regarding the LRSD. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Please attach a copy of each identified writing in response to each of the preceding interrogatories, numbered -I through 19. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: State how the District informed students of the Ombudsperson, his availability and role with respect to student ~iscipline and parent and student complaints of race based mistreatment. INTERROGATORY NO. 21 : Please explain whether the Ombudsperson was to have an ongoing relationship with the Joshua Intervenors with respect to investigating parent and student race based complaints in all areas of school operations? If the Ombudsperson was not the individual to investigate and address parent and student complaints of race based mistreatment, please identify the person or persons to whom these complaints were to be referred. INTERROGATORY NO. 22: State the amount-of the District's budget that was used for implementation of Sections 2.5 through 2.5.4 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan 5 identifying the amount for each section INTERROGATORY NO. 23 : Did you or some other person or persons designated by you specifically implement compliance standards in order to comply with Sections 2.5 through 2.5.4 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. If so, what are those standards and where can they be found. INTERROGATORY NO. 24: State the amount of the District's budget that was used for implementation of Sections 2.7, 2.7.1 and Sections 5.1 through 5.5 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan identifying the amount for each section. INTERROGATORY NO. 25: Did you some other person or persons designated by you specifically implement compliance standards in order to substantially comply with Sections 2.7, 2. 7 .1 and Sections 5. I through 5. 5 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. If so, what are those standards and where can they be found. INTERROGATORY NO. 26: Did you, any member of your compliance committee or any other person designated by you determine any area of noncompl~ance at any time during the term of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. If so, state the area of noncompliance, the date it was detected and all reasonable steps taken you, members of the compliance committee or any other person designated by you to correct the noncompliance and to prevent further noncompliance. Finally, jf you indicate that a compliance program was developed and implemented, please also advise whether modifications were ever made to the program. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Please attach a copy of each identified writing in response to each of the preceding interrogatories, numbered 20 through 26. Respectfully submitted, 6 ' I  I~ .e John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (fax) By:~'~-~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the following counsel of record, ~ t~ay of September, 2001. Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III  ~ Mr. Christopher Heller Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings ..., l Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 200 West Capitol Avenue 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 Ms. Ann S. Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 7 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jones, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Mark IJagemeiemr Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 u.frJJRl~QR EASTERN DISTRICT ARKA~SAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEP 2 6 2001 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ~A_MES{/ ~RMACK, '7rERI y. l \\ l [\\ /\\A A DEPCLERJ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. 4:82CV00866 SWW NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL MRS. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED SEP 2 8 2001 UFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 0 RD ER DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court is Little Rock School District's motion for contempt against John Walker . A hearing  on this issue is hereby scheduled for Tuesday, October 16, 2001, at 9:00 a.m. The deadline for the mutual exchange of witness and exhibit lists shall be no 1ater than October 5, 2001. If the parties desire the Court to examine any documents pertaining to this hearing, those documents shall be submitted to the Court no 1ater than noon on October 12, 2001. The Court advises counsel that it will not be available to conduct this hearing beyond October 16, 2001. IT IS SO ORDERED this o4(;~day of September, 2001. SUSAN WE~GHT Chief United States District Judge :3 5 0 7 , . RECEIVED - SEP 2 7 2001  OFFICE OF \\lESEGREGATION MONITORING STATE OF ARKANSAS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Mark Pryor Attorney General M. SamuelJones, IIl Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 September 26, 2001 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 124 W. Capitol, suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Sammye I. Taylor Assistant Attorney General Direct dial: (501) 682 -1320 Direct Facsimile: (501) 682-2591 E-mail: SarnmyeT@ag.state.ar.us Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD; USDC; 4:82CV866SWW Dear Counsel: I have transferred from the Civil Department to the Medicaid Fraud Unit of the Office of Attorney General, and am therefore filing a motion to withdraw as counsel ofrecord in the captioned case. The file remains with Assistant Attorney General Mark Hagemeier for further handling. Thank you. SLT/ale Enclosure Cordially yours, Chief Barrister 323 Center Street Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-2591 Internet Website http ://www.ag.state.ar.us/ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MOTION FOR WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL RECEIVED SEP 2 7 2001 OFFICE Of DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS I, Sammye L. Taylor, hereby move to withdraw my appearance as counsel on behalf of separate defendant Arkansas Department of Education in the above-captioned matter. Please allow Assistant Attorney General Mark A. Hagemeier of the Office of the Attorney General to serve a counsel ofrecord. WHEREFORE, I, -Sammye L. Taylor, respectfully request that this motion be granted and that the Court direct the clerk of the court to remove me as counsel for separate defendant Arkansas Department of Education. Respectfully Submitted, / BMys.ia:mm\u0026yeLay1.cr~#831~ Chief Barrister 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 (501) 682-1320 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Sammye L. Taylor, certify that on ~of September, 2001 , I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address( es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 ~-~ sammyeL.Tay 2 IN THE UNJTED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED OCT 1 2001 OFflCr: Or DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS PLAINTIFF'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS REGARDING JOSHUA'S OBJECTIONS TO UNITARY STATUS  \u003e Comes the Plaintiff, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), and submits the following Interrogatories and Requests for Production to be answered within thirty days in accord with Rules 33 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. GENERAL DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS (A) \"you\" or \"your\" Shall mean the Joshua Intervenors' LRSD class representative and counsel for the Joshua Intervenors and any person (as defined below) acting on their behalf; (B) \"person\" Shall mean any individual, corporation, partnership, joint venture, firm, association, proprietorship, agency, board, authority, commission, and other such entities; (C) \"communicate\" or \"communication\" Shall mean every manner or means of disclosure, transfer or exchange, and every disclosure, transfer or exchange of information whether orally or by document or whether face to face, by telephone, mail, personal delivery, or otherwise; (D) \"document\" Shall mean any original written, typewritten, handwritten, printed or recorded - material, as well as all tapes, disks, non-duplicate copies and transcripts thereof, now or at any time in your possession, custody or control; and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing definition, but for the purposes of illustration only, \"document\" includes notes, correspondence, memoranda, business records, diaries, calendars, address and telephone records, photographs, tape recordings, videotapes and financial statements. Without limitation of the term \"control\" as used in the preceding sentence, a document is deemed to be in your control if you have the right to secure the document or a copy thereof from another person or a public or private entity having actual possession thereof. If a document that is responsive to a request for identification or production is in your control, but is not in your possession or custody, identify the person with possession or custody. If any document that is responsive to a request for identification or production was, but is no longer, in your possession or subject to your control, state what disposition was made of it, by whom, and the date or dates or approximate date or dates on which disposition was made, and why; (E) \"identify\" (i) As to a person (as defined), shall mean the person's name, business and residence address( es), occupation, job title; and, if not an individual, state the type of entity and the address of its principal place of business; (ii) As to a document, shall mean the type of document (letter, memo, etc.) the identity of the author or originator, the date authored or originated, the identity of each person to whom the original or copy was addressed or delivered, the identity of such person known or reasonably believed by you to have present possession, custody, or control thereof, 2 and a brief description of the subject matter thereof, all with sufficient particularity to request - its production under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (iii) As to a communication, shall mean the date of the communication, the type of communication (telephone conversation, meeting, etc.), the place where the communication took place, the identity of the person who made the communication, the identity of each person who received the communication, and of each person present when it was made and the subject matter discussed; (F) \"Pertaining to\" Shall mean constituting, embodying, ansmg out of, incident to, referring to, mentioned, bearing upon, reflecting, evidencing, affecting, concerning, providing evidence for, or relating to the transaction, individual, entity, act, object, conference, contention, communication, allegation or activity identified; (G) To \"describe in detail\" Shall mean to provide with respect to any act, occurrence, transaction, event, statement, communication or conduct (hereinafter collectively, \"act\") all facts concerning any such act known to Plaintiffs after due inquiry, including but not limited to a description of each act, the date, the location, and the identify of each person involved; (H) \"or\" shall be construed either conjunctively or disjunctively to bring within the scope of these Interrogatories any information which might otherwise be construed to be outside their scope; The singular includes the plural number, and vice versa. The masculine includes the feminine and neuter genders. The past tense includes the present tense where the clear meaning is not distorted by change of tense. 3 If you do not answer any Interrogatory or Request for Production because of a claim -  of privilege, set forth the privilege claimed, the facts upon which you rely to support the claim of privilege, and identify all documents for which such privilege is claimed. INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please identify all persons who participated in the preparation of the responses hereto. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please identify all persons you intend to call as a witness at the hearing set for November 19 and 20, 2001. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please identify all documents you intend to introduce as an exhibit at the hearing set for November 19 and 20, 2001. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Please identify and describe in detail all communications between you and persons in any way cC\u003ennected to the National Science Foundation pertaining to LRSD's National Science Foundation Grant. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Please produce all documents pertaining to communications between you and persons in any way connected to the National Science Foundation pertaining to LRSD's National Science Foundation Grant. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Please identify and describe m detail all communications between you and Dr. Terrence Roberts pertaining to LRSD's compliance with its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Please produce all documents pertaining to communications between you and Dr. Terrence Roberts pertaining to LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 4 INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Please identify and describe in detail all 9 communications between you and Dr. Steven Ross pertaining to LRSD's compliance with its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Please produce all documents pertaining to communications between you and Dr. Steven Ross pertaining to LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: For each expert witness that you may call as a witness at the hearing set for November 19 and 20, 2001, please provide a complete statement of all opinions and the basis and reasons therefor; identify and describe in detail the documents, communications, data or other information considered by the witness in forming the opinions; provide the qualifications of the witness, including a list of all publications authored by the witness withing the preceding ten (10) years; provide the compensation to be paid for investigation and testimony; and provide a listing of all other cases in which the witness has testified as an expert at trial or by deposition within the preceding four ( 4) years. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding interrogatory. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Please produce all contemporaneous time records maintained by you pertaining to your monitoring ofLRSD's implementation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Please identify and describe in detail all information provided to you by LRSD employees either anonymously or without the knowledge or 5 consent of counsel for LRSD pertaining to LRSD's compliance with the Revised 9 Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Please produce all documents provided to you by LRSD employees either anonymously or without the knowledge or consent of counsel for LRSD pertaining to LRSD's compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Please identify all LRSD employees who have provided you information or documents without the knowledge or consent of counsel for LRSD pertaining to LRSD's compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Please identify and describe in detail all oral communications between you and LRSD employees since August 17, 2001 , pertaining to LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan which took place outside the presence of counsel for LRSD. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: For each Joshua monitor identified in response to Interrogatory No. 3 of Plaintiffs First Set oflnterrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, please: (a) describe in detail all education, training and experience that you believe qualifies them to serve as monitors; (b) describe in detail all monitoring activities undertaken by them, including the dates, times and locations where monitoring occurred and the subject matter of the monitoring; and ( c) describe in detail each and every instance where the monitoring revealed what you contend was noncompliance or bad faith implementation of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 6 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Please produce all documents pertaining to 9 your monitoring of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, including but not limited to any notes or summaries of monitoring activities. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: You allege in your response to Request for Production No. 1 of Plaintiffs First Set oflnterrogatories and Requests for Production ofDocuments that Dr. Les Carnine and Chris Heller requested that you not publish any monitoring reports. Please identify and describe in detail all communications between you and Dr. Carnine and/or Mr. Heller pertaining to your monitoring reports. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Please produce all documents pertaining to communications between you and Dr. Carnine and/or Mr. Heller pertaining to your monitoring reports. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: In your response to Interrogatory No. 8 of Plaintiffs First Set oflnterrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, you allege that the Compliance Committee refused to share quarterly reports produced by the School Services Division, please identify and describe in detail all communications between you and any Compliance Committee member pertaining to these quarterly reports. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Please produce all documents pertaining to communications between you and any Compliance Committee member pertaining to these quarterly reports. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: In your response to Interrogatory No. 8 of Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, you allege that \"Joshua's counsel was continually misled and misinformed by LRSD school officials including Carnine and Hellerregarding desegregation accomplishments.\" Please identify and describe in detail all communications between you and any LRSD official in which you were 7 misled or misinformed about LRSD's implementation of the Revised Desegregation and 9 Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Please produce all documents pertaining to communications between you and any LRSD official in which you were misled or misinformed about LRSD's implementation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Please produce all documents pertaining to communications between you and any LRSD employee pertaining to the semester by semester discipline statistics referred to in your response to Interrogatory No. 8 of Plaintiffs First Set oflnterrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: In your response to Interrogatory No. 8 of Plaintiffs First Set oflnterrogatori "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1095","title":"\"Joshua's Answers to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production Regarding Joshua's Objections to Unitary Status\"\"","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2001-09-21"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","School integration","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["\"Joshua's Answers to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production Regarding Joshua's Objections to Unitary Status\"\""],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1095"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nlN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED er SEP 2 4 2001 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAJNTIFF V. CASE NO.4:82CV00866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS JNTER VENO RS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL JOSHUA'S ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION REGARDING JOSHUA'S OBJECTIONS TO UNITARY STATUS INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please identify all persons who participated in the preparation of the responses hereto. ANSWER NO. 1: John W. Walker as counsel for the Joshua Intervenors and Joy C. Springer, Monitor. JNTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please identify the Joshua Intervenors' LRSD representative and the date on which that person became Joshua's class representative. ANSWER NO. 2: The Defendant LRSD is a.ware of the class representatives. There have been no new or additional persons identified as class representatives. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please identify all persons who performed monitoring for you during the tenn of LRSD' s Revised Desegregation and Educational Plan. ANSWER NO. 3: The following persons pe1formed monitoring: John W. Walker, -1- Joy C. Springer, Kirke Herman, Carolyn Cooley, Margaret Freeman, Lorene Joshua, Delois Sykes and Frances Caldwell. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Please produce all of your monitoring reports that were shared with LRSD dming the term of LRSD 's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. RESPONSE NO. 1: The Joshua Intervenors' counsel, in response to and at the request of Supe1intendent Les Carnine and District counsel Chiis Heller, in an eff01t to be cooperative with them did not publish any monit01ing rep01ts of the concerns which he had with respect to LRSD Plan implementation between 1998 and 2001. See the written communications from Heller, Carnine and Walker - Comt Exhibits 558 and 566. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Please identify and desc1ibe in detail all areas of noncompliance and bad faith implementation communicated by you to LRSD \u0026amp; term of LRSD 's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 4: Please see Joshua's Opposition to LRSD's Motion for Unitary Status filed herein. The Agreement entered between Little Rock School District and the State of Arkansas regarding the 20 million dollar loan forgiveness. Also see the notes and files of Superintendent Les Carnine, District counsel Chris Heller, Junious Babbs, James Washington, Sadie Mitchell, Marion Lacey, Linda Watson, Brady Gadberry, Victor Anderson, Bonnie Lesley and Gene Paiker that contain correspondence and other documentation from Joshua. There is a partial list of items in the Maich 15, 2001 Compliance Rep01t. In addition, undersigned counsel had numerous conversations with -2- Superintendent Carnine and District Attorney Heller regarding noncompliance issues at Rightsell Elementaiy School involving discipline, lack of academic achievement, segregation of boys from girls as a punitive measure\ndouble funding, maintenance and proper staffing, equipment and materials at the Incentive Schools\nthe proposed closing of Mitchell Elementaiy school\nthe closing of Ish School under the guise of it not being a repairable facility and later being refurbished to house the new Ish Instructional Resource Center\nPulaski Heights Middle School involving disparate treatment of African American students and staff, dispaiate discipline, lack of academic achievement, use of racial slurs and racial epitaphs by staff, assault of students by staff and disc1irninatory learning environment\nHall High School involving discriminat01y leaining environment, dispaiate discipline, lack of recognition of academic honors and lack of academic achievement\nCloverdale Middle School involving discriminato1y learning environment, dispaiate discipline and lack of academic achievement\nthe creation and implementation of Office of Ombudsperson\ndiscriminat01y practices involving the removal of the principal at J.A. Fair High School\nthe promotion of Gayle Bradford to School Services and of other principals who engaged in discriminatmy conduct towaid African American students and/or staff (Faith Donovan, Nancy Rosseaum etc.)\nMabelvale Middle School involving discrirninato1y leaining environment, dispaiate discipline and lack academic achievement\nDunbai Middle School involving dispaiate discipline of students including the use of resource officer in investigation and determination of discipline decisions, assault of student by staff member, use of racial slurs by staff and lack of academic - 3- achievement\nForest Heights Middle School involving disparate discipline, discriminatory discipline practices\nWakefield Elementaty involving the quality of education being delivered and discriminato1y learning environment\nForest Park Elementary involving discriminato1y learning environment, discriminato1y practices regarding the participation in field nip activities, racial comments by members of the PT A\nMeadowcliff Elementary involving disparate discipline\nWestern Hills Elementaiy involving retaliatmy treatment of staff member who complained about lack of and poor implementation of IEPs and education of Afiican American students\nRockefeller Elementaiy involving dispaiate discipline of students and staff\nHorace Mann involving disc1iminat01y grading practices, discriminatmy discipline rnles established at the school level, dispaiate discipline practices, assault of student by staff member\nCentral High School involving discriminato1y practices in student patticipation in extIacmTicular activities- cheerleader tryouts, homecoming queens, mock comi, student council, disparate discipline practices, one race AP classes and favoring white students in these classes, lack of academic achievement and favo1ing white students in awaids and activities\nParkview involving discriminato1y practices in counseling services, dispaiate discipline, discriminato1y practices in student paiticipation in extracurricular activities (band and choir), discriminato1y teaching assignments, lack of academic achievement\nMcClellan involving unequal facilities, staff, leaining evironment, resomces, and staff use of racial epitaphs\nseveral incidents of discriminatory assignment practices\nnumerous incidents of the District's failure to properly implement IEPs of Afiican American students\nand Safety -4- and Security Director Bobby Jones' staff use. