{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_305","title":"Compliance court orders","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2000-03/2001-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","School administrators"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance court orders"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/305"],"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\nif Hz- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS CASE NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. received DEFENDANTS I) KIRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. SE^P 6 2001 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT WRIGHT, ET AL. Office Of OeseSREGATIOSJ MOJifTOR/iMS INTERVENORS THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS RESPONSE TO THE PLAINTIEFS 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 LRSDs 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, thats 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 Districts belief that Attorney Walker violated the courts orders... by appearing at the office of Dr. Bonnie Lesley on the morning of August 23. 12001T 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. Lesleys 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 buildin\nig- 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 Mr. 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 Pendley. 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 2school 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 honors 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 County Special School District, et al., 949 F2d 253, 259 (8' Cir., 1991). We submit that our presence is required both 1 to fulfill our class representative obligations and to assure that class concerns regarding implementation of the court orders will be effectively addressed. Messrs. Heller \u0026amp; 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. .espectfully submitted. J^htW. Walker, P.A. 4723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 J501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) By: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do. hereby state the foregoing response has been sent to all counsel of record on this 4* day of September, 2001 via United States mail post^e prepaid. Joj W. Walker - Bar No. 64046 4 I 2001 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CTT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION a LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF No. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOi DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL. )\u0026lt; '^ECEiWD DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. SEP S 200^ INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. OFHCEQF desesrkaiionwww^ INTERVENORS STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF koMke. AFFIDAVIT OF JOY C. SPRINGER ) )ss. ) Comes the affiant, 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 Ish 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 ofBcials and at my own initiative. My meetings with IRC staff have usually been professional. J. On some of my monitoring visits, I have been accompanied by other office staff of John 1W. Walker, P.A., including Mr. 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 Lesleys vitae which we had requested on August 20' and August 22\"\" 5. Mr. Walker and 1 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 Lesleys 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. Lesleys 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. 28. After a quick review of the document, Mr. 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. Lesleys office and closed the door. While we waited for Ms. Gilliam to return, I observed Mr. Walker take copies available to the public of the standards and benchmarks for grades one through eight. 9. Ms. Gilliam came out of Dr. Lesleys 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 Mr. Walker was leaving the office and I remained in the office, Mr. Walker then asked Ms. Gilliam if there was any information to supplement the instructional divisions agenda items that were on the school boards agenda for that night. She did not answer. Mr. Walker then left the office. 11. Ms. Gilliam went into Dr. Lesleys office again and closed the door. I sat down and waited for a few minutes for Ms. Gilliam to come out of Dr. Lesleys office. Ms. Gilliam did not return. 12. I left the reception area of Dr. Lesleys offices and joined Mr. 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 of Dr. Lesleys 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 Jask 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. Lesleys offices at the time that Dr. Lesley volunteered the information regarding the grant proposals. He was still in the hallways of the building. 16. When I left the reception area of Dr. Lesleys 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 if he 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 districts display tables and the reception area of Dr. Lesleys offices. 17. Except for speaking to people, Mr. Walker initiated no further conversation with anyone in Dr. Lesleys offices or the IRC. As we exited the building, Mr. Walker asked me who the lady was coming 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 of Ms. Jo Evelyn Elston, I am also familiar with the facts surrounding that encounter. 19. When we arrived at Ms. Elstons offices on August 16, 2001, there was no secretary 4in her reception area. In early June, 2001, when I visited Ms. Elstons offices, there was no secretary present in her outer offices. 20. I was the first person to walk into Ms. Elstons office and as I did so, I said hello in order to gain the attention of Ms. Elston and Dr. Terrence Roberts. 21. Asi 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 Mr. Walker and \u0026gt;! Ms. Caldwell who came into Ms. Elstons office behind me. Mr. Walker, Ms. Frances Caldwell and I were invited into the offices of Ms. Elston after I got Ms. Elstons 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, recruitment, 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 5participation in AP courses. 2^ On Saturday, June 30, 2001, while on my way to lunch with Mr. 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 rhe Districts motion for declaration of unitary status. Mr. Washington had previously suggested that I invite liim over for a cook-out at my house one weekend. I also told \u0026gt;) him that we could 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. li / 'Y C. SPRINGER SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before mele day of August, PUBLIC lOl. MY CO^MMlSSION EXPIRES: ! jsaoooiii),. 6 i %1 4 1 \\ I FILED  /--! r'r-A i SEP 0't 2001 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSASIES W. McCORMACK, CJ WESTERN DIVISION H\n:. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF y. NO. 4\n82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL. J!' MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. g^ECEIVED DEFENDANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT. ET AL. STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF SEP - 6 2C01 INTERVENORS OBI 13 INTERVENORS AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN W. WALKER ) )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 Plaintiffs 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 if there is an Order entered 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-J. 4. 5. affidavits, one from Ms. Anita GilEam 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: On August 20, 2001,1 wrote Mr. Clay Pendley , Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark and the co-counsel, Mr. Chris Heller, also of that firm, at least three letters and I spoke with ' Mr. Pendley 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. 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 note that I wrote in that letter with respect to district officials whom we sought information from that if we 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] Lesleys 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 board meeting on August 23, 2001, 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. 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. Mr. Pendley was copied with the letter. I did not receive the requested fax response on August 22, 2001 from either Mr. Pendley 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\n00 a.m., I and Joshua Intervenor Monitor, Ms. Joy Springer, went to the Instructional Resource Center IRC located 9 at 30* and Pulaski Streets in Little Rock. We discussed obtaining information from Ms. Vanessa Cleavers office and obtaining a copy of the vitae of Dr. 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 Lesleys office. We both went into the outer office of Dr. Bonnie Lesley and I spoke with Ms. Anita Gilliam, Dr. Lesleys 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. Lesleys 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. Lesleys 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-) 7. 8. 9. 10. 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. I did not seek any information from Ms. Gilliam other than the resume of Dr. Lesley and any 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 days board meeting. On the agenda there were several pohcy proposals from Dr. Lesley: IVA with five pages of an administrative regulation IVA-R\nproposed revision to administrative regulation IKEC-R3\nCredit by Examination with five additional pages\nprogram evaluation agenda for 2001 -2002, three pages\nweighted credit for university studies courses at Hall High School, two pages\nproposed revision to administrative regulation IKC-R: Grade Point Average and Rank in Class, six pages\nand, a grant proposal - Teaching United States History, one page. While I was in the office, I asked Ms. Gilham if there 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. Before I left Ms. Gilliams office, I picked up copies addressed to parents and guardians of standards benchmarks for grades 1-8. I left Ms. Gilliams office and walked down the hallways of the IRC. There were pubhc pass outs on the tables -4-11. 12. 13. 14. which involved the districts schedule, the LRSDs Comprehensive Partnership for Mathematics and Science Achievement, the PRAXIS Series Tests at a Glance for approximately fourteen different programs, and several communications to parents. Dr. Lesley has given an afhdavit in support of the districts motion to cite me for contempt. Dr. Lesley indicates that she spoke with me personally. I make this 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 afSdavit, 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. Lesleys 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\nthat upon being provided the copy. I asked if it was a complete copy\nand I asked if there any other writings that supported the departments agenda items on the school board agenda of 6:00 p.m. that day I could have. When I returned to my office I wrote Ms. Ann Marshall, ODM Monitor, a letter complaining about the districts response and asking her help: 1 am writing this letter to enlist your offices 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 districts general inclination. Exhibit F. A copy of this letter went to Dr. Lesley and to Mr. Chris Heller. After the school board meeting on the evening of August 23,2001, it appears that Dr. -5-Lesley updated her vitae. Her letter dated August 23, 2001, Exhibit G, begins as follows: You came to the ISH IRC on August 23, 2001, and requested immediately of my assistant a copy of the resume that we had mailed to you on Wednesday. It appears that the letter dated August 23, 2001, was written after that date. Today, August 27, 2001, I received Exhibit F in original form from Dr. Lesley. She now indicates that she has updated her curriculum vitae to a point where it is now 27 pages J n 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 23\"'*, she has informed me that to review the document and get a copy of it would cost $11.00\nfor the Technology Challenged Grant Proposal, $4.50. I may then obtain the documents, apparently without going through Mr. Heller and Mr. Fendley by bringing a check for $22.25 to Ms. Gilliam. 15. 16. In Dr. Lesleys letter of August 23as 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. On August 17, 2001, the Court denied LRSDs 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 Courts Order which was received by me in the morning mail on August 23\"* is -6-) 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 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 counsel for the LRSD prior to contacting district officials and personnel about matters that are not currently before the Court. Exhibit A reflects that if we sought opinions from the district administrators we would do that by interviews or by interrogatories. Exhibit B indicates that I informed and went through Mr. Pendley in order to obtain information from Dr. Lesley, i.e., her vitae. Exhibit C reflects that I went through Mr. Fendley on August 20, 2001, in order to 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 Mr. 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, 2001,1 simply stopped by the LRC 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. 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. -1-J, 22. 23. 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. The districts counsel were aware of this commitment. Moreover, the districts counsel were aware that I intended to appear at the school board meeting on the evening on August 23\"*. See Exhibit H. I wrote Mr. Heller that day, August 23, 2001, asking if he perceived the Courts Order as restricting any discussion between me and the board members later that day. See Exhibit H. 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 evidentiaiy 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 1. I was unable to meet with him -8-during his meetings with either of those persons. When I caught up with him he was at Ms. Elstons 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 if he told the truth, I deny having done that. Mr. Washington did not testify at the Court hearing that he feared for his job if he told the truth. MT. 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-) 24. 25. 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 .shortcoming.^ 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 Stewarts 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 of us being seated. Absolutely nothing took place where I sought to obtain infonnation^ verbal or written, from a school district ofiBcial. I further suggest that any intimidation or intended intimidation of Dr. Don Stewart is impossible due, if for no other reason, to Dr. Stewarts 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. 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. 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. jo: W. WALKER SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me ^ay of , 2001. MY co: :SSION EXPIRES: NotaSypublic -11- cout\u0026lt;^ i i i ) ) 0 I J 1 John W. Walker, P.a. ArroENBYAr Law 1723 Broadway Little Eock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WAI,KF,B. SHAWN CHILDS August 20, 2001 Mr. Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 OF COUNSEL EGBERT McHENRY, PjL DONNA J. McHenry . 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd^wbelLiiet ) Dear Clay: In that you have taken ten days, and in that the information that I am seeking is readily accessible, you may have 20 additional days to respond to the FOIA involving the principals. I will agree to a protective order regarding personal student information provided by FREPA. In that the LRSDs motion to be declared unitary is not a trial on the merits of the case, and in that no discovery schedule has been approved by the court, I can not agree to the procedure you suggest. There are several reasons for this. The most compelling reason, however, is that the information 1 request has routinely been provided upon request in the past\nand that we have not requested to use the FOIA in the past for these purposes. We now use the FOIA to make sure that the district is clear about what we need and to give the district officials time to obtain it without interference with their jobs. You lawyers interrupted the process when you decided you wanted to scrutinize each request that came from us. To us, that means that you not only want to review the matter but to structure the response as well. Clay, the documents we requested to review need not be examined first by you if they are public documents. We dont even need to copy many of them. We are entitled to see them even if the purpose is unrelated to your motion. You make things more difScuit and then try to blame us for having done so. ( With respect to the federal rules, we will request that you make available witnesses without depositions. If we seek opinions from your primary administrative staff members, we will get them either in that form or either by interrogatories. !ry truly yours, i ihn Walker JWW\nlp cc: Ms. Ann Marshall JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway . Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRE PA. DONNA J. MoHENRY 8210 Henderson Road LrrrtE Rook, Arkansas 72210 Phone\n(501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchem7d@swbell.11et August 20, 2001 Mr. Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Dear Mr. Fendley: I intend to request a copy of Dr. Lesleys vitae and am informing you of same. If you have it, would you be kind enough to forward it to me. In that I dont imagine that you do, and it should not be a controversial matter at all, I am forwarding this request to her as well. Sincerely, I W. Walker JWW:lp cc: Dr. Bonnie Lesley Ms. Ann Marshall John W, Walker. P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 BEOADWAy Little Rocs, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS OF COUNSEL EOBERT McHENEY, PA. DONNA J. McHENEY 8210 Hendesson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone\n(501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email\nmchenrydl^wbelLiiet August 20, 2001 Kir. Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Dear Clay: It is now 2:25 p.m.. August 20, 2001. I intend to appear or having someone appear on my behalf at the school district to request a copy of the 2001 budget document which the district has prepared. We have been provided these copies in the past but have not been provided one this time. Perhaps it is an oversight. I have tried to call you by telephone in the last few minutes after having spoken to you for about 20 minutes on another matter and I am informed that you are unavailable for my call. If you determine that I am not entitled to this information, would you kindly inform me whether this information is otherwise available to the public. Siaeerely, D^ri Walker A JWW:lp John w. Wiker, P.A. ATTOENBYArLAW 1723 Broadway Lotle Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAZ (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WAT,KER SHAWN CHILDS August 22, 2001 OF COUNSEL EOBEST McHENEY, EA. DONNAJ. McHENRY 8210 HEioiBssoN Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone\n(501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email\nmohenryd^wbelLnet Dr. Bonnie Lesley Little Rock School District 81^0 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas Dear Dr. Lesley\nWill you please provide me a copy of your vitae by return fax. Thank you for your cooperation. Walker nVW:lp cc: Mr. Clay Fendley Ms. Ann Marshall f \u0026gt; Resume Bonnie Alexander Lesley Home Address: 232 Trelon Circle, Little Rock, AR 72223-3920 Office Address: 3001 S. Pulaski, Little Rock, AR 72206 Home Telephone: 501/868-4289 Office Telephone: 501/324-2131 Home E-mail: baleslev@aol.com Office E-mail: balesIe@irc.lrsdLkl2.ar.tis Educational Background Ed. D., Aug. 1989 to- Baylor University, Waco, Texas 54 Graduate Hours University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, Texas M.A. mEngEsh, Aug. 1968 West Texas A\u0026amp;M University, Canyon, Texas B.A: in English, June 1962 With Honors University of North Texas, Denton, Texas High School Diploma, Valedictorian, May 1959 Hedley High School, Hedley, Texas Work Experience June 1998Present Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School Distric Little Rode, Arkansas Dec. 1995March 1998 Associate Superintendent Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools Kansas City, Kansas June 1993Dec. 1995 Associate State Superintendent for Curiiculum/Standards Delaware Department of Public Instruction Dover, Delaware Oct. 1991June 1993 Associate Superintendent for Curriculum/Instruction Austin Independent School District Austin, Texas June 1986Oct. 1991 Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum Waco Independent School District Waco, Texas iAug. 19S1June 1986 Director of Secondary Education Ysleta independent School District El Paso, Texas ). Aug. 1979Aug. 1981 Fall 1965Spring 1979 J Fall 1964Spring 1965 Fall 1962Spring 1964. Supervisor of Secondary Language Arts Ysleta Independent School District El Paso, Texas Teacher of Enghsh and Creative Writing Eastwood High School Ysleta Independent School District El Paso, Texas Reading and Elementary Spanish Teacher Scotsdale Elementary School Ysleta Independent School District El Paso, Texas English, Mathematics, Reading, Spanish Teacher Silverton Independent School District S Everton, TexasJohn W. Walker, P.A. Attorney Ar Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (601) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WAT,KER SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile - 371-0100 August 23 , 2001 OF COUNSEL aOBEET McHENRY, PA. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Hendeeson Road Liitle Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (601) 372-3425  Fas (501) 372-3428 Ematt: mchenryd^-wbelLjiei: Ms. Ann S. Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 124 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Ms. Marshall\nAs you know, I have been seeking information from the Little Rock School District. You also know it is my behef that the District does not provide full or accurate information, at least to us, upon request. We have some substantial evidence of that already. Yesterday, I requested a copy of Dr. Bonnie Lesleys resume or vitae. You received a copy of my request. She provided a resume, a copy of which is attached. The resume is three pages. The resume is an example of an attitude: give them something, anything will do\nbut dont give them all of what we-have. Dr. Lesley surely provided to the Little Rock School District a far more extensive resume that she provided in response to our request. Perhaps, you have seen it. Surely, the Board of Directors had more than what she provided to us. I am writing this letter to enlist your offices assistance in helping to ensure that the Little Rock School District 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 Districts general inclination. Sincerely, /^nn W. Walkdf JWW\njs Attachment cc: Dr. Bonnie Lesley Mr. Chris Heller An Individual Approach to a World of IPdiowledge August 23, 2001 MB 27 an Mr. John Walker 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 h Dear Mr. Walker: I You came to the Ish IRC on Thursday morning. August 23, 2001, and requested immediately of my assistant a copy of the resume that we had mailed to you on Wednesday. She provided that to you. Then you and Ms. Springer requested copies of the grant proposals that were referenced in the Board agenda book for the August 23 meeting. I told Ms, Springer that we can provide those but that I dont have copies in my office and would have to get them from others. Then you told Ms. Gilliam that the resume I had provided was not adequate, that you wanted a more complete one, with lists of my writings. I asked her to tell you that I would have to update what I had, but that I would be happy to provide that, although it will be very long. I stopped what I was doing this morning and spent the necessary time to update the full curriculum vitae that you apparently want. I also secured from the other offices copies of the United States History grant proposal and the Technology Challenge grant proposal. The curriculum vitae is 27 pages long, so the cost for that document is $6.75. The United States History grant proposal is 44 pages, so the cost for that document is $11.00. The Technology Challenge grant proposal is 18 pages, so that cost will be $4.50. That is a total of $22.25. If you will bring a check made payable to the LRSD for that amount to Ms. Gilliam, she will provide you with the copies of the documents that you have requested. YojleFs Connie A. Lesley, cd. D. Associate Superintendent for Instruction BAL/adg cc: Chris Heller Clay Fendley Dr. Kenneth James 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.Irsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fes\n501-324-2032 John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney Ar Law 1723 Broadway Ltttle Book, Arkansas 72206 Tkt,EPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WAT,KER SHAWN CHILDS August 23, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHenry, PjL DONNA J. McHENEY 8210 Hendbsson Road Little Rock, xArkansas 72210 Phone\n(501) 372-3425  Fas (501) 372-3428 Email\nmchenryd^wbelLnet Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Dear Mr. Heller\nDo you perceive the Judges Order as requiring me to inform you that I intend to have a discussion with the board members today during the board meeting. Please let me hear from you by return fax. ySi^cerely, W. Walker JWW:lp cc\nMs. Arm Marshall 1 /OHN WALKER, PA. Attorn^ at Law 1723 Broadway Litde Rod:, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 FAX TRANSXnSSION COVER^ SHEET Tax: Re: Sender: To: YOU SHOULD RECEIVT [ (induding cover sheet)] PAGE(S), EXCLUDING _ THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT FECETVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEAEE CALL ''\u0026lt;(501)S74-3758\u0026gt; The information contained in this facsimile message is attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for tire use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediate notify us by telephone, and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. Tarsnee J. Roberts, PhD. P.O. Bos 96- Pasadena, CA 91102 (626) 644-4956 August 17, 2001 Mr. John Cia^' Fendley Friday, SIdredgs \u0026amp; Clark ) 2000 Regions Center ''i :\u0026lt;aP.-cirif .AA\"R 72201 Mr. John W, Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Mr. Fendiej' and Mr. Walker: It was brought to my itlentioh this momiug by John Walker that a mos: tica to eke Mr. Jolin WaOsef ip contempT of court was made by Mr. Clay Fendley, representative of the Little Rock School District. ?y^_ w^ijrwr p?i\u0026gt;Vtdcd ulC With thfi iiiOuOu, J apl addrSSSing thS facts in paragraph 2 of the motion i i I was present with Ms. Jo Evelyn Elston when Mr. W'sikw -asri twtj ijf iliil iSSGClixLcS wcr 1X1 VilCU into her ofSces. Mr. Walker did not barge into Ms. islstons oiSoe. Mr. Waik-er cognizsnt of .-4 Lerexcre, he addressed his ststeiiiniits to ixi ord^A to Ci^'xfy heipg discussed between Ms. ilston and mysi t:? j i Please coxitact me if addxtii Sincerely, LiXLVXXXXCXtXV.^^ i I I Terrence J. Roberts, PlhD 'J I Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (I922-I994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR., P A. JOE D. BELL. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK S- URSERY. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR-. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P-A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM III. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III. P A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD D. TAYLOR. P-A. JOSEPH B HURST. JR.. P-A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. P-A. MICHAEL S. MOORE, P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY, P.A. WALTER M. EBEL HI. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR., P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR.. P.A HARRY A. LICHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER. P.A. TONIA P. JONES. P.A. DAVID D. WILSON. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE. SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703-4811 TELEPHONE 501-695-2011 FAX 501-695-2147 JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GRAF. P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P-A. JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR.. P.A. JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO. P.A. R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.A. GREGORY D. TAYLOR. P.A. TONY L. WILCOX. P.A. FRAN C. HICKMAN. P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY. P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W. SMITH. P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT. P.A. DANIEL L. HERRINGTON. P.A. MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR. ALLISON I. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL MICHAEL E- KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P- MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON PHILIP B. MONTGOMERY KRISTEN S. RIGGINS ALAN G. BRYAN OF COUNSEL B S CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE, P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. A.D. MCALLISTER 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2898 FAX 870-762-2918 JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-3323 FAX 501-244-5341 fndlyfc.nt September 21, 2001 received ( ria Facsimile \u0026amp; Mail) Honorable Susan Webber Wright United States District Court SEP 24 2G01 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3325  QffICEOr ^^SESHEGATIONnOfilHQ RE: Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et. al.\nMrs. Lorene Joshua, et. al.\nKatherine Knight, et. al. United States District Court Western Division No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Judge Wright: Enclosed please find Plaintiffs Motion to Compel and Request for Expedited Hearing. This motion concerns discovery propounded by Plaintiff to the Joshua Intervenors. Joshua has advised that they will not respond absent a Motion to Compel. We respectfully request that this matter be set for an expedited hearing at the courts earliest convenience. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, JCF/bgb enclosure(s) cc: Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Sam Jones W. 'JWs. Richard Roachell s. Ann Marshall Mr. Steve Jones Mr. Sammye Taylor F:\\HOME\\BBrown\\Fendley\\LRSD\\wright lt.wpd IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED HEARING Plaintiff Little Rock School District for its Motion for Compel states: 1. received SEP 24 20C1 Q55ICE\u0026gt; PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Plaintiff served the Joshua Intervenors with written discovery by mail on August 9, 2001, making Joshua's responses due on or before September 11, 2001. Joshua has failed and refused to respond. 2. Plaintiff contacted Joshua concerning responses and was advised to file a motion to compel. 3. A copy of the written discovery served on Joshua is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that Joshua be ordered to provide full and complete responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production to the Joshua Intervenors Regarding Joshua's Objections to Unitary Status on or before October 1, 2001\nthat an expedited hearing be held on this Motion at the Court's earliest convenience\nthat Plaintiff be awarded its costs and attorneys' fees expended herein\nand that Plaintiff be awarded all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled.Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501)376-2011 BY: yCnnstopher Heller (#81083^1 ZJohn C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following persons by fax and mail on September 21, 2001: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sammye Taylor Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Or Cnristopher Heller I' tj' Uohn C. Jr. Fendley, F \\HOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD 2001\\dcs-mot-coiiipel wpd 38'9-0! IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS REGARDING JOSHUAS OBJECTIONS TO UNITARY STATUS Comes the Plaintiff, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), and submits the following Interrogatories and Requests for Production to be answered within thirty days in accord with Rules 33 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. GENERAL DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS tr (A) \"you\" or \"your' Shall mean the Joshua Intervenors' LRSD class representative and counsel for the Joshua Intervenors and any person (as defined below) acting on their behalf\n(B) \"person\" Shall mean any individual, corporation, partnership, joint venture, firm. association, proprietorship, agency, board, authority, commission, and other such entities. II (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\nII (D) \"document' EXHIBITShall mean any original written, typewritten, handwritten, printed or recorded material, as well as all tapes, disks, non-duplicate copies and transcripts thereof, now or at any time in your possession, custody or control\nand, without limiting the 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\n(E) \"identify tt (i) As to a person (as defined), shall mean the person's name, business and residence address(es), occupation, job title\nand, if not an individual, state the type of entity and the address of its principal place of business\n(ii) As to a document, shall mean the type of document (letter, memo, etc.) the identity of the author or originator, the date authored or originated, the identity of each person to whom the original or copy was addressed or delivered, the identity of such 2The singular includes the plural number, and vice versa. The masculine includes the feminine and neuter genders. The past tense includes the present tense where the clear meaning is not distorted by change of tense. If you do not answer any Interrogatory or Request for Production because of a claim of privilege, set forth the privilege claimed, the facts upon which you rely to support the claim of privilege, and identify all documents for which such privilege is claimed. INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please identify all persons who participated in the preparation of the responses hereto. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please identify the Joshua Intervenors' LRSD class representative and the date on which that person became Joshuas class representative. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please identify all persons who performed monitoring for you during the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Please produce all of your monitoring reports that were shared with LRSD during the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. fNTERROGATORY NO. 4: Please identify and describe in detail all areas of noncompliance and bad faith implementation communicated by you to LRSD during the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Please produce all documents pertaining to areas of noncompliance and bad faith implementation communicated by you to LRSD during the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 4INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Please state whether you received a copy of LRSDs Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999, on July, 1, 1999, and if not, please state when you received a copy of LRSDs Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Please identify and describe in detail all communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the format or content of LRSDs Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Please produce all documents pertaining to communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the format or content of LRSDs Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Please identify and describe in detail all communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the format or content of LRSDs Interim Compliance Report filed March 15, 2000. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Please produce all documents pertaining to all communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the content and format of LRSDs Interim Compliance Report filed March 15, 2000. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Please identify and describe in detail all racial disparities revealed by your monitoring during the term of LRSDs 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\n(c) Whether LRSDs response to the racial disparity complied with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\nand if not, why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 5REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding Interrogatory regarding racial disparities. fNTERROGATORY NO. 9: Please identify and describe in detail all incidents of racial discrimination in the imposition of discipline which occurred during the term of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, and separately with regard to each such incident, please state: (a) (b) (c) When you became aware of the incident\n''Yhen you communicated your knowledge of the incident to LRSD\nWhether LRSDs response to the incident complied with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\nand if not, why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding Interrogatory regarding incidents of racial discrimination in the imposition of discipline. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: On average, about 85% of LRSDs suspensions are of African-American students (See Compliance Report, March 15, 2001, p. 24). Please explain how much of that 85%, if any, you contend results from racial discrimination by LRSD and identify all facts and documents with support that contention? REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding interrogatory. 6INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Please identify and describe in detail all incidents involving student discipline which you referred to the LRSD Ombudsman\nand separately for each such incident, please state: (a) 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 and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Please produce all documents pertaining to your communications with the LRSD Ombudsman. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Please identify all facts and documents which support your objection to LRSD's compliance with Section 2.5 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Please identify all facts and documents which support your objection to LRSD's compliance with Section 2.5.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding interrogatory. 7INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Please identify all facts and documents which support your objection to LRSD's compliance with Section 2.5.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Please identify all facts and documents which support your objection to LRSD's compliance with Section 2.5.3 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Please identify all facts and documents which support your objection to LRSD's compliance with Section 2.5.4 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Please state whether you contend that the \"Program Evaluation Agenda\" and/or the \"Assessment Plan\" set forth on pages 53-57 in the Interim Compliance Report filed March 15, 2000, complied with LRSD's obligation under Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. If not, please: (a) identify and describe in detail all facts and documents supporting your contention\n(b) state when you determined that they did not comply\nand, (c) when you communicated to LRSD your belief that they did not comply\n8(d) why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding interrogatory. rNTERROGATORY NO. 18: Please identify and describe in detail all programs, policies and procedures proposed by you pertaining to LRSDs obligations under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: Please oroduce all documents pertaining to programs, policies and procedures proposed by you pertaining to LRSDs obligations under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Please produce all documents received by you in the ordinary course of business (as opposed to in response to an FOIA request) during the term of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan pertaining to your participation on LRSD committees or in LRSD activities. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Please produce all documents pertaining to your invoking the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 37$=2^H------------. BT Cfiristopher Heller 1083\nJohn C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 9CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on August 9, 2001: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sammye Taylor Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 F HOMF FES'DLEY LRSD OOr.des-unilan ini-rfp-Joshua-OOI wpd 10 iristopher Heller IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED HEARING Joshua has failed and refused to respond to Plaintiffs diseovery requests served by mail on August 9, 2001. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(5) authorizes the party submitting interrogatories to move for an order compelling responses under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a) where the party to whom interrogatories were submitted fails to respond. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4) prohibits the party to whom interrogatories were submitted from responding to a motion to compel by raising objections to the interrogatories. It provides, \"Any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the party's failure to object is excused by the court for good cause shown.\" (emphasis supplied). Similarly, Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b) authorizes a party submitting requests for production to move for an order compelling production under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). Accordingly, Plaintiff prays that Joshua be ordered to provide full and complete responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production to the Joshua Intervenors Regarding Joshua's Objections to Unitary Status on or before October 1, 2001Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501)376-2011 BY\n/ Christopher Heller (#8108 w (./John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92IK) Fendley, (#92182) 2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following persons by fax and mail on September 21,2001: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sammye Taylor Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 istopher ihn C. Fendley, Jr. Heller  '/j dlev, F\n\\HOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD 200l\\des-inol-compel-bn wpd 3RECESVED SEP 2 4 2001 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO.4\n82CV00866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS JOSHUAS ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION REGARDING JOSHUAS OBJECTIONS TO UNITARY STATUS 6/^'  /.' bra.r~, r fNTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please identify all persons who pailicipated in the preparation of the responses hereto. ANSWER NO. 1: John W. Walker as counsel for the Joshua Intervenors and Joy C. Springer, Monitor. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please identify the Joshua Intervenors LRSD representative and the date on which that person became Joshuas class representative. ANSWER NO. 2: The Defendant LRSD is aware of the class representatives. There have been no new or additional persons identified as class representatives. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please identify all persons who performed monitoring for you dming the tenn of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Educational Plan. ANSWER NO. 3: The following persons performed 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 yom monitoring reports that were shared with LRSD during the term of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. RESPONSE NO. 1: The Joshua Intervenors counsel, in response to and at the request of Superintendent Les Caimne and District counsel Chris Heller, in an effort to be cooperative with them did not publish any monitoring reports of the concenis which he had with respect to LRSD Plan implementation between 1998 and 2001. See the written commimications from Heller, Camine and Walker - Court Exhibits 558 and 566. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Please identify and describe in detail all areas of noncompliance and bad faith implementation communicated by you to LRSD \u0026amp; term of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 4\nPlease see Joshuas Opposition to LRSDs Motion for Unitary Status filed herein. The 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 Carmine, District cormsei Chris Heller, Jrmious Babbs, James Washington, Sadie Mitchell, Marion Lacey, Linda Watson, Brady Gadberry, Victor Anderson, Bonnie Lesley and Gene Parker that contain correspondence and other documentation from Joshua. There is a partial list of items in the March 15, 2001 Compliance Report. In addition, undersigned counsel had numerous conversations with -2-Superintendent Canijne 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 bistmctional Resource Center\nPulaski Heights Middle School involving disparate tieatment of African American students and staff, disparate discipline, lack of academic achievement, use of racial sluis and racial epitaphs by staff, assault of students by staff and discriminatory learning environment\nHall High School involving discriminatory learning environment, dispai ate discipline, lack of recognition of academic honors and lack of academic achievement\nCloverdale Middle School involving discriminatory learning environment. dispar ate discipline and lack of academic achievement\nthe creation and implementation of Office of Ombudsperson\ndiscriminatory practices 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 discriminatory conduct toward African American students and/or staff (Faith Donovan, Nancy Rosseaum etc.)\nMabelvale Middle School involving discriminatory learning environment, disparate discipline and lack academic achievement\nDunbar Middle School involving disparate discipline of students including the use of resource officer in investigation and detennination 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 dispaiate discipline, discriminatory discipline practices\nWakefield Elementary involving the quality of education being delivered and discriminatoiy learning environment\nForest Park Elementary involving discriminatory learning environment, discriminatoiy practices regarding the participation in field tiip activities, racial comments by members of the PTA\nMeadowcliff Elementary involving dispaiate discipline\nWestern Hills Elementaiy involving retaliatory treatment of staff member who complained about lack of and poor implementation of lEPs and education of African American students\nRockefeller Elementary involving disparate discipline of students and staff\nHorace Maim involving discriminatory grading practices. discriminatory discipline rules established at the school level, disparate discipline practices, assault of student by staff member\nCentr'al High School involving discriminatory practices in student participation in extr acunicular- activities- cheerleader tryouts, homecoming queens, mock court, student council, disparate discipline practices. one race AP classes and favoring white students in these classes, lack of academic achievement and favoring white students irr awards and activities\nParkview involving discriminatory practices in counseling services, disparate discipline, discriminatory practices in student participation in extracunicular activities (band and choir). discriminatory teaching assignments, lack of academic achievement\nMcClellan involving unequal facilities, staff, leanring evironment, resources, and staff use of racial epitaphs\nseveral incidents of discriminatory assigrrment practices\nnumerous incidents of the Districts failme to properly implement lEPs of African American students\nand Safety -4-and Secmity Director Bobby Jones staff use. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Please produce all documents to areas of noncoinpllance and bad faith implementation communicated by you to LRSD during the term of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. RESPONSE NO. 2\nRefer to response given in Interrogatory Answer No. 4. Documents are located in files entitled John W. Walker m the offices of Junious Babbs, Superintendent Camine, Sadie Mitchell, and other central office administrators including the offices of Ombudsperson, James Waslungton. Copies of these files have been previously provided to counsel for the District. Also refer to Coml Exhibits 556, 557, 558 and 566. Also see attached documents. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Please state whether you received a copy of LRSDs Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999, on July, 1, 1999, and if not, please state when you received copy of LRSDs Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999. ANSWER NO. 5: I obtained with difficulty and only after repeated requests of the plan from District officials. Superintendent Camine and Junious Babbs acknowledge that the compliance plan was not provided to cormsei for Joshua Intervenors until after a request was made for it along with the compliance handbook.. See Coml Exhibits 559 and 562. (Plan was received shortly after the date indicated in Babbss letter of August 31, 2001, Coml Exhibit 562.) INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Please identify and describe in detail all communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the fomrat or content of LRSDs -5-Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999. ANSWER NO. 6: There were no communications between the parties regarding the foimat or content of the Compliance Plan. District officials and other compliance committee members developed the plan without input from Joshua. District officials did not request any input from Joshua although Joshua sought on many occasions to be involved in the process. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Please produce all documents pertaining to communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the foimat or content of LRSDs Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999. RESPONSE NO. 3: Refer to response given in InteiTOgatoiy Answer No. 6. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Please identify and describe in detail all communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the foimat or content of LRSDs Interim Compliance Report filed March 15, 2000. ANSWER NO. 7: There were no communications between the parties. District officials and other compliance committee members developed the content and format of LRSDs Interim Compliance Report filed on March 15, 2000 without input from Joshua. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.4: Please produce all documents pertaining to all communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the content and format LRSDs Interim Compliance Report filed Maich 15, 2000. RESPONSE NO. 4: Refer to response given in Interrogatory Answer No. 7. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Please identify and describe in detail all racial -6- disparities revealed by your monitoring during the tenn of LRSDs 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 LRSDs response to the racial disparity complied with the Desegregation and Education Plan\nand if not, why you did not invoke the process raising compliance issues pmsuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 8: Please refer to the Joshuas Response in Opposition to LRSDs Motion for Unitary Status filed herein. Also see InteiTOgatoiy Response No. 4. District officials and members of the compliance committee withheld and refused to share the quarterly reports which were produced by the School Services division of the District. These reports were indicative of the racial dispaiities that remained present in the District. Also see the notes and files of Superintendent Les Camine, 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. Joshuas counsel was continually misled and misinformed by LRSD school officials including Camine and Heller regarding desegregation accomplishments. In addition, the Distiict did not regularly provide the semester by semester discipline statistics. The Joshua Intervenors counsel did invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to the revised plan which he had with respect to LRSD -7-Plan implementation between 1998 and 2001 involving several issues, however, in response to and at the request of and from Supeiintendent Cainine and District counsel Chris Heller and upon promised of fair and adequate remedy thereof, he did not follow through on the compliance issues that were raised. Joshuas right to contest in a vigorous manner the Districts release from court jurisdiction after the Districts report of March 15, 2001 is independent of the number of times Joshua invoked the process described in Section 8 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Please produce all documents periaining to your response to the preceding Intenogatory regarding racial disparities. RESPONSE NO. 5\nRefer to response given in Interrogatory Answer No. 8. Also see Coml Exhibits 556, 557, 558, 566 and 582. Also see attached documents. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Please identify and describe in detail all incidents of racial discrimination in the imposition of discipline which occurred during the term of LRSDs 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 LRSDs 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-ANSWER NO. 9\nJoshua received notice of nrunerous incidents involving racial discrimination over the three year period. See Response in Interrogatory No. 4. Also see the files of Ombudsman, James Washington. Also see letter addressed to Superintendent Caimne with copies to James Washington and Dr. Linda Watson dated November 8, 2000, Coml Exhibit 567. There were numerous racial incidents dming this period including, but not limited to the following schools: Hall High School, McClellan, Central, Parkview and Fan High Schools, Pulaski Heights, Mann, Cloverdale, Southwest Dunbar and Forest Heights Middle Schools, Brady, Western Hills, Caiver, Forest Park, Dodd, Rightsell, Gibbs and Pulaski Heights Elementary schools. Many of these cases were referred to the office of the Ombudsman. Also see Answer to InteiTogatoiy Nos. 8 and 11. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding Interrogatory regarding incidents of racial discrimination in the imposition of discipline. RESPONSE NO. 6\nSee the files of Dr. Linda Watson, Student Hearing Officer and those of the Ombudsperson, James Washington. Also see Court Exhibits 567, 568 and attached documents. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: On average, about 85% of LRSDs suspensions are of Afiican-American students (See Compliance Report, March 15, 2001, p. 2 Please explain how much of that 85%, if any, you contend results from racial discrimination by LRSD and identify all facts and documents with support that contention? -9-ANSWER NO. 10\nLRSD did not adopt specific compliance standaids 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. LRSDs failme hr this regard diminishes Joshuas ability to segregate instances of racial disparity in discipline. Not all black children who are disciplined are not included in the discipline reports. Fmtheimore, it is our opinion that when Aftican American students engage in the same conduct as white students, the white students are not disciplined. In addition, the quarterly reports which confirm the continued disparity were withheld by Districts officials. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Please produce all documents pertaining to yom response to the preceding urterTogatory. RESPONSE NO. 7: See response in InteiTogatory No. 10. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Please identify and describe all incidents involving student discipline which you referxed 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 LRSDs response to the incident complied with the Revised Desegr'egation and Education Plan\nand if not, why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation a Education Plan. -10-ANSWER NO. 11: Joshua handled a number of the cases involving student discipline dm'ing this period for several reasons: 1) the Ombudsman was not allowed to do so initially and 2) the Ombudsman was often working on other matters and was not available. The Ombudsman, James Washington, has reported to Joshua that he has an ongoing investigation of race based misti'eatment at Pulaski Heights Middle School. The following cases were refen'ed to the Districts Ombudsman: 1) Millai'd Russey at Forest Heights Middle School\n2) Alex ONeal at Forest Heights Middle School\n3) Peter Robinson at Hall High School\n4) East End Students attending Pulaski Heights Middle School\n5) Earnest Rump at Soutliwest Middle School\n6) Antonio Jackson at Pulaski Heights Elementary 7) Rodriquez Roy at Pulaski Heights Middle School\n8) Maicus Walker at Horace Maim Middle School\n9) Maim Middle Schools rules regarding participation in extracurricular activities which-are driven by citizenship grades\n10) Cloverdale Middle School regarding its failure to apply appropriate discipline to a white female student, Miracle Null, for use of profanity towards to black teacher\n11) Christopher Mmray at Cloverdale Middle School\n12) Calvin Leonard at Gibbs Elementary\n13) Ewin 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) Cedi'ic Beasley 18) Antonio Jackson at Hall High School\n19) Antione Bernard at Brady Elementaiy\n20) Tommy Bozemann at ALP - Philander Smith\n21) Felicia Duhail at Western Hills Elementary\n22) Brian Gray at Horace Mann\n23) April Hayes at Paikview\n24) LeeAngelo Jones at Rockefeller Elementaiy\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) ClC program implementation (suspensions expunged for white students but not for black students who participated in this program)\nand 31) Letter dated October 9, 2000 regarding disparate treatment of black students bused into Pulaski Heights Middle School. This list may not exhaustive of all incidents of racial discrimination with respect to -12- discipline. Joshua reserves the right to supplement this list. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Please produce all documents pertaining to yom- communicahons 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. Referrals were made during these communications. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Please identify all facts and documents which support yom objection to LRSDs compliance with Section 2.5 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 12\nThe program, policies and procedm'es identified in the Compliance Plan and the March 2000 and 2001 reports ai^in terms of such a level of generality as to not be meaningful with regaid to achieving compliance with respect to the obligation. Interrogatories Numbers 9 and 11 and Requests for Production related thereto. Also refer to Joshuas Response m Opposition. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding interrogatory. RESPONSE NO. 9: See InteiTogatoiy No. 11 and 12. See also LRSD Compliance Plan, Coml Exhibit 544. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Please identify all facts and documents which -13- suppoil your objection to LRSDs compliance with Section 2.5.1 of the Revised Desegiegation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 13: Refer to responses in Interrogatories Numbers 9 and 11 and Requests for Production related thereto. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding mtenngatoiy. RESPONSE NO. 10: Same as Inteirogatoiy No. 13. See also LRSD Compliance Plan, Coml Exhibit 544. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Please identify all facts and docmnents which support yom- objection to LRSDs compliance with Section 2.5.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 14: Compliance with Section 6 of the revised plan with respct to compliance standards and the Compliance Plan should have yielded data on particpular schools by way of example allowing Joshua, ODM and the Com! to assess compliance. The LRSDs Maich 200 and 2001 reports do not provide any data with respect to this obligation. They report that policies adopted and cases are reviewed by the Assistant Superintendent for Discipline. LRSD has not substantially demonstrated that this provision has been complied with. REQUEST FQR PRQDUCTIQN NQ. 11: Please produce all documents m the preceding interTogatory. RESPQNSENQ. 11: Same as Interrogatory No. 14. -14-INTERRQGATORY NO. 15: Please identify all facts and docmnents which support yoiu- objection to LRSDs compliance with Section 2.5.3 of the Revised Desegiegation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 15: Refer to Court 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 resomces and authority). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Please produce all documents hr the preceding interrogatoiy. RESPONSE NO. 12: Refer to Answer to Inteirogatoiy No, 15, INTERROGATORY NO, 16: Please identify all facts and documents which support your objection to LRSDs compliance with Section 2,5,4 of the Revised Desegiegation and Education Plan, ANSWER NO, 16: Compliance with Section 6 of the revised plan with respct to compliance standards and the Compliance Plan should have yielded data on paiticpular schools by way of example allowing Joshua, ODM and the Court to assess compliance. The LRSDs March 200 and 2001 reports do not provide any data with respect to this obligation. They report that these cases are referred to the Pupil Services Team. Joshua contends that the LRSD has not substantially complied with this provisions. See attached documents, (Joshua requested data and counsel for the District replied indicating that no data existed). REQUEST FQR PRQDUCTIQN NQ. 13: Please produce all documents in the -15-preceding inteiTogatory. RESPONSE NO. 13: Refer to Answer in InteiTogatory No. 16. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Please state whether you contend that the Program Evaluation Agenda and/or the Assessment Plan set forth on pages 53-57 in the Interim Compliance Report filed March 15, 2000, complied with LRSDs obligation under Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegi'egation and Education Plan. If not, please: (a) identify and describe in detail all facts and documents supporting yorrr contention\n(b) state when you determined 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 Sectiorr 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Educational Plan. ANSWER NO. 17: Evaluation under 2.7.1 was to reach all academic programs implemented pru-suant to Section 2.7. Also those listed in Section 5 of the plan, as well as others implemented by LRSD to fulfil its obligation under 2.7. Joshuas ability to respond to this interrogatory is hindered by the Districts 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 cmriculum 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 Mitchell, -16-Bonnie Lesley and Superintendent Camine. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding interrogatory. RESPONSE NO. 14: See transcript of the July and August, 2001 hearings. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Please identify and describe m detail all programs, policies and procedures proposed by you perlaining to LRSDs obligations under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 18: DisPict officials and compliance committee members chose not to involve cormsei for Joshua hr the development of programs, policies and procedmes. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: Please produce all documents pertaining to programs, policies and procedmes proposed by you perlaining to LRSDs obligations under the Revised Desegr egation and Education Plan. RESPONSE NO. 15: Refer to Court Exhibits 552, 554, 560, 563 and attached documents regarding undersigned counsels complaints regarding non involvement hr the development of programs, policies and procedmes. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Please produce all documents received by you in the ordinary course of business (as opposed to in response to an FOIA request) during the term of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan pertairring to your pmticipation on LRSD committees or hr 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 Bhacial Committee meetings. Notices regar'ding Charter School Committee and agenda. Joshua cormsei and Monitor Springer had to request many of the documents regarding LRSD committees and activities as a part of our ongoing monitoring activities. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Please produce all documents pertaining to your invoking the process for raising compliance issues pru'suant to 8.2 of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. RESPONSE NO. 17: See attached documents. Also see Comt Exhibits 565,567,568 and 569. Joshua further reserves the right to supplement tire answers provided herein. Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (Tel.) (501) 374-4187 fF-ax) / By: 7 alker, AR Bar No. 64046 -18- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailedpostage prepaid to the following counsel or record, postage prepaid on this Xl day o-f- It\n2001. Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jones, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 in Walker -19-FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION EASTEUR.SN. DDIISSTTRRIICCTT CAORUKRATN SAS SEP 25 2001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. l,etal.. Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al.. Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al.. Intervenors. * * * * ** ** ** ** * JAMEI By:_ DEP CLERK No. 4\n82CV00866 SWW received SEP 2 6 2001 CGHGEOf OE9E68EBSOMOIVITOHiNS ORDER On September 21, 2001, the Little Rock School District filed a motion to compel and request for expedited hearing concerning written discovery served on the Joshua Intervenors. By fax dated September 24, 2001, attached to this Order, counsel for the Little Rock School District has informed the Court that the motion and request for hearing are now moot. THEREFORE, the motion to compel and request for expedited hearing are hereby DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED THIS DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2001 CHIEF JU UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITPHH RRUIALEE 58 AAND/OR 79(a) FRCa ON BY. 4505 I (l eastern FI^ED S.DISTRICTCnii IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS SEP 26 2001 WESTERN DIVISION JAMES By:___M SMnfWnl ERI DEPCLERI LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF 4:82CV00866 SWW NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL RECEIVED DEFENDTYNTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL MRS. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL SEP 2 8 2001 INTERVENORS INTERVENORS vs. OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER 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 later 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 later 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 i^2/^^^*^^day of September, 2001. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON Chief United States District Judge DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE ' Wl onJ ,ND/OR 79(^)FR BY__ FRCP  n 3 Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1922-1994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR. P.A JOB D. BELL. P.A JAMBS BUTTRY, P.. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. OSCAR B. DAVIS. JR.. P.A JAMES C. CLARK. JR. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A PAUL B. BENHAM lU. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A A WYCKLIPF NISBET. JR. P.A JAMES EDWARD HARRIS, P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL UI. P.A DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A RICHARD D. TAYLOR P.A JOSEPH B. HURST. JR. P.A ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P., CHRISTOPHER HELLER P.A LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A ROBERT S. SHAPER P.A WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN lU. P.A MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A WALTER M. EBEL ITT, P.A KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayflrm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL waUAM WADDELL. JR.. P.A. LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 SCOTT J. LANCASTER P.A M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A ROBERT 3. BEACH. JR. P.A J. LEE BROWN. P.A JAJHES C. BAKER JR. P.A HARRY A LIGHT. P.A SCOTT H. TUCKER P.A GUY ALTON WADE. P.A PRICE C. GARDNER P.A TONIA P. JONES. P.A DAVID D. WILSON. P.A TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE. SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72703-4811 TELEPHONE 501-695-2011 FAX 501-895-2147 JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A DAVID M. GRAP. P.A CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR P.A JOHN C FENDLEY. JR. P.A JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGUO. P.A R CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.A GREGORY D. TAYLOR P.A TONY L. WILCOX, P.A FRAN C. HICKMAN. P.A BETTY J. DBMORY. P.A LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A JAMES W. SMITH. P.A CLIPFORD W. PLUNKETT. P.A DANIEL L. HERRINGTON. P.A MARVIN L. CHILDER8 R COLEMAN WBSTBROOR JR ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL MICHAEL E. KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A IPRAH JAYT. TAYLOR Martin KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS aOBBRT T. SMITH RYAN A BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN $. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON PHILIP B. MONTGOMERY KRISTEN S. RIGGINS ALAN G. BRYAN OP COUNSU. B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A AO. MCALLISTER 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2898 FAX 970-762-2918 September 27, 2001 JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-3323 FAX 501-244-5341 fendly^f\u0026gt;c.n*t Hand Delivered Mr. John W. Walker Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 RE\nLRSD V. PCSSD Dear Mr. Walker: We have received and reviewed your responses to our First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. We find your responses inadequate and respectfully request that you immediately supplement your responses as follows: Interrogatory No. 2: Please provide the name and address of your class representatives. Interrogatory No. 3: Please provide addresses for the monitors identified. Interrogatory No. 4: Your reference to the files of LRSD personnel is nonresponsive. You then identify but fail to describe in detail areas of alleged noncompliance or bad faith implementation. Please describe in detail each allegation. Request for Production No. 2: Please identify the correspondence with. Junious Babbs, Dr. Les Camine, Sadie Mitchell, James Washington and \"other central office administrators\" to which you refer. Your assertion that \"[cjopies of these files have been previously provided to counsel for the District\" is not true if you mean by you. We may have these files, but we have no way of know to what letters within these files upon which you rely. b/t SMr. John Walker September 27, 2001 Page 2 InterrogatorvNo. 5: Neither Dr. Camine nor Mr. Babbs acknowledged that the Comphance Plan was not provided to you until Mr. Babbs letter of August 25,2001. In fact, Mr. Babbs' letter states, \"Y ou will find no revision in it comparable to the copy of the draft that was mailed to your attention prior to board submission and adoption.\" Do you deny receiving a draft of the Comphance Plan prior to submission to the Board? Do you deny receiving a copy of the June 10, 1999, version of the Comphance Plan on July 1, 1999? Interrogatory No. 6: As we read your response, your answer ro rhis interrogatory is \"no.\" Please let us know if our imderstanding is incorrect. Please bear in mind that this interrogatory was not Limited to preparation of the Comphance Plan. InterrogatorvNo. 7: As we read your response, your answer to this interrogatory is \"no.\" Please let us know if our understanding is incorrect. Please bear in mind that this interrogatory was not limited to preparation of the Interim Compliance Report. Interrogatory No. 8: You reference your objections to LRSD being granted unitary status. From what we can decipher from your objections, you refer to disparities in the areas of discipline, achievement and special education. For these three areas and any others revealed by monitoring, please state (a) when you became aware of the disparity\n(b) when you communicated your knowledge of the disparity to LRSD\nand (c) whether's LRSD's response to the racial disparity comphed with the Revised Plan\nand if not, why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 fo the Revised Plan. As to the \"notes and files\" of LRSD personnel, please specifically identify the documents to which you are referring and/or provide copies of those documents as requested tn Request for Production No. 5. Interrogatory No. 9: Please describe in detail the alleged incidents of racial discrimination in the imposition of disciphne. To the extent you reference correspondence with LRSD personnel, please specifically identify the documents to which you are referring and/or provide copies of those documents as requested in Request for Production No. 6. Interrogatory No. 10: As LRSD understands your response, you answer to this interrogatory is that you do not know. Please let us know if our understanding is incorrect. Interrogatory No. 11: Please state whether's LRSD's response to each incident referred to the Ombudsman complied with the Revised Plan\nand if not, why you did not invoke the process for raising comphance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 fo the Revised Plan. Request for Production No. 8: You indicate we should refer to the files of the Ombudsman. We would hke to be sure that his file is complete by comparing it to your file. Accordingly, please identify and/or provide copies of all correspondence between you and the Ombudsman.Mr. John Walker September 27, 2001 Page 3 Interrogatory No. 12: Your answer is nonresponsive. The obhgation under Section 2.5 was to implement programs, pohcies and/or procedures to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline. The District's discipline pohcies and procedures are outlined very clearly in the Students' Rights and Responsibihties Handbooks for each grade level. Do you contend that these were inadequate\nand if so, please identify ah facts and documents which support your position and provide us copies of any documents identified as requested in Request for Production No. 9. Interrogatory No. 13: Your answer is nonresponsive. The obhgation under Section 2.5.1 was to strictly adhere to the pohcies set forth in the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook. Do you contend that LRSD failed to do so\nand if so, please identify all facrs and documents which support your position and provide us copies of any documents identified as requested in Request for Production No. 10. Interrogatory No. 14: Your answer is nonresponsive. The obligation under Section 2.5.2 was to purge students' discipline records after the fifth and eighth grades. Do you contend that the District failed to do so\nand if so, please identify all facts and documents which support your position and provide us copies of any documents identified as requested in Request for Production No. 11. Interrogatory No. 16: Your answer is nonresponsive. The obhgation under Section 2.5.4 requires LRSD to work with students and their parents to develop behavior modification plans for students who exhibit frequent misbehavior. Do you contend that LRSD failed to do so\nand if so, please identify all facts and documents which support your position and provide us copies of any documents identified as requested in Request for Production No. 13. Interrogatory No. 17: You state your position but fail to identify and describe in detail the facts and documents supporting your position\nplease do so and provide copies of any documents as requested in Request for Production No. 14. Please also identify the testimony of Junious Babbs, Sadie Mitchell, Bonnie Lesley and Dr. Leshe Carnine which you believe supports your position. Interrogatory No. 18: As we understand your response, your answer to this interrogatory is \"none.\" Please let us know if our understanding is not correct. Request for Production No. 16: Please provide copies of all documents responsive to this request.Mr. John Walker September 27, 2001 Page 4 Due to the Court's deadline of November 1, 2001, we respectfully request that the above information and documents be provided on or before October 5,2001. If we have not reached some agreement by that date, we will file a motion to compel on October 8,2001. We agree to reimburse you for the cost of copying the documents requested. We appreciate your cooperation. Sincerely, Fendley, cc: Dr. Ken James Ms. Ann Marshall John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 COPY JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Fax: 376-2147 OF COUNSEL SOBEST McHENRY, P.A. DONNAJ. .McHENRY 8210 Henderson Ro.w Little Rook, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  F. (501) 372-3428 Email\nmchemyd^wbeil-nec September 20, 2001 Mr. Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Clay: We are not involved in litigation as that term is normally used. We are in the midst of an action where, despite our burden of proof, the district is defending its motion to be declared unitary. Accordingly, you are not entitled to inquire of us as to matters that you raise in your interrogatories. What difference does it matter regarding what we know, or knew along the way, regarding the district's performance now that you are at the end of the road for compliance, according to your motion. It really doesn't matter. The question is simply did your client do what it was committed to do now. All of the information regarding compliance is in your hands. I believe that your interrogatories are simply an effort to deflect our attention from acquiring information from you which will further demonstrate the lack of performance of the school district in fulfilling its commitments. I view the interrogatories much like I view your resistance to our e-mail requests, i.e., to place as many obstacles in the path of access to knowledge which you know, as a member of the compliance committee who also wore the hat of lawyer, shows noncompliance. The way I am feeling today, you may as well prepare your motion and that will be another matter that we will have a hearing on. Even if I provide a response to your \"interrogatories\" it will be upon the premises that we object to them because they are not pertinent at all to the issues of the lawsuit and that they are not designed to lead to helpful information to establish the district's case. Therefore, while you are in the process of preparing your motion, would you also request the court to set an expedited hearing on it as well as on your motion for contempt. We can use such a hearing date to determine the further parameters of your case before you proceed in November. It is my position that you cannot use information which was not present at the timePage Two September 20, 2001 of your motion to support your motion. Accordingly, you should soon be prepared to inform me of any additional information which you have developed since March 15, 2001, when your time at bat comes. JWW:lp cc: Ms. Ann Marshall Sincerely, J91^n W. Wl \u0026lt;77 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney Ar Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 OPY Via Fax: 376-2147 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, EA. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Lhtle Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  F.aX (501) 372-3428 Email: niciieiir7di:^wbeil.4iet September 20, 2001 Mr. Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, .Xrkansas 72201 Dear Clay: We are not involved in litigation as that term is normally used. We are in the midst of an action where, despite our burden of proof, the district is defending its motion to be declared unitary. Accordingly, you are not entitled to inquire of us as to matters that you raise in your interrogatories. What difference does it matter regarding what we know, or knew along the way, regarding the district's performance now that you are at the end of the road for compliance, according to your motion. It really doesn't matter. The question is simply did your client do what it was committed to do now. All of the information regarding compliance is in your hands. I believe that your interrogatories are simply an effort to deflect our attention from acquiring information from you which will further demonstrate the lack of performance of the school district in fulfilling its commitments. I view the interrogatories much like I view your resistance to our e-mail requests, i.e., to place as many obstacles in the path of access to knowledge which you know, as a member of the compliance committee who also wore the hat of lawyer, shows noncompliance. The way I am feeling today, you may as well prepare your motion and that will be another matter that we will have a hearing on. Even if I provide a response to your \"interrogatories\" it will be upon the premises that we object to them because they are not pertinent at all to the issues of the lawsuit and that they are not designed to lead to helpful information to establish the district's case. Therefore, while you are in the process of preparing your motion, would you also request the court to set an expedited hearing on it as well as on your motion for contempt. We can use such a hearing date to determine the further parameters of your case before you proceed in November. It is my position that you cannot use information which was not present at the time izich'ibi't \u0026amp;LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTR-ATIVE DIRECTIVE: KDB Effective: July 16, 2001 continued Process for Obtaining Infornnation through the FOIA  Any citizen of the State of Arkansas may request records open under the Arkansas FOIA from the LRSDs custodian of the record.  The request may be made in person or by telephone, mail, facsimile transmission, electronic mail, or other electronic means provided by the custodian.  To facilitate the retrieval of the records, the request shall be sufficiently specific to enable the custodian to locate the records with reasonable effort.  The requester should indicate whether or not he/she wants to inspect the records or receive copies of the records. The LRSD will copy the requested records when the requester wants copies and it is reasonable for the District to make the copies.  In an effort to be responsive to the public and avoid accounting procedures that are not cost effective, the District will not charge for the first 25 pages that it copies for a citizen unless the total number of copies exceeds 25 in one calendar month. If it requires more than 25 pages of copies to meet a single request for information, or if a citizen makes additional requests for information within the month which would require more than 25 total pages of copies, the District will charge the requester 25 cents for each copy including the first 25 pages. Additionally, the District will charge the requester the actual costs of mailing or transmitting the record by facsimile or other electronic means. Special requests for electronic information will be handled as follows: 1. The District may agree to summarize, compile, or tailor electronic data in a particular manner or medium and may agree to provide the data in an electronic format to which it is not readily convertible. 2. Where the cost and time involved in complying with the requests are relatively minimal, the District may agree to provide the data as requested. If the custodian agrees to a request, the District will charge the requester the actual, verifiable costs of personnel time exceeding two (2) hours 3. 4. 5. associated with the tasks, in addition to copying costs. The charge for personnel time shall not exceed the salary of the lowest paid employee who, in the discretion of the District, has the necessary skill and training to respond to the request. The District will provide an itemized breakdown of charges-for expenses incurred.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE: KDB Effective\nJuly 16, 2001 continued If the estimated fee exceeds twenty-five dollars ($25.00), the District will require the requester to pay the fee in advance.  Requests must be made during normal business hours. Any requests received by facsimile or other means after regular business hours will be considered received at the start of the next business day.  If the information is in active use or storage at the time of the request, reasonable time will be established for the custodian to comply. The custodian will set a time, date, and place within three days at which time the records will be made available. To the extent practicable the custodian will do this in consultation with the person requesting the record for the convenience of both parties. If the person requesting the information does not come at the appointed time, the records may be returned to active use or storage.  In the event that the requester is seeking information regarding a third party, the custodian of the records will within 24 hours make efforts to the fullest extent possible to notify the person about whom the information is being sought. If personal contact cannot be made within the 24 hours, an overnight letter shall be sent to the last known address of the subject of the request. The District may also seek an Attorney Generals opinion about the release of the records. If an Attorney Generals opinion is sought, the records will not be released before the Attorney General has issued his/her opinion.ua/21/ui tKi 14:52 FAA DRAFT  UUJ little rock school district administrative DIRECTIVE\nEGAD Effective: October 1,2001 the use and deletion of electronic mail pi ol'telecommunications throughout istrict recognizes that employees will shift inrormation. and contact others. As staff members\ncommunity, their use of new tools electronic mail and telecommunicatii to the performance of tasks the electronic work place, the the ways they share ideas, transmit are connected to the global employees will learn to _jons tools and apply them m appropriate wavs associated with their positions and assignments. The District encourages staff to make i and contact others in the e'dricational world oectronic communication svstems exnariila tha use of telecommunications to explore systems expedite the sharing of effective practices and lessons across the District and help staff of practice by forming partnerships with others world. stay on the leading edge across the nation and around the Purpose The specific purposes of this directive are: To ensure that the District's electronic mail system, is used appropriately 0 ensure that the District's electronic mail syste.m works efficiently\nand 0 ensure an orderly and efficient process for the ree^nn^hio and purging of extraneous mail. process for the reasonable timely Inappropriate Use Xorte\" '^haviors are inappropriate and are not pemitted on the District A. B. C, Sharing confidential information on students or employees because messages are not entirely secure\nSending or displaying offensive u, uispiaying onensive messages or pictures\nssisting a campaign for election of any person to any office or for the promotion of or opposition to D. E. elections and business\nany ballot proposition including union Using obscene, harassing, or insulting language\nEngaging in practices that threaten the r. may introduce a virus)\nViolating copyright laws\nnetwork (e.g., loading files thatOTTSTTUT PKi i4:s3 rAl DRAFT Iffl UU4 G. H. I. J. Using others' passwords\nTrespassing in others'folders, documents, or files- Employing the network for commercial purposes\nor Promoting, supporting or celebrating religion or religious institutions. Hev.i.ew of Files and Communication-:\nThe Distnct's computer network is the property and responsibilitv of the I non As such network edministratom may review files and cSXniXtons Network administrators will report inappropriate behaviors to the emblovee's supervisor who will take appropriate disciplinary action Any other inannrnnri3+o ..:_i_x\n__ . . /-ktiy uiiier I Idle uiin.,ipiinary action Anv other renort-\nnf e-mail system and/or disciplinary action. may result in a loss of access to the Storing and Deletion of Electronic Messages and Files receive an extremely large volume of e-mail every day. Storage of e-maii in the Microsoft Outlook software has impact on the efficiency of the system. If a great negative or me system. If users want to save files kept in 1 1 Items,\" they must be approoriateiv personal folders or folders in , they must be appropriately stored in one of the other computer programs or drives. n will sX^ri 4 * rfft? administrators from the Microsoft Outlook software fifteen (15) days after it was sent or received^ Any mail or files sS-I h\"eX4^X\"= 5) 9ays or longer will be lost to the user ano will oe irretrievable. '\"'\"9 -ntil October 1, 2001 to allow all users ample time to clean and file any e-mail that they wish to save to folders. the^'richeroT^'^^^'^-^ folders to save e-iiidii. they snouio rererti f ft Jh/r. ? ^^site for steo-by-step directions DeoartmenV'^^^''^ needed, please contact the LRSD Information Services ucpdi Li ileni. e-mail, they should refer toFriday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEl  *lUAV\u0026lt;(vx2.|\u0026lt;*4i wtuuAM H. SUTTON. P A nviOH M. EISCMAN. JR. P A JOE 0. BELL. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A FREOeRiCX S. URSERY. P.A. ^SCAR E. OAVIS. JR.. P.A. VMBS C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS F. LEGGETT. PA. JOHN OeWEY WATSON. P.A. TAUL a, RENHAM III. P.A. Larry w.auftKS. r.A. A. WYCKJ.JFFNISaET.JIL. P.A. Jambs Eowaro harius. .^.x J. rruuLtP maLCOKL P.a, JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES XL SAXTON, P.A. J. SHEPKERO RUSSELL Hl. P.A. DONALD H. SACON. P.A WILLIAM THOMAS UAXTER. P.a. HARRY E. COFUN. P.A. RICHARD O. TAY1.0a. h.*. jOSnrii u. HURST. JR.. P.A. eulZABSTH ROBKN MURKav. P.a. CKRJSTQPKEK HELUS*. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBCHr S. SHAPER. P.A. WILUAM M. CaiFFtN JU. P.A .M1CHa81,S. MOORE. P.A QIANS $. MACKEY, P.A. Walter jh, sbel iil p.a. JUiVlH A. CXASS. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT UAW A UIMITEO LIAeiUlTY PARTNERSHir www.rrldaynrm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WESTCAP1TOL wiLUAM WAOQSLU. /X., f.. LITTLE ROCX. ARKANSAS 72201-3433 JEFFREY M. MOORE. P A. OAVIO H CRAP. P.A.  CAIU.A GUNNELS SCAINHOUR. f.A. JOHN C PCNOLdr. JR . .*.A. JONANN EUZABETH CUNlCLlO. P.A. R. CHRXSTOPHER LAWSON. P a. GREGORY O. TAYLOR. P.A lOSS^H r MCKAV AiF.YANOlU A. UV r. TAYUJt IFRAH TONY WILCOX. r.A. SCOTT J. LaHCasteil f.a. .M. CaTLS CORLEY. P.A. ROEERT V, OBACH. JR.. P.A. J. use uhOWN. P.A. JAMBS C aAKCR. JR.. P.A. Marry a. ljoht, SCQTT H. TUCKER. P.A. OUY ALTON WADE. P.A PRIGS C. GAXONCX r.A. TONIA P. JONES. P.A OAVtO o. WILSON. r.A, telephone 501-378-2011 PAX 501-376-2147 3125 NORTH FUTRALL ONIVE. SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 727a3-|11 TCLSFMONE 501-405-2011 FAX 501.405-2147 nUN C HICKMAN. r.A. EETTYJ. OCMOKY. r.A, LYNOA M. JOHNSON. f.A. JAMES W. SMITH. r.A. CUFTOXO W. FLUNXUTT. T A. OANtEL L. liEXMNCTON. F.a. .MARVIN L. CHILOQU X. COLZMAN weSTAROOIL JR. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLZN M. OWENS JASON . HENOREH ftftucz a. noweLL MICHaSL S. KARNEY XRU.V MURPHY MCQUEEN MaXTIN a. kUkSTEN aXYAN W. OUKE losvrnc Kicwoi.s MOAEAT T, SMITH *rAH A. qowmak TIMOTHY c. EZELL T MICHELLE ATOR Karen s. halsext Sarah m. cotton fHlLlF a. -MONTCOMEXY taiJTEN J. UCGINS alan g. aavAN 20B NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAa 72316 TELEPHONE aro.7B2\u0026gt;zaa PAX a70.Ta2.2S18 I'lF in'iUNdCL 8.S. CUXRX WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JK H.T. LARZaUlXC. P.A JOHNC. ECHOLS. P A, A IX. .wCalIJSTSR September 12, 2001 JOHN C. FENOLEY. JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL iai-37Q.332S FAX tonUlayOlwc.nat ( Via Facsimile/l^'Iail) Mr. John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Dear Mr. Walker\nWe are in receipt of your letter dated September 12,20(Jk We agree that our communication on this issue should be in wnting. Accordingly, please provide us a written proposal for a Protective Order. We will not make any e-mails responsive to your FOIA requests to principals available for your review until we reach an agreement on a Protective Order, Sincerely, JOO JCF/bgb P:\\HOM8\\0 BrDwntFenOlcjMJLSC^wwker Itwpd John C. Fendley, Jr. iwriurxcLr:. l_MU) r irxi'l bll SEP 'Ml 11:56 DI THE UNITED 5IAES DISTRICT com EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL, INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS REVISED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS PROPOUNDED TO SEPT. LES CARNINE Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, for their Request for Admissions Propounded to Superintendent Les Gamine, as Chief Compliance Officer regarding Little Rock School Districts compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, state as follows: REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 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 ADMISSION NO. 2: You represented to the public, Little Rock School District Board of Directors and the Joshua Intervenors that the commitments of Revised Desegregation and Education Plan had been met. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 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. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: There is no writing from you which reflects i II ^*4X0 I wrii_i\\crc. UMU) f IKri fell HMJ/U4 SEP 28 01 11:56 at you requested the Arkansas Department of Education to monitor the Little Rock School Districts compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: You and District counsel, Christopher Heller requested the Arkansas Department of Education to forgive the Little Rock School Districts indebtedness to the Arkansas Department of Education of the 20 million dollar loan. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: You and District counsel, Christopher Heller represented to the Department of Education Director, Ray Simon, that the Joshua Intervenors approved the Districts efforts to obtain loan forgiveness. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION 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 ADMISSION NO. 8: The subject of loan forgiveness was inappropriate for the Little Rock School District Board of Directors to address in an executive session under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: The Little Rock School District Board of Directors never passed a motion or resolution regarding the Districts requested loan forgiveness to Arkansas Department of Education. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: Neither you nor the Little Rock School District Board of Directors ever determined in a public meeting of the Board that the remediation of achievement disparities as contemplated by the original Settlement Decree and the rulings of the Court of Appeals was impossible to achieve. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: The Ombudsperson did not have any role in the development of policies, programs or procedures wilh respect to the Revised Desegregationwriurxcr. UHW riKI'l bll Ha4ZU4 btH iib 'W1 ll:b7 and Education Plan. Respectfully submitted, 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^py of the foregoing has been counsel of record, on this of September, 2001. MUtd acuveiTed to the following Mr. M. Samuel Jones, HI Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 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 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 Mr. Mark Hagemeiemr Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Joi . Walker i_HW r iKfl fall Hk)l/W4 bhH 28 'UI 11:56 J^OHN W. WALKER, PA. Attorn^ at Lok 1723 Broadwe^ Little RjocE-Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET ''Date-. To: 'Pax: 2,'JI-OIOD Pz: Sender: YO U SHO ULD RECEIVE ] (including cover sheet)] PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL \"\u0026lt;(501) 374-3758\u0026gt;\"^- The infotmaiion contained in this facsimile message is attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for die use of the individual or entity name\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_302","title":"Compliance court orders","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2000-03/2001-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","School administrators"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance court orders"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/302"],"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\nIncludes vitae for Terrence J. Roberts, Ph.D., clinical psychology\nLittle Rock Nine\nAttachment 1 VITAE TERRENCE J. ROBERTS, Ph.D. Clinical Psychology EDUCATION: Ph.D. MSW BA - Southern Illinois University, 1976, Psychology - University of California, Los Angeles, 1970 - California State University, Los Angeles, 1967 LICENSING AND CERTIFICATION: California State Licensed Psychologist, Lie. #PSY8892 California State Licensed Social Worker, Lie. #5600 EXPERIENCE: Chief executive officer for Terrence J. Roberts \u0026amp; Associates, a management consultation firm active in California since 1975. A dynamic group with a wide range of skills and professional abilities. Workshops and Seminars in the areas of: Stress Management Effective Communication Managing Human Relationships Employment Transition Team Building Management Skills Managing Racial and Ethnic Diversity Self Growth and Development Conflict Resolution Developing Multicultural Awareness Employee Evaluation Staff Development Office of Desegregation Monitoring RLE COPYCreated training programs and materials for employees in the department. Participated in program delivery, evaluation and revision. Provided social welfare services to children and families in the child welfare division. CONSULTATIONXPSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES General psychology and consultation practice office in Pasadena, Ca. Practice includes psychological assessment, psychotherapy for individuals, families, and groups, and psychological consultation to education, business and industry. MEMBERSHIPS: Member, American Psychological Association Board Member, African American Cultural Institute Board Member, Eisenhower World Affairs Institute Board Member, Economic Resources Corporation PUBLICATIONS: \"Managing Trial Stress,\" in Jonathan M. Purver, Douglas R. Young, and James J. Davis III, Trial Handbook For California Lawyers. Bancroft-Whitney Co., 1987. ir 'Understanding Choice: Gateway to Sound Mental Health,\" Journal of Mental Health Administration. Vol.9. No.l. 1978. \"Social Welfare in Black America,\" in Cox, et al, eds. Introduction to Black America: A Cultural Perspective, Southern Illinois University Press, 1974. AWARDS: Spingam Medal, 1957 Annual award presented by NAACP to that person or persons making outstanding .contributions to the area of human rights. Robert S. Abbott Memorial Award, 1958 Annual award presented to those who do most to extend the frontiers of democracy. Outstanding Teacher of the Year, College of Human Resources Southern Illinois University, 1974. NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. Award, 1982Award commemorating twenty-fifth anniversary of \"Little Rock. Nine's\" integration of Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. Southern Christian Leadership Conference Women Martin Luther King, Jr. \"Drum Major for Justice\" Award, 1995 Presented in Atlanta, Georgia. REFERENCES: Available upon request.Consultation services provided .to\nCalifornia Attorneys for Crimmal Justice California Medical Center Cedars Sinai Hospital  Children's Bureau of Southern California Claremont Graduate School Cleveland College of Chiropractic Coca-Cola, Mid-Atlantic Division Crown City Medical Episcopal Diocese, Los Angeles Fairfield Community Hospital Heller, Ehrman, White \u0026amp; McAuliffe Internal Revenue Service, Los Angeles Kaiser Foundation King-Drew Medical Center, Los Angeles Los Angeles County Department of Children's Services o Oskar J's Sightseeing Tours, Inc. Pacific Union College Pasadena Community College Pasadena Tournament of Roses Pepperdine University Pomona College _ . Redwood Empire Central Service Association Riverside County Children's Services Department Santa Clara Valley Medical Center The Fielding Institute The March of Dimes Foundation TRW University of California, (Davis, Los Angeles, San Diego) Chair, Master's in Psychology Antioch University, Los Angeles 1993 - present ing curriculum, coordinating student --  , of the Chah include ^(Ste governance of the University, proiatns. creating and managing yearly budgets, Heecrioti and hiring and supervising adjunct faculty i--------- Responsibilities Indstaff' Included in the job description a.s well are oactivities designed to enhance the quality of the program and to maintain connections with psychology programs at schools in the southern California area. Assistant Dean, Student Services UCLA School of Social Welfare 1985 - 1993 Responsible for overall direction of student services including recruitment, admissions, retention, financial aid, student government, and coordination of both MSW and Ph.D. candidate programs. Supervisory responsibilities for student services assistant and student workers. Classroom teaching responsibilities included preparation and delivery of courses in cross-cultural awareness and group conflict and change. Director, Mental Health Services St. Helena Hospital and Health Center Deer Park, CA. 1975 - 1985 General administrative responsibility for seventeen bed acute care mental health unit. Duties included staffing, program development, budget allocation, staff development, quality control, coordination of ancillary services, and other related tasks. Served also as \"troubles-shooter\" for other units in the hospital providing assessment and consultation around changes in procedures and personnel. Lectured and led groups in Health Center programs including cardiac, alcohol, and pulmonary rehabilitation\nsmoking cessation\nweight management\nand eating disorders. Program Director, Social Work Pacific Union College Angwin, CA 1975 - 1978 P^.esponsible for development of social work curriculum and coordination of program within a behavioral science department. Instructor, Social Work Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Illinois 1972 - 1975 Taught courses and advised majors in undergraduate social work program. Los Angeles County Children's Service 1. 2. Staff Development Specialist: 1970 - 1972 Child Welfare Worker: 1967 - 1970Attachment 2 BRIEF VITA PERSONAL DATA Steven M. Ross EDUCATION Institution Pennsylvania State University Degree-Year B.A. 1969 M.S. 1972 Ph.D. 1974 Undergraduate Major: Graduate Major\nPsychology Educational Psychology PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS American Psychological Association, Fellow American Educational Research Association, Member Mid-South Educational Research Association, Member Association for Educational Communications \u0026amp; Technology, Member International Congress for School Effectiveness and School Improvements, Member EXPERIENCE Instructor, Continuing Education, 1973-74, Pennsylvania State University Instructor, Psychology, Spring Semester, 1974, Lock Haven State College Lock Haven, Pennsylvania Evaluator, Summer, 1974, Mitre Corporation, McLean, Virginia Assistant Professor, Educational Psychology, 1974-79, University of Memphis Associate Professor, Educational Psychology, 1980-1985 Professor, Educational Psychology, 1985 - Present Senior Researcher, Center for Research in Education Policy, Univ, of Memphis, 1995-Present COURSES RECENTLY TAUGHT Theories of Learning (Undergraduate) Individual Differences and Learning (Graduate) Educational Statistics (Undergraduate and Graduate) Educational Research (Graduate) Computers in Education (Graduate and Undergraduate) Thesis Writing (Graduate) Educational Assessment (Graduate)Attachment 2 HONORS AND DISTINCTIONS 1. 2. 3. 4, 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. NDEA Fellowship for graduate study at the Pennsylvania State University, 1971-1973. Graduate Student Associate, Southwest Regional Laboratory, Summer, 1971, Distinguished Teaching Service Award, University of Memphis, 1980. Phi Delta Kappa Professional Research Award, Memphis Chapter, 1983. Elected Fellow, Division 15, American Psychological Association, 1986. Visiting Scholar, National Center for Research on Improving Postsecondary Teaching and Learning. University of Memphis, 1987. Distinguished Research Award, University of Memphis, 1987. Distinguished Teacher Service Award, University of Memphis, 1988. (First eligibility since 1980\nno longer eligible) Memphis State University nominee, CASE Professor of the Year Award, 1989. 10. Superior Performance in University Research (SPUR) Award, University of Memphis, 1990, 1991, 1992 11. Distinguished Research Award, University of Memphis, 1993. 12. Board of Visitors Eminent Faculty Award, University of Memphis (first recipient), 1993 13. Editor, Educational Technology Research and Development, 1993-present 14. Editorial Board, Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 1995- present 15. Editorial Board, Computers and Human Behavior, 1994-present SCHOLARSHIP Publications in Refereed Journals\nBooks Book Chapters Papers Presented at Professional Meetings 115 6 16 170 SELECTED RECENT PUBLICATIONS Ross, S.M., Henry D., Phillipsen, L., Evans, K., Smith, L., \u0026amp; Buggey, T. (1997). Matching restructuring programs to schools: Selection, negotiation, and preparation. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8, 45-71. Ross, S.M.,Troutman, A., Horgan, D., Maxwell, S., Laitinen, R., \u0026amp; Lowther, D. (1997). The success of schools in implementing eight restructuring designs: A synthesis of first-year evaluation outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 8, 95-124. Ross, S.M., Smith, L.J. \u0026amp; Casey, J. (1997). Preventing early school failure: Impacts of Success for all on standardized test outcomes, minority group performance, and school effectiveness. Journal for Research on Students Placed at Risk, 2, 29-54.Attachment 2'  Stringfield, S., \u0026amp; Ross, S.M. (1997). A reflection at time three of marathon: The Memphis restructuring initiative in mid-stride. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 8. 151-161. Ross, S. \u0026amp; Smith, L.J. (1997). Improving the academic success of disadvantaged children: An examination of Success for All. Psychology in the Schools, 3 4. 171-180. Jayasinghe, M.G. Morrison, G.R. \u0026amp; Ross, S.M. (1997). The effect of distance learning classroom design on student perceptions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 4 5, 5-20. Ross, S.M., \u0026amp; Smith, L.J. (in press). Improving school achievement and inter-group relations for children placed at risk. European Journal of Intercultural Education. Smith, L.J., Ross, S.M., McNelis, M., Squires, M., and others (1998), The Memphis restructuring initiative: Analysis of activities and outcomes that impact implementation success. Education and Urban Society. 3 0 (3), 326- 357. Stringfield, S., Datnow, A., Ross, S., \u0026amp; Snively, F. (1998). Scaling up school restructuring in multicultural multilingual contexts: Early observations from Sunland County. Education and Urban Society, 3 0 (3), 326-357. Ross, S.M., Smith, L.J. \u0026amp; Casey, J.P. (in press). Bridging the Gap: The effects of the Success for All Programs on elementary school reading achievement as a function of student ethnicity and ability level. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. Summary of Interests During the past ten years, I have worked extensively with school districts, both regionally and locally, to develop and evaluate programs for improving student achievement. The primary focus of these studies has been schools predominantly serving disadvantaged inner-city minority children. In 1992,1 was the lead researcher for the school equity study for the State of Alabama Financial Equity Case and am currently lead researcher on a comparable study in Louisiana. Additional ongoing research projects are studies of school restructuring designs as they are implemented in Memphis City Schools and Dade County (FL) schools and of professional development schools in seven national sites as part of the NEA Teacher Education Initiative (NEA-TEI).Attachment 3 1998-99 (DRAPT 2/7/00) Relationship Between Total Scores and Percent of African American Students Correlations Total Score\n1998 Pearson Correlation Total Score: 1998 1.000 Percent of African-Americ an Students: 1998 Sig. (2-tailed) N .285 48 48 Percent of African-American Students: 1998 Pearson Correlation Sig. {2-tailed) .158 .285 48 1.000 48 100 T CO o CD 90 c o a  to C .y E \u0026lt; c s 80 70 60 N Q  Q Q c Q  o  Q   a  B s     Q    0 a c Q  \u0026lt; o 50.   s  s   Q  0) o s G_ 40 30 40 50 60 70 0  Total Score: 1998Attachment A- 1999-00 (DRAFT 2/7/00) Relationship Between Total Scores and Percent of African-American Students Correlations Total Score: isyy Percent of African-American Students: 1999 Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) Total Score: 1999 TOGO 48 -.046 .758 48 Percent of African-Americ an Students: 1999 -.046~ .75Q 48 TSoo 48 N I 100 a  a   S o CD CD 90 oa in c CD o D 00 C CO c p \u0026lt; c ra o 80 70' 60 50 \u0026lt; *0  o o s 0- 40. 30 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 s        a   a    Q   a Q  Q   c      a  c    Total Score: 1999FRIDAY. ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1922-19941 WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P.A. BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR., P.A. JOE O. BELL, P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY, P.A. FREDERICK S. URSEHY, P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS, JR., P.A. JAMES C. CLARK, JR., P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM III, P.A. LARRY W. BURKS, PA. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR., P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS, P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III, P.A. DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER, P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD D. TAYLOR, P A. JOSEPH B. HURST, JR., P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER, P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER, P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III, P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE, P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY, P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III, P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT 6. BEACH. JR.. P.A. J. LEE BROWN, P.A. JAMES C. BAKER, JR., P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT, P.A. A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-201 1 FAX NO. 501-376-2147 March 15, 2000 DECEIVED MAR 15 2000 Office OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING SCOTT H. TUCKER, P.A. GUY ALTON WADE, P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER. P-A. TONIA P. JONES, P.A. DAVID D. WILSON, P.A. JEFFREY H. MOORE, P.A. DAVID M. GRAF, P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR, P.A. JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR., P.A. JONANN CONIGLIO FLEISCHAUER, P.A. R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON, P.A. GREGORY D. TAYLOR, P.A. TONY L. WILCOX. P.A. FRAN C. HICKMAN, P.A. BETTY J. OEMORY, P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON, P.A. JAMES W. SMITH CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT DANIEL L. HERRINGTON K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK, JR. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS HELENE N. RAYDER JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL CHRIS A. AVERITT KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH MARTIN A. KASTEN ROBERT T. SMITH Of COUNSEL WILLIAM J. SMITH B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON, JR. H.T. LARZELERE, P.A, JOHN C. ECHOLS, P.A. WRITER'S DIRECT NO. (501 \u0026gt; 370-3323 Mr. James W. McCormack United States District Court Clerk 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 402 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 RE: Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et. al.\nMrs. Lorene Joshua, et. al.\nKatherine Knight, et. al. United States District Court. Eastern District. Western Division No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Mr. McCormack: Enclosed please find the original and copies of plaintiff s Notice of Filing LRSDs Interim Compliance Report to be filed in the captioned case. Please file the original of record and return the extra file marked copies to me in the enclosed envelope. By copy of this letter, I am forwarding a copy of the enclosed pleading to counsel for the defendant. JCF/bgb enclosure(s) cc: Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Steve Jones F:\\HOME\\JEANNE\\Barbara\\jef - Irsd v. pcssd clcrk-ll.wpd Sincerely, John C. Pendley, Jr. Mr. Richard Roachell Ms. Ann Brown (hand delivered) Mr. Timothy G. Gauger IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING LRSD'S INTERIM COMPLIANCE REPORT The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") hereby gives notice of filing the attached Interim Compliance Report outlining the programs, policies and procedures implemented in accordance with LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY\nyohn C. Fendiey,Jr! (#92182)CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on this 15th day of March, 2000. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway- Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roache11 Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Interim Compliance Report Little Rock School District /)ai J RESERVED MAR i 5 2GQfl CfflCEGF DESEGRGAilC\ni^lCi^uORI?iS March 15, 2000 (^PR 19 2M IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE A COMPLETE COPY OF LRSD'S INTERIM COMPLIANCE REPORT The Little Rock School District (LRSD) for its Motion to Substitute A Complete Copy of LRSD's Interim Compliance Report states: 1. On March 15, 2000, LRSD filed its Interim Compliance Report outlining the programs, policies and procedures implemented in accordance with LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 2 . Since that time, it has come to LRSD's attention that attachments 1 through 4 of the Interim Compliance Report were inadvertently omitted from the report during printing. 3 . A complete copy of the report, including attachments 1 through 4, are attached to this Motion. LRSD respectfully requests that this report be substituted for the one filed March 15, 2000. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that the complete copy of LRSD's Interim Compliance Report attached hereto be substituted for the one filed March 15, 2000.Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY: 2182) 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on this 18th day of April, 2000. on Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222 Ms. Ann Brown HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 . Fendley, Jr. 3HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1922-1994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR.. P.A. JOE D. BELL. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY, P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR.. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM III. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD D. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER, P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL 111, P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR., P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER, P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY, P.A. ROBERT 8. BEACH, JR.. P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR.. P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX NO. 501-376-2147 April 18, i^CEIVED APR 19 Joaa OTCEGF DKESRBTION MONITORINS SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER. P.A. TONIA P. JONES. P.A. DAVID D. WILSON. P.A. JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GRAF. P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR.. P.A. JONANN CONIGLIO FLEISCHAUER. P.A. R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.A. GREGORY D. TAYLOR. P.A. TONY L. WILCOX. P.A. FRAN C. HICKMAN. P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY. P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W. SMITH CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT DANIEL L. HERRINGTON K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS HELENE N. RAYDER JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL CHRIS A. AVERITT KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN ROBERT T. SMITH OF COUNSEL WILLIAM J. SMITH B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. WRITER'S DIRECT NO. (501) 370-3323 Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Sam Jones John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Mr. Richard Roachell Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222 Ms. Ann Brown - Hand Delivered Desegration Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: LRSD vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et. al.\nMrs. Lorene Joshua, et. al.\nKatherine Knight, et. al. USDC, Eastern District, Western Division No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Ms. Brown \u0026amp; Gentlemen: Enclosed please find a Motion to Substitute a Complete Copy of LRSDs Interim Compliance Report which we are filing today. As indicated in the motion, attachments 1-4 of LRSDs interim compliance report were inadvertently omitted during the printing process. We are enclosing attachments 1 - 4 which you can insert in the original copy of the report served on you. F:\\HOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD\\pc5sd-brown ct al h.wpd Office of Desegregation Monitoring FILF COPYMs. Brown \u0026amp; Gentlemen April 18,2000 Page 2 If you would rather receive a second and complete copy of the report, please do not hesitate to call, and we will try to provide one. Sincerely, John C. Fendley, Jr. JCF/bgb enclosure(s) F:\\HOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD\\pcssd-brown et al h.wpdRespectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY: 2182) 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on this 18th day of April, 2000. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222 Ms. Ann Brown HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 3 r FILED f IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT U.S. DISTRICT COURT eastern district ARKANSAS APR 25 2000 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION By:. ERK DEPCLERk- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. l,etal.. Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al.. Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al.. Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * * * No. LR-C-82-866 RECBVED APR 2 6  orflGtOl- OESEGREGAPOfiMONnORIHS ORDER The Little Rock School District (LRSD) filed a motion to substitute a complete copy of the districts interim compliance report for a copy originally filed March 15, 2000. The motion is GRANTED [docket no. 3355]. IT IS SO ORDERED THIS\u0026lt;^\" DAY OF APRIL, 2000 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT RULE 58 ANi 3 BY_ rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPUANCf WITH RULE 58 ANQ^R 79(a) FRCP ON__ ' Docket no. 3344. 3 3 5 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 RECESVSD PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ET AL MAR 15 DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL OFFICE OF DESEGRESWIOM MONITORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING COMPLIANCE REPORT AND REQUEST FOR SCHEDULING ORDER The Little Rock School District (LRSD or District) for its Notice of Filing Compliance Report and Request for Scheduling Order states: 1. LRSD hereby files the attached Compliance Report in accordance with Section 11 of its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan). LRSD has substantially and in good faith complied with terms of the Revised Plan. A brief summary of each section of the Compliance Report is set forth below. 2. Good Faith. During the term of the Revised Plan, LRSD attempted to demonstrate its good faith by complying with its plan obligations. To manifest its good faith commitment for the future, the LRSD Board of Directors (Board) on January 11, 2001, adopted a Covenant for the Future, in which the Board promised to continue fighting discrimination, providing equity and improving the academic achievement of all students. A key component of the Districts success under the Revised Plan was the establishment of Campus Leadership Teams (CLTs) at each school. The CLTs provide the horsepower driving the Districts efforts to improve student achievement. The District invested heavily in providing training to the CLTs and school principals in Total Quality Management (TQM). All principals received intensive TQM training through the Arkansas Leadership Academy. The Office of Desegregation Mcxtftoring filecopyDistricts focus on quality leadership has not gone without recognition. In the fall of 2000, the District received the Quality Commitment Award from the non-profit group Arkansas Quality Award. This award recognized the District as an organization that has a plan and commitment to quality management. The Districts development of leadership talent should pay substantial dividends in the future. 3. Faculty and Staff. LRSD had a strong record in the area of faculty and staff even before adopting the Revised Plan. Even so, the District worked hard to recruit, develop and promote increased numbers of qualified Afncan-Americans. Under the Revised Plan, the District increased the percentage of Afncan-American administrators and teachers, and it increased the number of Afncan-American media specialists, counselors, secondary core subject teachers, early childhood teachers and primary grade teachers. The District also began tracking the distribution of the most experienced and educated teachers in an effort to better ensure an equitable distribution of these teachers. 4. Student Assigiunent. In accordance with the Revised Plan, the District revised student attendance zones to allow students to go to their neighborhood schools to the extent possible. While this resulted in an increase in the number of racially identifiable schools and schools more than 20 percentage points from the district-wide percentage of Afncan-American students, the increases were not dramatic. Moreover, the large number of alternative assignment choices available to students helped minimize any adverse effect resulting from the neighborhood school zone plan. This year twenty-percent of the Districts students chose to attend a school other than their zone school. 5. Special Education. While African-American students remain disproportionately represented among special education students, a review of the Districts programs, policies, and procedures revealed no vestiges of racial discrimination in the referral and placement of students in special education or other special needs programs. Furthermore, since 1998-99 the increase in the number of Afncan-American students identified with disabilities has been in proportion to 2their increase in the total student population. There has been only two percent growth in the number of identified students with disabilities since 1998-99, with the percentage of African- American students remaining just about the same. The two percent growth correlates with the increase in total student enrollment over the same period, as well as an increase in the percentage of students qualifying for ffee/reduced lunch eligibility. 6. Discipline. The number of Afncan-American students suspended decreased 20 percent from 1997-98 through 1999-2000. This was consistent with a 21 percent decrease in the total number of disciplinary sanctions. For the same time period, the number of students committing offenses decreased 16 percent. Thus, fewer student are committing offenses, and those that do commit offenses are less likely to commit a second offense. The behavior modification plans being implemented pursuant to the Revised Plan may account for this decrease. The decrease in discipline sanctions positively impacted parents and teachers perceptions of District schools. A survey of parents and teachers conducted during the 1999-2000 school year revealed that 93 percent of African-American parents and 95 percent of white/other parents who expressed an opinion agreed that their child was safe at school. Ninety-one percent of both African-American and white/other parents who expressed an opinion agreed that their child has a feeling of belonging at school. Ninety-seven percent of Afncan-American teachers and 96 percent of white/other teachers who expressed an opinion indicated that they felt safe at school. 