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIO NO. 2: Please produce all documents to areas of noncompliance and bad faith implementation communicated by you to LRSD during the term of LRSD 's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. RESPONSE NO. 2: Refer to response given in Interrogatory Answer o. 4. Documents are located in files entitled \"John W. Walker\" in the offices of Junious Babbs, Superintendent Carnine, Sadie Mitchell, and other central office administrators including the offices of Ombudsperson, James Washington. Copies of these files have been previously provided to counsel for the District. Also refer to Court Exhibits 556, 557, 558 and 566. Also see attached documents. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Please state whether you received a copy ofLRSD's Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999, on July, 1, 1999, and if not, please state when you received copy of LRSD's Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999. - ANSWER NO. 5: I obtained with difficulty and only after repeated requests of the plan from District officials. Superintendent Carnine and Junious Babbs acknowledge that the compliance plan was not provided to counsel for Joshua Intervenors until after a request was made for it along with the compliance handbook.. See Court Exhibits 559 and 562. (Plan was received shortly after the date indicated in Babbs's letter of August 31, 2001, CoUit Exhibit 562.) INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Please identify and desc1ibe in detail all communications between you and LRSD pe1taining to the format or content of LRSD 's -5- Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999. ANSWER NO. 6: There were no communications between the pruties regarding the fonnat or content of the Compliance Plan. District officials and other compliance committee members developed the plan without input from Joshua. Disti-ict officials did not request any input from Joshua although Joshua sought on many occasions to be involved in the process. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIO NO. 3: Please produce all documents pertaining to communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the fo1mat or content of LRSD's Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999. RESPO SE 0. 3: Refer to response given in Intenogat:01y Answer o. 6. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Please identify and describe in detail all communications between you and LRSD pe1taining to the fo1mat or content of LRSD's Interim Compliance Repo11 filed Mruch 15, 2000. ANSWER 0. 7: There were no communications between the pruties. District officials and other compliance committee members developed the content and format of LRSD's Inte1im Compliance Repo1t filed on March 15, 2000 without input from Joshua. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIO 0.4: Please produce all documents pe1taining to all communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the content and format LRSD's Interim Compliance Rep01t filed Mruch 15, 2000. RESPONSE 0. 4: Refer to response given in Interrogato1y Answer o. 7. TERROGA TORY~: Please identify and describe in detail all racial -6- I disparities revealed by your monitoring during the te1m of LRSD 's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\nand for each area of racial disparity state: (a) When you became aware of the disparity\n(b) When you communicated your knowledge of the disparity to LRSD ( c) Whether LRSD 's response to the racial dispaiity complied with the Desegregation and Education Plan\nand if not, why you did not invoke the process raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. A SWER 0. 8: Please refer to the Joshua's Response in Opposition to LRSD's Motion for Unitary Status filed herein. Also see Intenogato1y Response No. 4. District officials and members of the compliance committee withheld and refused to share the quaiterly rep01ts which were produced by the School Services division of the District. These repo1ts were indicative of the racial disparities that remained present in the District. Also see the notes and files of Superintendent Les Carnine, District counsel Chris Heller, Junious Babbs, James Washington, Sadie Mitchell, Marion Lacey, Linda Watson, Brady Gadbeny, Victor Anderson, Bonnie Lesley and Gene Parker that indicate dates of communications. Joshua's counsel was continually misled and misinformed by LRSD school officials including Carnine and Heller regaiding desegregation accomplishments. In addition, the District did not regularly provide the semester by semester discipline statistics. The Joshua Intervenors' counsel did invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to the revised plan which he had with respect to LRSD - 7 - Plan implementation between 1998 and 2001 involving several issues, however, in response to and at the request of and from Superintendent Carnine and District counsel Chris Heller and upon promised of fair and adequate remedy thereof, he did not follow through on the compliance issues that were raised. Joshua's 1ight to contest in a vigorous manner the District's release from court jurisdiction after the District's report of March 15, 2001 is independent of the number oftimes Joshua invoked the process described in Section 8 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding Intenogatory regarding racial disparities. RESPONSE NO. 5: Refer to response given in Intenogatmy Answer No. 8. Also see Comi Exhibits 556, 557, 558, 566 and 582. Also see attached documents. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Please identify and desc1ibe in detail all incidents of racial disc1imination in the imp_osition of discipline which occmTed dUiing the term of LR.SD' s Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, and separately with regard to each such incident, please state: (a) When you became aware of the incident\n(b) When you communicated your knowledge of the incident to LRSD ( c) Whether LR.SD' s response to the incident complied with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\nand if not, why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. -8- I  ANSWER NO. 9: Joshua received notice of numerous incidents involving racial discrimination over the three year period. See Response in Interrogatory o. 4. Also see the files of Ombudsman, James Washington. Also see letter addressed to Supe1intendent Carnine with copies to James Washington and Dr. Linda Watson dated November 8, 2000, Court Exhibit 567. There were numerous racial incidents during this pe1iod including, but not limited to the following schools: Hall High School, McClellan, Central, Parkview and Fair High Schools, Pulaski Heights, Mann, Cloverdale, Southwest Dunbar and Forest Heights Middle Schools, Brady, Western Hills, Carver, Forest Park, Dodd, Rightsell, Gibbs and Pulaski Heights Elementaiy schools. Many of these cases were refened to the office of the Ombudsman. Also see Answer to Intenogat01y Nos. 8 and 11. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding Intenogato1y regarding incidents of racial discrimination in the imposition of discipline. RESPONSE NO. 6: See the files of Dr. Linda Watson, Student Hearing Officer and those of the Ombudsperson, James Washington. Also see Court Exhibits 567, 568 and attached documents. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: On average, about 85% of LRSD's suspensions are of Afiican-American students (See Compliance Report, March 15, 2001, p. 2 Please explain how much of that 85%, if any, you contend results from racial disc1imination by LRSD and identify all facts and documents with support that contention? -9- ANSWER NO. 10: LRSD did not adopt specific compliance standards for the area of student discipline, or monitor such standard at particular schools exhibiting problems of racial disparity in discipline. LRSD has this obligation under Section 6 of the revised plan. LRSD's failure in this regard diminishes Joshua's ability to segregate instances of racial dispa:iity in discipline. Not all black children who are disciplined are not included in the discipline repo1ts. Fmthermore, it is our opinion that when African American students engage in the same conduct as white students, the white students are not disciplined. In addition, the quaiterly reports which confirm the continued dispaiity were withheld by Districts officials. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Please produce all documents pertaining to yom response to the preceding intenogato1y. RESPONSE NO. 7: See response in Intenogat01y o. 10. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Please identify and desc1ibe all incidents involving student discipline which you refened to the LRSD Ombudsman\nand separately for each such incident, please state: (a) When you became aware of the incident\n(b) When you communicated your knowledge of the incident to the ombudsman\n( c) Whether LRSD' s response to the incident complied with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\nand if not, why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation a Education Plan. -10- ANSWER NO. 11: Joshua handled a number of the cases involving student discipline during this pe1iod for several reasons: 1) the Ombudsman was not allowed to do so initially and 2) the Ombudsman was often working on other matters and was not available. The Ombudsman., James Washington, has reported to Joshua that he has an ongoing investigation of race based mistreatment at Pulaski Heights Middle School. The following cases were refened to the District's Ombudsman: 1) Millard Russey at For est Heights Middle School\n2) Alex O'Neal at Forest Heights Middle School\n3) Peter Robinson at Hall High School\n4) East End Students attending Pulaski Heights Middle School\n5) Earnest Rump at Southwest Middle School\n6) Antonio Jackson at Pulaski Heights Elementary 7) Rodiiquez Roy at Pulaski Heights Middle School\n8) Marcus Walker at Horace Mann Middle School\n9) Mann Middle School's rnles regarding participation in extracunicular activities which are diiven by citizenship grades\n10) Cloverdale Middle School regarding its failure to apply appropriate discipline to a white female student, Miracle Null, for use of profanity towards to black teacher\n11) Christopher Munay at Cloverdale Middle School\n12) Calvin Leonard at Gibbs Elementary\n13) Elwin Parchmann at Meadowcliff Elementary\n-11- 14) Justin Simmons at Horace Mann\n15) Marcus Henry at Pulaski Heights Middle\n16) Quention Bellows at Hall High School\n17) Cedric Beasley 18) Antonio Jackson at Hall High School\n19) Antione Bernard at Brady Elementary\n20) Tommy Bozemann at ALP - Philander Smith\n21) Felicia Duhart at Wes tern Hills Elementary\n22) Brian Gray at Horace Mann\n23) April Hayes at Par-.l\u0026lt;View\n24) LeeAngelo Jones at Rockefeller Elementary\n25) Ronald Payne at Pulaski Heights Middle\n26) Steven Taylor at Hall High School\n27) ---Peel at Forest Heights\n28) Clevonne Dixon at Hall High School\n29) Marcus Walker at Horace Mann\n30) CIC program implementation (suspensions expunged for wl:te students but not for black students who paiticipated in this program)\nand 31) Letter dated October 9, 2000 regarding disparate treatment of black students bused into Pulaski Heights Middle School. This list may not exhaustive of all incidents of racial discrimination with respect to -12- discipline. Joshua reserves the 1ight to supplement this list. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIO ~: Please produce all documents pertaining to your communications with the LRSD Ombudsman. RESPONSE NO. 8: Please refer to the files of the Ombudsman including the attached documents. The attached documents, however, are not inclusive of all communications with the Ombudsman. The majority of our communication with the Ombudsman was through telephone conferences, visits to his office and his visits to this office. Refenals were made dming these communications. INTERROGATORY 0. 12: Please identify all facts and documents which supp01t your objection to LRSD's compliance with Section 2.5 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER 0. 12: The program, policies and procedures identified in the Compliance Plan and the March 2000 and 2001 repo1ts ar~in terms of such a level of generality as to not be meaningful with regard to achieving compliance with respect to the obligation. Intenogatories Numbers 9 and 11 and Requests for Production related thereto. Also refer to Joshua's Response in Opposition. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding intenogat01y. RESPONSE NO. 9: See Intenogatory No. 11 and 12. See also LRSD Compliance Plan, Court Exhibit 544. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Please identify all facts and documents which -13- support your objection to LRSD 's compliance with Section 2.5 .1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 13: Refer to responses in Interrogatories umbers 9 and 11 and Requests for Production related thereto. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding inte1TOgatoiy. RESPONSE NO. 10: Same as Interrogato1yNo. 13. See also LRSD Compliance Plan, Court Exhibit 544. INTERROGATORY 0. 14: Please identify all facts and documents which support your objection to LRSD's compliance with Section 2.5.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER 0. 14: Compliance with Section 6 of the revised plan with respct to compliance standards and the Compliance Plan should hav~ yielded data on particpular schools by way of example allowing Joshua, ODM and the CoU1t to assess compliance. The LRSD 's March 200 and 2001 rep01ts do not provide any data with respect to this obligation. They report that policies adopted and cases are reviewed by the Assistant Superintendent for Discipline. LRSD has not substantially demonstrated that this provision has been complied with. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIO NO. 11: Please produce all documents in the preceding intenogatoiy. RESPONSE NO. 11: Same as Interrogatory o. 14. -14- INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Please identify all facts and documents which suppo1t your objection to LRSD's compliance with Section 2.5.3 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER 0. 15: Refer to Comt Exhibits 561, 564, and 565. See also documents attached hereto. Please refer to the testimony of James Washington dated August 2, 2001.(Testimony regarding his lack of sufficient resources and authority). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIO 0. 12: Please produce all documents in the preceding inteITogato1y. RESPONSE NO. 12: Refer to Answer to Inte1Togat01y o. 15. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Please identify all facts and documents which suppo1t your objection to LRSD's compliance with Section 2.5.4 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 16: Compliance with Section 6 of t.he revised plan with respct to compliance standards and the Compliance Plan should have yielded data on paiticpular schools by way of example allowing Joshua, ODM and the Comt to assess compliance. The LRSD 's March 200 and 2001 reports do not provide any data with respect to this obligation. They repo1t that these cases are refeITed to the Pupil Services Team. Joshua contends that the LRSD has not substantially complied with this provisions. See attached documents. (Joshua requested data and counsel for the District replied indicating that no data existed). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Please produce all documents in the -15- preceding interrogatory. RESPONSE NO. 13: Refer to Answer in Intenogatmy o. 16. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Please state whether you contend that the \"Program Evaluation Agenda\" and/or the \"Assessment Plan\" set forth on pages 53-57 in the Interim Compliance Repo1i filed March 15, 2000, complied with LRSD's obligation under Section 2. 7 .1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. If not, please: (a) identify and desc1ibe in detail all facts and documents supporting your contention\n(b) state when you detennined that they did not comply\n( c) when you communicated to LRSD your belief that they did not comply\nand, ( d) why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Educational Plan. ANSWER NO. 17: Evaluation under 2. 7.1 was to r~ach all academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7. Also those listed in Section 5 of the plan, as well as others implemented by LRSD to fulfil its obligation under 2.7. Joshua's ability to respond to this intenogat01y is hindered by the District's failure to set forth one clear list of all of the programs implemented to comply with Section 2. 7. In reviewing pages 53- 57, we do not find mention of the full extent of the revised cuniculum at grades 4 and above. There is no mention of evaluation of the use os SAIPs, or of the programs listed in Section 5 of the plan. Joshua contends that the LRSD has not substantially complied with this provision. Please refer to the testimony of Junious Babbs, Sadie 1itchell, -16- Bonnie Lesley and Supe1i.ntendent Carnine. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIO 0. 14: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding intenogatory. RESPONSE NO. 14: See transc1ipt of the July and August, 2001 hearings. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Please identify and describe in detail all programs, policies and procedures proposed by you pertaining to LRSD's obligations under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 18: District officials and compliance committee members chose not to involve counsel for Joshua in the development of programs, policies and procedures. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: Please produce all documents pertaining to programs, policies and procedures proposed by you pe1iaining to LRSD's obligations under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. RESPONSE NO. 15: Refer to Court Exhibits 552, 554, 560, 563 and attached documents regarding undersigned counsel's complaints regarding non involvement in the development of programs, policies and procedures. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Please produce all documents received by you in the ordinary course of business (as opposed to in response to an FOIA request) during the term ofLRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan pertaining to your paiiicipation on LRSD committees or in LRSD activities. RESPONSE NO. 16: The following documents and notices were sent by the -17- District without request: District officials provided Board policies to these offices after they sent to the Board for approval. Quarterly notices were received regarding NSF grant and its agenda for the meeting. Notices of the Biracial Committee meetings. Notices regarding Cha:r.ter School Committee and agenda. Joshua counsel and Monitor Springer had to request many of the documents regarding LRSD committees and activities as a pa.it of our ongoing monit01ing activities. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Please produce all documents pe1taining to your invoking the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to 8.2 of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. RESPONSE NO. 17: See attached documents. Also see CoUit Exhibits 565,567,568 and 569. Joshua further reserves the 1ight to supplement the answers provided herein. Respectfully submi!ted, JOHN W WALKER, P .A 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (Tel.) (501) ~71-4187 ) .~ i / By:____,~s--f.,,_,.,,_.~,...:i..r__.... . ---++'\"-=--\"--=----\"- J\n/ -18- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed,,.postage prepaid to the following counsel or record, postage prepaid on this __2L_ day of~( 2001. Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol A venue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-73 88 -19 - Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jones, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 . Walker \"-\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"mwr_32_13345","title":"Digitized transcription of VHS tape of \"Early Years of the Movement\" (Part II).","collection_id":"mwr_32","collection_title":"Lecture Series on Civil Rights in Alabama, 1954-1965","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Alabama, Dallas County, Selma, 32.40736, -87.0211"],"dcterms_creator":["Alabama A \u0026 M University","University of Alabama in Huntsville"],"dc_date":["2001-09-20"],"dcterms_description":["J.L. Chestnut, Jr. is the speaker in this lecture given at Alabama A\u0026M."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Huntsville, Ala. : University of Alabama in Huntsville Archives and Special Collections"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Early Years of the Movement (Part II) - Speaker: J.L. Chestnut, Jr. - Transcription of Tape 3, 2003 University of Alabama in Huntsville Archives and Special Collections, Huntsville, Alabama","Lecture Series on Civil Rights in Alabama, 1954-1965, VHS tape of \"Early Years of the Movement\" (Part II). Box 2, Tape 3.  University of Alabama in Huntsville Archives and Special Collections, Huntsville, Alabama"],"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Southern states--History--20th century","Selma (Ala.)","Macon County (Ala.)","African Americans--Legal status, laws, etc.","Voter registration"],"dcterms_title":["Digitized transcription of VHS tape of \"Early Years of the Movement\" (Part II)."],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Alabama Huntsville"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://libarchstor2.uah.edu/digitalcollections/items/show/13345"],"dcterms_temporal":["2000/2009"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["This material may be protected under U. S. Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S. Code) which governs the making of photocopies or reproductions of copyrighted materials. You may use the digitized material for private study, scholarship, or research. Though the University of Alabama in Huntsville Archives and Special Collections has physical ownership of the material in its collections, in some cases we may not own the copyright to the material. It is the patron's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright restrictions when publishing or otherwise distributing materials found in our collections."],"dcterms_medium":["lectures","transcripts"],"dcterms_extent":["28 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Chestnut, J. L., 1930-2008"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1719","title":"Court filings: District Court, the Joshua intervenors' response to the plaintiff's motion to cite Joshua counsel for contempt of Court; District Court, two orders; District Court, motion for further enlargement of time; District Court, order; District Court, plaintiff's motion to compel and request for expedited hearing; District Court, memorandum brief in support of plaintiff's motion to compel and request for expedited hearing; District Court, Joshua's answers to plaintiff's first set of interrogatories and requests for production regarding Joshua's objections to unitary status; District Court, order","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2001-09-04/2001-09-25"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Joshua Intervenors","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Education and state","School management and organization","School integration","School districts"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, the Joshua intervenors' response to the plaintiff's motion to cite Joshua counsel for contempt of Court; District Court, two orders; District Court, motion for further enlargement of time; District Court, order; District Court, plaintiff's motion to compel and request for expedited hearing; District Court, memorandum brief in support of plaintiff's motion to compel and request for expedited hearing; District Court, Joshua's answers to plaintiff's first set of interrogatories and requests for production regarding Joshua's objections to unitary status; District Court, order"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1719"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["46 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS CASE NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. RECEIVED DEFENDANTS INTER VENO RS INTER VEN ORS Jl Iv.lRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. SEP ---6 2001 OffiCE Of DESEGREGATION MONffORIMG KATHERINE KNIGHT WRIGHT, ET AL. THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO THE PLAINTIFFS~ MOTION TO CITE JOSHUA COUNSEL FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT The Little Rock School District, through their counsel, Christopher John Heller and John Clay Fendley, Jr. , filed a motion on August 23, 2001. Therein, they renewed by reference an earlier motion which had been dismissed by the Court on August 17, 2001 without prejudice. The crux of the LRSD's motion is that Joshua counsel, John W. Walker, .violated the following ruling of the Court: My ruling is that he is entitled to FOI requests and he is entitled to that information. If he needs to talk to one of your clients, he ought to go through you, that's true, he needs to go through you, so you will know what your client is saying to Mr. Walker. And I would favor you in that Regard, even though you are a public institution. The present motion certifies the District's belief that \"Attorney Walker violated the courts ' orders ... by appearing at the office of Dr. Bonnie Lesley on the morning of August 23, 1  - - - - - ________ .:___ ___ _______________ _ 2001 .\" There is no other contention in the renewed motion for contempt. The respondents, therefore, respectfully submit that the court has not entered an order prohibiting Joshua counsel or his associates from \"appearing at the office\" of any school district official in either of the three school districts. The District submitted the affidavits of Dr. Bonnie Lesley and Ms Anita Gilliam, Dr. Lesley's secretary, to support its motion. Neither addresses the issue of whether Mr. Walker violated a court order by appearing in the building. There is no question that Mr. Walker )) \"appeared\" at the building. It again submitted no affidavits in support of its earlier, now renewed motion. Accordingly, the Court is called upon to address the issue of whether 'tvfr. Walker is in contempt of court because he appeared at the Ish IRC on August 23, 2001. The issue for the future is whether he is in contempt whenever he enters upon a Little Rock School District property without the prior approval of either or both Messrs. Heller and Fendley. The Court has not entered such an Order. Accordingly, there can be no contempt upon which to base a show case order because there is no antecedent Order denying entry upon LRSD property to the representatives of the Joshua Intervenors. The relief that is being sought is inconsistent with the claimed violation, i.e. appearing at the office of a school official. The relief sought, in addition to sanctions, is that Mr. Walker be refrained from any communication with District personnel and that he be ordered to submit all requests for LRSD documents to counsel for LRSD. There is no authority for such broad relief Nor is there a brief in support of the motion. The Court is asked to treat the other brief in the dismissed motion for contempt as its brief for this new action. That is, of course, inapposite. But however it is viewed, there is no basis in law argued for denying class counsel entry upon the very 2 school premises that he is directed by the Court of Appeals, and expected by this Court, to monitor. As Judge Wollman noted in his concurring opinion in the November 14, 1991 Eighth Circuit decision vacating her honor's opinion: \"I view the continuing presence of the Joshua Intervenors as a powerful force to insure that the several school districts adhere to their commitments 'to desegregation.\" Little Rock School District v. Pulaski Countv Special School District, et al., 949 F2d 253, 259 (8tl' Cir., 1991). We submit that our presence is required both to fulfill our class representative obligations and to assure that class concerns regarding implementation of the court orders will be effectively addressed. Messrs. Heller \u0026 Fendley would, and by their motion seek to, effectively limit, if not end, Joshua monitoring of the parties agreement. That is another way by which they advise the LRSD - that it may be brought into compliance. In other words, 'keep Walker out of the schools and the case will end.' They are badly mistaken. The rule of law governs rather than the identity of the litigators. Joshua counsel submit their own affidavits in order to demonstrate their actions and their respect of the Court and its Order, mindful at the same time, of what appears to be the never ending defiance of law by Little Rock School District officials. Joshua requests that the Court schedule an evidentiary hearing upon the motion and thereafter dismiss it. ctfully submitted, W- Walker, P.A. Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 3 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax)  By{}JLi-~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do. hereby state the foregoing response has been sent to all counsel of record on this 4th day of Septeniber, 2001 via United States mfili pasta e prepfild. (_ alker - Bar No. 64046 4 uFILED EASTE:kt g:if~:g COURT ARKANSAS . I  SEP O 4 2001 '-\u003c MEsw f:.. ,.  McCoRM m THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT -~ C( :-  EASTERN DISTRJCT OF ARKANSAS L :  ,..,.__ WESTERN DMSION - --=-\",:, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF No. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOO - ~ i\\'lmeft DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL.  *~ ,1'11:U )l MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERrnE KNIGHT, ET AL. SEP - \u0026 2.m Off\\CEOF: DESEGREGAilON. MOtmOW,\\\\I AFFIDAVIT OF JOY C. SPRINGER ST ATE OF ARKANSAS ) - COUNTY OF ~0YLO {ce, jss. DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS Comes the affi.ant, Joy C. Springer, under oath, and states the following: 1. I am employed by the law firm, John W. Walker, P.A. I direct and engage in that offices school desegregation monitoring activities regarding the three Pulaski county public school districts. 2. I have regularly visited the !sh Instructional Resource Center (\"IRC\") at its present location since it was established as a part of the ongoing monitoring responsibility of the Joshua Intervenors. At times, I have attended meetings at the IRC both at LRSD officials and at my own initiative. My meetings with IRC staff have usually been professional. 3. On some of my monitoring visits, I have been accompanied by other office staff of John 1 W. Walker, P.A. , including lVIr. Walker himself We have all been generally welcomed, upon our meetings and visits, by LRSD officials. 4. I have personal knowledge of the following facts which occurred on August 23, 2001. On the morning of August 23 , 2001, Mr. Walker and I went to the IRC office for a monitoring visit. Prior to our arrival, we discussed visiting with Ms. Joanna Harris, who is in the Little Rock Comprehensive Science and Math Achievement offices (LRCSMA), to obtain a schedule of their activities for the year and to obtain Dr. Bonnie Lesley's vitae which we had requested on August '}J 20'h and August 22nd . 5. Mr. Walker and I rode to the IRC together. Upon arrival to the building, Mr. Walker received a telephone call and he was on the telephone when I exited the vehicle. 6. I entered the building and signed in shortly after 8:00 a.m. There was no one at the reception area. First, I decided to go into Ms. Harris' offices to say hello and obtain the information that Mr. Walker and I had.discussed obtaining. Ms. Harris had not come into her offices. There was no one in her offices. 7. I returned to the hall area, sat down and made some notes. I noticed Ms. Anita Gilliam exit from the offices of Dr. Bonnie Lesley and we (Ms. Gilliam and I) exchanged greetings. 8. After approximately five minutes, Mr. Walker came into the building. We went into the reception area of Dr. Bonnie Lesley's offices and were greeted by Ms. Anita Gilliam. I heard Mr. Walker inform Ms. Gilliam that we were there to pick up a copy of Dr. Lesley's vitae. I heard her indicate that she placed it in the mail the previous day. Mr. Walker then said, \"it should be no problem for you to give us another copy of it\" . Ms. Gilliam, then, after a pause, gave us a copy of the vitae. 2 8. After a quick review of the document, N.fr. Walker then asked, \"Is this all of it.\" And he further stated \"I am sure her vitae is more extensive than this.\" Ms. Gilliam left the reception room, went into Dr. Lesley's office and closed the door. While we waited for Ms. Gilliam to return, I observed Iv.fr. Walker take copies available to the public of the \"standards and benchmarks\" for grades one through eight. 9. Ms: Gillian1 came out of Dr. Lesley's office and informed us that Dr. Lesley was talking to district counsel and that she, Ms. Gilliam, would get back with us shortly. 10. As N.fr. Walker was leaving the office and I remained in the office, N.fr. Walker then asked Ms. Gilliam if there was any information to supplement the instructional division's agenda items that were on the school board's agenda for that night. She did not answer. Mr. Walker then left the office. 11. Ms. Gilliam went into Dr. Lesley's office again and closed the door. I sat down and waited for a few minutes for Ms. Gilliam to come out of Dr. Lesley's office. Ms. Gilliam did not return. 12. I left the reception area of Dr. Lesley's offices and joined N.fr. Walker who was in the hallway. We took our usual course for monitoring and circled the building. 13 . While we were on the math and science hallway, I saw Ms. Gilliam come over to the hall as if she was watching what we were doing. It appeared that she had come over to follow us around the building. I have not previously observed her follow us around the building during previous visits to the IRC. 14. I returned to reception area ofDr. Lesley's offices about ten minutes later at which time Ms. Gilliam told me that the agenda was all the information that was available. I did not 3 ask to speak with Dr. Lesley. However, Dr. Lesley came out of her office and volunteered that she may have copies of the grant proposals and that I may already have them too. She looked at a piece of paper and said they are not on the list of documents that we have provided you and I will get them for you later. I then asked her to let me understand what she was saying. She repeated it and I wrote it down. No other information was requested of Dr. Lesley by me. 15. Mr. Walker was not in the reception area of Dr. Lesley's offices at the time that Dr. Lesley volunteered the information regarding the grant proposals. He was still in the hallways of ) 1 the building. 16. When I left the reception area of Dr. Lesley's offices, I met Mr. Walker in the hallway and we went into the LRCPMSA offices again to see if Ms. Harris had arrived. Upon learning that Ms. Harris was not there, we began to leave the office. As were leaving the office, Ms. Gilliam came into the office and asked if she could help us. Mr. Walker said \"no\", and that ifhe needed help \"he would ask for it.\" He then offered to show her the items which he had in his hands which he obtained from the district's display tables and the reception area of Dr. Lesley's offices. 17. Except for speaking to people, Mr. Walker initiated no further conversation with anyone in Dr. Lesley's offices or the IRC. As we exited the building, Mr. Walker asked me who the lady was corning into the building. I told him I thought it was Ms. Dillingham. He spoke to her and asked if she was Ms. Dillingham and she said \"no.\" We then left the premises of the IRC. 18. With respect to the events which occurred on August 16, 2001 at the offices ofMs. Jo Evelyn Elston, I am also familiar with the facts surrounding that encounter. 19. When we arrived at Ms. Elston's offices on August 16, 2001 , there was no secretary 4 -  in her reception area. In early June, 200 1, when I visited Ms. Elston's offices, there was no secretary present in her outer offices. 20. I was the first person to walk into Ms. Elston's office and as I did so, I said \"hello\" in order to gain the attention of Ms. Elston and Dr. Terrence Roberts. 21 . As I entered the office of Ms. Elston, Ms. Elston and Dr. Terrence Roberts were seated at a table at the back of her office. As I entered the office, both Ms. Elston and Dr. Terrence got up from the table and greeted me and they subsequently greeted :tv.fr. Walker and JJ Ms. Caldwell who came into Ms. Elston's office behind me. Mr. Walker, Ms. Frances Caldwell and I were invited into the offices of Ms. Elston after I got Ms. Elston's attention with my \"hello.\" 22. After exchanging greetings, Ms. Elston exited the room and returned with several chairs in order for Mr. Walker, Ms. Caldwell and myself to be seated. 23 . Mr. Walker immediately indicated to Dr. Roberts that he was required to go through District attorneys in order to ask questions of District administrators. Mr. Walker indicated to Dr. Roberts his concerns regarding African American student enrollment in Advanced Placement (\"AP\") courses and that he (Dr. Roberts) should inquire of District officials including Ms. Elston regarding American African enrollment, recmitment, success and failure in AP courses. Mr. Walker asked Dr. Roberts to specifically inquire regarding the African American student failure rates in AP courses as a result of current district initiatives. Mr. Walker did not tell Dr. Roberts that \"all African American students in AP courses were flunking.\" 24. Mr. Walker did not ask Ms. Elston any questions. She volunteered information as Mr. Walker told Dr. Roberts what his concerns were regarding African American student 5 participation in AP courses. 2!. On Saturday, June 3 0, 2001, while on my way to lunch with 1vir. Walker, I phoned Mr. James Washington on my cellular telephone, as I have routinely telephoned him on numerous occasions at home, to advise him that it looks like we would not be having a cook-out at my house anytime soon because I would be working weekends as a result of Mr. Walker having filed objections to the District's motion for declaration of unitary status. Mr. Washington had previously suggested that I invite him over for a cook-out at my house one weekend. I also told ,, him that we wuld not discuss the case with him without going through district counsel. Mr. Walker asked me to allow him to say \"hello\" to Mr. Washington, I handed him the telephone and he did so. I heard him tell Mr. Washington that he was not to discuss matters involving the case without going through district attorneys. I did not hear what was being said by Mr. Washington. In addition, I did not hear Mr. Walker suggest to Mr. Washington that he testify that he feared for his job, if called to testify. 26. I have no personal knowledge regarding the allegations involving Dr. Don Stewart. I have prepared and read the foregoing statements and they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me SSI N EXPIRES: 17 Zo0 I 6  SEP O 4 2001 IN TIIB UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSiABIES W. McCORMACK, CL~- :-: WESTERN DIVISION E;':--------;L.:::- - -\"''' '' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL RIEciE~ve n DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. g;. ~~ ~L# DEFENDAl~TS INTER VEN ORS INTER VENO RS N.IRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. SEP -6 2001 Offilfl l3t= IDGREG .m . ~~~ AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN W. WALKER STATE OFARKANSAS ) ~OUNTY OF (,J}lAJ)/( e ~ss. Comes affiant, John W. Walker, under oath, and states the following: 1. On August 23 , 2001 at approximately 5:55 p.m., I received a copy of \"Plainti.ff's Motion for Contempt\" wherein the LRSD sought to have me cited for contempt and renewed its earlier motion to have me cited for contempt. It did not, however, seek a show cause order. Despite there being no show cause order entered by the Court or sought by plaintiff, I respectfully request the Court to set this matter for evidentiary hearing and I submit the following statements as ifthere is an Order er;i.tered by the Court to show cause why I should not be cited for contempt. 2. The August 23, 2001 motion relates to events of that day and is supported by two -1- affidavits, one from 1'Is. Anita Gilliam and the other from her supervisor, Dr. Bonnie Lesley. The first motion, though renewed, is still without affidavit or evidentiary support. I wish to reply, however, under oath and do so as follows: 3. On August 20, 2001, I wrote Mr. Clay Fendley, Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark and the co-counsel, Mr. Chris Heller, also of that firm, at least three letters and I spoke with    iV.fr. Fendley at least on one occasion for approximately twenty minutes. I attempted to call him a second time but was informed that he was unavailable for my call. 4.  The first letter, Exhibit A, addressed the issue of our request for information from school principals and I note that we offered twenty additional days to respond to that FOIA. I also riote that I wrote in that letter with respect to district officials whom we sought information from that \"ifwe seek opinions from your primary administrative staff members, we will get them either in that form [ without depositions] or . . . by interrogatories.\" I received no response to this letter from Mr. Fendley. I then wrote Mr. Fendley requesting, \"a copy of Dr. [Bonnie] Lesley's vitae\" noting that I was addressing \"this request to her as well.\" See Exhibit B. At approximately 2:25 p.m., I informed Mr. Fendley that I would seek to obtain a copy of the 2001 budget document from the district, for possible use at the school bo~d meeting on August 23, 200 l, and I noted \"if you determine that I am not entitled to this information, would you kindly inform me ... \"Mr.Fendley did not respond to this letter either. See Exhibit C. 5. Not having heard from Mr. Fendley or Dr. Lesley on August 22, 2001, I wrote Dr. Lesley a two sentence letter. Exhibit D. I asked \"would you please provide me a -2- copy of your vitae by return fax. Thank you for your cooperation.\" 1fr. Fendley was copied with the letter. I did not receive the requested fax response on August 22, 2001 from either N.fr. Fendley or Dr. Bonnie Lesley. Neither of them interposed an objection to my obtaining the information. 6. On the morning of August 23, 2001, shortly after 8:00 a.m., I and Joshua Intervenor  Monitor, Ms. Joy Springer, went to the Instructional Resource Center \"IRC\" located at 30th and Pulaski Streets in Little Rock. We discussed obtaining information from Ms. Vanessa Cleaver's office and obtaining a copy of the vitae ofDr. Bonnie Lesley. I followed Ms. Springer into the IRC building by approximately five minutes. When I entered the building, Ms. Springer was seated in the hallway in front of Dr. Bonnie Lesley's office. We both went into the outer office of Dr. Bonnie Lesley and I spoke with Ms. Anita Gilliam, Dr. Lesley's secretary. The only conversation that took place in that office at that time concerned my request for a copy of the requested vitae. I did not see (\"lay eyes on\") nor talk (\"exchange words with\"), Dr. Bonnie Lesley that morning. Ms. Gilliam informed me that Ms. Gilliam had mailed Dr. Lesley's resume to me the day before. Her two page resume is attached as Exhibit E. Upon seeing that it was only two pages and that it only cited her educational background and work experience, I asked Ms. Gilliam if she had another one that was more comprehensive. My request for Dr. Lesley's vitae was made in order for me to be able to review some of her writings. I had no other way of being informed of her ideas regarding remediation which were being reflected in the policies she was submitting to the LRSD Board for approval. Her resume appeared to be different from those of other ,.., -.J- ) ') professional employees. Her e-mails reflected that she has written extensively and has had other experiences which equip her to be Director of Instruction. The resume that I was given did not appear to meet the District standards. Ms. Gilliam did not engage in any substantive conversation with me at that time or at any time. 7. I did not seek any information from Ms. Gilliam other than the resume ofDr. Lesley 8. -and a,ny documentation that Dr. Lesley intended to present to the school board later that evening. Ms. Gilliam did not respond to me or in my presence to this request. I received on August 22, 2001 an agenda from the LRSD for the next day's board meeting. On the agenda there were several policy proposals from Dr. Lesley: IV A with five pages of an administrative regulation IVA-R; proposed revision to administrative regulation IKEC-R3 ; Credit by Examination with five additional pages; program evaluation agenda for 2001-2002, three pages; weighted credit foruniversity studies courses at Hall High School, two pages; proposed revision to administrative regulation IKC-R: Grade Point Average and Rank in Class, six pages; and, a grant proposal - Teaching United States History, one page. 9. While I was in the office, I asked Ms. Gilliam ifthere was any additional information which was available which supported the enumerated items being submitted by the Instructional Division which were on the 6:00 p.m. agenda that day. I never received a response from Ms. Gilliam to my question. 10. Before I left Ms. Gilliam 's office, I picked up copies addressed to parents and guardians of\"standard's benchmarks\" for grades 1-8. I left Ms. Gilliam's office and walked down the hallways of the IR.C. There were public \"pass outs\" on the tables -4- ------ - - - ---------------------- - ~ which involved the district's schedule, the LRSD's Comprehensive Partnership for Mathematics and Science Achievement, the PRAXIS Series Tests at a Glance for approximately fourteen different programs, and several communications to parents. 11. Dr. Lesley has given an affidavit in support of the district's motion to cite me for contempt. Dr. Lesley indicates that she spoke with me personally. I make this 12.  determination because she speaks in terms of a \"they\" said which includes me. In paragraph four of her affidavit, she appears to indicate that I had a conversation with her. It is clear, however, from a full reading of her affidavit, that she neither spoke with me nor laid eyes upon me on the morning of August 23, 2001. I state that I never saw or spoke with Dr. Lesley on August 23, 2001. The most that can be said of my activity in Dr. Lesley's office was that upon being informed that the requested vitae had been mailed the day before, I asked Anita for another copy of what had allegedly been mailed; that upon being provided the copy, I asked if it was a complete copy; and I asked if there any other writings that supported the department's agenda items on the school board agenda of 6:00 p.m. that day I could have. 13 . When I returned to my office I wrote Ms. Ann Marshall, ODM Monitor, a letter complaining about the district's response and asking her help: \"I am writing this letter to enlist your office's assistance in helping to ensure that the LRSD is fully responsive to citizens' requests for information. If the district will not provide full information on something as simple as a resume, I believe that speaks _to the district's general inclination.\" Exhibit F. A copy of this letter went to Dr. Lesley and to Mr. Chris Heller. 14. After the school board meeting on the evening of August 23, 2001, it appears that Dr. -5- J .!) 15. Lesley updated her vitae. Her letter dated August 23, 2001, Exhibit G, begins as follows: \"You came to the !SH IRC OD August 23, 2001, and requested immediately of my assistant a copy of the resume that we had mailed to you OD Wednesday.\" It appears that the letter dated August 23, 2001, was written after that date. Today, August 27, 2001, I received Exhibit Fin original form from Dr. Lesley. She now  indicates that she has updated her curriculum vitae to a point where it is now 27 pages long and that in order for me to get it, I will have to pay the district $6.75. With respect to the proposals that were for discussion on the board agenda for August 23ni, she has informed me that to review the document and get a copy of it would cost $11 .00; for the Technology Challenged Grant Proposal, $4.50. I may then obtain the documents, apparently without going through l\\lJ.r. Heller and l\\lJ.r. Fendley by bringing a check for $22.25 to Ms. Gilliam. In Dr. Lesley's letter of August 23 rd , as well as in her affidavit, Dr. Lesley does not indicate that I spoke, or sought to speak, with her personally. She acknowledges that I only sought to obtain a document that was or could have been readily available on request to anyone, of which prior notice that I was seeking it was given to her counsel. 16. On August 17, 2001, the Court denied LRSD' s motion without prejudice to cite me for contempt. During the telephone conference, the Court indicated that it would be \"prudent\" to, and in fact, ordered me \"to go through, or at least tell the attorneys what [I was] doing.