7. Extracurricular Activities. Extracurricular activities increased dramatically under the Revised Plan. The number of Afncan-American students participating in extracurricular activities jumped from 2,335 to 5,203 from 1997-98 through 1999-2000. A large part of the increase in participation resulted from a no-cut policy in athletics for middle school six graders and the use of Supplemental Instructional Plans (SIPs). SIPs allow students who otherwise would be academically ineligible for athletics to continue participating in athletics while they attend tutoring to improve their grades. The District also organized an Activities Advisory Board to promote, support and enhance the activities available in the District. 3The 1999-2000 survey of parents and teachers also reflected the Districts success in the area of extracurricular activities. Ninety percent of African-American parents and 93 percent of white/other parents who expressed an opinion agreed that activities were open to students. Ninety-three percent of African-American teachers and 95 percent of white/other teachers who expressed an opinion agreed that students have opportunities for activities. 8. Advanced Placement Courses. New policies and procedures for placement of students in advanced courses greatly improved access and participation for all students, and especially African-American students. New programs have the potential of producing exponential growths in both participation and success in advanced courses in the next few years. The increasing number of African-American students participating and succeeding in advanced courses perhaps provides the best reason to be optimistic about the Districts future. With regard to Advanced Placement (AP) courses, the total enrollment of African- American students increased from 471 in 1997-98 to 797 in 2000-01an increase of 326 students or 69 percent. The total enrollment of white/other students in AP courses increased from 964 in 1997-98 to 1495 in 2000-01an increase of 531 students or 55 percent. The total enrollment of all students in AP courses increased from 1435 in 1997-98 to 2292 in 2000-01an increase of 857 students or 60 percent. The number of AP courses taught increased from 16 in 1997-98 to 20 in 2000-01\nwhereas, the average high school in the United States teaches only six AP courses. With regard to high school Pre-AP courses, the total number of high school students enrolled improved from 5065 in 1999-2000 to 5953 in 2000-01an increase of 888 students or 15 percent. African-American student enrollment improved at a slightly higher ratefrom 2341 in 1999-2000 to 2715 in 2000-01an increase of 374 students or 16 percent. White/other student enrollment also improvedfrom 2724 in 1999-2000 to 3238 in 2000-01an increase of 514 or 15 percent. With regard to middle school Pre-AP courses, Afiican-American student enrollment grew 937 from 1999-2000 to 2000-01an increase of 19 percent. White/other student enrollment in 4middle school Pre-AP courses grew 1076 in one yeara 24 percent improvement. The total middle school Pre-AP enrollment grew by 2013 studentsa 22 percent improvement. In contrast to the enrollment in the high school AP courses, where African-American enrollment was 35 percent of the total in 2000-01, the African-American enrollment in middle school Pre-AP courses was 51 percent of the total. In sixth grade Pre-AP/GT English courses there were 908 students enrolled in 2000-01. At the high school level there were 261 students enrolled in English III AP in 2000-01. If the current grade six students stay in the pipeline for advanced course enrollment. the English III AP enrollment could improve 250 percent in a few years. The number of AP examinations taken increased from 422 in 1997-98 to 524 in 1999- 2000an increase of 24 percent. Although the percentage of students earning a 3 or higher on the AP examinations went down from 60 percent in 1997-98 to 52 percent in 1999-2000, the number of students earning a 3 or higher improved from 252 in 1997-98 to 268 in 1999-2000. With regard to the ACT, the most common college entrance exam taken by LRSD students, the number of test-takers improved from 786 in 1997-98 to 1026 in 1999-2000 for an increase of 240 or 31 percent. The number of African-American test takers improved from 410 to 570an increase of 160 students or 39 percent. The number of white test takers also increasedfrom 268 in 1997-98 to 345 in 1999-2000an improvement of 77 students or 29 percent. African-American students improved their English scores from 17.2 in 1997-98 to 17.4 in 1999-2000, their Science Reasoning scores from 17.2 to 17.4, and their average composite scores from 17.2 to 17.3. While small increases, they represent a substantial accomplishment given that test scores usually decrease when the number of test-takers increases. African-American students willingness to move into more rigorous academic courses may reflect their belief that they will get the support they need to succeed. In the 1999-2000 parent survey, 88 percent of African-American parents who expressed on opinion agreed that their child received academic support. Eighty-six percent of white/other parents who expressed an opinion agreed with this statement. 59. Academic Achievement. The District completely revised its policies, procedures, and programs to facilitate and enhance academic achievement of all students, especially African- American students. The District implemented new standards-based curricula, effective teaching strategies, aligned materials, and a re-designed and a comprehensive professional development program in fall 1999 and expanded in fall 2000 in English language arts, mathematics, and science, K-9. School year 2001-02 will see expansions into grades 10-12, as well as K-12 social studies and the beginning of fine arts program planning. Efforts included the addition of several new student support programs, many of which were funded through federal, state, and foundation grants. This District set high expectations for its students by raising graduation standards. Beginning in 2002, seniors must have a minimum of 24 units to graduate, and beginning in 2004, they must have 26 units. In addition, the District published a Recommended Curriculum for high school students that includes eight advanced courses in the 28 units that students are encouraged to complete. The District secured several major grants as a part of its efforts to improve academic achievement. They are as follows: A $3.4 million grant from the National Science Foundation to support improvements in mathematics and science\nA $7.8 million Safe Schools/Healthy Students grant from the United States Department of Education to support implementation of new programs aligned with the Districts transition of the junior highs to middle schools\nTwo multi-million dollar 21* Century Learning Community grants from the United States Department of Education to develop and support after-school and summer programs to support student achievement\nA $250,000 planning grant from the Carnegie Foundation to support a year of planning for high school reform and improvements in student achievement. 6An $11 million grant proposal was submitted to the Department of Education in December 2000 to develop magnet curricula at four southwestern Little Rock schools. One challenge the District faces in its effort to improve academic achievement is students arriving for kindergarten without the necessary social or learning skills. To meet this challenge, the District went beyond the requirements of Revised Plan in funding (with no assistance from the State) an early childhood program. The District implemented new four-year-old classes in 1999- 2000 and again in 2000-01. In 2000-01 there were 954 four-year-olds enrolled234 more than the 720 required by the Revised Plan. In addition, early childhood enrollment included 254 children served in the HIPPY program\n23 infants, toddlers, and three-year olds at Metropolitan\n63 infants, toddlers, and three-year-olds at Rockefeller\nand 18 three-year-olds at Washingtonfor a total of 1058. The District implemented new procedures and programs for early childhood education designed to improve childrens kindergarten readiness level. Specifically with regard to reading and language arts, the District developed its PreK-3 Literacy Plan to guide implementation of new standards-based curricula, instructional strategies, materials, and assessments across all schools. The District invested heavily in professional development for all teachers and in the purchase of classroom sets of materials for students. Consistent with the Revised Plan, the District established a two and one-half hour block of time for the teaching of reading and language arts in grades K-3. To measure success of the PreK-3 Literacy Plan, the District administers the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment in kindergarten through grade two. Both are informal reading inventories that are administered one-on-one. They are administered both in the fall and spring so growth can be measured. The results from the 1999 fall pre-test showed that white kindergarten students began with a score of more than two (a score of two indicates readiness for the next grade level), as compared to African-American students whose fall pre-test score was less than one. Thus, white students began kindergarten with a higher level of readiness. On the spring post-test, the kindergarten class had the highest percentage of students scoring at or 7above readiness (72.2 percent) of any of the three grades tested, perhaps as a result of the new Animated Literacy program in phonemic awareness that was introduced in fall 1999, along with the new ELLA strategies and materials. Both African-American and white students improved significantly from the pre-test to the post-test. On average, African-American kindergarten students post-test scores were 43 percent of that of their white counterparts. First graders performed the poorest of the three grades tested in terms of the percentage of students scoring at or above readiness at the end of the school year (53.6 percent), perhaps indicating the need for the Animated Literacy program for these students. All first graders improved, but white students improved the most, probably because the reading skills that they began the year with enabled them to progress faster. However, the average score for African- American first graders was 65 percent of that of their white peers, suggesting a narrowing of the achievement gap that existed when the students entered the District. All second graders scores improved significantly over the course of the year, just as they did in kindergarten and first grade, with 67.5 percent at or above the readiness level on the spring post-test. On average, African-American students scores were 77 percent of that of their white peers, an increase from 43 percent in kindergarten and 65 percent in first grade. This again suggests that the District may be having success in narrowing the achievement gap which exists when students enter the District. With regard to reading and language arts in the intermediate grades, the District implemented new standards-based curricula, instructional strategies, materials, and assessments across the District in fall 1999, just as with the primary grades. The District emphasized Effective Literacy in professional development for intermediate grade teachers. While the District is still not where it would like to be, the results from the State Benchmark Exam taken by fourth graders showed substantial improvement. Scores improved from 32 percent at the proficient/advanced levels in 1998-99 to 42 percent in 1999-2000an improvement of 31 percent. Afncan-American students improved almost 10 points on the exam. 8a 50 percent improvement, and white students improved four points, a seven percent improvement. The gap between the scores of African-American and white students narrowed six points in 1999-2000, from 42 points to 36 points. The rate of improvement of African-American students was 43 points higher than for white students. The District had many fewer grade four students performing at the lowest level in 1999-2000 than in 1998-99a reduction of 13 percentage points or a 32 percent decrease. Additionally, fewer African-American students performed at the Below Basic levela reduction of 16 percentage points or a 31 percent decrease. White students in the lowest level were reduced by seven percentage points for a 41 percent decrease. The gap between white and African-American students in the Below Basic level was 35 points in 1998-99 and was reduced to 26 points in 1999-2000. Reading scores also improved for fifth graders on the Stanford Achievement Test (9* Edition) (SAT9) from 1999-2000. The average percentile score for all students improved five points, for Afncan-American students improved five points, and for white students improved one point. Compared to the SAT9 scores from the fall of 1997, the average percentile score for all students improved five points, for African-American students improved seven points, and for white students improved four points. The achievement gap in reading narrowed from 46 percentile points in 1997-98 to 43 percentile points in 2000-01. Fifth graders' language scores on the SAT9 also improved from 1999-2000. The average percentile score for all students improved four points and for Afiican-American students improved six points. Compared to the SAT9 scores from the fall of 1997, the average percentile score for all students improved four points, for Afncan-American student improved seven points. and for white students improved one point. The achievement gap in language narrowed from 36 percentile points in fall 1997 to 30 percentile points in fall 2000. With regard to math and science, the District implemented new standards-based curricula. instructional strategies, and materials in K-9. The District funded these efforts in large part with 9the grant from the National Science Foundation. Major investments occurred in professional development and in the purchase of new materials. The scores of fourth graders on the State Benchmark Exam provide a reason for optimism. The State administered the grade four State Benchmark Exam in mathematics for the second time in spring 2000. The Districts scores showed significant improvements for all students (eight points), for African-American students (seven points), and white students (eight points). Although the gap widened one point between African-American and white students in 1999-2000 (from 45 to 46 points), the percentage improvement for African-American students was much greater than that of white students, 88 percent compared to 15 percent. The Districts grade four as a whole saw fewer students performing at the lowest level in 1999-2000 as compared to 1998-99a reduction of four percentage points or a seven percent decrease. Additionally, fewer African-American students performed at the lowest levela reduction of five percentage points or a seven percent decrease. The gap between white and Afncan-American students in the Below Basic level shrank from 50 points in 1998-99 to 45 points in 1999-2000. Fifth graders' mathematics scores improved slightly on the fall 2000 SAT9, with all students scores up one percentile point and African-American students scores up two percentile points. Compared to fall 1997 SAT9, the average percentile scores for all students improved one point and for Afncan-American students improved four points. The achievement gap narrowed slightly from 1997-98 to 2000-01, from 36 to 32 percentile points. Tenth graders SAT9 mathematics scores also improved. Their teachers had had initial training in a standards-based curriculum, and the students were the first required to take physics in the ninth grade. From 1999-2000 to 2000-01, the average percentile scores for all students improved four points, for African American students improved one point, and for white students improved six points. 10. Parental Involvement. The District already had a plethora of parent and community involvement policies, procedures, and programs when the Revised Plan was approved 10in 1998. Accordingly, the District directed it efforts to widening the outreach, focusing on the school level, and creating a more coherent leadership structure at the district level. The District began including parents and community representatives on CLTs, and the Board approved a Parent Program Restructuring Plan which consolidated all parent programs under the direction of one Collaborative Action Team. 11. Equitable Allocation of Resources. The District developed a unique method of reviewing equity in the allocation of resources. Each year the resource allocation review revealed no correlation between resources allocated to a school and the schools racial composition. Moreover, the District used the results of the review in making resource allocation decisions, such as allocating grant and Title I funding. 12. Guidance and Counseling. The 1999-2000 survey of parents revealed that 94 percent of all parents, both Afncan-American and white/other, who expressed an opinion agreed that help and guidance was available to their child. This perception has proven a reality at least with regard to scholarship money received by African-Americans. Of the 301 scholarships awarded in the 1998-99 school year, 147 or 49 percent went to African-American students totaling $3,256,207 or 47 percent of the total dollar amount of scholarships awarded. For 1999- 2000 school year, African-American students received a total of 185 scholarships valued at $3,716,358. Afncan-American students represented 56 percent of the scholarship recipients and received 58 percent of the total dollar amount of scholarships awarded. Afncan-American females outpaced all other groups in the number received (105) and the dollar value of scholarships awarded ($1,967,654). 13. Cultural Sensitivity. Since the 1999-2000 school year, the District has been providing cultural sensitivity training through Dr. Terrence Roberts, one of the Little Rock Nine and a desegregation consultant for the District approved by the Joshua Intervenors. His workshop, entitled Learning to Cope with Differences, provides strategies for dealing with differences in race, ethnicity, gender, economics, disabilities, religion and other characteristics that 11can divide people and create unhealthy tension. The 1999-2000 survey of teachers suggests that the District has done well in this regard. Ninety-four percent of African-American teachers and 93 percent of white/other teachers who expressed an opinion agreed that District administrators value diversity. Eighty-eight percent of African-American teachers and 92 percent of white/other teachers who expressed an opinion agreed that personnel respond to cultural differences. 14. Compliance. Section 8 of the Revised Plan included a procedure for parties to raise issues related to the Districts compliance. This procedure was invoked on only five occasions, with the last being in December of 1999. All of those issues were resolved without the necessity of court intervention. 15. The Revised Plan obligated LRSD to implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to achieve certain outcomes, and it has done so. Although the Revised Plan did not obligate LRSD to achieve any particular outcomes, the Compliance Report includes information on outcomes which was used by LRSD to evaluate the programs, policies and procedures being implemented. 16. Section 11 of the Revised Plan provides: At the conclusion of the 2000-01 school year, the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001, indicating the state of LRSDs compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSDs compliance bears the burden of proof. If no party challenges LRSDs compliance, the above-described order shall be entered without further proceedings. LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in the Revised Plan. If no party challenges LRSD's compliance, an order should be entered finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations. 17. LRSD respectfully requests that the Court issue a scheduling order establishing a period not exceeding 20 days for parties to file challenges to LRSD's compliance pursuant to Section 11 of the Revised Plan. This should be sufficient time given that the parties have known when this report would be filed since April 10, 1998, and that Section 8 of the Revised Plan 12required parties to raise compliance issues as soon as reasonably practicable. See Revised Plan, Section 8.2.1. If any party files a challenge on or before the deadline established by the Court, LRSD respectfully requests that a hearing on the challenge be held before June 30, 2001, the end of the 2000-2001 school year. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that this Court immediately issue a scheduling order establishing a period not exceeding 20 days for parties to file challenges pursuant to Section 11 of the Revised Plan\nthat should a challenge be filed by a party, a hearing be held on the challenge before June 30, 2001\nand that should no party file a challenge on or before the deadline established by the Court, that on June 30, 2001, this Court enter an order finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376\n:2Dii Y: Chri^opher Heller.(^108 13CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by handdelivery on March 15, 2001: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodward 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201-3525 Christopher Heller 14 f. MAR 1 \nZOOi omCSOf DESE^feG^noriMO'tWRiHS Little Rock School District Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Compliance Report March 15, 2001RECEIVED FILED U.S, DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS APR? 2001 OFBCEOF OSESREGAPON MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION APR 04 2001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL. Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. Intervenors, KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. Intervenors. * * * * * *  * *   * * * * * *  * * JAME: By- E^W. McCQRMACK, CLERK AZ DEP CLERK No. 4:82CV00866 SWW ORDER On March 15, 2001, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) filed a Compliance Report and asked the Court to issue a Scheduling Order setting a date by which the parties must file any objections or challenges to the report.' The LRSD suggests that the parties be given no more than twenty days within which to file their challenges and, in the event any party files a timely challenge, that the Court schedule a hearing before June 30, 2001. The Court has heard informally from one of the parties, who contends he needs more time to review the report and file challenges. See Attachment A. ^See docket entry 3410. M 141 4Having reviewed the Compliance Report, and considering the informal request for additional time, the Court finds that the parties need more than twenty days to review the many details set forth in the Report and prepare any challenges. After having consulted the Courts own calendar, the Court hereby establishes the following deadlines and hearing dates. Any challenges to the LRSDs Compliance Report must be filed on or before May 18, 2001. If challenges to the report are filed, a hearing will be held on July 5 and July 6,2001, beginning at 9:00 a.m. If necessary, the hearing will continue on August 1 and August 2, 2001. If the parties desire the Court to examine any documents pertaining to this hearing, those documents shall be submitted to the Court no later than June 29, 2001. Also before the Court is the motion of Tim C. Humphries to withdraw his appearance as counsel for separate defendant Arkansas Department of Education. The motion [docket entry 3411] is granted.^ The Clerk is directed to remove Mr. Humphries as counsel for the Arkansas Department of Education. A SO ORDERED this day of April 2001. CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR79{a) FRCP ON TH OR 79(. RY Vl ^On February 21,2001, Sammye L. Taylor and Mark Hagemeier entered their appearances as counsel for the Arkansas Department of Education. See docket entries 3405 \u0026amp; 3406. 2 ) John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile March 26, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd@swbell.net Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright Chief Judge United States District Court 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD v PCSSD Dear Judge Wright. Due to the fact that I was in trial before the Honorable George Howard Jr. in Pine Bluff, Arkansas from March 19-22, 2001 and in intense preparation for the days preceding the 19*, I am just getting in position to address the Little Rock filing. Notice of Filing Compliance Report and Request for Scheduling Order. I further note that Little Rock has indicated that it wishes to limit our time for filing challenges to twenty (20) days. This letter is being written to request that the Court set a time for a conference before addressing the issue of a scheduling order so that all parties, as well as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, would have an opportunity to address the propriety of the scheduling order request. The compliance report is extensive. It appears to be more than two hundred (200) pages in length, is very detail oriented and it makes many claims which are unfamiliar to us and probably to the ODM as well. I am writing the Court this letter, rather than filing a motion, because Mr. Heller, who I am advised is away until Wednesday, expressed an interest in having some dialogue regarding this matter, and the State settlement as well, before this matter becomes, if it ever does, a public dispute which the Court must resolve. I understand that the Court intends to schedule a hearing in the near future regarding the middle school issues raised by the PCSSD. May I suggest that the matter of the hearing of the scheduling order be set for the same day inasmuch as all parties are expected to be in court for the PCSSD matter. Although I have been unable to speak with Mr. Heller and I have not attempted to reach his co-counsel, Mr. Clay Fendley who I intend to try and reach immediately, I have informed Ms. Ann Marshall regarding my concerns herein and will be having further conversations with the parties until such time I receive the Courts reply to this letter.JWW:js cc: Mr. Chris Heller Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Steve Jones Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Timothy Gauger With due respect to the court I e.'. hECEIVEO APR 12 2001 u. QfflCEGF APR O4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2001 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANS WESTERN DIVISION :OURT A^MES VY MeeSRMACK, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPONSE TO LRSDS NOTICE OF FILING AND REQUEST FOR SCHEDULING ORDER Come now the Joshua Intervenors, through undersigned counsel, for their Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to LRSD Notice of Filing Compliance Report and Request for Scheduling Order, state: 1. Due to undersigned counsels trial schedule and other obligations, additional time is needed to review LRSDs Compliance Report. 2. In addition, undersigned adopts, by reference, his letter to the Court dated March 26, 2001. A copy is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 3. This request is not for purposes of delay. WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated above, plaintiffs respectfully move the Court for an Order extending the time in which to file their Response LRSDs Notice of Filing Compliance Report and Request for Scheduling Order for an additional thirty days including and up to May 4, 2001 Respectfully submitted.record. John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing motion has been sent to all counsel of .John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile March 26, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY. P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderso.s Road Little Rock. Abflassas 72210 Phone\n(.501) .372-342.5  F.ax (501) 372-.3423 Email: mchenryd^i^swbell.net Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright Chief Judge United States District Court 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock. AR 72201 Re: LRSD v PCSSD Dear Judge Wright: Due to the fact that I was in trial before the Honorable George Howard Jr. in Pine Bluff, Arkansas from March 19-22, 2001 and in intense preparation for the days preceding the 19\", I am just getting in position to address the Little Rock filing. Notice of Filing Compliance Report and Request for Scheduling Order. I further note that Little Rock has indicated that it wishes to limit our time for filing challenges to twenty (20) days. This letter is being written to request that the Court set a time for a conference before addressing the issue of a scheduling order so that all parties, as well as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, would have an opportunity to address the propriety of the scheduling order request. The compliance report is extensive. It appears to be more than two hundred (200) pages in length, is very detail oriented and it makes many claims which are unfamiliar to us and probably to the ODM as well. I am writing the Court this letter, rather than filing a motion, because Mr. Heller, who I am advised is away until Wednesday, expressed an interest in having some dialogue regarding this matter, and the State settlement as well, before this matter becomes, if it ever does, a public dispute which the Court must resolve. I understand that the Court intends to schedule a hearing in the near future regarding the middle school issues raised by the PCSSD. May I suggest that the matter of the hearing of the scheduling order be set for the same day inasmuch as all parties are expected to be in court for the PCSSD matter. Although I have been unable to speak with Mr. Heller and 1 have not attempted to reach his co-counsel, Mr. Clay Fendley who 1 intend to try and reach immediately, I have informed Ms. Ann Marshall regarding my concerns herein and will be having further conversations with the parties until such time I receive the Courts reply to this letter.With due respect to the court, 1 remain, JWWjs cc: Mr. Chris Heller Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Steve Jones Mr. Richard Roachell Mr Timothy Gauger Sincerely vours. RECEIVEO may 1 8 2001 district OmCEOF desegregation mowtorimq may 1 s 2001 JAMES W IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CffttRT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION McCormack, clerk  dep cleric LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO LRSDS COMPLIANCE REPORT Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, for their Motion for Extension of time to Respond to LRSDs Compliance Report, state: 1. Because of undersigned counsel busy trial schedule, additional time is needed for undersigned counsel to review the voluminous report of the Little Rock School District. 