\" This would prevent misconstruction of my conduct. The Court's Order which was received by me in the morning mail on August 23rd is -6- slightly different from what was spoken during the telephone conference. The Court's Order which was intended to.clarify her previous Order \" . .. directs counsel for Joshua Intervenors to go through counsel for the LRSD when seeking information from the district or district officials and personnel that is pertinent to the case and to inform consel for the LRSD prior to contacting district officials and personnel about matters that are not currently before the Court.\" 17. Exhibit A reflects that if we sought opinions from the district administrators we would do that by interviews or by interrogatories. 18. Exhibit B indicates that I informed and went through Mr. Fendley in order to obtain information from Dr. Lesley, i.e., her vitae. 19. Exhibit C reflects that I went through Mr. Fendley on August 20, 2001, in order to 20. obtain a budget document which was on the August 23 , 2001 agenda. Exhibit D reflects that, after informing and upon not receiving a response from !vfr. Fendley on the third day, I requested from Dr. Lesley a copy of her vitae by return fax. Mr. Fendley interposed no objection to this request. She did not reply. When it was not received by return fax as requested on August 22, 2001, I simply stopped by the IRC to pick it up. Nothing else happened other than that I requested from Anita Gilliam any information that her office had to support the policies to be presented in the public forum later that night and that Ms. Springer and I made a routine monitoring visit of the IRC. 21. For years, the school district has taken the position that it has provided us, in advance of school board meetings, the proposed policies or regulations and back-up information before they were presented to the school board. Dr. Lesley and Dr. -7- Carnine have previously indicated that it was their belief and purpose that I should have, and that the district would provide such information to me at least several weeks, before the proposals were presented to the school board for action. 22. The district's counsel were aware of this commitment. Moreover, the district's counsel were aware that I intended to appear at the school board meeting on the  evening on August 23rd . See Exhibit H. I wrote :tvir. Heller that day, August 23, 2001 , asking ifhe perceived the Court's Order as restricting any discussion between me and the board members later that day. See Exhibit H. 23. The LRSD filed a motion on August 16, 2001 seeking to cite me for contempt. It now renews that motion. In doing so, the district has failed to provide either affidavit of other evidentiary support of the allegations in the motion. The renewal of the motion does not make it legally sufficient to put me on notice of what it is that I am specifically charged with having done. I proceed, however, to respond by this affidavit to those allegations under penalty of perjury. There are three allegations stated in the first motion. I address them seriatim: a) To the allegation that I confronted Ms. Jo Evelyn Elston with allegations that \"all African American students in advanced placement (AP) courses were flunking,\" I deny that allegation. Dr. Terrence Roberts, a consultant recommended by the Joshua Intervenors, was in a meeting Ms. Jo Evelyn Elston at approximately 11 :30 a.m., August 16, 2001 . I was scheduled to meet with him during the day. I had previously written him and informed him that I \"would like to be involved in your meetings with Dr. Washington and Dr. Lesley.\" See Exhibit I. I was unable to meet with him -8- 'j lj during his meetings with either of those persons. When I caught up with him he was at Ms. Elston's office. Ms. Elston invited me and Ms. Springer into the office. A law clerk named Francis Caldwell, who accompanied us to the meeting, was also invited in. During the meeting, I informed Dr. Roberts that I was not to elicit information from any district officials and then I proceeded to tell him some of the concerns that  we had regarding the treatment of African American students that I wished for him to address with Ms. Elston and the other administrators as he sought to work with the school district. My conversations were primarily expressions of concern to Dr. Roberts regarding his role in relating to school administrators. I did discuss with him the treatment of African American students not only in advanced placement but in the district as well. At no time did Ms. Elston indicated that I interrupted any meeting and she appeared to welcome my discussions with Dr. Roberts. Ms. Elston and I have been personal friends since college, and we are neighbors. Dr. Roberts has provided a written statement regarding the alleged events. See Exhibit J. (The signed copy from Dr. Roberts is being submitted to the Court). b) To the allegation that I called Mr. James Washington, LRSD Ombudsman on\\ June 30, 2001, and suggested that \"Washington testify that he feared for his job ifhe told the truth,\" I deny having done that. Mr. Washington did not testify at the Court hearing that he feared for his job ifhe told the truth. Mr. Washington, however, has visited my office on scores of occasions in response to complaints that we have directed to him in his role as Ombudsperson. During several of those meetings he complained about his treatment by the district and that he did not feel that he had the -9- full support of Mr. Junious Babbs in the execution of his job duties. At court, as I recall his testimony, he confirmed that lack of full support. He indicated shortcomings with respect to his office space, staff and limitations upon his investigations, especially about complaints that emanated from Pulaski Heights :Middle School. Mr. Washington, I believe, says different things to different people at different times  depending upon his view of the advantage to be obtained by such expressions. c) To the allegation that on July 19, 2001 I attempted to intimidate Dr. Don Stewart by walking into a closed door meeting in his office, I deny that. I am not certain of where Dr. Don Stewart's office is located. I went into a room where he and Mr. Junious Babbs were present, which may have been his office, exchanged a few pleasantries and left. I do not recall either ofus being seated. Absolutely nothing took place where I sought to obtain information, verbal or written, from a school district official. I further suggest that any intimidation or intended intimidation ofDr. Don Stewart is impossible due, if for no other reason, to Dr. Stewart's high degree of self-confidence to say the least. I do not believe that he will testify, under oath, by recitation of any factual scenario, that I have ever sought to intimidate him. 24. With respect to both motions for contempt, I deny that I either have contempt for the Court or have acted in a manner contemptuous of any Court Order, Court Directive or Code of Professional Conduct. The contrary is true. 25 . The district acknowledges that as counsel for Joshua, I have a duty to engage in monitoring activity regarding class activity. The motion for contempt, I believe, is an -10- attempt to frustrate our monitoring. I have read the foregoing statements and they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me ~ay of~ , 2001. / ~)}1 {2 IJ-\u0026u MY CO,SSION EXPIRES: 17 /zc7,.13 I NefT YPUBLIC ........ ~ ,, l_. j . . \\ ~ , . .._..'.I.:..~.. .  ' ; -11- J JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. JOHNW. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS  "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_102","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2001-09","2001-10","2001-11","2001-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/102"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant.\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION REC IVcD OCT l 2001 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of ADE's Project Management Tool for September, 2001 . Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Attorney Genera 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-3643 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, certify that on September 28, 2001, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 ~~~ ' Marl\u0026lt;Aagemeier ~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KA THERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS AD~SPROJECTMANAGEMENTTOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 Based 2n the information a\"'.ailabl~ atAugust,,31,,r2001Jlie Ap~~lcuiatetj th~ Equalization Funding for FY 01/02, subje~ o penoaic ac.1Justmffl1fs. 8. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 Based on the information available at August 31, 2001, the ADE calculated for FY 01/02, subject to periodic adjustments. C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 On August 31, 2001, distributions of State Equalization Funding for FY 01/02 were as follows: LRSD - $4,955,848 NLRSD - $2,634,491 PCSSD - $5,093,139 The allotments of State Equalization Funding calculated for FY 01/02 at August 31, 2001, subject to periodic adjustments, were as follows: LRSD - $54,514,335 NLRSD - $28,979,401 PCSSD - $56,024,532 D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 Based on the information available, the ADE calculated at August 31 , 2001 for FY 01/02, subject to periodic adjustments. E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 Base'c:\"r\"o n the information available, the ADE calculated at August 31, 2001 for . FY 01/02, subject to periodic adjustments. It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 Based_ on the information available, the ADE calculated at August 31, 2001 for FY 01/02, subject to periodic adjustments.  G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 Distributions for FY 01/02 at August 31, 2001, totaled $974,807. Allotment calculated for FY 01/02 was $10,722,873 subject to periodic adjustments. H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 Calculated for FY 01/02, subject to periodic adjustments. I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 oYsfr-il?lffF\u0026amp;-.~rofE'0/01~at A(igt.Tgf3-f, 2001 ~ta: LRSD - $3,839,341 NLRSD - $1,950,805 PCSSD - $8,065,184 The a~ tments calcu lated for FY 00/01 at August 31 , 2001, subject to perio~ic adjustments, were: LRSD - $3,839,341 NLRSD - $1 ,950,805 PCSSD- $8,065,184 J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, December of each year. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 In September 2000, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 00/01 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 In January 2001 , General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 00/01 to the Districts. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 In January 2001 , General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 00/01 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At February 28, 2001, the following had been paid for FY 00/01 : LRSD - $2,197,201 .00 NLRSD - $437,233.34 PCSSD - $1,184,784.28 M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In July 1999, each district submitted an estimated budget for the 99/00 school year. In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1 ,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD- 14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD-12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD-6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. The ADE accepted a bid on 16 buses for the Magnet and M/M transportation program. The buses will be delivered after July 1, 1999 and before August 1, 1999. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nPCSSD - 6. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724,165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001. The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two type C 47 passenger buses and fourteen type C 65 passenger buses. Prices on these units are $43,426.00 each on the 47 passenger buses, and $44,289.00 each on the 65 passenger buses. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001, the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. 0 . Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) Q. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. S. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to N LRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) U. V. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97 /98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01 . Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 01/02. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01. Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01/02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01/02. 9 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education, and the Districts and filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 10 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sentto the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97/98. 11 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 12 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCS SD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21, 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. 13 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001 . The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. On July 26, 2001, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. 14 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 15 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV. E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. C. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV. E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 16 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81 st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 17 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. 18 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation.  In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11 , 2001 at 9:00 a.m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 19 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11, in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. TjlE\nADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Gommittee is reviewing all relevant laws or reg ulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski ounty school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-8 at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. 20 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its com.mitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 Ongoing C. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 Ongoing D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project ManagementTool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 21 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 At each regular monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, the Board is provided copies of the most recent Project Management Tool (PMT) and an executive summary of the PMT for their review and approval. Only activities that are in addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data collection process. Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT. In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 22 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the ADE's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 23 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regularoversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the ADE's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 24 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 25 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 26 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21, 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 27 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11 , 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11 , 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) On July 9, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. 2 9 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31 , 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCA/COE peer team visits. 30 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined..for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 31 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Leaming Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97/98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted. 32 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Leaming, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement'' at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 33 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. D. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI. F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 34 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on a project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa, the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Dawson Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys. Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review. In December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31 , 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children. Participants received training from national experts who outlined specific steps that promote and improve the education of black children. On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the ADE's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. 3 5 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NCA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservicetraining. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. In November 1997, the field service representatives attended the Governor's Partnership Workshop to discuss how to tie the committee's activities with the ECOE process. 36 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) In March 1998, the field service representatives attended a school improvement conference and conducted workshops on team building and ECOE team visits. Staff development seminars on Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement are scheduled for March 23, 1998 and March 27, 1998 for the Districts. In April 1998, the Districts participated in an ADE seminar to aid them in evaluating and improving student achievement. In August 1998, the Field Service Staff attended inservice to provide further assistance to schools, i.e., Title I Summer Planning Session, ADE session on Smart Start, and the School Improvement Workshops. All schools and districts in Pulaski County were invited to attend the \"Smart Start\" Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Start\" is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. Representatives from all three districts attended. On January 21, 1998, the ADE provided staff development for the staff at Oak Grove Elementary School designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement. Using achievement data from Oak Grove, educators reviewed trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. On February 24, 1999, the ADE provided staff development for the administrative staff at Clinton Elementary School regarding analysis of achievement data. On February 15, 1999, staff development was rescheduled for Lawson Elementary School. The staff development program was designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement using achievement data from Lawson, educators reviewed the components of the Arkansas Smart Initiative, trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. Student Achievement Workshops were rescheduled for Southwest Jr. High in the Little Rock School District, and the Oak Grove Elementary School in the Pulaski County School District. 37 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Leaming Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. 38 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action ,\" and \"Creating Leaming Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding , \"The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. 3 9 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training, Dr. Reynolds addressed the following: 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming, 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, (i.e., parents, teachers, students), 6) how to correctly interpret scores. This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACTAAP Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark Professionai Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following training has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. On March 8, 2000, training was conducted for the Southwest Middle School in Little Rock, on ADD. Six people attended the training. There was follow-up training on Learning and Reading Styles on March 26. This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. 40 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) On September 7, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Chicot Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Karen Sabo, Kindergarten Teacher\nMelissa Gleason, Paraprofessional\nCurtis Mayfield, P.E. Teacher\nLisa Poteet, Speech Language Pathologist\nJane Harkey, Principal\nKathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Coordinator\nAlice Phillips, Occupational Therapist. On September 15, 2000, the Governor's Developmental Disability Coalition Conference presented Assistive Technology Devices \u0026amp; Services. This was held at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On September 19, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Jefferson Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Melissa Chaney, Special Education Teacher\nBarbara Barnes, Special Education Coordinator\na Principal, a Counselor, a Librarian, and a Paraprofessional.  On October 6, 2000, Integrating Assistive Technology Into Curriculum was presented at a conference in the Hot Springs Convention Center. Presenters were: Bryan Ayers and Aleecia Starkey. Speech Language Pathologists from LRSD and NLRSD attended. On October 24, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On October 25 and 26, 2000, Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities for the LRSD at J. A. Fair High School was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. The participants were: Susan Chapman, Special Education Coordinator\nMary Steele, Special Education Teacher\nDenise Nesbit, Speech Language Pathologist\nand three Paraprofessionals. On November 14, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On November 17, 2000, training was conducted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Special Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. 41 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) On January 9, 2001 , Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001 , Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell, Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurig, Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001 . Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield, ASERC\nMary Steele, J. A. Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres, Easter Seals Outreach. This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning, and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios. The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and reading. On February 12-23, 2001 , the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel trained Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 10 regional sites. Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided training for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session. The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 42 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) On March 15, 2001 , there was a meeting at the ADE to plan professional development for staff who work with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students. A $30,000 grant has been created to provide LEP training at Chicot Elementary for a year, starting in April 2001 . A $40,000 grant was created to provide a Summer English as Second Language (ESL) Academy for the LRSD from June 18 through 29, 2001 . Andre Guerrero from the ADE Accountability section met with Karen Broadnax, ESL Coordinator at LRSD, Pat Price, Early Childhood Curriculum Supervisor at LRSD, and Jane Harkey, Principal of Chicot Elementary. On March 1-2 and 8-29, 2001 , ADE staff performed the following activities: processed registration for April 2 and 3 Alternate Portfolio Assessment video conference quarterly meeting\nanswered questions about Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) and LEP Alternate Portfolio Assessment by phone from schools and Education Service Cooperatives\nand signed up students for alternate portfolio assessment from school districts. On March 6, 2001 , ADE staff attended a Smart Step Technology Leadership Conference at the State House Convention Center. On March 7, 2001 , ADE staff attended a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Regional Math Framework Meeting about the Consensus Project 2004. On March 8, 2001 , there was a one-on-one conference with Carole Villarreal from Pulaski County at the ADE about the LEP students with portfolios. She was given pertinent data, including all the materials that have been given out at the video conferences. The conference lasted for at least an hour. On March 14, 2001 , a Test Administrator's Train ing Session was presented specifically to LRSD Test Coordinators and Principals. About 60 LRSD personnel attended. The following meetings have been conducted with educators in the three districts in Pulaski County since July 2000. On July 10-13, 2000 the ADE provided Smart Step training. The sessions covered Standards-based classroom practices. 