2. Undersigned counsel has at least a dozen trials scheduled within the next thirty days for which he has been and is being required to prepare and to meet imminent time requirements and deadlines which included the following cases\nName of Case Bennett v. First National Bank Date of Trial May 21, 2001 State of Arkansas v. Tyrone Gamble May 22, 2001 U.S.A. V. Joe Bryant III Beverly Burkett v. USDA Schroeder, et al, v. Ibbottson, et al. Jamie Tims v. DHS May 29, 2001 June 4, 2001 June 4, 2001 June 4, 2001 Court/Judge Prince George Co., Maryland Craighead Co. Circuit Court Judge George Howard Jr. Judge Susan Webber Wright Judge G. Thomas Eisele Judge George Howard Jr.Carolyn Adkins v. McGhee SD June 4, 2001 D. Williams, et al. v Parkcrest Apts. June 6, 2001 J.C. Springer v. Rita Rowland State of AR v. Tremaille Ross State of AR v. Ravin Taylor June 8, 2001 June 11, 2001 June 11, 2001 Tenisha Stewart v. Dr. James Trice June 13, 2001 Judge William Bill Wilson Judge Jim Moody Ouachita County Chancery Court Jackson County Circuit Court Jackson County Circuit Court Jefferson County Circuit Court 3. In addition, undersigned counsel has been in negotiations with counsel for the Little Rock School District and the State of Arkansas regarding the Districts compliance report and related matters. 4. This request is not being made for purposes of delay. 5. Counsel for the Little Rock School District has been contacted and has authorized undersigned counsel to indicate that he does not object to this request. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors pray that the Court enters an Order extending the time in which they may respond to the Little Rock School Districts Compliance Report up to and including June 18, 2001. Respectfully submitted. John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-z 8 By: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been sent via Jjnited States mail postage prepaid to all counsel of record on thi. th day of May, i^Ol. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VS rECEH^O MAY 2 9 2001 OFFICE OF desegregation MONlTORiMS CASE NO. 4:82-CV-866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT t  Cl-uFJsED may 1 8 2001 K, CLERK dep clerk DEFENDANT MOTION OBJECTING TO RELEASE OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM FEDERAL COURT SUPERVISION Comes Franklin A. Davis, former employee of Little Rock School District, representing himself PRO SE, and for his action states: 1. Venue is proper under Ark. Code Ann. 16-60-115 as at least one, if not all. Defendants (LRSD) live in Pulaski County and the cause of action arose in Pulaski County. 2. Jurisdiction is proper as Franklih A. Davis is a resident of Arkansas and all Defendants are residents of the State of Arkansas. 3. Davis became a principal in the Little Rock School District in 1989. 4. In late December of 1994, Defendant Sadie Mitchell, made repeated sexual advances and remarks towards Davis while she was his supervisor. 5. Davis rejected these advances. 6. In December of 1997, the Little Rock School District, Dr. Leslie Camine, Brady Gadberry, and Sadie Mitchell began an orchestration to tortuously interfere with Davis employment contract with the Little Rock School District. 7. This tortuous interference directly led to Davis termination as a principal in the Little Rock School District. Office ol Desegregation Monitoring FILE COPY 8. The Little Rock School District denied Davis his due process rights imder the 5*'' and 14* Amendments of the United States Constitution by terminating his employment without providing Davis adequate notice, adequate opportunity to respond, and a timely hearing. 9. The Little Rock School District materially misrepresented Davis job performance as a principal in the Little Rock School District. 10. The Little Rock School District violated the procedmal due process requirements of the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act. 11. The Little Rock School District wrongfully committed slander and defamation of Davis character and reputation by publicizing unproven facts and allegations claiming Davis had committed sexual harassment to various individuals in the community, in his profession, and state agencies. 12. The Little Rock School District intentionally discriminated against Davis by treating Davis detrimentally and causing his termination based on his race and gender. 13. Davis has suffered emotional, financial and physical damages as a result of these actions caused by the Little Rock School District. 14. Davis has suffered irreparable damage to his reputation and monetary loss of income damage as a result of his termination by the Little Rock School District and their actions in this matter. 215. All of the discriminatory actions the Little Rock School District took against Davis, happened after the LRSD submitted its current Desegregation Plan to this Court. 16. On April 3,2000, the Little Rock School District issued a report aimed at reassuring the public and this Court that it is moving swiftly and in good faith to carry out its revised desegregation plan. Defendant Brady Gadberry was a co-author of this report. 17. As recent as today. May 18, 2001, the Little Rock School Districts scandalous, whitewashing, and dirty linen covered behavior covers the front page of the states largest newspaper, the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. 18. All of the praise lauded on Dr. Les Gamine the past several months has been merely a subterfuge by the Little Rock School District to convince the Honorable Chief Judge Susan Webber Wright to grant their release from federal Court supervision. SUMMARY OF WHAT THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DID TO FRANKLIN A. DAVIS SINCE SUBMITTING THEIR REVISED DESEGREGATION PLAN TO THIS COURT The bulk of Franklin A. Davis suit against the Little Rock School District, and certain school officials, falls under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.  1983 which states: Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law. Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 3The Little Rock School District is liable under  1983 for violating Franklin A. Davis Due Process rights under the 14*** Amendment. According to current law, Due Process mandates that a Teacher be provided a hearing prior to termination if the nature of the termination involves an attack on the teachers character or reputation. The Supreme Court holds that a teacher, even a non- probationary one, has a property interest that requires a prior termination hearing by the school board to respond to claims that affect his/her good name, reputation, honor, or integrity. See Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 573-577 (1972). The Eighth Circuit, which Arkansas falls in, has also held that there is a liberty interest when an employee is fired based on a charge that would impair that employees opportunities within his profession. See Wellner v. Minnesota State Junior College Board, 487 F. 2d 153, 155-156 (1973)(citing Harnett v. Ulett, 466 F.2d 113,116 (8*** Cir. 1972)). The Eighth Circuit has constantly held that a teacher or government employee, who has been fired under circumstances that tarnish the teachers character and negatively impact future job possibilities, is entitled to \u0026amp; prior termination hearing with full opportunity to respond to the charges. See Wilder man v. Nelson, 467 F.2d 1173 (1972)\nScheelhaase v. Woodbury Central Community School District, 488 F.2d 237 (1973)\nBuhr v. Buffalo Public School District NO. 38, 509 F.2d 1196 (1974). Franklin A. Davis was a Principal with the Little Rock School District for many years. During all those years, he received outstanding evaluations. In 1995, Sadie Mitchell wrote in his evaluation, An open line of communication (with Assistant Superintendent) was evident. Mr. Davis has been very cooperative and receptive to constructive criticism. She also wrote, His leadership style and relationship is respected 4by personnel, colleagues, parents, students, and the community. She again gave Mr. Davis a near perfect evaluation in 1996. In a mid-year evaluation in February of 1996, Sadie Mitchell wrote, Correspondences to parents, teachers, and District personnel 99 (6 displays that Mr. Davis is a team player. Administrative policies are followed while working well with others. She also gave him an excellent evaluation in June of 1997(the last evaluation Franklin A. Davis received as a LRSD employee). Yet, somehow by December of 1997, six months after his evaluation, Franklin A. Davis was suddenly reassigned. Four months later in April of 1998, Superintendent Les Camine sent a termination letter to Franklin A. Davis. In less than six months, Franklin A. Davis had gone from the Little Rock School Districts exemplary tenured principal to being considered an outcast without the LRSD granting him a hearing. It is noteworthy and interesting that Franklin A. Davis became a principal with the Little Rock School District at the age of twenty-seven (27). Essential to a full understanding of Franklin A. Davis claim against the Little Rock School District is the timing of what occurred. This is the timeline, followed with an explanation of what it means: 1.) June 1997 - Sadie Mitchell gives Franklin A. Davis a great evaluation. 2.) December 30, 1997 - Davis is asked to leave Wilson Elementary and temporarily reassigned. 3.) April 2,1998 - Dr. Camine sends Davis a letter informing Davis of Dr. Camines intent to recommend the School Board terminate Davis and suspending him without pay, which is later temporarily reinstated. 54.) May 4, 1998 - Davis gets an attorney to write the School Board requesting a hearing, with an offer to arbitrate the superintendents recommendation for termination before going before the school board. 5.) May 12,1998 - Dr. Gamine writes Davis agreeing to arbitrate Dr. Gamines termination recommendation before proceeding to the board with it. 6.) December 1, 1998 - Davis still has not had a hearing of any kind, yet the Little Rock School District quits paying Davis. 7.) June 28, 1999 - Fourteen months after Dr. Gamines recommendation, Davis is given an arbitration hearing covering solely the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act. Davis is awarded back pay, but not reinstated. Franklin A. Davis and the Little Rock School District did come to an understanding to arbitrate under the Teacher Fair Dismissal Act, however, this was under the assumption that the arbitrator would decide whether he would be terminated if the recommendation went before the School Board. Davis did not expect the School District to terminate him fourteen months later without a hearing. After the understanding to arbitrate whether Davis would be terminated, the Little Rock School District did the following: 1.) Dr. Richard Hurley sent a form to the Arkansas Employment Security Division checking the box stating that Davis was discharged. 2.) The Little Rock School District stopped paying Davis in December of 1998, and 63.) The Little Rock School District sent Davis a letter on June 29, 1998 informing him his insurance would terminate on August 31, 1998. These actions were in direct conflict with the letter from Dr. Gamine, dated May 12, 1998, which stated that the arbitration was to be an alternative method for binding adjudication of the termination recommendation.(Emphasis added). This was not to be an arbitration of a Principal who was already terminated. The Superintendent wrote the letter recommending Davis termination in April of 1998. Davis requested a hearing. All Davis received was an arbitration hearing 14 months later, but after the Little Rock School District terminated him anyway despite his understanding. Although Davis attorney (at that time), did write a letter that included a proposal to arbitrate his claims under the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act, this letter was prior to his termination. Davis NEVER agreed to waive his right to a full and open hearing in front of the School Board when the Little Rock School District later terminated him. This is what this MOTION OF OBJECTION is about. CONCLUSION I, Franklin A. Davis, have been fighting for justice in this sad and unfortunate situation for nearly four (4) years. The Little Rock School Districts attorney Chris Heller has continuously advised the school district against doing the right thing and reinstating me to my principals job with appropriate back pay and damages. Mr. Heller has the advantage of working for a large law firm and the support of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. Throughout the three and a half 7years Ive fought this claim against the Little Rock School District, not once have I been given an opportunity to tell my side of the story. When I file a claim, motion, suit or any type action for redress, the Arkansas Democrat Gazette immediately calls Chris Heller and allow him to bash, slander, defame, and torture my name, character, reputation and integrity. Always without giving me an opportunity to rebut. Within a day or so of my filing this motion, Chris Heller will be given newspaper space to lie and smear me in every way he chooses. Wherefore, Franklin A. Davis, Pro Se, now submits this Motion of Objection with his Prayer that the Little Rock School District is denied release from this Court. Respectfully Submitted, Franklin A. Davis 625 Northwind Circle Conway, AR 72032-3477 501 329-8722 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The imdersigned certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on Chris Heller, attorney for Little Rock School Distri^this day of May, 2001, via certified U.S. Mail. Franklin A. Davis, Pro Se Cc: Judge James M. Moody Dr. Katherine P. Mitchell, LRSD Board President 8REC0VED Iu I I FILED MAY29 2OO1 OfflCEOF IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAY 22 2001 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMES By:: McCORWIACK, clerk\nrk LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * No. 4:82CV00866 SWW ORDER Before the Court is the motion of the Joshua Intervenors for an extension of time in which to respond to the Little Rock School Districts Compliance Report. The Court finds that the motion should be, and is hereby, granted. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Joshua Intervenors are allowed an extension up to and including June 18, 2001, to file any challenges to the LRSDs Compliance Report. DATED this ~^day of May 2001. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON BY. 3 4 34 [ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMES By\n. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL,, Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * filed JUN 0 5 2001 3 w. McCormack, clerk 11 a No. 4:82CV00866 SWW received JUN 13 200' OFFICE Of DEP CLERK ORDER On April 4, 2001, the Joshua Intervenors filed a motion for extension of time to respond to the LRSDs Notice of Filing and Request for Scheduling Order. On the same day, the Court filed an Order setting forth deadlines and hearing dates to address any challenges to the LRSD Compliance Report.* Therefore, the Court finds that the motion [docket entry 3415] is moot. The Clerk is directed to remove said motion from the pending motions report. DATED this day of June 2001. CfilEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ^The Court referenced in that Order a letter from the Joshua Intervenors counsel in which he stated he needed additional time to review the report. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WlTH ^ULE 58 AND/O^9(a) FRCP 3 4 4 1 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUN 1 5 2001 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JAMES W. McCORMACK CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ---------------------------____2 WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLIANCE REPORT Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, for their Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to LRSDs Compliance Report, state: 1. Counsel is in negotiations with counsel for the Little Rock School District regarding the compliance report and other matters. 2. This request is not made for purposes of delay. 3. Counsel for Little Rock School District has been consulted and has authorized undersigned counsel to indicate that he does not object to this request. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors pray that the Court enter an Order extending the time in which they may respond to the Little Rock School Districts Compliance Report up to and including June 25, 2001. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 BroadwayLittle Rock, AR 72206 501-374 By:_ J- W. alker CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing has been sent to all counsel of record on this 15 th day of June, 2001. Jonn . Walker received JUN 2 5 2001 filed U.S. DISTRICT COURT eastern district ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUN 20 2001 JAMES By\n. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 3 \\jv. McfiORMACK, CLERK M * nDcEDP r *Ci LcEaJR'K' No. 4:82CV(X)866 SWW omcEtt_ _ _ ORDER Before the Court is the motion of the Joshua Intervenors for an extension of time in which to respond to the Little Rock School Districts Compliance Report. For good cause shown, and without objection from the Little Rock School District, the Court grants the motion. The Joshua Intervenors have until and including June 25, 2001, within which to file their response. No further extensions will be granted. SO ORDERED this ay of June 2001. CH UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON docket sheet in compliance WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP 0N-\u0026gt;^O^/^0/ RY 4 45 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRIC^OURTr-   - q EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS  rX^iIrMRT kJ.O. L/IO 1 iaIL. I ULJUia I SAS WESTERN DIVISION EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUN 2 5 2001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO, l,et al., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al.. Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al.. Intervenors, * * * * * * * * * * * * * * JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By:. DEP CLERK No. 4:82CV00866 SWW DECEIVED / y m \u0026lt;3 - / JUN 2 7 2001 OfflCEOF 0nm0^M0NITQfilN6 JOSHUA INTERVENORS OPPOSITION TO LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICTS COMPLIANCE REPORT PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the Court to defer final decision upon the petition of the Little Rock School District for a declaration that it is now unitary as that term has been defined by relevant case law. The Joshua Intervenors believe that there are numerous significant questions which are not addressed in a clear, accurate and substantive manner which need to be further explored in an evidentiary proceeding before the Court. Upon that event the Court would be in a better position to make the necessary analysis to determine whether the objectives and commitments of the revised desegregation plan have been fully met. The Joshua Intervenors believe further that the Court must have before it a written response to the districts plan or other written analysis 1- regarding that plan from the Courts Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) before the Court can issue a final opinion regarding the matter. Otherwise, any assessment by the Court would be incomplete and not in keeping with the expectations of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals when it required the establishment of the ODM to assist the Court in determining and effectuating desegregation compliance. The school districts compliance report of March 15,2001, which incorporates by reference its interim compliance report dated March 15, 2000, is before the Court reportedly to inform concerned interests of the status of the districts efforts to meet its obligations under the revised plan... The district makes reference to the fact that it offered the opportunity for interested parties to provide comments or suggestions to the interim court and that it received none. Because it received no comments or suggestions regarding that report, the district has determined that the form of the report is appropriate for the present report. That position is inaccurate. Joshua made many comments throughout the year to District officials regarding areas of noncompliance and bad faith implementation. Joshua notes, however, that before either of the reports was submitted to the Court, the district did not consult and meet with Joshua regarding the contents in order to reach the agreements of the report contemplated by the desegregation plan. The present report has many of the same failings of earlier reports to the Court. In fact, it has been the exception rather than the rule for the district to affirmatively involve Joshua in preliminary stages of any report or other activity undertaken by the school district. Joshua submits that the Little Rock School District is far from being unitary at this time. and that the District has much work to accomplish before court release is appropriate. Joshua further submits that the burden of proof that the District is unitary, i.e., has fulfilled all of its obligations. -2- is upon the District rather than upon Joshua. The following comments by Joshua to the March 15, 2001 report raise appropriate for further inquiry by the court. JOSHUAS SERIATIM RESPONSES TO THE DISTRICTS REPORT DATED MARCH 15, 2001 Section 2.1. LRSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools. The district firsts projects the covenants dated January 11, 2000 to illustrate its good faith beyond March 15, 2001 in the event that the Court declares the district to be unitary. It points to meetings of administrators who were informed of the covenant\nthe involvement of Dr. Terrence Roberts, a consultant to the district'\nand the receipt of the district of a quality interest award from the Arkansas Quality Award Nonprofit Agency to demonstrate that the initiatives now in place will continue. Joshua notes that the emphasis of the report is upon the objective to improve the academic achievement of all students through the use of its resources in a manner which complies with the non discrimination requirements of law. The commitment is vague! It allows equal, we say greater. attention to the higher achieving white students than to the lower achieving Black students. It does not address the problems which have persisted since the settlement agreement was reached in 1989, especially the concern of remediating preexisting achievement disparities between white and Black ^Dr. Roberts is one of the first African American students to enroll in Little Rock Central High, i. e., the Little Rock Nine he is a clinical psychologist who is on the staff of the University of Antioch University. -3- students. The district received at least $20 million dollars in the form of a forgivable loan by which to address the remediation disparities. Those achievement disparities linger. In this respect, the State of Arkansas has given the district little assistance in meeting this objective and, on information and belief, despite noncompliance, has agreed to forgive the Little Rock School District loan obligation (See Exhibit 1 hereto). Joshua further notes that an objection to the incentive schools by district officials was that those schools were too program heavy and therefore did not lend themselves to effective implementation and evaluation of those programs. We believe that the district now has even more programs which were present in its schools and that the districts past criticism of the incentive schools programs may be applied to the programs which it has put in place since it reduced the number of incentive school programs. Effectiveness of the programs is still lacking. Effect is usually determined after program evaluation. The districts evaluation system borders upon being nil. The district makes reference under good faith to the success of the Campus Leadership Team, later referred to herein as CLT. The person assigned the responsibility for the CLT was Ms. Gayle Bradford. She (like School Superintendent Les Camine and Associate Superintendent Brady Gadberry) is leaving the school district as of July 1. Her assignment to the position was makeshift in the first place in that it was a job created for her while the district determined what good use could be made of her services after she was removed as principal at Hall High School due to problems associated with desegregation complaince. The Campus Leadership Program was ill conceived, and ^The plan which set the objective that African American achievement as measured by appropriate standardized tests, on a comparative basis, would come within ten percentage points of white student academic achievement. -4-has been poorly implemented. It may be said that the CLT is only a hope for better school management for the future. But it too lacks an assessment or evaluation component. The Campus Leaderships Team are generally under the overall leadership of Associate Superintendent Ms. Sadie Mitchell, to whom Ms. Gayle Bradford reported. Ms. Mitchell, to her credit, has sought to create a working environment conducive to better cooperation between administrators and teachers. But those efforts on her part are have just begun and with the departure of Ms. Bradford, must begin anew with new staff. The program is not so fundamentally sound as to be self executing. Good faith is to be determined, we submit, within the context of the objectives set by the parties and by the law, especially the law of the case\nthe actions promised to be taken in order to achieve the objectives\nand the manner in which those actions are actually undertaken. Good faith contemplates results as well as processes for achieving the contemplated results. The Little Rock School District outrageously argues that it is simply obliged to make promises to meet its objectives and to set up a procedure for fulfilling those promises but, having done that, it is not required to meet the objectives set. That position reflects the basic difference between Joshua and Little Rock. Joshua believes that the commitments agreed upon required that the processes or plans for achieving the agreed upon objectives actually be fulfilled and that only conditions of impossibility could preclude compliance. Joshua further believes that the agreement contemplated that there would be prompt undertaking of the commitments\nand that that undertaking would be vigorous and sustained. Joshua also believes that implicit in the agreement is that the commitments would be subject to professionally competent evaluation of policies, programs, and procedures put in place as implementing tools for the plan objectives. As will be shown below, the Districts efforts have been neither timely nor prompt, vigorous or sustained\nnor complimented by competent professional -5- evaluation. We are thus met with a pleading of excuse with promises (the Covenant) of actions that will follow upon Court release. The question before the Court is whether the district can be expected to achieve goals and objectives without Court oversight (the Covenant) that have not been achieved with Court oversight. Moreover, how can Black students enforce this Covenant? The CLT program was at the heart of the Districts efforts to met its obligations under the reviewed plan. P. 1, Compliance Report. A quality school district meets the needs of all a students. In adopting the CLT program, the District committed itself to providing each school the leadership and autonomy necessary to meet the needs of each schools unique population. With that autotomy comes a responsibility to ensure the success of each student. Page 3, Compliance Report. Joshua differs with that objective. Remediation of disparity conflicts with that concept. When racial grouping is taken into account. Joshua has not been provided with any report which reports an evaluation of the CLT program or of the results that have been achieved by that program. The program appears to accept the proposition that individual schools, through the CLT, will meet their responsibility to each of its students. Because of this autonomy, some magic conversion or remediation of disparities will occur it seems to be argued. Joshua submits that the CLTs actually provide more opportunity for discrimination and for mischief and maintenance of the status quo than a system wide approach would. Moreover, the district does not appear to define success of each student. The districts three (3) page presentation under Section 2.1 is vague, uncertain, without measurement standards and therefore offers no promise of providing equal educational opportunity for all students in the school district. To this point, there is no way for determining the extent to which it has worked. -6-Section 2.1.1. LRSD shall retain a desegregation and/or education expert approved by Joshua to work with LRSD in the development of the programs, policies and procedures to be implemented in accordance with this Revised Plan and to assist LRSD in devising remedies to problems concerning desegregation or racial discrimination which adversely affect African- American students. The district committed to hire an expert approved by Joshua. It did so, but it did not properly explain to the Joshua expert, Dr. Terrence Roberts or to Dr. Steven Ross of the University of Memphis how they may help in assisting the district to devise remedies to problems concerning desegregation or racial discrimination which adversely affected African American students. Indeed, Joshua has requested, but the district has been unable to provide, a simple listing of problems which adversely affect African American students. Joshua submits that without such a listing there can be no remedies devised to those problems. It appears that Drs. Steven Ross and Terrence Roberts have been used in a consultative role regarding general school educational problems, rather than addressing specific needs of African American students. Joshua concedes that a better faculty which is more sensitive to equitable considerations is more likely to provide better quality instruction. But a better faculty as measured by professional assistance given them should produce changes in the outcomes for Black students. Despite its use of Roberts and Ross and submits that the District has not devised any remedies to any problems concerning desegregation or racial discrimination which adversely affects African American students. Furthermore, a review of the expenditures for both Ross and reflects limited use of their professional resources and services Roberts until Joshua complained about their relative non-use in 1999 and until the district began to compile the present report. Dr. Roberts will acknowledge that his role was enlarged due to his own initiative than that -7- of the districts. This absence of leadership reflects not only upon the planning aspect of the district but upon the results which have been achieved as well. Section 2.2. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that LRSD hires, assigns, utilizes and promotes qualified African-Americans in a fair and equitable manner. The district has not indicated what it has done to meet the provisions of this section. The interim report suggests that four policies were adopted to address the issue. That occurred more than a year after the Court approved the plan, did not involve Joshua and still provides no assurance that the promise will be fulfilled. Furthermore, there is no monitoring component of the provision. Joshua further notes that the office personnel of the various principals offices tend to reflect the race of the principal. The exception is that the office staffs of Black principal are more likely to be mixed. In terms of assignment, Joshua urges that principal assignments or reassignments in many cases are neither fair nor equitable. Several principals who have a record of mistreatment of Black students or staff appear to have been promoted. Several Black principals seem to have been transferred without cause against their will for no apparent legitimate reason. It can not therefore be said that the staff is being treated, assigned or utilized in a fair and equitable manner. Section 2.2.1. LRSD shall maintain in place its current policies and practices relating to the recruitment of African-American teachers which have allowed LRSD to maintain a teaching staff which is approximately one-third African-American. The district commits to faculty balance in the schools. According to Associate Superintendent Junious Babbs, African American teachers should be within a range of 10% above -8- or not more than 15% below the overall percentage of African American staff at a particular grade level. The compliance report is in error. Joshua notes next that staff recruitment is not addressed to grade level needs and that there has been no presentation of the number or percentage of African American teachers at each grade level or in each school. These data are necessary in making a utilization analysis of staff. This is important because African American teachers are still appear to be concentrated in non-core areas such as special education, vocational education, remedial education, physical education, etc. Section 2.2.2. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to increase the number of African-American media specialists, guidance counselors, early childhood teachers, primary grade teachers and secondary core subject teachers, including offering incentives for African-American teachers to obtain certification in these areas, and to assign those teachers to the LRSD schools where the greatest disparity exists. With respect to this provision, it appears that there has been no material change in the percentage or number of Black media specialists, counselors, core secondary, early childhood and primary grade teachers. The recruitment plan indicates that it provides incentives to attract African American teachers. It is uncertain what those incentives are\nand the extent to which they will be continued. It is also uncertain what the problems are with being able to move beyond the numbers that existed in 1997, especially now that it is evident that the white teacher applicant pool is also deficient. Section 2.2.3. LRSD shall establish a uniform salary schedule for all positions within the district, including a salary range for director and associate and assistant superintendent positions, designed to provide compensation in accordance with qualifications and to minimize -9-complaints of favoritism. The salary schedule freezes in arbitrary and racially discriminatory pay practices which refer back to the Williams administration between 1992 to 1996. Section 2.2.4. LRSD shall implement a policy for the centralized hiring and assignment of teachers by the LRSD Human Resources Department designed to provide an equitable distribution of teaching resources and to prevent nepotism and preselection by a school principal. Joshua does not believe that this policy has been effective in practice. Policy GCF RI allows for the principal to interview and make recommendations for teaching positions. There is no process to prevent nepotism and preselection and the policy does not prohibit it. Section 2.2.5. LRSD shall implement a policy of promotion from within which shall include procedures for notifying district employees of open positions. The district has no standard for determining when it will fill a vacancy by promotion from within. A promotion from within policy ensures that a higher percentage of African American teachers and staff will be available for consideration for promotion than an open application process. The applicant pool in the former would be between 35%-40% and in the latter, it will be closer to 8%-l 0%. Therefore, when the district opens staff positions to the public at large it is knowingly inviting a significantly whites applicant pool than were it to implement a policy of promotion from within. It is also saying that a white person is preferred for the job. Under this section this is no explanation of how assignments were made in the filling of vacancies for administrative positions which were not filled via promotion. Section 2.6. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to -10-promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in extracurricular activities, advance placement courses, honors and enriched courses and the gifted and talented program. With respect to this Section, the district has merely reported the composition of each school and has fit the teachers into select categories. It has taken no affirmative steps to ensure that the more minority or low achieving schools where the remediation needs are greatest, have equally strong, experienced teachers. Joshua acknowledges that degrees and years of experience by themselves do not confirm superior status of a teacher. But these criteria tend to reflect the ability of school to be perceived as capable of maintaining its staff. That perception enables educational programs to have a better chance of being successfully implemented. Low turnover is a reflection of a schools stability, while high turnover is a reflection of a schools instability. This comment is consistent with earlier district testimony which lamented the fact that Mitchell school had almost every year for 5 or 6 years in succession principal turnover. Joshua observes that Badgett and the Charter School, Baseline, Dodd, Mitchell, Rightsell, Washington, Watson and Woodruff appear to have staff with considerably less than 10 years average experience. These are disproportionately minority schools with concentrations of free and reduced priced lunch eligible students. Cloverdale and Mabelvale fit into that category at the middle school level as do McClellan and Fair at the high school level. The assignment practices of the district are consistent with the relative status as schools of academic excellence or despair. Without doubt, the perceived quality pecking order of schools is as follow: a) high schools: Parkview, Central, Hall, Fair, McClellan -11-b) middle schools: Mann, Pulaski Heights, Dunbar, Forest Heights, Henderson, and either Southwest, Cloverdale or Mabelvale We further note that the schools appear to be more evenly balanced except for Cloverdale and Mabelvale Middle and McClellan in 1998-99 with respect to average years of experience than they came to be in 2001. Inasmuch as these schools are mostly minority the plan does not appear to be delivering experienced teachers to these schools or an even basis. In assessing teachers with advanced degrees, the district median or average percentage is not presented. But the schools that have the lowest percentage of teachers with advanced degrees seem to be: Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Mabelvale 23% Alternative 25% Metropolitan 23% Rightsell 32% Cloverdale 32% McClellan 49% Geyer Springs 33% Washington 37% Mitchell Baseline 38% 38% The high end schools include: High End Schools High End Middle Schools High Schools Jefferson 74% Mann 59% Parkview 71% Wakefield 71% Central 63% Wilson 68% Hall 56% With respect to teachers with a masters degree plus 9 years or more experience: -12-Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Rightsell 18% Cloverdale 27% McClellan 35% Mabelvale 19% Forest Heights 27% Fair 36% Mitchell 29% Geyer Springs 29% Franklin 32% The high ends of this category reflect as follows: High End Schools High End Middle Schools High Schools Jefferson 63% Mann 52% Parkview 55% Wakefield 67% Pulaski Heights 40% Central 51% Wilson 60% Hall 43% Joshua has some concerns about these categories because of its general impression that there is less stability in the schools that are more heavily minority. Note the following drops between 1998 and 2000 with respect to: a) average years of experience: Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Badgett 11.63 to 8.29 Mabelvale 7.9 to 6.15 Fair 12.17 to 8.84 Rightsell 10.5 to 6.65 Cloverdale 9.84 to 8.36 McClellan 9.67 to 7.90 Washington 10.74 to 9.31 Woodruff 9.18 to 7.38 b) masters degree plus 9 or more years: Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Geyer Springs 38% to 29% Cloverdale 30% to 27% McClellan 38% to 35% -13-Mitchell 32% to 29% Fair 40% to 36% Mabelvale 19% to 19% Hall 51% to 43% Rightsell 43% to 18% Washington 53% to 33% It is noted that Parkview remains relatively consistent in all of these categories and that Central is not far behind, while McClellan and Fair are relatively consistent but on the other end of the scale. The same is true at the high end with Carver, Brady, Booker, Fair Park, Gibbs, Jefferson, McDermott, Meadowcliff, Romine, Wakefield, Terry, Williams and Wilson. Al of these schools have higher than average concentration of white students. Joshua, therefore, submits that the schools in the LRSD are not equal with respect to the promises of Section 2.2.6 and that the high schools especially reflect gross concerns of racial inequity. Joshua, in making this point, refers to Section 2.11.1. This section addresses equity in academic honors, awards, scholarships and honor graduate comparisons. At the outset we note that the district has segregated the white grouping of students into white and other. There is no reason for the distinction other than to diminish the degree of favor which white students receive in comparison to Black students. Moreover, the district has lumped nonacademic scholarships which were more likely awarded to minority students and then set forth the total dollar value of scholarships awarded. With these things in mind, we note that the pecking order for scholarships relates to the size of the school but mostly to the reputation of the school and the race of the students in those schools. In 1997-98,of71 honor graduates at Central, 11 were Black\nand at Parkview, there were 50 honor graduates of whom 14 were Black. In this respect, we note that neither school has had an -14-African American valedictorian in the past 5 or 6 years (and Central never has). We further note that there are discriminatory nuances in the honor designation categories in those schools as well as at Hall which tend to drive white students into the top positions notwithstanding lower academic achievement and which cause them to obtain honors or awards due Black students. In 1997, approximately 25% of the honor graduates at Parkview were Black\n21% were Black in 1999-00. In 1998-99, Joshua brought to the attention of the school district, manipulative practices of the school principal and some of the white staff at Hall High School with respect to altering grade weights of white students. Those practices were reflected in an ombudsman report which established that grades of white students were manipulated in order to accord them honor status. The district now commits that it will work with students to provide equity in academic awards, honors and scholarships. This relates back to the perception of schools. Central and Parkview, and to a lesser extent Hall, appear to extend promises to white students that if they attend those schools that they will meet with academic favor and have that academic favor reflected in awards and scholarships. and to disproportiately white students in their classes. At Hall, where Black upper end achievement has been exceedingly high in the past three years, the district has diminished the relative showing of Black achievement. The chart on page 161 reflects that there were but 13 honor graduates in 1998-99 when there were actually twenty-three of whom, 16 were Black. But the public recognition went to the few white honor students. The district does not intend for a showing to be made that Black students achieve as well, if not better, than white students in certain circumstances where they have the necessary support and resources. The message is thus reinforced that Parkview, Central and Hall are the best schools for white students in that order and that Fair and McClellan dont count for white students. That image drives white students geographically assigned to Fair and McClellan -15-to private schools or to white flight public schools. The charts presented by the district are incongruent with respect to scholarships awarded for honors or academic work. If 70% of the honor graduates in 1998 were white in all the schools, then the scholarship values should reflect that. Instead, they are about equal during that year and in 1999- 2000. African American students received approximately 60% of the scholarships. We believe that the district is not fairly presenting its evidence and that the facts it presents are inaccurate, but they do not detract from the basic point being made in Section 2.2.6. The teachers are largely responsible for the quality of education delivered. In that the teachers of the southwest schools and the schools with high minority populations do not seem to be equal with respect to the criteria delineated in the plan, it becomes easier to understand how the outcomes which may be measured by honor graduate. and scholarships by achievement show them to be in such low standing. The district is aware of the fact that the state scholarships administered by the Arkansas Department of Higher Education have racially discriminatory impact upon Black Little Rock graduates. It has not taken steps to bring this matter to the attention of the ADE as set forth in the state agreement herein. Section 2.2.7. LRSD shall negotiate with the Knight Intervenors to establish a procedure for the mandatory reassignment of teachers as necessary to enable LRSD to meet its obligations under Section 2.2 of this Revised Plan. There have not been established procedures for the mandatory reassignments of teachers. Whatever negotiations occurred between Knight and the district did not result in a procedure for that result where required by the necessity of equity. Joshua submits that not one teacher has been assigned by the district from a perceived strong school to a perceived weaker school for the purpose of remediation of achievement disparities. -16-Section 2.3. LRSD shall implement student assignment programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure the desegregation of LRSD schools to the extent practicable, including but not limited to Sections 3 and 4 of this Revised Plan. The district does not indicate which policies, programs or procedures that it has revised with the but not limited language of Section 2.3. Furthermore, policies JC and JCA have been in effect for only one year. Joshua notes that these policies were approved May 25, 2000 and that there has been no realistic time to assess their effectiveness assuming that they met their purpose in the first place. As noted elsewhere in this set of concerns, it appears that the schools in the southwest are becoming one race and grossly inferior while the schools in Pulaski Heights area and west Little Rock are becoming disproportionately white and superior. The district does not indicate what steps it is taking to prevent these assignment and quality patterns from occurring. Section 3.6. School Construction/Closing. LRSD shall construct at least two new area elementary schools, one in west Little Rock and one at the site of the former Stephens school. When the new Stephens Elementary opens, it shall receive additional funding as described in Section 5.5 of this Revised Plan and one or more of the schools identified in Section 5.5 will be closed. When a school identified in Section 5.5 is closed, LRSD shall exercise its best efforts to find a community or educational use for the property. Otherwise, LRSD shall not seek to close schools in African-American neighborhoods solely because of age or poor maintenance except when a new school will be located in the same general area. With respect to new school construction and school closing, Joshua has not been involved in the meetings of the west Little Rock school site selection committee and to our knowledge, no site has been selected. The location of that site could significantly affect desegregation possibilities or -17- created further desegregation problems. On the other hand, on information and belief, the district plans to close Mitchell, Badgett and Rightsell because of age and poor maintenance. Joshua is concerned that court release could free the district to place the Jefferson replacement school in a site which is disadvantageous to Black pupils. It also leaves open the possibility of keeping Jefferson as a school. This would tend to create greater desegregation burdens upon African American students. Section 2.4. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination in the referral and placement of students in special education or in other programs designed to meet special student needs. First, Joshua has not been involved in the devisation of the promised programs, policies and procedures in this section or any other section. The 504 program is replete with difficulties and programs which tend to impact African American students in a disparate way. As reflected by the charts on page 22, it appears that African American male and female students are over identified. Such identifications have labeling effects which are anathema to a unitary school system. Section 2.5. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline. The disciplinary programs still tend to be disproportionate. We note that the District has not indicated by gender as it did with respect to the charts on page 22 the students who are actually being suspended. Joshua contends that the suspensions and expulsions are falling most heavily upon African American male students. Some schools are more zero tolerant than others. While the district has diminished the number of overall suspensions, we note that the reduction in white -18- suspensions between 1998 and 2000 was approximately 29%, while the reduction in Black suspensions was approximately 5%. The numbers are roughly equal but the percentages are grossly disparate. This reflects a district still inclined to give more favor to white students. For each Black reducton it makes a white reduction. This is disturbing for if disparate treatment was occurring, the students who benefit from the remedy should be those who suffer rather than those who benefitted all along. Joshua will also point up at a hearing that virtually all the referrals by resource officers and/or district officials to juvenile officials are of Black pupils. White students are seldom referred to those sources when they misbehave. Furthermore, when Black resource officers attempt to respond sensitively to suspensions and referrals to the juvenile or criminal justice system, there is evidence that those resource officers are subject to removal or dislocation. Zero tolerance practices tend to apply generally to Black students and not to white students. Section 2.5.1. LRSD shall strictly adhere to the policies set forth in the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook to ensure that all students are discipline in a fair and equitable manner. This section has to be constantly subject to review because of the disparate treatment received by Black students, especially Black males. See Section 2.5 above. Joshua also requests that the district provide a breakdown by school and by gender, race and offense of the discipline sanctions imposed upon the students during each of the past 3 years. Section 2.5.2. LRSD shall purge students discipline records after the fifth grade an eighth grade of all offenses, except weapons offenses, arson and robbery, unless LRSD finds that to do so would not be in the best interest of the student. -19-The district has not adopted a policy to apply or define with respect to the best interests of the students. This allows subjective consideration to displace objective consideration. Section 2.5.3. LRSD shall establish the position of Ombudsman the job description for which shall include the following responsibilities: ensuring that students are aware of their rights pursuant to the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook, acting as an advocate on behalf of students involved in the discipline process, investigating parent and student complaints of race-based mistreatment and attempting to achieve equitable solutions. Joshua has serious concerns about the ombudsperson position with respect to job description, role and relationship to the administration, duties to students, sufficiency of staff and receptivity of administrators to the efforts of the ombudsperson to investigate complaints. Joshua submits that the Office of Ombudsperson requires a staff, organization, definition of roles and responsibilities and a direct reporting line to the superintendent and the board if the agreed upon expectations are to be realized. Joshua further notes the activities of the ombudsperson are not in this report. His reports, however, demonstrate that there are myriad problems associated with school desegregation implementation which give substance to the need for position in the first place\nand which justify court continued supervision in the second place. Section 2.5.4. LRSD shall work with students and their parents to develop behavior modification plans for students who exhibit frequent misbehavior. Joshua is concerned with the lack of definition with the term students who exhibit frequent misbehavior. 95 Until that term is defined and standards set for implementation, there can be no assurance that the plan being developed addresses the purposes of this section and are being administered in a nondiscriminatory fashion. Moreover, there is no showing how the District has -20- applied these plans since 1997 in order to assist Black students. Section 2.6. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in extracurricular activities, advanced placement courses, honors and enriched courses the gifted and talented program. Joshua is grossly concerned about the extracurricular section. First, the figures are not broken down by school, activity, race or gender. The administration of the advanced placement program gives rise to concerns that white students are being placed more into AP courses in earlier points in their lives and that in effect when one views the participation of academic activities one will find that those are largely participated in by white students. With respect to football, basketball and track, those activities are disproportionately Black. The Supplemental Instruction Program (SIP) gives rise to the impression that Black students are being place therein in order to qualify them for athletic participation. In any case, extra curricular participation is not as the district presents it. The chart on page 28 shows that co-cunicular participation has been increasing at the same rate for Black students over the past three years. Joshua is not familiar with an Activities Advisory Board and how it relates to having met desegregation goals and objectives, and has not been invited to participate in it. Section 2.6.1 and 2.6.2. 2.6.1. LRSD shall implement a training program during each of the next three years designed to assist teachers and counselors in identifying and encouraging African-American students to participate in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses. 2.6.2. LRSD shall implement programs to assist African- American students in being successful in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement -21-courses. There has been no assessment of the training programs for teachers and counselors for each of the last three years in order to assist them in identifying and encouraging African American students participation in honors, enriched and advanced placement courses. These sections demonstrate that programs are beginning to be implemented for the first time in 2001 and afterwards. These programs are 3 years late, with no evaluation criteria or component and are rife with problems, and no track record! For example, the board is establishing different graduation seals, using standards that are arbitrary and which particularly favor white students. Joshua is completely opposed to a system where Black children are not taught on the same basis as white children and then have that lack of teaching rubbed into their faces at graduation when they are denied honors. We note here that the district is yet to have a single Black national merit scholar in the nineteen years of this active litigation. We note also that in the elementary and junior high grades, there have been hundreds of Black pupils whose standardized test scores place them in the 90+ percentiles. While the district says it is trying to get everybody onto the same playing field, on an equal basis, establishing criteria which give the impression that white students are inherently unequal is patently unfair. In reviewing the additional courses and other activities, Joshua has general concerns about those programs and activities that are set forth on pages 32-35. There is no educational justification for an International Baccalaureate Program at Cloverdale Middle and McClellan High School. These students do not have the resources available to them as do students at Parkview and Central. The gifted participation remains as it has been, mostly white at the elementary schools and the percentage at the secondary schools appears to be moving up from 50% to 52%. As with white -22- and Black students with discipline, the practice to provide a one for one benefit for white pupils any time Black pupils advance. The District presents a chart to show African American student enrollment is increasing in advanced placement courses, p. 38. Joshua observes that there is no real change. In 1997, 33% of those students were minority and in 2000, 35% were minority. While the number increased from 33 to 39 in tw'o years, it dropped to where it was in 1997. The African American totals appear to have increased from 471 in 1997 to 797 in 2001, a difference of 326. The non black numbers. however, increased from 964 to 1495, a difference of 531. Taking into account the fact that non Black students are only approximately one third of the school system, their numbers increased to a point that virtually every non-black student is in an AP class. That translates into mostly white classes for white or non-black pupils. It is projected that for next school year there will be 2230 non Black students in the high schools. Assuming that at least 1495 of them as was the case last year are in AP courses, then 67%, or two of every three of the white students are in AP courses. Assuming that there will be 4509 Black students in the high schools next year and that 797 will be in AP courses that means that only 17%, or less than two of every ten of the Black students will be in AP courses. We submit that there is no way under the sun that a white population can be so much smarter than a Black population whoever makes the assessment. On the percentages alone, that means that the white students are almost four times more likely, i.e. smarter, to be placed into AP courses than Black students. It means that every time an additional Black student is placed into an AP course, 1.5 white students are placed in to AP classes. The further ahead we get, the further behind we get comment often made by African American citizens is given dramatic proof by this single statistic. There are some interesting patterns of enrollment in AP courses. Black students are -23- enrolled more in AP American history then any other subject. White students are enrolled more in English IV, English III and Environmental Science and Spanish IV. Less than 10% of the students\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1715","title":"Court filings concerning ADE's motion for approval of monitoring plan, LRSD's interim compliance report, LRSD status report on magnet school issues, LRSD's request for affirmative relief, ODM report, ''1999-00 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2000-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Arkansas. Department of Education","Little Rock School District","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School enrollment","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning ADE's motion for approval of monitoring plan, LRSD's interim compliance report, LRSD status report on magnet school issues, LRSD's request for affirmative relief, ODM report, ''1999-00 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1715"],"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":["27 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion for approval of monitoring plan; District Court, memorandum brief in support of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion for approval of monitoring plan; District Court, two orders; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) interim compliance report; District Court, Little Rock School District (LRSD) status report on magnet school issues; District Court, two orders; District Court, motion for extension of time to file reply brief in support of Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion for approval of monitoring plan; District Court, order; District Court, reply brief in support of Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion for approval of monitoring plan and in opposition to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) request for affirmative relief; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''1999-00 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, motion to extend time and for referral  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION MAR 6 2000 OFflCE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL LRSD'S RESPONSE DEFENDANTS INTER VENERS INTER VENERS TO ADE'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF MONITORING PLAN LRSD, for its Response to ADE's Motion for Approval of Monitoring Plan, states: 1. LRSD admits the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 3 of ADE's Motion. 2. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraphs 4 and 5 of ADE's Motion . . 3. ADE has failed to comply with its monitoring obligations originating in Section III.A. of the Settlement Agreement. See ODM Report dated December 18, 1997, \"Report on the Arkansas Department of Education's Monitoring of the, School Districts in Pulaski County.\" 4. ADE's proposed Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan (\"DMAP\") will not further LRSD's efforts to comply with its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\") for the following reasons: a. Under LRSD's Revised Plan, LRSD may be released from court - supervision at the conclusion of the 2000-01 school year. LRSD must submit a compliance report to the Court and the parties on or before March 15, 2001 . However, the DMAP does not even contemplate a monitoring report being filed until October 1, 2000. This is too late to be of any benefit to LRSD; b. LRSD now has in place its own internal monitoring processes specifically related to LRSD's Revised Plan. It objects to being required to provide information to ADE so that ADE can reformat the data and give it back to LRSD in the form of a \"monitoring report.