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) On July 19-21 , 2000 the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were 200 teachers from across the state in attendance. On August 14-31 , 2000 the ADE presented Science Smart Start Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This will provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. On September 5, 2000 the ADE held an Eisenhower Informational meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators. The purpose of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is to prepare teachers, school staff, and administrators to help all students meet challenging standards in the core academic subjects. A summary of the program was presented at the meeting. On November 2-3, 2000 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching. This presented curriculum and activity workshops. More than 1200 attended the conference. On November 6, 2000 there was a review of Science Benchmarks and sample model curriculum. A committee of 6 reviewed and revised a drafted document. The committee was made up of ADE and K-8 teachers. On November 7-10, 2000 the ADE held a meeting of the Benchmark and End of Course Mathematics Content Area Committee. Classroom teachers reviewed items for grades 4, 6, 8 and EOC mathematics assessment. There were 60 participants. On December 4-8, 2000 the ADE conducted grades 4 and 8 Benchmark Scoring for Writing Assessment. This professional development was attended by approximately 750 teachers. On December 8, 2000 the ADE conducted Rubric development for Special Education Portfolio scoring. This was a meeting with special education supervisors to revise rubric and plan for scoring in June. On December 8, 2000 the ADE presented the Transition Mathematics Pilot Training Workshop. This provided follow-up training and activities for fourth-year mathematics professional development. On December 12, 2000 the ADE presented test administrators training for midyear End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcasts on April 2-3, 2001 . Administration of the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy took place on April 23-27, 2001 . Administration of the End of Course Algebra and Geometry Exams took place on May 2-3, 2001 . Over 1,100 Arkansas educators attended the Smart Step Growing Smarter Conference on July 10 and 11, 2001 , at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The Smart Step effort seeks to provide intense professional development for teachers and administrators at the middle school level, as well as additional materials and assistance to the state's middle school teachers. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the first keynote address on \"The Character-Centered Teacher''. Debra Pickering, an education consultant from Denver, Colorado, presented the second keynote address on \"Characteristics of Middle Level Education\". Throughout the Smart Step conference, educators attended breakout sessions that were grade-specific and curriculum area-specific. Pat Davenport, an education consultant from Houston, Texas, delivered two addresses. She spoke on \"A Blueprint for Raising Student Achievement\". Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. Over 1,200 Arkansas teachers and administrators attended the Smart Start Conference on July 12, 2001 , at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Start is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the keynote address. The day featured a series of 15 breakout sessions on best classroom practices. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. On July 18-20, 2001, the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were approximately 300 teachers from across the state in attendance. 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) The ADE and Harcourt Educational Measurement conducted Stanford 9 test administrator training from August 1-9, 2001 . The trarning was held at Little Rock, Jonesboro, Fort Smith, ForrestCity,Springdale, Mountain Home, Prescott, and Monticello. Another session was held at the ADE on August 30, for those who were unable to attend August 1-9. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by video conference at the Education Service Cooperatives and at the ADE from 9:00 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on September 5, 2001 . The ADE released the performance of all schools on the Primary and Middle Level Benchmark Exams on September 5, 2001. 46 VII. TEST VALIDATION A. Using a collaborative approach, the ADE will select and contract with an independent bias review service or expert to evaluate the Stanford 8, or other monitoring instruments used to measure disparities in academic achievement between black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date March, 1995 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 On March 29, 1995, letters were sent to four national experts about conducting a test bias validation of the Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition, Form K (SAT-8). Dr. Paul Williams, Deputy Director of Educational Testing Service (ETS), contacted the ADE in April of 1995 concerning the proposal for validating the SAT-8 test. The ADE requested that Dr. Williams conduct a validity study of test items used in the SAT-8. Dr. Williams submitted a final proposal for his services. The ADE Bias Review Test Committee met Friday, July 7, 1995, and approved Dr. William's contract proposal. The final contract was forwarded to Dr. Williams for his signature. The contract was signed in August 1995, thereby, completing this goal. B. By April 1994, establish a bias review committee to oversee the bias review process, and invite representatives of the Districts and parties to meet with the bias review committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 Complete. ADE established a Bias Review Committee in April 1994. In accordance with the Implementation Plan, representatives from the Districts and the parties were invited to attend and participate in this and all meetings of the Bias Review Committee. C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. 1. Projected Ending Date March 1995 and ongoing 47 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 Dr. Paul Williams met with the staff of the Psychological Corporation to review their methods and procedures. In August 1995, he met with the staff at Georgia State University to review the statistical methods that would be used in the analysis. Dr. Williams reported difficulty with the bias-review study in receiving the names of the bias panel and the complete SAT-8 data set from the Psychological Corporation. Dr. Williams submitted an invoice totaling $8,961 for Task I activities of the SAT-8 validity study for partial fulfillment of the test validation study. On December 6, 1995, a contract extension for Dr. Williams was reviewed by the Legislative Council. In January 1996, he indicated that he was in the final stages of the test validation, and the ADE was presented a draft report in March 1996. In May 1996, Dr. Williams stated that the wrong data sets were sent to him by the Psychological Corporation resulting in Task 3 having to be redone. A new draft of the final report was received by the ADE in July 1996. In August 1996, copies of the test validation report were provided to the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team for their review. On September 10, 1996, the LRSD notified the ADE that they had reviewed the test validation report and would like to meet with the ADE to discuss the report. The ADE Director indicated that he would schedule a meeting with the LRSD to discuss the report. In October 1996, historical files and data were provided to the ADE Director, the ADE Assistant Director for Technical Services, and the ADE Assistant Director for Planning and Curriculum for their review in preparation for a meeting with the LRSD regarding the validity study. Test validation procedures by the expert have been completed. A recommendation was drafted proposing the use of the SAT-8 by the ADE as the validated test for monitoring. The ADE is presently working to arrange a meeting with the Administration of the LRSD to discuss the test validation study. Effective September 22, 1997, the State Board of Education hired a new Director of the General Education Division, which should allow the ADE to move forward in this matter. 48 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) In October 1997, the GED Director was updated on the history of the test validation process to provide the Director with background information in preparation for a meeting with the LRSD. In February 1998, ADE staff met with senior staff members to discuss the test validation and appropriate test scores for consideration by the LRSD. The ADE Director met with the Superintendent of the LRSD to discuss test validation issues. In June 1998, the ADE Director directed the Assistant Director for Accountability to recommend staff to discuss how the ADE would measure LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness thresholds of the Settlement Agreement. Plans were made to meet with the staff Tuesday, June 30, 1998. The Test Validation Committee met on June 30, 1998, and discussed the following: 1. The appropriateness of the use of scaled scores on the SAT-8 test as the metric for assessing LRSD compliance with the loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement\nand 2. The need for an independent analysis of LRSD students' test scores to determine compliance or noncompliance with loan forgiveness standard, and who would bear the cost of such an independent analysis. The Test Validation Committee met on September 10, 1998, to review recent correspondence from LRSD and to further discuss issues related to the loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement. A follow-up administrative meeting was held on October 13, 1998, to discuss issues related to the test validation process. Participants included Tim Gauger, Assistant Attorney General, Dr. Charity Smith, Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Frank Anthony, Assistant Director for Accountability. A meeting was scheduled with Dr. Les Carnine, LRSD Superintendent and Mr. Ray Simon, ADE Director, regarding Test Validation and loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement on May 12, 1999. 49 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) On June 14, 1999, the State Board of Education was briefed on the status of LRSD's refusal to make principal and interest payments into escrow as required by the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement and related documents. The Board requested that a draft motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement be prepared and submitted to the Board for review and discussion at the Board's next regularly scheduled meeting. On July 12, 1999, the State Board of Education authorized the filing of a motion to compel LRSD to make interest and principal payments into escrow pursuant to the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The State Board of Education instructed the Attorney General's Office to file a motion by March 1, 2000 if a determination is made that the LRSD is not in compliance with Section 6 B of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement regarding the establishment and funding of the escrow account in the loan provision section. On May 8, 2000, the Assistant Director of Accountability was directed by the Director of Education to contact Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement Company about the possibility of conducting a research study on the standardized test composite scores from 1990 through 1999 of LRSD (excluding special education students). The Test Selection Committee met on May 23, 2000, at the ADE and discussed ways to measure LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness threshold of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. An update on the progress with Harcourt Brace was made at that time. Harcourt Brace has been contacted about conducting an initial research report on LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness threshold of the settlement agreement. This report will review all composite scores since 1990 of LRSD's black and white students (excluding special education students). The purpose of the report is to determine if at any time from Spring 1990 to Fall 1999 did the composite scores of LRSD's black students ( excluding special education students) reach 90% or greater of the composite scores of LRSD's white students (excluding special education students) on the State mandated norm-referenced test. Company representatives will advise the ADE of the cost and feasibility of producing the report by May 31 , 2000. If the report indicates that LRSD has not meet the loan forgiveness requirements of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement, an additional analysis of the Fall 2000 standardized tests results will be made. 50 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) Harcourt Brace indicated that they would be able to provide the data, but indicated that analysis of the data should be done by an independent consultant. The search for an independent consultant has been undertaken. On February 12, 2001, the ADE Director provided the State Board of Education with a special update on desegregation activities. 51 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING A. Through an interactive process with representatives of desegregating districts, identify in-service training needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. B. Develop in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. C. Implement in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 In April 1995, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee were provided an overview of the Scott Alternative Learning Center's operation and met with students and staff. In May 1995, the Districts were in the process of self-assessment and planning for fall staff development. 52 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) The Districts worked on staff development to be incorporated into their fall 95/96 preschool calendars. The uniqueness of each district's needs and their schools was considered in the planning by utilizing the results of needs assessment instruments. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 13, 1995 to plan for an ADE administered Classroom Management grant. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 19, 1995 to finalize the Classroom Management grant proposal. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on October 24, 1995 to discuss program and staff development evaluation models that might be available to the Districts. On November 15, 1995, the ADE met with an ODM representative to discuss the progress the ADE had made in attaining the objectives outlined in the Implementation Plan with regard to inservice training. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on November 21, 1995 to discuss upcoming training events and various NLR programs that focus on non-academic needs. A new program consisting of placing a graduate student of social work, a field supervisor, and a DHS worker in the district at no cost to the district was discussed. Additionally, NLR provided an overview of their program for credit deficient students. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on December 19, 1995 to discuss information dealing with ways to broaden the perspective of multicultural education. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on January 17, 1996 to discuss proposed changes in the standards regarding media centers and NLRSD's staff development strategic planning committee. The committee reviewed a video on diversity produced by the Arkansas Elementary Principals Association. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 21 , 1996 to discuss the implications of budget cuts on staff development programs and PCSSD's request for unitary status for their staff development program. They also discussed the need for computer literacy, technology training, and acquisition of hardware and software by the Districts. 53 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 27, 1996 to discuss available resources concerning sexual harassment. ADE regulations in relation to staff members attending professional association conferences as well as the district staff development and potential sites for training seminars were also discussed. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on April 30, 1996 to discuss the reconfiguring of Jacksonville Junior High, PCSSD professional development schedules, and APSCN on-line time lines. A tour of the Washington Magnet school was also conducted. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee received a demonstration of UALR's Baum Decision Support Center's capabilities regarding consensus and planning on May 29, 1996. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee did not meet during September, October, and November 1996 because of scheduling conflicts and the extended medical leave of the ADE liaison. On December 18, 1996, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met to discuss the linkage between the Implementation Plan, staff development, and student achievement. On January 21 , 1997, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met and discussed sharing middle school strategies and the Districts' training catalogs. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 25, 1997 to discuss their current staff development programs and an overview of the relationship of their current programs with their desegregation plans. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 26, 1997 to observe the Great Expectations Program. The principal and mentor teachers provided information on the components and philosophy of the program, and students demonstrated selected components. The PCSSD may adopt the program for selected schools in their district. The committee was provided with an update of pertinent information on resources available to the Districts. The committee decided that the ADE liaison to the committee would gather documentation of completed staff development directly from the Districts, instead of the Districts providing this information at the committee meetings. 54 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) New information on teacher licensure and rules and regulations was shared with the Tri-District Staff Development Committee at their April 1997 meeting. A report was presented to the committee on information from the Arkansas Council for Social Studies about an October 1997 meeting on integrated curriculum. The Districts will provide principal retreats this summer as a part of their staff development. The PCSSD will sponsor a renowned speaker on strategies to serve at risk youth in August 1997 in which the committee is invited to attend. The LRSD shared survey results from a pilot administration to four teachers in each district. The survey found the sample to be strong in content but lacking in context and process. Plans to address these needs will be developed. In another survey to certified and non-certified LRSD staff, stress management was the major concern. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on May 14, 1997 to participate in a teleconference with the five 1996 awardees of the National Awards Program for Model for Professional Development. The PCSSD shared their summer and fall staff development catalog with the members. The committee will reconvene in the fall of the 97/98 school year. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee is scheduled to meet on September 30, 1997 to discuss collaborative actions for FY 97/98. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 30, 1997 to discuss their staff development for the 1997/1998 school year. The PCSSD had a pre-school in-service for the faculty, and the LRSD conducted a Principals Academy with an expert on the math and science initiative which lasted several days. The NLRSD is providing staff development by satellite. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on October 28, 1997. The LRSD and NLRSD shared some of their staff development course offerings with the committee, and the PCSSD discussed ways of optimizing opportunities for staff development with specific emphasis on the junior high school conflict resolution training. In November 1997, the Lead Planner provided technical assistance to Central High School staff regarding data disaggregation, test score analysis and ways to improve student achievement. 55 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on November 25, 1997 to discuss the Standards for Staff Development. The LRSD will begin providing technology training to their employees in January by utilizing business teachers. Additionally, they discussed a collaborative venture of the Districts involving a workshop from Chicago on a program called \"Great Expectations.\" The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on December 16, 1997 to discuss technology plans, strategies for obtaining information currently being provided to the education cooperatives, scheduling of Arkansas history, and the development of a comprehensive list of locations available for staff development. Members agreed to bring information on available locations to the January meeting and have set a tentative completion date for the project of May 1998. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on January 27, 1998 to share information for developing a comprehensive list of locations available for staff development. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 24, 1998 to work on the development of the list of locations available for staff development. The committee also discussed the meeting on student achievement sponsored by the ADE for the Districts, principals' staff development in the Districts and emphasis on improving achievement as reflected on the SA T-9. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 19, 1998 to discuss the math and science grant received by the LRSD, the Districts' inservice calendars for August, TESA and Student-Team Learning trainers, and team building for staff. The ADE Deputy Director is scheduled to discuss ways the committee can strengthen their relationship with the regional cooperatives at their May meeting. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on April 27, 1998 to discuss their proposal for involvement with the regional cooperatives. The ADE Deputy Director is scheduled to discuss committee's concerns regarding their relationship with the regional cooperatives at their next meeting. 56 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Thursday, May 21 , 1998, in the Instructional Resources Center at Little Rock School District. Dr. Woodrow Cummins, ADE Deputy Director, joined the group to discuss ways to develop a closer connection with the Education Service Cooperatives. He also discussed other issues concerning Tri-District Staff Development. Tentative plans were made to meet with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their next regular meeting. The next Central Office meeting will be at 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 29, 1998, in the PCSSD. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee will attend the Educational Cooperative Teacher Center Coordinators' meeting September 1, 1998, in the ADE auditorium. The next regular meeting of the committee is tentatively set for 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 29, 1998, in the PCSSD Central Office. The Tri-County Staff Development Committee met Monday, August 24, 1998, at PCSSD central office with four members present: Marion Woods, LRSD\nDoug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nand Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Topics of discussion included the September 1 meeting scheduled with the regional cooperatives' teacher center coordinators\nthe staff development task force on which Marion Woods is serving\nthe property tax issue\nand various mathematics and reading programs being used in the districts. The committee met Tuesday, September 1, 1998, with the Teacher Center Coordinators, at which time Dr. Woody Cummins presented. Six Tri-District Staff Development Committee members were present: Marion Woods, LRSD\nDoug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nDana Chadwick and Estelle Crawford, NLRSD\nBetty Gale Davis, ADE. The next committee meeting will be 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 24, 1998, at the Little Rock District Instructional Resources Center. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Thursday, September 24, 1998, at the Instructional Resources Center, Little Rock, with five present: Marion Woods and Dr. Bonnie Lesley, LRSD\nDoug Ask, PCSSD\nDana Chadwick, NLRSD\nand Dr. Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Topics of discussion included the meeting with the regional cooperatives' teacher center coordinators\nthe staff development task force on which Marion Woods is serving and the NSCI training\ntraining provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)\ntraining provided by Casio\nand the proposal of a Principals Academy. 57 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) Doug Ask will serve as representative to the October 6, 1998 meeting of the Teacher Center Coordinators. He will submit to Donna Harris, president of the group, a request for one other member of the Tri-County Committee (Dana Chadwick) to attend the meeting. Representatives for future meetings (second Tuesday of each month) will be: Marion Woods, November\nMary Mcclendon, December\nDana Chadwick, January. The next committee meeting will be 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, October 13, 1998, at the North Little Rock School District Central Office. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on Tuesday, October 13, 1998, in the NLRSD Administration Building. Doug Ask represented the committee at the Teacher Center Coordinators' meeting in Fayetteville, October 6. He shared with the Tri-District Committee information regarding the upcoming NSCI/Smart Start Training. James Smith spoke with the group about Amendment 4. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee also met with the Teacher Center Coordinators, Wednesday, October 28. Doug Ask, Marion Woods, and Esther Crawford were trained as facilitators, October 29, for the initial Smart Start Summit to be held November 9-12, 1998. Marion Woods will represent the committee at the next regular Teacher Center Coordinators' meeting, Tuesday, November 3, 10:00 a.m. at the ADE. The next Tri-District Committee meeting will be at 9:00 a.m., November 10, in the PCSSD Administration Building. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met several times with the Teacher Center Coordinators in preparation for the Smart Start Summit. During the Smart Start Summit, they served as facilitators. The meeting planned for November 10 was postponed due to the conflict with the Summit. Doug Ask, Marion Woods, and Esther Crawford met with the Teacher Center Coordinators on Tuesday, December 1, 1998, for the regular monthly meeting. Principal topics discussed were the Smart Start Initiative and Principals' Institute. The next meeting of the Teacher Center Coordinators is scheduled for January 6, 1999, 9:00 a.m., in the ADE Auditorium. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee will meet at 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, December 8, 1998, at the Little Rock School District Instructional Resources Center. 5 8 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) Doug Ask, PCSSD\nMarion Woods, LRSD\nand Esther Crawford, NLRSD, met with the Teacher Center Coordinators on Tuesday, December 1, 1998, for the regular monthly meeting. Principal topics discussed were the Smart Start Initiative and Principals' Institute. The Teacher Center Coordinators held their monthly meeting on January 6, 1999, 9:00 a.m., in the ADE Auditorium, with Doug Ask, Marion Woods, and Esther Crawford in attendance. At the January meeting, the primary focus was on the Smart Start Initiative. Dates for the future committee meetings have been tentatively scheduled to coincide with meetings with the Teacher Center Coordinators. Due to the Tri-District Committee's involvement with the Smart Start Initiative, no formal meeting of the committee was held in January. Members of the TriDistrict Staff Development Committee met with Teacher Center Coordinators, January 6 and 25, 1999, preparing for and facilitating Smart Start activities. Dates for future meetings have been tentatively scheduled to coincide with meetings of Teach er Center Coordinators. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Wednesday, February 17, 1999, at the Best Western lnntowne with four members in attendance. Most of the discussion centered on Smart Start and Character Centered Teaching. A March meeting date was not determined. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting, April 6, 1999, at the ADE. Much of the meeting centered on the Smart Start Initiative and the Getting Smarter Summer Conference to be held in Hot Springs, July 28- 31, 1999. The next meeting of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee will be May 11 , 1999, at the Northeast Arkansas Educational Cooperative, Walnut Ridge. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting, Tuesday, May 11 , 1999, at the Northeast Arkansas Educational Cooperative, Walnut Ridge, with Mary McClendon, PCSSD, Marion Woods, LRSD, Esther Crawford, NLRSD, and Janinne Riggs, ADE, attending. Much of the meeting centered on the Smart Start Initiative. The next meeting was scheduled as a retreat, June 7-9, 1999, at Hot Springs. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators for their annual retreat, June 7-9, 1999, at Hot Springs. The next regular meeting will be in September, the date and place to be announced later. Summer activities will include the Getting Smarter Conference. 59 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of September 30, 2001 (Continued) Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met during the Getting Smarter Conference, July 28-31, 1999, at Hot Springs. In collaboration with the Teacher Center Coordinators, those participating in the conference as facilitators were: Doug Ask, PCSSD\nEsther Crawford, NLRSD\nand Marion Woods, LRSD. The next regular meeting will be in September, the date and place to be announced later. Target, Teach, and Test for Student Success, a workshop aimed at improving interpretation of test data and applying that knowledge toward more effective lesson planning, was adapted for presentation in conjunction with the Multicultural Institute. Members of the Standards Assurance Unit (Dee Cox, Betty Gale Davis, Bob Maddox, and Lonzo Gatlin) presented an all-day workshop (Target, Teach, and Test for Student Success) for Pulaski County Special School District in connection with the Multicultural Institute, July 27, 1999. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, September 7, 1999, at the ADE, with five members in attendance: Doug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nEsther Crawford, NLRSD\nMaron Woods, LRSD\nand Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Discussion included Smart Start activities and performance assessment. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. The next meeting will be Tuesday, October 5, 1999, at the ADE. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, October 5, 1999 at the ADE. Discussion included middle level training (LRSD), inservice for administrators in retreat (PCSSD), and Smart Start activities. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. The next meeting will be November 2, 1999 at the ADE. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, November 2, 1999 at the ADE. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. The next meeting will be December 7, at the ADE. The December meeting was canceled due to conflicts in scheduling. The TriDistrict Staff Development Committee will hold its next meeting January 3, 2000 at the ADE. The Committee continues to work in cooperation with the Teacher Center Coordina\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"hbcula_becu_21","title":"Voice of the Wildcats Newsletter, September 2001","collection_id":"hbcula_becu","collection_title":"Bethune-Cookman University Digital Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Florida, Volusia County, Panama Beach, 28.86832, -81.22778"],"dcterms_creator":["Bethune-Cookman University"],"dc_date":["2001-09"],"dcterms_description":["The student newsletter of Bethune-Cookman College, now Bethune-Cookman University, highlighting student voices, campus and community activities, and current events."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American universities and colleges","African American students","Campus life","College student newspapers and periodicals","Civil rights movements"],"dcterms_title":["Voice of the Wildcats Newsletter, September 2001"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Library Alliance"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://hbcudigitallibrary.auctr.edu/digital/collection/becu/id/21"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["All rights to images are held by the respective holding institution. This image is posted publicly for non-profit educational uses, excluding printed publication. For permission to reproduce images and/or for copyright information contact University Archives, Bethune-Cookman University, Daytona Beach, FL 32114 (386) 481-2186. https://www.cookman.edu/library/index.html"],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1568","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":["2001-08-31"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","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/1568"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":["105 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1579","title":"Testing: Achievement Level Test and Benchmark Examination, comparative data, Little Rock School District, , 1998-2001","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":["2001-08-28"],"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","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","Education, Elementary","Education, Secondary","Education, Higher","School improvement programs","School integration","Students"],"dcterms_title":["Testing: Achievement Level Test and Benchmark Examination, comparative data, Little Rock School District, , 1998-2001"],"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/1579"],"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":["22 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1341","title":"Proceedings: ''Joshua: Objection to Little Rock School District's Motion for Unitary Status''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2001-08-17"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","School board members","School integration","School superintendents","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Joshua: Objection to Little Rock School District's Motion for Unitary Status''"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1341"],"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":["78 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1726","title":"Court filings concerning LRSD motion for protective order and for preliminary hearing, and PCSDD Baker recruitment plan","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2001-08-15/2001-08-31"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Arkansas. Department of Education","Joshua Intervenors","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Parents' and teachers' associations","School management and organization","School discipline","School administrators","School employees","Baker Interdistrict School (Little Rock, Ark.)","School enrollment"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning LRSD motion for protective order and for preliminary hearing, and PCSDD Baker recruitment plan"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1726"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["83 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, plaintiff's motion for protective order and for preliminary hearing; District Court, memorandum brief in support of plaintiff's motion for protective order and for emergency hearing; District Court, order; District Court, consolidated response to motion for preliminary injunction and corrected motion for relief from orders entered on April 27, 2000, and May 9, 2001; District Court, plaintiff's motion for comtempt; District Court, memorandum brief in support of plaintiff's motion for contempt; District Court, order; District Court, supplement to the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSDD) Baker recruitment plan; District Court, plaintiff's motion for contempt; District Court, motion for extension of time; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, response to Joshua's motion for extension of time; District Court, three orders; District Court, motion for enlargement of time  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    RECEIVED AUG 1 7 2001 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL PLAINTIFF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL ,.. .. ._!!\\THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTNE ORDER AND FOR EMERGENCY HEARING Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Motion for Protective Order and for Emergency Hearing states: 1. LRSD seeks a protective order to prevent unduly burdensome and harassing - discovery being conducted by the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") via the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (\"FOIA\"), Ark. Code Ann.  25-19-101 through 25-19-110. 2. On August 13, 2001, Joshua submitted the FOIA request attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Items one and two of the request seek all correspondence and e-mail between each LRSD principal and other District personnel for over three years. LRSD seeks a protective order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) requiring Joshua to more narrowly tailor the request and/or .. granting LRSD 60 days to respond to the request and requiring Joshua to conduct future discovery pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 3. Joshua's use of the FOIA to conduct discovery is intended to annoy, oppress and unduly burden LRSD. First, the request is over broad. Joshua made no effort to limit its request to the issues currently before this Court. Second, the request is unreasonably cumulative. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(i). This request is one in a long-line ofFOIA requests by Joshua. In response to a prior request, LRSD provided Joshua access to all of the e-mails of each associate superintendent. These would have included any e-mails with principals. Finally, the burden and expense of complying with Joshua's request outweighs any likely benefit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. i6(b )(2)(iii). The documents sought by Joshua may contain personal information about students. The FOIA requires LRSD to redact this information. See 2001 Ark. Acts 1653. It will take a substantial amount oftime and resources to review over three years worth of correspondence and e-mails and make the necessary redactions. Principals need to be preparing for the start of school on August 20, 2001. It will be impossible for them to comply with Joshua's FOIA request and also adequately prepare for the start of school. 4. LRSD has attempted to confer with Joshua, but Joshua refused to narrow the ~  -.r-eqnest or allow LRSD the time needed to respond. 5. LRSD's memorandum brief in support of this Motion is hereby incorporated by reference. As discussed therein, this Court has discretion to enjoin Joshua's use of the FOIA to conduct discovery. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for a protective order requiring Joshua to more narrowly tailor its August 13, 2001, FOIA request and/or granting LRSD 60 days to respond to the request; for an order requiring Joshua to conduct future discovery pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; for an emergency hearing on this Motion; and for all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 37. 1 B: John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE   I certify ~ copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by fax and mail on August~ 2001: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol . Little Rock, AR 72201 ~  -Mr:steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-73 88 - Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sammye Taylor Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 ~ John C. Fendley, Jr. 3 08/ 13/2001 15:59 501-324-2213 SQ-IDOL SERVICES PAGE 03   - JOHll W. W.Al.XU SH.AWN OJIILl)S JoHN W. WALJaR, P.A. moJQmArL4w l72S~AT Lrrn-l Rocm, A8JwGAs 722()6 TILZ:fflon (SOl) \u00267+8758 FAX (!501) 874-4l87 August 13, 2001 r  Dur Principal: -- Please provide punu~t to the Arkansas Freedom oflnfurmation A.a:  i. I 1) ali errcspond~ that yo-1.1 have .na~ in \\\\'if.ti other Little Rock S~l ~ strict P6onn.l fot 0\\4 ~riC)d baitfflll'la Math l. 1~8 ano en(!in~ J,.m\" 30, 2\u003cj(l1 ; , t I fol' th pen~ bta,nnin; M~c:h 1, 1998 .na .adina Jw,o )0, :2001; f 2) Qll ._~, that yo~ ha.Vt .r,;agci in wiih ocbr Li\"W llock Sclaool Di~J- '10,mel. 3) copies of all plAni that your \u0026chool dC!Veloped reaarding the following r.~bj i: a) discipline ;- b) gradea e) transportation d) flXtneurricular acti\"vjtie., j e) remediation of achievemanl activities ;: 1 f) participation in gifted and talented~ honors and advanced placc:inent i g} participation in spoc:ial education : , .  . I 4) ail wrltina, which rdlect the followin\u0026: . ! ) evaluario,u of pro,rama. policie, and proccdur11 that you imp .. ~ ! duriA\u0026 each of the last tbr\" yoan ,. b) appraiaaJa ofpro,rama, policies and.procedures that you impl~t. duri.q *b  of the last three years = .. c) assessments of pr~. policies ap4.:p;OGedures that you im.r,jem. j d during each oftbe last three years; and   . ::_ . i .  5) al.I rcporta resardina the success or fiilure : ~ propm. policy aodf ir  . ire that you nave under1aken in your ;school during eaeh of the past three rear whij e you h\u0026ve rec;ommsodod changes (regarding the proaram. Policy or prooedllf to !bl admi.Disu1tion io writin1, ' : .. I ~ l  ~ PLAINTIFF'S t axrmn 08/13/2001 15:59 501-324-221:3 SCHOOL SERVICES rt !i r-   y 011 may gpw witJl M~. ~Pfl!10!f HI my offica f'lRA!'dmJ tt\\A 4AM W tiftt  review and inspect the requested information. JWW:j\u0026 I I I I ! ; . j ' PAGE 04 11/17/95 14:52 WRIGHT, LINDSEY, \u0026 JENN I NGS  NO. 1.54 Hal6~/l:l1Qb ALio-:30-84 TUE 15:45 US DISTRICT CLERK FAX NO, 15019724812 P. 02 IN THB tiam A'l'BS DISTRICT cou.:'dr.JJrlC~~ DSTDN STRICT 01 AJlKAN .RNDlffllCf AAIWIIU JONISBOI.O DIVISION AUG 3 O 1994 ~~ DR  .JOHN KANGIDI, PLAIMTI1? ARKANSAS ITA'l'B UNlVIRSITY, B'l' AL, , DIJ'DDANTS MIM9BAttRPI MP 9BPIB In this action bro~9ht puruant to ,3 u.s.c. I 1913, th Defendant have aouqht a protactivo order (docket entry 3) which would _prohibit discovery ot attorney-clian~ communicationa batvean the Defendant and their lavyera and would protect attorney worlc product from dJ.acloure. Th latter would include lawyer to lawyer co1111unioat1ona aad tor th pupoae of preparin9 and detendinq the 1ntant l1t19ation. Plaintiff taadtaetly re1ita th entry ot ucb a protect! va order, pointing to th Arkanaa Freedom ot Intonation Aot, Ark. Code Ann. S as-19-101 at sag. (Supp. 1993), th Defendant' tatu aa ~c of  public 1ftat1tution, and the tact that th Detanclanta have baan auecl in their official aa well  individual capaoitiaa, and a body of Arkansas c law addra11inq the POIA and the aubjeot ot Defendant' propoaed order. 1 = PLAINTIFF'S l 9i'Bl1 t l/l?/95 14:52 WRIGHT, LINDSEY, \u0026 JENN I NGS I N0.134 P003/006 AUG-30-94 TUE 15:46 us TSTRJCT CLERK I FAX NO, 15019724612 P.03 e Initially, it auat be detarttlna4 which rul of law the court ahould apply. Thi caae, brol.!4ht in Federal Ditriot Co~ by a former State univer itr ~reaident over his treatment by the Board of Truateea ot ,.id intitution, i  tor rdr ot righta protected ~Y the law and eontitution ot th united stat In a auit ~roupt in federal court purauant to 42 u.s.c. I 1913, federal law control CZUNtion ,,--- ot priv1le9e. 1SglHn1 Ye Powtll, 773 ,.2c1 191, 1.1, (8th C:iJ:. 1911), cart. denied, 475 u.s. 1119 (1ta6); Youn!Jblood y. Qataa. 112 7.R.D. 342 (C.D. c.1. 1915). 'l'hia 1  true even where a pendnt or auppl ... ntal jurisdiction claim 11 joined with a federal claia. BIDIID Ye Alln IMPEial Hpapi\\al. 141 P.R..D. 115 (S.D. Iowa 1193). Work product protection - cautiona are detanined by looking to federal law, even in d1vrity ca Attbert; v, Cbis1aA i u,w, Tranap, Ce,, 121 P.R.D. 569 (D.s.o. 1989); Harpar Ye Auto oVDVI +DI, Co,, 138 r.R.D. ,ss (S.D. Ind. 1991), Tli attorney-oUent privilaqa i an indipnble tool of juatioa, and i 919011nded in th tederal 00111110n law. It ori9in8 ;o baclc_well before .th 1700' 8t4ient aurnr, Inc. Y, yarican A A11eei1tisn, 320 r.ad 314 (1th cir. 11,l). '?he benefit ot the privila,e, l:)otb to t.ha aainiat.rat1on o.t juatic and to the attorner.;client relationahip, are o \u0026oW\\da-nt a to need no recitation hare. It 1 tharatora held that tha aotion 1 GRAN'l'ID  ~ tho 001111\\Ulioationa between attorney and gliant that oomo under tho attornerclient  a l ,l / lt::35 14:~ Wl-\u003c:lrl, LlNu:x.T, ll. Jt::NN!~ fG-30-94 TUE 15:48  US DISTRICT CLERK . FAX J\"'IU ,, .L~ 15019724612 wv11e9e, See ,a\u002611,.-i.._..-._..,_,_....,.~.....,.,...._..._......_,.......,'-llilll,-\" r.~.D. ,st (D,C, Ill, 1975), Th motion 1 aleo GaAMTID  to into;-ation, letter, o~anda, and th lika .ganez-ated  lt.or~Y work product. HiglQaln y. Taylor, l2t U,S, 495, '7 +ct. 385 (1147) I bG E1atn1u1ar Tit;l c;e, v, 2111.. 101cb ~otxi 132 P,R.D. 301 (S,D. Pl\u0026, 1990), Th real ditticulty, ot course, co in determining whether a 9iven item tall within or without on ot th ~vo protected ~te9or1 Counl are called upon to u their sound jud;mant, and to conault the ColU't when and if bQno tide diput arbe in th cour ot cUsoovery abo~t 1tea that ara po ai~ly protected. A wo~d ut be qivn to th Arkansas authorit.ie that have touched on the iaeuea of privilege and work product in the context ot FOL\\ requeta. In Mc;C:ombJ:idga Yr Cit A( Little Jgck, 298 Ark. 21,, 766 s.w.ad 109 (1989), the Arkan suprue court hald that the Arkan rule of the attorneyclient privilet did not create an exemption to the Arkan rreedoa ot In(~raation Act. 'rhe ca heavily rlied on by Plaintiff, city q( f111ttayillt Yr Nmark, 304 A~k. 179, 801 s.w.ad 275 (ltta), held, ipt9r alia, that legal aemoranda prepared for tbe City tor li ti9ation purpo war not axeapt from tbe Arkan rraedoa ot Intomation Act. ~ttornay work product va thu dbcloaed .. 3 P. 04 : l 11/17/95 14:53 WRI(JiT, LlNU~~Y, ~ Jt::.NN!Nl\"l~ AUG-30-94 TUE 15:47 1u S D[STRICT CLERK NU  .L~ FAX NO, 15019724612 P.05 e Th court tinda 1aarJc and Mgcambri0;1 \" not bindin9 on thi Court and even 1~ the court aawnaa that they ara, the daoiaiona ~o not foracloaa thia _Court troa 1uinJ an order protecting attorney-oliant coDllllunicationa or attorney wor\u003ec product. (See Ark. Coda AM. I 25-ltlOS(b)(I), Which xempte tro th FOll dOOWNftta . which ar protaotecl fro dialoaure by order or rule ot court.) It i intueatinq to note that . ,.- Louiaiana' Public Raoorda Law apeai.riaally expt attorney work product rroa it tena, but not aaterial protected by the attorney-client privilege. sea 'tlllQP y. Lgui1iana Land 1 1Xpl;ratign. aos ,.supp. Ja5 cx.o. 1,a. ie9a). In axaminin; tha Arkan autboriti it i readily apparent that the tocu and concern of the Arkana Stata 9 oourt11 1a with the whole body or Arkan law, ancl the function of Arkan law in the attair ot Arkan oitiaen Thi Padaral cour~, while aituated within Arkan, must navarthel have  1 t prilaary concern th atf 1c1ent adaini tration ot juatio and the tair resolution ot federal olaiaa radreaaable by the parties liti;ant in federal oourt. Thu , taderal law and prooedura auat ba applied. I'l' IS, 'lHD.ll'OU, ORDDID that all papera, 111atarial, and other thing colleotad or praparact by th parti or their raprntativea in anticipation for trial, or otharwi1 within the cope ot the taderal work product: doctrine, and all private couunicationa of any kind between th defendant an4 their counl v1thin the 1 rec09ni1ad boundaries ot the 4 11/17/95 14:54 WRl.GHTf LlNJ.kit.Y; \u0026 . Jl:NNl~t:o NU  .1.~ . , -~.!JG-30-94 TUE 15:48 u~DISTRICT CLERK . FAX HO, 15018724812  . P. 06 91:ornayoliant privilege, an hereby ~rot,~tcad t~oa dicovery . . by tb oppoainq party or ralaa to any third pa~y, except by order ot thi court. 5 i : I e IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY, ARKANSAS STATE OF ARKANSAS PLAINTIFF vs. CIVIL NO. 92-100 HABILITATION CENTER, INC. an Arkansas Corporation d/b/a MILLCREEK OF ARKANSAS; MILLCREEK MANAGEMENT, INC., a Mississippi Corporation; DR. JAMES O. STEPHENS, M.D., {in his individual capacity, and in his official capacities as President and Chairman of the Board of Habilitation Center, Inc., and Rehabilitation Centers, Inc. , and as Chairman of the Board of Millcreek Management, Inc.); JOSEPH L. STEPHENS, ( in his individual capacity, and in his official cap~6ities as Vice President of Habilitation Center, Inc., Rehabilitation Centers, Inc., and Millcreek Management, Inc.); BILL SIMMONS, (in his individual capacity, and in his official capacity as President of Millcreek Management, Inc.); and  WANDA MILES-BELL, (in her individual capacity and in her official capacities as Executive Director and General Manager of Millcreek of Arkansas and Vice President of Millcreek Management, Inc.); DEFENDANTS ORDER On this 31st day of January, 1995, there is presented to the Court the Motions for Protective Order filed on behalf of defendant Habilitation, Millcreek Schools of Arkansas, Inc. and William Sutton. The Attorney General ht:lving f;;lly :responded and the Court being sufficiently -advised, having heard arguments of counsel and having fully considered this matter IT IS NOW, THEREFORE, CONSIDERED ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: The office of the Attorney General served a request for records under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act, Ark. Code Ann 25-19-101, et seq., (hereinafter FOIA) upon Mr. William Sutton, custodian of records at the law firm of Friday, Eldredge \u0026 hob'l.onl PLAINTIFPS EXHIBIT 3  Clark, attorneys for the defendant Habilitation Center, Inc. d/b/a Millcreek of Arkansas, seeking the law firm's files relating to Millcreek Schools of Arkansas, Inc. (hereinafter Millcreek Schools) and Habili tation Center, Inc. (hereinafter Habili tat ion) . The requests specifically seek \"documents, notes, pleadings, memorandum [sic] _, work papers, attorney work papers including work product ,p_~epared, genarat~d or relai:ed -to any '.lark done by your finn for Habilitation centers, Inc. (sic] or Millcreek Schools of Arkansas, . ~- ;,. .. -=_:Inc. in State of Arkansas v. Habilitation Centers, Inc., [sic] CIV- 92-100 in Dallas County, Arkansas.\" The Attorney General served similar FOIA requests on Habilitation and Millcreek Schools of Arkansas, Inc. Jurisdiction and Venue The threshold issue for this Court's determination is whether the Court has jurisdiction to enter the protective orders sought. The plaintiff selected the Dallas County Circuit Court in which to bring the pending case pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-13-201 and venue was established in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. 16-106- . !.01 (d) . Juri.::;dicticn-in .this Court was t~en proper, ,and this CoU::r:t retains that jurisdiction and control over the case pursuant to the aforesaid statutes. Although the Freedom of Information Act establishes a separate authority under which information may be obtained under certain circumstances, there is no question but that a FOIA request to a law firm representing a defendant in a pending case within the jurisdiction of this Court is so intertwined with that pending case as to fall within the jurisdiction of the Court. 2   If the Attorney General makes a FOIA request of a totally separate ~ntity, that .separate entity would not be subject to the jurisdiction of this Court, and the Attorney General would be free to pursue its FOIA request in whatever jurisdiction may be permitted by law. The Attorney General has not named Millcreek Schools of Arkansas, Inc. as a party defendant. The Attorney General has made reference to  \"Millcreek School of Fordyce, Arkansas, a -'separate entity owned by defendant, Habilitation\" in .,_its first amended  complaint. The Court is convinced that Millcreek Schools of Arkansas and Millcreek School of Fordyce, Arkansas, both allegedly owned by Habilitation, should be considered to be the same entity as Habilitation d/b/a Millcreek of Arkansas, and accordingly Millcreek Schools of Arkansas is not truly a separate entity but rather it is an integral part of Habilitation. Therefore it, too, comes within the jurisdiction of this Court. In holding that this Court has jurisdiction and is the proper venue to resolve the issues relating to the FOIA, the Court acknowledges -that i-c is iriappr0pric:1.te for -che threat of pot:.ential enforcement in another forum to hang over the defendants as they prepare for trial, and it is in the interest of judicial economy to have this Court handle all issues relating to the matters at hand. Venue is proper only in the circuit court of the judicial district in which the entity is located when the defendant is an entity which is a private organization even though supported by public funds. Here, all the FOIA targets are such private --- 3 organizations resisting the turn over of information pursuant to the FOIA. The mere fact that the Attorney General itself is located in Pulaski County and is a state agency does not create venue in that county in these circumstances. Standing The defendants' attorneys seek a protective order in order to protect the attorney/client privilege being asserted on behalf of their clients which include the defendant Habilitation. . J ;. \"'  ..  =_.Habili tat ion has standing by virtue of being a party litigant in the case brought by the Attorney General . The law firm of Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark has standing to seek a protective order since it represents Habilitation. Habilitation is Not Subject to the FOIA. The major issue is whether Habilitation Center, Inc. is an entity subject to the FOIA. If it is, its attorney's files may be discoverable under FOIA. It is settled under Arkansas law that attorney work product and records are not per se exempt from FOIA disclosure under Ark. Code Ann. 25-19-105. See Scott v. Smith, 2-92 Ark. 174, 728 s. W. 2d 515 (1.987), Arkansas. Highway Department v. Hope Brick Works~ Inc., 294 Ark. 490, 744 S.W.2d 711 (1988) and City of Fayetteville v. Edmark, 304 Ark. 179, 801 S.W.2d 275 (1990). Although a court hearing a FOIA enforcement action may not issue a protective order under that section to protect information otherwise subject to disclosure, 1 nevertheless, the trial court is 1Ark. Newspaper, Inc. v. Patterson, 281 Ark. 213, 262 S.W.2d 826 (1994), City of Fayetteville v. Edmark, supra, at page 193. 4 able to create an exemption from the FOIA as authorized by Ark . . code Ann. 25-19-105 (b) (8) since the limitations on protective orders do not apply to trial courts. The threshold issue, however, is whether FOIA even applies in the situation before the Court. In order to make that determination, the Court must decide whether the materials sought by the Attorney General are public records within the meaning of the FOIA. 2 Habilitation is a privately owned for-profit entity receiving Medicaid funds; it is ;..  ___ not a government agency. Given the facts of this situation, it may be an \"other agency\" subject to the FOIA. because it is \"wholly or partially supported by public funds or expending public funds.\" Courts have enforced FOIA requests to particular private entities when they are wholly or partially supported by public funds or expending public funds. 3 This Court has also considered a number 2Ark. Code Ann. 25-19-103 (1) provides in pertinent part, \"Public records means writings, recorded sounds, films, tapes or data, compilations in any form required by law to be kept or otherwise kept and which constitute a record of the performance or lack of performance of official functions which are or should be carried out by a \"public official or an employee or government QJ;: any other agency wholly or partially supported by public funds or expending . public funds . . n  [emphasis supplied] 3See North Central Association of Colleges and Schools v. Trout Brothers, Inc., 261 Ark. 378, 548 S.W.2d 285 (1977); Arkansas Gazette Company v. Southern State College, 273 Ark. 248, 620 S.W.2d 258 (1981}, app. dismissed 455 U.S. 931 (1982}; and Rehab Hospital Services Corp. v. Delta Hills Health Systems Agency, Inc., 285 Ark. 397 687 S.W.2d 840 {1985). The first two of the cited cases indicate the factors that must be present before a private entity will be subject to the FOIA. First, there must be direct public funding. Secondly, there must be indirect public support. Third, there must be public concern with respect to the organization's activities. The primary source of funding being governmental and the serving of a public purpose may subject the private organization to the FOIA. Rehab Hospital Services Corp. supra. Recently the Arkansas Supreme Court has declared that public funds bohl- 5 ! . I i I ' I of Attorney General's opinions which are not binding as precedent,  ,- but which are instructive. The Attorney General has opined that \"when the activities of a private organization and the government become so intertwined, the private organization may well render itself part of the state for [FOIA] purposes.\" Ark. Op. No. 83- 163. In that opinion, the AG opined that the mere receipt of Medicare and Medicaid funds by a private nonprofit hospital or a for-profit investor owned facility would not trigger the FOIA. , -.-_More recently, the Attorney General has opined that the mere receipt of public funds is not in itself sufficient to bring a private organization within the FOIA; rather, the question is whether the private entity carries on public business or is otherwise intertwined with the activities of the government . Ark. Op. AG No. 94-131 (May 13, 1994), citing City of Fayetteville v. Edmark, supra, (1990) and Op. AG Nos. 91-131, 94-154 and 83-163. Here both Habilitation and Millcreek Schools do not conduct their activities with or for the benefit of or in the place of any public agency. Neither is established by law. Neither is any more . regulated -0r supervised than hospitals or nursing homes or schools. No governmenta1 authority is ~t Habili tat ion nor is any Habili tat ion employee located in any government office. Habilitation determines the programs for the children, not the State . include only direct public funding, not indirect support. Sebastian city Chapter of the A11lerican Red Cross v. Weatherford, 311 Ark. 656 (845) S.W.2d 641 (1993). 6 Habilitation and Millcreek are engaged in the private r endering of Medicaid and other Medicaid eligible services to private individuals. People performing these services are not public officials. Habilitation is providing Medicaid and other services pursuant to a standard form contract, not making public policy. Even though all or a substantial part of its income is derived from the government, it is being paid only for services and is not being subsidized as an extension of government. These facts do not lead to the conclusion that Habiliation and Millcreek are so connected or intertwined as to bring them within the purview of FOIA disclosure. After evaluating the facts and in light of precedent, the Court finds that Habilitation and Millcreek are not private entities subject to the FOIA. While the line limiting the reach of FOIA is not bright and while the FOIA is to be liberally construed for disclosure of records in the public domain, Ragland v. Yeargen, 288 Ark. 81, 702 S.W.2d 23 (1986), the facts in this case cannot justify a conclusion that \"public business\" was or is being conducted by Habili tation. The intent of the legislature was to expose the performance of public officials and of the decis1ons that are reached in public activity and in making public policy. While the public at large as electors do have an interest in how the Medicaid program is being conducted and should have access to all agency records relating thereto, including those supplied by Habilitation under its contract, they have no overriding interest in how a private service provider renders its services to private 7 individuals. There simply is no legal precedent or suggestion that  it was the intent of the legislature to subject the private activities and all licensed entities and individuals to public scrutiny under the FOIA. Thus it is the decision of this Court that Habilitation is not subject to the FOIA. Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark is Not Subject to the FOIA Additionally, the Court also finds that Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark is not' subject to FOIA. It is an obviously private entity .--Eeceiving no obvious public funds, and its clients are not a public entity. The Court believes that the Attorney General's FOIA request to Habilitation and Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark is discovery abuse. Defendants and their counsel are entitled to protection to maintain the integrity of the discovery process set out in the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. Unauthorized access to attorney/client or attorney/work product privileged material can deprive defendants of due process. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Motion for Protective Order to protect the FOIA requested material from Habili tat ion .should be and  hereby is granted. Additionally~ the protective order is extended to Millcreek of Arkansas, to Millcreek Schools of Arkansas, Inc., to Millcreek School of Fordyce, Arkansas, and to Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark as attorney to the extent of any mater~als in any way related to this litigation. The Attorney General may, if it so chooses, amend its complaint with respect to Millcreek Schools of Arkansas, Inc. if it determines that amendment of the name of the defendant is appropriate. 8 Ark. Code Ann. 25-19-l0S(b) (8) Exemption The Court further finds that even were the defendant subject to the FOIA, the exemption provided in Ark. Code Ann. 25-19- 105 (b) (8) which expressly exempts \"documents which are protected from disclosure by orders or rules of court\" would apply in this case. As the Supreme Court stated in . City of Fayetteville v. Edmark, supra at 191: A triar' court has the inherent authority to protect the integrity of _the Court in actions pending before it and . ...- may issue appropriate protective orders that would provide FOIA exemption under 25-19-l0S(b) (8). This Court having underlying jurisdiction over the underlying litigation finds that a protective order should be issued to restrict disclosure of documents being sought pursuant to FOIA. If there is any subsequent review by any other circuit court considering related FOIA requests, this protective order is issued specifically within the provisions of Ark. Code Ann. 25-19- 105 (b) (8) to protect from the FOIA materials which otherwise might be disclosable. Id. Other Motions The defendants' Motion to Quash Notice of Depositions is governed by the Written Agreement of the Parties provided to the Court in their  joint Motion for Continuance. Accordingly, depositions of parties may begin again only as set out in the Agreement. The Attorney General's Motion to Strike Affidavits will be considered by the Court when it receives the plaintiff's Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment. The defendants' Reply to the 9  - Attorney General's Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment, if  .any, will be due within ten business days thereafter. The Attorney General has filed a Motion for Default on Attorney General's Motion to Strike. That Motion is denied. Conclusion IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the defendants' Motion be and it hereby is granted. It is further ordered that a protective order be and hereby is issued over all materials sought by the Attorney ~--General under the FOIA unless they are otherwise discoverable or admissible into evidence. The Motion to Quash Notice of Depositions is hereby granted until otherwise provided in the agreement of the parties. The Motion for Default on the Attorney General's Motion to Strike is hereby denied. IT IS SO ORDERED this 1995. hobJ- ~ day of deJn ~ CAROL C Circuit/ DATE: ,)/t4/ f (\" 10 IN Tiffi UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURJ.4 IN TIIB EASTERN DISTRICT OF AR.KANs~M PINE BLUFF DIVISION ROGER HEATHSCOTT vs. NO. 5:00-CV-00333-WRW UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. ORDER DEFENDANT For the reasons stated in a telephone conference yesterday, the plaintiff's motion (Doc.5) for a protective order is GRANTED. Accordingly, defendant must not compel the plaintiff to attend the physical examination scheduled for February 14, 2001 , with Dr. Baskin, M.D., and it must not compel the attendance of the plaintiff at the functional capacity examination scheduled for February I 9, 2001. Further, plaintiff must not be disciplined for failing to attend these examinations. I rely primarily upon Smith v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 878 F.Supp. 171 (D.Co. 1995) and Vicary v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 942 F.Supp. 1146 (N.D. Ohio 1996) which seem to be well reasoned. Unlike the plaintiffs in Calvert v. Trans World Airlines, 959 F.2d 698 (8th Cir. 1992), the plaintiff here unquestionably has a separate, independent cause of action under the Federal Employers Liability Act (\"FELA'') 45 U.S.C.  51 et seq. I believe discovery in the FELA action should proceed under the standard Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that these rules are not trumped by the defendant's medical examination rules (via the Railway Labor Act 45 U. S.C.  151 et seq.) In fact, under the theory urged by defendant, a railroad could severally hamstring a FELA plaintiff with company regulations. Defendant contends that this order is in the nature of an order \"granting, continuing, modifying or dissolving [an] injunction\" which would be subject to an interlocutory appeal under l... PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT. I it ' . i 287 U.S.C.  1992. I do not know what authority I have to enhance defendant's right to an interlocutory appeal, but to the extent that I have such authority, I grant it in full. IT IS SO ORDERED this l!:!!4 of February, 2001 . UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THIS OOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCK!T SHEET IN .COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 ANO/OR 79(1) FACP oN 11/a, lo I av \u0026.bN I   RECEIVED AUG 1 7 2001  \"_ -- OFFICE OF DESEGREG.4TION MOMTORIN\u0026 IN TIIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL ,,,..p~ PLAINTIFF ,,. . . KA-THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND FOR EMERGENCY HEARING LRSD s.eeks a protective order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) to prevent unduly burdensome and harassing discovery being conducted by the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") via - the Arkansas Freedom oflnformation Act (\"FOIA\"), Ark. Code Ann.  25-19-101 through 25- 19-110. Rule 26(c) provides: Upon motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is sought, accompanied by a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action, and for good cause shown, the court in which the action is pending or "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1705","title":"Court filings concerning Baker recruitment plan, school resources study, orders entered on April 27, 2000, and May 9, 2001, and Joshua's objections to unitary status","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2001-08-06/2001-08-15"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Joshua Intervenors","Education--Arkansas","Baker Interdistrict School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","School enrollment","School superintendents","Parents' and teachers' associations","School discipline"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning Baker recruitment plan, school resources study, orders entered on April 27, 2000, and May 9, 2001, and Joshua's objections to unitary status"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1705"],"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":["18 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, motion to withdraw as counsel for state defendants; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) reply to Joshua intervenors' objections to Baker recruitment plan; District Court, notice of filing of school resources study; District Court, motion for relief from orders entered on April 27, 2000, and May 9, 2001, by defendant Gary Smith and for other appropriate and/or alternative relief; District Court, corrected motion for relief from orders entered on April 27, 2000, and May 9, 2001, by defendant Gary Smith, and for other appropriate and/or alternative relief; District Court, motion for preliminary injunction; District Court, memorandum in support of motion for preliminary injunction; District Court, plaintiff's first set of interrogatories and requests for production to the Joshua intervenors regarding Joshua's objections to unitary status; District Court, two orders  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  LAW OFFICES MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026 WOODYARD, P.L.L .C. TIMOTHY G. GAUGER DIRECT DIAL 501 - eBB- B843 e-mail tgeugeiOmwsgw.com M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings . 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P. 0 . Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Ann Marshall 42!5 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 1800 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201- 3!52!5 TELEPHONE !501 -688-8800 FAX !501-688-8807 August 6, 2001 Sammye Taylor Mark Hagemeier RECEIVED AUG S ~ 2001 Clflllf  ,,  ...... ,, Arkansas Atomey General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring 123 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. I, et al; No. 4: 82 CV 000866 SWW Counsel and Ms. Marshall: Enclosed for your files is a copy of the Motion To Withdraw As Counsel For State Defendants which I have filed today in the above-referenced matter. MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026 WOODYARD, P.L.L.C . Counsel of Record and Ms. Ann Marshall August 6, 200 I Page2 TGG/jd Enclosure Very truly yours, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026 WOODYARD, P.L.L.C. ~a7/4~ By t,,:.J/ f/--; IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. 4:82CV000866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR STATE DEFENDANTS  Timothy Gauger and Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026 Woodyard, PLLC hereby move the Court for an order pennitting them to withdraw as counsel of record for the State Defendants in the above-referenced case. The motion is made on the following grounds: 1. In February, 2001, the undersigned left his employment with the Office of the Attorney General. He has continued to assist in the representation of the State Defendants as outside counsel under contract with the Arkansas Attorney General's office. That contract has expired, and the undersigned is therefore no longer authorized to represent the State Defendants in this action. 2. The undersigned's withdrawal will not prejudice any party to this action. The State Defendants will continue to be represented by Chief Barrister Sammye Taylor and Assistant Attorney General Mark Hagemeier of the Attorney General's office. WHEREFORE, Timothy Gauger and Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026 Woodyard, PLLC respectfully request that the Court enter an order permitting them to withdraw as counsel of record for the State Defendants. Respectfully submitted, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES \u0026 WOODYARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3525 (501) 688-8800 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that on August 6, 2001, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P. 0. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Sammye Taylor Mark Hagemeier Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD'S REPLY TO JOSHUA INTERVENORS' OBJECTIONS TO BAKER RECRUITMENT PLAN RECEIVED ~UG '7 200\\ -=- PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS There are no geographical limits. but rather a discreet targeted area. Baker remains open, on a space available basis, to any African-American student from the LRSD who would like to attend and who is in good standing with the LRSD. The PCSSD has been criticized in the past for recruitment efforts which, its detractors asserted, lacked \"focus\". In contrast here, the PCSSD has identified a minority community proximate to Baker. Baker is the closest public school of any kind to Chenal Park. Because of the limited number of seats that can be made available at Baker, the PCSSD submits that it is not only reasonable but prudent for the PCSSD to designate Chenal Park as its principal recruiting target. 273080-v1 Except for the kindergarten classes to be added, there is little available space at Baker At Page 4 of its objection, Joshua asserts that: Joshua notes that the response of the defendant is from defendant's counsel; it is without affidavit support and the factual representations may not be subject to examination because they have been lawyer generated. PCSSD first notes that the statistical representations made by the PCSSD were supported by exhibits from both the LRSD and the Baker school itself. In contrast, Joshua asserts with absolutely no factual support the following at Page 3: d) The defendants allege that they have not admitted more minority students to Baker, despite the applications of minority students for Baker from Little Rock, because the PCSSD \"has not had room at Baker to accommodate all of [their] requests\". This proposition is factually incorrect on its face. See the ODM report on capacity. Baker does not now appear to be at or near capacity. Indeed, Baker has space to accommodate, without class additions 70 students. It could easily accommodate more than 40 black applicants in grades kindergarten through fifth with ease at one time. While Joshua vaguely refers to an undated and otherwise unidentified ODM report, the fact is, there is no such ODM report which reflects anything even approximating that which Joshua has asserted concerning room for 70 additional students. As the Court can see from a re-examination of Exhibit 1 to the PCSSD Baker Recruitment Plan dated July 13, 2001, with the exception of the fifth grade, a temporary anomaly, there are simply no seats at Baker before the addition of the proposed kindergarten classes. One simply cannot take the two former sixth grade class rooms and magically convert them to seats spread over K-5. The remaining \"math\" contained in subsection d) of Joshua's objection is equally - flawed and consistently obtuse. 273080-v1 2 Joshua spurned the PCSSD overtures to participate in the Baker planning process. On May 18, 2001, the PCSSD proposed the Court approval of the activities complex at Baker. In that submission, the PCSSD specifically proposed that it develop in conjunction with Joshua a specific recruiting plan for Baker. (Motion pp. 2-3) On the same day, counsel wrote Joshua regarding the Baker M to M issue (Exhibit \"A\"), stating in pertinent part that: I would hope that you could meet at least once with us, both so that we could have your input and so you can completely understand the logistics of this issue. I very much need to get it done next week. Please let me know when you could be available. Thereafter, events transpired which required the PCSSD to inform the Court that it appeared that Joshua's participation in such a plan would not be forthcoming at this time. With a copy to Joshua, we specifically informed the Court that: The Court will recall that we promised in our Baker motion field May 18, 2001, that we would consult with Joshua and furnish the Court with some particulars. While it appears that collaboration with Joshua on this issue is not going to occur at this time, nevertheless, we do wish to make a further filing and I wanted the Court to be aware that it should be imminent. (Exhibit \"B\", Emphasis Supplied) Thus, Joshua's current assertion that it was \"not consulted\" and should now be involved is simply false. IF THE COURT AND JOSHUA WISH FOR THE PCCSD TO STATE THE REAL REASON JOSHUA DECLINED TO PARTICIPATE, IT WILL BE OBLIGED TO HONOR SUCH A REQUEST. Conclusion The PCCSD Recruitment Plan is sound given the space limitations at Baker and the proximity of Chenal Park. Joshua's math and its mathematical assertions are not 273080-v1 3 only unsupported, they are simply not of this world. Joshua spurned the PCSSD's invitation to participate in this process and should not be heard to complain now. 273080-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By~4~ ~'-:--- ~.--samuei1ineslll(7606o) J 1/ Attorneys tgrPulaski County Special \\~strict ,J 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August 6, 2001, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 273080-v1 5 ., EDWARD L. WRIGHT (100~1177) ROBERTS . LINDSEY (1113-1081) ISAAC A. SCOTT. JR . JOHN G. LILE GORD_ O_ATHER.JR. TERRY HEWS DAVID ELL ROGER A. -...SGOW C. DOUGLAS BUfORO. JR. PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS, JR. JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M, SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER EDWIN L, LOWTHER. JR . CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPADDN ROGER D. ROWE JOHN D. DAVIS VIA FACSIMILE Mr. John Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 www .wlJ.com Of COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY M. TODD WOOD Wrller's Direct Dlal No. 501-212-1273 mJonesOwlJ.com May 18, 2001 JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY f . COX. JR. TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS JAMES M. MOODY. JR. KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL D. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILIER BETSY MEACHAM KYLE R. WILSON JENNlfER S. BROWN C. TAD BOHANNON MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY\" M. SEAN HATCH PHYLLIS M. 1,lcKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE JANE W. DUKE ROIERT W. GEORGE J. ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN CHRISTINE J. DAUGHERTY. Ph.D. ' l.lolnHd lo pn,ctlce before ,,.. Unled Slater Pa/ent - T-Ollicw Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District; et al. USDC Docket No.: 4:82CV00866SWW Dear John: I am writing you this letter in case we do not connect by telephone this afternoon. This morning Karl Brown and I spent a considerable period of time with Beverly Ruthven discussing the issue of space accommodations for additional M to M transfer students at Baker. While we made some progress in that regard, this is not as easy an issue as you might expect. This afternoon I am filing a barebones motion to get the issue of the proposed construction on the judicial table. In the motion I recite that we will be working on the issue of space and transfers and will supplement the motion with a specific plan as soon as possible. I would hope that you could meet at least once with us, both so that we could have your input and so you can completely understand the logistics of this issue. I very much need to get it done next week. Please let me know when you could be available. Thanks. Cordially yours, MSJ:ao A~INDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ~muel Jones, Ill cc: Mr. Karl Brown 255714-v1 WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FACSIMILE COVER SHEET PLEASE DELIVER IMMEDIATELY DATE: May 18, 2001 TO: COMPANY: Mr. John Walker John Walker, P.A. Fax No. 374-4187 Message From: M. Samuel Jones Ill OUR FAX NO.: (501) 376-9442 TOTAL PAGES INCLUDING THIS PAGE: 2 REMARKS: CONFIRMATION: ~By Regular Mail By Expedited Mail None Rush DOCUMENT TRANSMITTED: P001 MESSAGE CONFIRMATION REPORT 05/18/01 15: 39 ID:WRIGHT LINDSEY SESS. MODE DATE/TIME TIME DISTANT STATION ID PAGES DIAL RESULT 639 G3.S 05/18 15:38 00'55\" 5013744187 002/002 04 D K 6000 \\ ' \\ ... EDWARD L. WRIGHT (190,- 1977) RDBERT S. LINDSEY (11131111) ISAAC A. SCOTT, JR. JOHN G. LILE GORDON S, RATHER, JR. TERRY L, MATHEWS DAVIDII .-LL ROGER A. GOW C. DOUGL FORD, JR . PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS, JR . JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES II. SAMUEL JONES 111 JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY 111 LEE J . MULDROW N.11 . NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J . GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER, JR. CHARLU L. SCHLUMBERGER WAL TEA E. MAY GREGORY T. JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPAOD!N ROGER 0. ROWE JOHN D. DAVIS WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 www.wlJ.com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY JAMES R, VAN DOVER II. TODO WOOD Writer's Direct Dial No . 501 -2121273 mJonuQwlJ.com June 6, 2001 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright 600 West Capitol, Suite 302 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3325 JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX. JR. TROY A. PRICE PATIUCIA SIEVERS HARl'IIS JAMES II. MOODY, JIil. KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERl'IY J. SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL D. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER HT\u0026Y MEACHAM KYLE R. WILSON JENNIFER S. BROWN C. TAD BOHANNON MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRISTI II. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY\" II. SEAN HATCH PHYLLIS II. McKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE JANE W, DUKE ROBERT W. GEORGE J . ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN CHRISTINE J. DAUGHERTY, Ph.D. UcenMd lo pracllce - the lklled States Patent and Trademlrlr Offlce Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District; et al. USDC Docket No.: 4:82CV00866SWW Dear Judge Wright: I am awaiting some student enrollment and gee code information from the Little Rock School District before I can finalize our proposed recruitment plan for Baker Elementary. The Court will recall that we promised in our Baker motion filed May 18, 2001, that we would consult with Joshua and furnish the Court with some particulars. While it appears that collaboration with Joshua on this issue is not going to occur at this time, nevertheless, we do wish to make a further filing and I wanted the Court to be aware that it should be imminent. Thank you very much. MSJ/ao cc: Ms. Ann Brown Marshall Mr. John W. Walker 259780-v1 Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. Richard Roachell Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Mr. Stephen W. Jones Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY} JENNINGS LLP ----7 .7 7  ~ -j?~..__----- -\" .,,,...,...~\"\" A;/  t--' M_..- Samuel ~ones Ill I ... ~ / .,., i /.' (. / '--' \\. ____ .,,... RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION I\\UG 7100\\ tfil\\1e-i: -- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING OF SCHOOL RESOURCES STUDY Pursuant to Section \"J\" of the PCSSD Plan 2000, a School Resources Study was conducted under the auspices of a bi-racial committee of administrators, teachers and others. The roster of the committee is appended toward the end of the report. The report was completed in May 2001 and has now been approved by the School Board. Pursuant to page 6 of the narrative, the reader will note that the Study concluded there was no significant statistical difference between the racial composition of the District schools and the amount of resources allocated to a particular school. The Study in its entirety is appended to this filing as Exhibit \"A\". 273064-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By----:-:---:::,,-+:-~_..;a'.\".\"\"\":::-T\"~------ . 060) r Pula~County Special . rict CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On August 6, 2001, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 273064-v1 2 RECEI\\IED AUG 1 0 2001 - OFFIC~OF DESEGREGATI~ MONITOAIN6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUJ.\u0026t EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSA~ ~Li=~) ,WESTERN DIVISION EASTElN 1\u0026ii~~'g '.{~~f~SAS AUG OB r31 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ~~:MES W. McCORMACK, t['~TIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 DEP CU,i;:'\u003c PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDERS ENTERED ON APRIL 27, 2000 AND MAY 9, 2001 BY DEFENDANT GARY SMITH, AND FOR OTHER APPROPRIATE AND/OR ALTERNATIVE RELIEF This motion is brought by the Joshua Intervenors against the Pulaski County Special School District Defendants (PCSSD) and especially against Defendant Gary Smith, Superintendent of Schools of PCS SD: The matter is of general public importance in that it affects African American students and their parents as a class. It involves implementation of the PCSSD Revised Desegregation Plan and the good faith of the defendants. The persons whose circumstances are being presented to the Court are referred to by fictitious names in order to avoid undue and inappropriate responses by persons related to the PCSSD to their having initiated this action and because of the ages and continuing enrollment in the PCSSD schools as small children. The parents of the minor children are referred to as \"Harold\" and \"Amanda X\". Their actual names will be presented to the Court and to the parties with a request that the actual names be sealed and kept out of the public domain. With this background, the Joshua Intervenors present the following set of facts upon which they seek for relief to be granted: -1- 1. Harold and Amanda X are the parents of Alisha X. Alisha X is a ten year old student who will be enrolled in PCS SD fifth grade elementary program during the 2001-2002 school year. Alisha X has a sister, Alisha Y, age four, who will be entering a four year old program in the PCS SD during the 2001-2002 school year. These parties are members of the certified class herein and they seek relief provided by the standing . Consent Decree or Court Order. 2. Dr. Gary Smith is the Superintendent of Schools of the PCSSD. Carl Brown is the Associate Superintendent of Schools for Desegregation for PCSSD, among other titles. Hazel W., also a fictitious name, was the Principal of Murrell Taylor Elementary School operated by PCSSD during the 1999-2000 school year. The actions which give rise to this motion began in April, 2000. 3. Prior to April, 2000, Harold and Amanda X were parents in good standing at Murrell Taylor Elementary School. Alisha X was enrolled as a student in the Gifted and Talented Program. Her grades, attendance and conduct were sterling. 4. In March, 2000, Alisha X took home a school communication informing the her parents that Alisha X was invited to participate in a Pre-teen America Scholarship Recognition Program. The program was limited to students in Gifted and Talented and was by invitation only. 5. On April 131\\ Harold and Amanda X went to Murrell Taylor PTA, in conformity with the letter notice to Alisha X. Harold X expressed his gratitude to the school for selecting Alisha X to participate in the program. He further stated that he could not believe that the opportunity was real, and requested the support of the PT A so that -2- Alisha's participation in the competitive activity could be facilitated. Hazel W ., the Principal, stood in response to Harold X's statement and said that the invitation was extended to Alisha X in error and that she was not eligible by school rules to participate in this competition. A further reason given for rejecting the application and request for PTA help by School Principal Hazel W. was that Harold and Amanda X were not members of the PT A. Hazel W. was mistaken. Harold and Amanda X were in fact dues paying members for 1999-2000 as well as for the preceding year. 7. On April 14, 2000, Harold X went to Principal Hazel W.'s office to discuss the matter with Hazel W. Hazel W. declined to respond to Harold X's visit. On or about April 18, 2000, Harold X received a letter purportedly from the PT A Executive Board of Murrell Taylor which stated: \"We apologize for any embarrassment that we may have caused you at the PTA meeting April 13, 2000. It was our clerical error and we are sorry.\" See Exhibit A hereto. 8. On April 18, 2000, Hazel W. wrote Harold and Amanda X a letter which is attached as Exhibit B regarding'what she referred to as a \"confrontation that took place in the hallway after the PTA meeting on April 13, 2000\". Hazel X went on to chastise Harold and Amanda X for a letter which they had written seeking financial support for their daughter to attend the \"2000 Pre-teen Arkansas Scholarship Program.\" She then indicated that Harold and Amanda X misrepresented to the public that Alisha X was the school representative in that program. Hazel W. went on to say: \"if this kind of conduct happens again, I want you to know that I will petition -3- Pupil Personnel to revoke the permit for [Alisha X] to attend school at Murrell Taylor Elementary.\" See Exhibit C. ',\" 9. On April 18, Amanda X went to Murrell Taylor in order to pick up Alisha X after school. Hazel W. called plaintiff into the principal' s office. At that meeting which Principal Hazel W. initiated, Hazel W. engaged Amanda X in conversation regarding a purported threat that Hazel W. said a parent had reported_to her that was made after the PTA, the night of the 13th of April. Hazel W. did not identify the parent who made the complaint or provide Amanda X with a written statement from the accusatory parent. Amanda X denied that she had threatened a parent and attempted to leave Hazel W.'s office. At that point, Hazel W. blocked the door. Amanda X sought to get around Hazel W. and in doing so opened the door and the door struck Hazel W. Hazel W. scratched plaintiff in the process as she sought to restrain Amanda X from leaving the office. Amanda X sustained other injuries as a result of her seeking to leave Hazel W. 's office. 10. AmandaX went to the Prosecuting Attorney's Office of Pulaski County on April 19, 2000 where she met \"'.'ith Deputy Prosecutor John Johnson. She informed Deputy Prosecutor Johnson of her treatment. Johnson took her statement verbally and told her that he would get back with her. On information and belief, Johnson then informed Hazel W. that Amanda X was seeking to file a criminal charge against Hazel W. Upon Johnson's representation, Hazel W. then initiated criminal charges against Amanda X three days later. As a consequence of those charges, Amanda X was arrested, handcuffed, taken to county jail, photographed and fingerprinted. She -4- 11. stayed in jail overnight and was released on her own recognizance the next day. Amanda X was pros.ecuted in Jacksonville Municipal Court and charged with battery, second degree, a misdemeanor. The Jacksonville Municipal Court, the Honorable Robert Batton, convicted Amanda X. 12. On April 25, 2000, Judge Batton entered a No Contact Order. See Exhibit D. On 13.  October 4, 2000, Judge Batton convicted plaintiff of Battery of Assault in the Second Degree. In the intervening time period minor Alisha X persisted despite Murrell Taylor's school officials' objections, won third place in the talent contest among 161 Gifted and Talented students from the State of Arkansas. No white Murrell Taylor student placed in the talent competition for the Pre-teen America Scholarship and Recognition Program. Amanda X appealed the decision to the Circuit Court to the Honorable John Langston and her conviction was upheld. That Court did not enter any Orders regarding plaintiff's ingress and egress to public schools in Pulaski County. The appeal abated the municipal court's jurisdiction. 14. Harold and Amanda X bring this action seeking vindication of their civil rights and of their rights under the Revised Desegregation Plan to be involved in the schools activities and lives of their school aged children. They have now have a four year old who will be entering the four year program at a PCSSD school. 15. Harold X appeared before the PCSSD School Board on or about June 12, 2001 in order to contest a restraining order upon Amanda X entered by Defendant Gary Smith, April 27, 2000 and another Order dated May 9, 2001 (see Exhibit E) which -5- restricted her access to and upon any PCS SD school property. The PCS SD Board did not consider the appeal. There is no other provision for appeal provided Harold and Amanda X and other parents from such Orders as those entered by Dr. Gary Smith. 16. The appearance of Harold X before the County Board of Education was pursuant to the Board policy which allowed public comment. The Board, pursuant to a policy drafted by Defendant Gary Smith, may not make responses to public comments. Only Smith may respond. Harold X's appearance was not really an appeal because the board was estopped by its own policy of hearing evidence regarding the matter. 17. Defendant Gary Smith delegated Carl Brown to respond to Harold X. Carl Brown, Desegregation Assistant Superintendent, informed Harold and Amanda X that he would seek to have minor Alisha X transferred into a school in the LRSD. Desegregation Superintendent Brown's view at the time was that such a transfer was not authorized by the transfer provision known as the majority to minority transfer between the LRSD and PCS SD. Under that agreement, however, African American PCSSD school children may not transfer to LRSD schools. 18. The foregoing acts developed because PCS SD School Officials sought to deny entry to a school recognition program to a black child. The only students who were invited by Murrell Taylor school officials to participate in the Pre-teen Recognition Program were white. The school had no standards for determining to whom to extend invitation regarding that honor. Murrell Taylor is a racially mixed school. It has many racial problems. School officials then sought to deter African American participation, on April 18, 2000 by threatening to \"revoke the permit for [Alisha X] -6- 19. to attend school at Murrell Taylor Elementary\". [Underlining added for emphasis] The Joshua Intervenors know of no law, regulation or board policy which allows a student's attendance at a particular school to be \"revoked\" because of a parent's conduct. Moreover, the Joshua Intervenors know of no white parents who have been threatened with punishment because they sought support of their child's participation ,  in a school related activity. Furthermore, the Joshua Intervenors believe and allege that the attendance of Alisha X in a PCSSD school is matter of right rather than privilege and that that right may not be revoked absent compelling circumstances, upon and after exhaustion of defined due process rules and regulations. There are no such rules or procedures of this kind in the PCSSD. There are other persons of African American ancestry who either have been, or, will be similarly affected by PCSSD school officials upon the advent of their seeking to avail themselves of rights, privileges and opportunities which are traditionally made available and limited in PCSSD to white children and their parents. 20. Amanda X's only adverse activity at this school was in trying to leave Hazel W. 's office on April 18, 2000, after being invited into, over the objection of Hazel W. As a consequence of trying to leave Hazel W.'s office, to which Amanda X had been invited, plaintiff was subjected to treatment grossly different from that of white parents. The treatment of Harold and Amanda X and their child, Alisha X, with respect to the Pre-teen Arkansas Scholarship and Recognition Program was racial. Their prosecution was racially motivated. It was initiated solely and simply because Harold and Amanda X sought to avail their minor African American child of an -7- 21. award and recognition which, unknown to this at the time, was not intended to be extended to African_American children, at least at Murrell Taylor Elementary SchooL By denying Amanda X access without threat of prosecution to PCS SD property, PCSSD officials deny Harold and Amanda X the equal right to participate in the school learning environment of their children. They also deny minors Alisha X, and Alisha Y, the four year old first year PCSSD student, the right to have their mother accompany them to and from school and to be available when emergencies arrive to provide care and comfort. School officials are effectively restrained from having any communication whatever with Amanda X The Gary Smith directives therefore tend to deny minor class member an opportunity to even attend schooL School officials have a practice of prosecuting African American students who are truant. Amanda X upon failure to secure attendance of minor Alisha X and Alisha Y is effectively being threatened with denial of truancy laws as welL 22. There is no legitimate public interest involved to support the administrative directives 23, from Defendant Gary Smith. The Order is void or voidable, as being in violation of the Desegregation Plan and of the Fourteenth Amendment and due process clauses. As long as this these Orders stand with respect to Amanda X, they will serve as a precedents for similar actions or exclusion regarding class members by Defendant Smith and his subordinates. Moreover, there is no way such Orders may be subjected to review before the PCSSD School Board. Due process is therefore absolutely lacking to a parent who is adversely affected by the Smith Orders herein. The parents in this case have exhausted whatever remedies which are provided by -8- PCSSD for administrative review of the Gary Smith Orders set forth herein have been unsuccessful. This action before this Court for declaratory, injunctive relief and other possibly relief including damages is the only available remedy that Harold and Amanda X have for being able to provide education to their children. Their children Alisha X and Alisha Y have no likelihood of being successful in school an "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1362","title":"Proceedings: ''Joshua: Objection to Little Rock School District's Motion for Unitary Status''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2001-08-02"],"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 (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","School integration","School superintendents","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Joshua: Objection to Little Rock School District's Motion for Unitary Status''"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1362"],"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":["89 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":361,"next_page":362,"prev_page":360,"total_pages":6766,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":4320,"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}}]}}