\" 5. ADE's motion should also be denied for the following reasons: a. ADE's monitoring no longer needs to be \"independent\" ofLRSD. ODM provides independent monitoring of LRSD. See the \"Allen Letter\", \"We anticipate that the enclosed plan may be modified ... after we learn more about the monitoring role that will be undertaken by Eugene Reville.\"). Moreover, ADE monitoring ofLRSD does not make sense given the status of the parties. LRSD is the plaintiff in this case. ADE represents the \"remedial vehicle\" for constitutional violations committed by the State of Arkansas and other governmental bodies. LRSD v. PCSSD, 597 F.Supp. 1220, 1228 (E.D. Ark. 1984)(\"Other branches of the State, as set forth in this court's earlier opinion, [LRSD v. PCSSD, 584 F.Supp. 328, 352-53 (E.D. Ark. 1984)], share responsibility for these constitutional violations, but the State Board must be the remedial vehicle for their constitutional violations as well.\"); b. ADE's monitoring was part of the State's \"continuing role in satisfactorily remediating achievement disparities.\" See Settlement Agreement, Section III.A. The other part was State funding of compensatory education programs. Based on this State funding, ADE's monitoring served to ensure \"fiscal accountability to the tax payers [sic] of Arkansas.\" See the \"Allen Letter\", p. 1. However, LRSD no longer receives State funding for compensatory 2 education programs through the Settlement Agreement. Thus, the State's interest in seeing that LRSD spends the State's money in a fiscally responsible manner is substantially reduced. 6. The facts and circumstances set forth above justify modification of ADE's monitoring obligations. As noted above, the Settlement Agreement recognized that ADE was to have a \"continuing role in satisfactorily remediating achievement disparities.\" See Settlement Agreement, Section III.A. At least with regard to LRSD, that role should shift from one of monitoring to one of active participation in the district's efforts to eliminate the achievement disparity between African-American and other students. This Court should order ADE to meet with LRSD and, if possible, reach an agreement as to how ADE can best assist LRSD in achieving this goal. ADE should be required to provide LRSD resources, in the form of either personnel or funding, at least equivalent to the resources which ADE planned to devote toward - monitoring of LRSD. 7. Additionally, since ODM now provides the independent monitoring which under the Settlement Agreement and the Allen Letter was to be performed by ADE, ADE should be ordered to reimburse the districts for the cost of ODM for the current year and to pay for ODM in the future. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that ADE's Motion for Approval of Monitoring Plan be denied; that ADE be ordered to meet with LRSD and, if possible, reach an agreement as to how ADE can best assist LRSD in eliminating the achievement disparity between African-American and other students; that ADE be required to provide LRSD resources, in the form of either personnel or funding, at least equivalent to the resources which ADE planned to devote toward monitoring ofLRSD; that ADE be ordered to reimburse the districts for the cost of ODM for the 3 current year and to pay for ODM in the future; that LRSD be awarded its costs and attorneys' fees expended herein; and that LRSD be granted all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served f the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on this ~ay of March, 2000. Mr. John W. Walker JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION MAR 6 2000 OFFICE Or DESEGREGATION MONITDRJNQ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF LRSD'S RESPONSE DEFENDANTS INTER VENERS INTER VENERS TO ADE'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF MONITORING PLAN ADE represents the \"remedial vehicle\" for constitutional violations committed by the State of Arkansas and other governmental bodies. LRSD v. PCSSD, 597 F.Supp. 1220, 1228 (E.D. Ark. 1984)(\"Other branches of the State, as set forth in this court's earlier opinion, [LRSD v. PCSSD, 584 F.Supp. 328, 352-53 (E.D. Ark. 1984)], share responsibility for these constitutional violations, but the State Board must be the remedial vehicle for their constitutional violations as well.\"). As such, ADE agreed to monitor and evaluate LRSD's compensatory education programs as a part of ADE's \"continuing role in satisfactorily remediating achievement disparities.\" See Settlement Agreement, Section III.A. and the \"Allen Letter.\" No such monitoring and evaluation ever occurred. See ODM Report dated December 18, 1997, \"Report on the Arkansas Department of Education's Monitoring of the School Districts in Pulaski County.\" ADE's failure to comply with its monitoring obligations, in conjunction with the other facts and circumstances outlined in LRSD's Response, justify modification of the Settlement Agreement. Given that nature of the ADE's monitoring obligations and the modifications sought by LRSD, the Supreme Court's decision in Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 112 S.Ct. 748, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992), provides the relevant legal standard. In that case, the Supreme Court held: [A] party seeking modification of a consent decree bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree. If the moving party meets this standard, the court should consider whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstance. Id., at 393, 116 L.Ed.2d at 886. A myriad of changed circumstances may justify modification under Rufo. See,~ Jacksonville Branch, NAACP. v. the Duval County School Board, 978 F.2d 1574, 1582 (1 Ith Cir. 1992)(\"Modification [of a consent decree] may be considered when (1) a significant change in facts or law warrants change and the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the change, (2) significant time has passed and the objectives of the original agreement have not been met, (3) continuance is no longer warranted, or (4) a continuation would be inequitable and each side has a legitimate interest to be considered.\"). The modifications proposed by LRSD are suitably tailored to the changed circumstances outlined in LRSD's Response in that they further the underlying purpose of ADE's monitoring: to eliminate the achievement disparity between African-American and other students. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 56 F.3d 904, 914 (8th Cir. 1995)(approving the closing oflsh Incentive School because it advances the goal of desegregation); Heath v. DeCourcy. 888 F.2d 1105, 1110 (6th Cir. l 989)(Modification of a consent decree will be upheld \"if it furthers the original purpose of the decree in a more efficient way, without upsetting the basic agreement between the parties.\"). 2 ADE may object to the modifications sought by LRSD arguing that they increase the financial obligation of the State. Even if this is true, this objection is without merit because ADE has been adjudged a constitutional violator. Compare Lorain NAACP v. Lorain Bd. of Educ., 979 F.2d 1141 (6th Cir. 1992). In Lorain, the Sixth Circuit reversed a district court order modifying a consent decree and substantially increasing the financial obligations of the State of Ohio for desegregation of the Lorain City School District. The linchpin of the Sixth Circuit's decision was the fact there had been no adjudication of a constitutional violation by the State. Id., at 1153 . The Sixth Circuit concluded: In the absence of an adjudication or admission of [a] constitutional violation, the district court's authority to impose additional obligations on a defendant is constrained by the terms of[the] agreement entered by the parties to the consent decree. Id. In the present case, the State of Arkansas was adjudicated a constitutional violator. Therefore, subject to satisfaction of the Rufo standard, this Court has discretion to modify ADE's monitoring obligations in a manner that increases the financial obligation of the State. Therefore, LRSD respectfully requests that ADE's Motion for Approval of Monitoring Plan be denied; that ADE be ordered to meet with LRSD and, if possible, reach an agreement as to how ADE can best assist LRSD in eliminating the achievement disparity between AfricanAmerican and other students; that ADE be required to provide LRSD resources, in the form of either personnel or funding, at least equivalent to the resources which ADE planned to devote toward monitoring ofLRSD; and that ADE be ordered to reimburse the districts for the cost of ODM for the current year and to pay for ODM in the future. 3 Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on this ~ay of March, 2000. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 7220 l 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 First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 FILED EAsrMk\\ 13',i~~',g. ~2~sAs IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAR O 7 2000 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS - WESTERN DIVISION ~~ME,fv.~Mc R~ACK ~LERK , ~\\AJlJL~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * o P C1:ffiK Plaintiff * vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER No. LR-C-82-866 The Little Rock School District moves the Court for an Order authorizing a special millage election to be held May 9, 2000 [docket no. 3339]. The District states it has a pressing need for additional funds to meet desegregation commitments associated with the construction, renovation, and maintenance of its school facilities. Additionally, the District explains it must plan for the needed expenditures by May 2000 and cannot wait for the annual school election (scheduled for September 2000) to place the proposal before the electorate. After careful consideration, the Court finds that the proposed special election should be authorized. See Liddell v. Missouri, 731 F.2d 1294, 1321 (8th Cir. 1984). THEREFORE, the Court hereby authorizes a special millage election to be held in the Little Rock School District on May 9, 2000 for the purpose of placing before the electorate a proposal to increase the millage rate in the Little Rock School District by 5 mills. FURTHER, the millage election authorized by this Order shall have the same force and effect under Arkansas law as if it were a regular school election. IT IS SO ORDERED TIDS 1%A Y OF MARCH, 2000 ~~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 fHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN ::C.;MPUANC;.,ZTH RULE 58 AN~R~(a) FRCP ON ;!i'.25 t7D BY _ j IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * VS. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I, et al., Defendants, No. LR-C-82-866 l\\1RS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, * * * * * * * * * * * MAR l O zmm KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. ORDER v'C1, :'I\"\\,C,. vr~rC DESEGREGAT!CN MONITOmNQ Previously, the Court held in abeyance its decision regarding the Little Rock School - District's motion to modify the parties' settlement agreement with respect to the number of magnet school seats within each magnet school. The Court directed the parties to brief the Court whether under the settlement agreement, the stipulated number of state-funded seats for individual magnet schools may vary (providing the total number of state-funded seats remains at 4,065) without disrupting the substantive commitments contained in the agreement. 1 The State responded that the \"Settlement Agreement specifically limits the State's financial obligation for students attending the six original magnet schools\" and \"ties the limits to the State's financial obligation to a maximum number of students for each of the six magnet schools.\"2 According to the State, the parties ' decision to delineate specific seating limits for each magnet school supports a finding that the limits are substantive commitments under the 1 Docket no. 3308. 2 Docket no. 3320. - agreement, which may not be modified absent a showing of significant change in circumstances. LRSD filed a motion for more time to respond to the Court's request for briefing, and the Court granted the motion. However, the extended time for responding has passed and LRSD has not filed a response. The Court provides the LRSD to and including 5 days from entry of this Order to file a response. If a response is not forthcoming, the Court will conclude LRSD does not object to the State's response and enter an Order denying LRSD's motion to modify the parties' settlement agreement [ docket no. 3292]. JA.- IT IS so ORDERED THIS_%_ DAY OF MARCH, 2000 CHIEF JUD E UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COUPUAN~~ITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP 'JN 3 -9 L q;:, _ !Y t1::;-----; . - 2 HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY 11922 1994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON , P. A . BYRON M. EISEMAN , JR .. P.A. JOE 0. BELL, P. A.  ES A . BUTTRY , P.A . DERICK S. URSERY , P . A . ARE . DAVIS , JR., P. A . MES C . CLARK, JR., P. A . THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P. A . JOHN DEWEY WATSON , P.A . PAUL 8 . BENHAM Ill , P. A . LARRY W . BURKS , P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR., P. A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS, P. A . J. PHILLIP MALCOM, P. A . JAMES M . SIMPSON , P. A . JAMES M . SAXTON . P. A . J . SHEPHERD RUSSELL Ill, P. A . DONALD H. BACON , P.A . WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER , P. A. BARRY E. COPLIN , P.A. RICHARD 0 . TAYLOR , P. A . JOSEPH 8 . HURST, JR ., P. A . ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY, P.A . CHRISTOPHER HELLER, P. A . LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P.A. ROBERTS . SHAFER, P.A . WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN Ill , P. A . MICHAELS. MOORE, P.A . DIANE S. MACKEY, P. A. WALTER M . EBEL Ill , P.A. KEVIN A . CRASS, P. A. WILLIAM A . WADDELL, JR ., P. A. SCOTT J . LANCASTER , P. A . M. GAYLE CORLEY , P. A. ROBERT 8 . BEACH , JR ., P. A . J . LEE BROWN, P. A . JAMES C . BAKER, JR . , P. A . HARRY A . LIGHT , P.A. Mr. James W. McConnack FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 3493 TELEPHONE 501 -376 -2011 FAX NO . 501376  2147 March 15, 2000 RECEIVED MAR 15 2000 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING SCOTT H. TUCKER , P.A . GUY ALTON WADE , P.A . PRICE C. GARONER. P.A . TONIA P. JONES, P.A. DAVID 0 . WILSON , P.A . JEFFREY H. MOORE , P.A . DAVID M. GRAF , P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR , P.A . JOHN C. FENOLEY , JR ., P.A . JONANN CONIGLIO FLEISCHAUER, P. A . R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON, P. A. GREGORY D. TAYLOR, P. A . TONY L. WILCOX . P. A . FRANC . HICKMAN , P.A . BETTY J . DEMORY, P. A . LYNDA M. JOHNSON, P.A . JAMES W. SMITH CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT DANIELL . HERRINGTON K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR. ALLISON J . CORNWELL ELLEN M . OWENS HELENE N. RAYDEA JASON 8 , HENDREN BRUCE 8 . TIDWELL CHRIS A . AVERITT KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A . IFRAH MARTIN A. KASTEN ROBERT T. SMITH a, COUNSU WILLIAM J . SMITH B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON , JR . H. T. LARZELERE . P. A . JOHN C. ECHOLS, P. A. WAIT(A 'S DIAfCT NO . (501) 370-3323 United States District Court Clerk 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 402 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 RE: Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. I, et. al.; Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et. al.; Katherine Knight, et. al. United States District Court, Eastern District, Western Division No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Mr. McCormack: Enclosed please find the original and copies of plaintiffs Notice of Filing LRSD's Interim Compliance Report to be filed in the captioned case. Please file the original of record and return the extra file marked copies to me in the enclosed envelope. By copy of this letter, I am forwarding a copy of the enclosed pleading to counsel for the defendant. JCF/bgb enclosure(s) cc: Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Steve Jones F:IIIOMEIJEANNE\\Barbaraljcf  lrsd v. pcssd clcrlc-lt.wpd Since~ly, {tjj) l1tC~.~ Jopn C. Fendley, Jr. Mr. Richard Roachell Ms. Ann Brown (hand delivered) Mr. Timothy G. Gauger IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING LRSD'S INTERIM COMPLIANCE REPORT The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") hereby gives notice of filing the attached Interim Compliance Report outlining the programs, policies and procedures implemented in accordance with LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on this 15th day of March, 2000. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 JnC. Fend~y 2 RECEIVED MAR 15 2000 Olt!CE OF Interim Compliance Report DESEGRE6',TION~roNrrrr,ms Little Rock School District March 15, 2000 HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1922 -199'1 WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P .A . - YRON M . EISEMAN , JR. , P.A . OED. BELL, P.A. AMES A . BUTTRY, P . A . FREDERICKS . URSERY, P. A. OSCAR E. DAVIS, JR q P . A . JAMES C. CLARK , JR . , P. A . THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P .A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON , P .A. PAUL 8 . BENHAM Ill . P . A . LARRY W . BURKS . P. A . A . WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR . , P.A . JAMES EDWARD HARRIS , P.A . J . PHILLIP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M . SIMPSON , P . A . JAMES M . SAXTON, P . A . J . SHEPHERD RUSSELL Ill, P .A. DONALD H , BACON, P. A . WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER, P.A . BARRY E. COPLIN , P. A . RICHARD 0 . TAYLOR , P . A . JOSEPH 8 . HURST, JR . , P .A . ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY, P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER , P . A . LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P.A . ROBERTS. SHAFER, P.A . WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN Ill, P .A. MICHAEL$. MOORE. P. A . DIANE S . MACKEY, P. A . WALTER M . EBEL Ill. P.A. KEVIN A . CRASS , P.A . WILLIAM A . WADDELL, JR . , P.A . SCOTT J . LANCASTER, P . A . M . GAYLE CORLEY , P. A . ROBERT 8 . BEACH , JR. , P . A . J . LEE BROWN, P.A . JAMES C . BAKER, JR ., P . A . HARRY A. LIGHT , P.A . FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK , ARKANSAS 72201 3493 TELEPHONE 501 -376-2011 FAX NO. 501-376-2147 March 17, 2000 RECEIVED MAR 2 0 2000 Mr. James W. McCormack District Court Clerk 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 402 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al. USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Mr. McCormack: SCOTT H . TUCKER , P.A . GUY AL TON WADE , P.A . PRICE C . GARONER, P.A . TONIA P. JONES , P.A. DAVID 0. WILSON , P.A. JEFFREY H . MOORE, P.A . DAVID M . GRAF, P.A . CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR , P.A . JOHN C . FENDLEY , JR. , P.A. JOHANN CONIGLIO FLEISCHAUER . P. A . R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON , P. A . GREGORY 0 . TAYLOR , P.A . TONY L . WILCOX , P.A. FRANC . HICKMAN, P.A . BETTY J . DEMORY, P. A . LYNDA M . JOHNSON, P.A . JAMES W . SMITH CLIFFORD W . PLUNKETT DANIEL L . HERRINGTON K . COLEMAN WESTBROOK, JR . ALLISON J . CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS HELENE N . RAYOER JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE 8 . TIOWELL CHRIS A . AVERITT KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A . IFRAH MARTIN A . KASTEN ROBERT T . SMITH Of COUN SEL WILLIAM J. SMITH S . S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON , JR . H . T. LARZELERE , P.A . JOHN C. ECHOLS, P.A . WAITIEll ' S OIAECT NO . (501) 370 - 1506 Enclosed please find the original and three copies of Status Report in the above-captioned case. Please file the original and return copies of same to me bearing your file mark. By copy of this letter I am forwarding copies of same to the attorneys of record. Thank you for your assistance. CH/pch Enclosures cc w/enc.: Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Mr. Mr. John W. Walker Richard Roachell M. Samuel Jones Ann Brown Timothy Gauger Steve Jones IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL LRSD STATUS REPORT ON MAGNET SCHOOL ISSUES RECEIVED MAR 2 0 ZOGO OfRGHt oESGREGATIOH OITORIMG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS For its Status Report, the Little Rock School District states: 1. In May of 1999 the MRC asked the Court to approve a change in the grade structure and number of seats at the Magnet - Schools for the 1999-2000 school year. The proposed change was in response to LRSD's reorganization of its school grade structure into a new configuration which includes middle schools. The MRC proposal led to a disagreement between the Arkansas Department of Education and LRSD about whether the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement limits either the total number of magnet seats or the number of seats at any particular magnet school for which ADE can be required to contribute funding. 2. LRSD and ADE have resolved their disagreement. They are in the process of drafting a Memorandum of Understanding to reflect the resolution of these issues. A Memorandum of Understanding will F:IHOME\\BRENDAK\\lr\u003ed\\PCSS-sl\u003e!Us. rep. wpd be filed with the Court as soon as it has been completed and signed by the parties. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Christopher Heller John C. Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas (501) 37 By: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following on this 17th day of March, 2000: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 NationsBank 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 F:IHOME\\BRENDAK\\lrsdlPCSS-SUIUs.rep. wpd 2 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72 201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAR 2 0 2000 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAMES WESTERN DMSION By:-----'Y--~~.,J..J.J.~~~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants,  MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., lntervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * ORDER MAR 2 2 2000 OtEm0F DESEGRE6A1IDll1MlNlTORING The Little Rock School District (LR-SD) filed a status report, informing the Court that the LRSD and the State have resolved their differences related to the State's magnet school funding obligations.1 Currently, the LRSD and the State are finalizing a Memorandum of Understanding to be filed with the Court at a later date. Accordingly, the Court finds that the LRSD's motion to modify the parties' settlement agreement should be, and it is hereby, DENIED AS MOOT [docket no. 3292]. -fA_ IT IS SO ORDERED THIS cl\u003c? DAY OF MARCH, 2000 C1~Jk- CIDEF JUDGE ~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 Docket no. 3345. fHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPUANC./CITH RULE 58 ANO/OR 79(1) FACP 'JN 3SJ 00 . _ BYtzt: __ 3346 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * Intervenors, * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * Intervenors. * ORDER MAR 20 2fQJ By previous Order, this Court conditionally approved a revised desegregation plan submitted by the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCS SD\"). 1 The Court directed PCSSD to provide members of the Joshua Class with notice of the proposed revised plan and set March 15, 2000 as the deadline for receiving objections from class members. The time for filing objections has passed and no member of the Joshua Class has submitted comments or objections regarding the revised plan. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23( e ), the Court has carefully reviewed the revised plan and finds it to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interest of the Joshua Class. Additionally, the Court finds that counsel for Joshua provided class members adequate representation during negotiations related to the revised plan. 1 Docket no. 3337. Therefore, the Court finds that PCSSD's motion for approval of Plan 2000 should be, and it is hereby, GRANTED [docket no. 3309] Further, the Court finds that PCSSD's motion for additional findings of fact and conclusions oflaw regarding the Court's denial of PCSSD's petition for release from court supervision should be, and it is hereby, DENIED AS MOOT [ docket no. 3287]. fR IT IS SO ORDERED THIS t2.o DAY OF MARCH, 2000 ~#-,~d' CHIEF JUDG UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN C( .1MPUA~0ITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP , ON 3 t, Qo_ ,. BY J7t:: _-' 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED MAR 2 1 2000 uFFICE OF  :f SEGREGATION MONITOR/NG LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ADE'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF MONITORING PLAN The Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\") hereby moves the Court for a short extension of time, to and including March 24, 2090, within -which to file a combined reply brief in .... - . support of its motion for approval of a new monitoring and assistance plan and opposition to LRSD's - own request for modification of the Settlement Agreement The motion is made on the following grounds: 1. On February l, 2000, ADE filed a motion for approval of a proposed Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan (\"DMAP\") as replacing and superceding the \"Allen Letter.\" After securing an extension of time within which to respond to AD E's motion, the LRSD filed its response on March 6, 2000. In its response LRSD asserts thatADE's motion should be denied and requests modifications of the Settlement Agreement marlc.edly different than the modifications sought by ADE. 2. ADE desires to file a combined reply brief in support of its motion and opposition to the relief sought by LRSD. Treating LRSD's response as a motion for affirmative relief, AD E's response would be due on or before March 20, 2000. However, due to the press of other business, counsel for ADE will need an additional four days, to and including March 24, 2000, to file such a brief. 3. Counsel for ADE has cont.acted LRSD's counsel concerning this motion and is authorized to st.ate that LRSD does not oppose the extension of time sought herein. WHEREFORE, ADE respectfully requests that the Court enter an order permitting ADE to file a combined reply brief in support of its motion for approval of the DMAP and opposition to LRSD's request for modification of the Settlement .Agreement, on or before March 24, 2000. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRY "},{"id":"fda_houck_390140","title":"Prolepsis and Anachronism: Emmett Till and the Historicity of To Kill a Mockingbird","collection_id":"fda_houck","collection_title":"Davis Houck Papers","dcterms_contributor":["Chura, Patrick"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2000-03"],"dcterms_description":["Summary: Article on the historical authenticity employed in the novel To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee and the characterization of the social and ideological issues associated in the Emmett Till trial."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Chapel Hill, N.C. : The Southern Literary Journal"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["http://purl.fcla.edu/fsu/MSS_2015-007"],"dcterms_subject":["African Americans--Civil rights--History--20th century","African Americans--Crimes against","Civil rights","Journalism--Political aspects--United States","Mississippi--Race relations","Racism in the press","Rhetoric--Political aspects--United States--History--20th century","Trials (Murder)--United States"],"dcterms_title":["Prolepsis and Anachronism: Emmett Till and the Historicity of To Kill a Mockingbird"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Florida State University Libraries. Special Collections"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://purl.flvc.org/fsu/fd/FSU_MSS_2015-007_S03_SS03_I002"],"dcterms_temporal":["1900/1999"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["articles"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"vrc_car_37155","title":"Carolyn Hawley and James McBride interview (2000-02-21)","collection_id":"vrc_car","collection_title":"Carver-VCU Partnership Oral History Collection","dcterms_contributor":["Carver-VCU Partnership","James Branch Cabell Library. Special Collections and Archives"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Virginia, City of Richmond, 37.55376, -77.46026"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2000-02-21"],"dcterms_description":["Carolyn Hawley and James McBride, residents of the Carver neighborhood in Richmond, Va., talk about their respective experiences. Carolyn Hawley, who was born in Carver, discusses her home, childhood, and school life in Carver. James McBride, who moved into the neighborhood in 1987, describes the changes he's seen in Carver; comparisons with the Church Hill area; and challenges facing the community. Carolyn Hawley and James McBride also discuss efforts by community leaders who have worked on behalf of the neighborhood; changes in the neighborhood; efforts to address the problem of abandoned properties; the expansion of VCU; community planning issues; and expectations regarding the Living Newspaper Project.","Part of a series of interviews conducted as part of a Carver-VCU Partnership project documenting the history of the Carver neighborhood in Richmond, Virginia."],"dc_format":["audio/mpeg","application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Richmond, Va. : VCU Libraries"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Carver Living Newspaper Project","Carver Neighborhood - VCU Partnership Archives, RG 59-1"],"dcterms_subject":["Community development--Virginia--Richmond","City planning--Citizen participation","City planning--Virginia--Richmond","African American neighborhoods--Virginia--Richmond","McBride, James--Anecdotes","McBride, James--Interviews","Hawley, Carolyn, 1959---Anecdotes","Hawley, Carolyn, 1959---Interviews"],"dcterms_title":["Carolyn Hawley and James McBride interview (2000-02-21)"],"dcterms_type":["Text","Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["James Branch Cabell Library. Special Collections and Archives"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://digital.library.vcu.edu/islandora/object/vcu%3A37155"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted","This material is protected by copyright, and copyright is held by VCU. You are permitted to use this material in any way that is permitted by copyright. In addition, this material is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/). Acknowledgment of Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries as a source is required."],"dcterms_medium":["sound recordings","oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["Track 1: 105 MB (57 minutes, 33 seconds); Track 2: 33.5 MB (18 minutes, 20 seconds)"],"dlg_subject_personal":["McBride, James","Hawley, Carolyn, 1959-","Davis, Trina"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"vrc_car_37134","title":"Lucy Anne Lucas interview (2000-02-18)","collection_id":"vrc_car","collection_title":"Carver-VCU Partnership Oral History Collection","dcterms_contributor":["Carver-VCU Partnership","James Branch Cabell Library. Special Collections and Archives"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Virginia, City of Richmond, 37.55376, -77.46026"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2000-02-18"],"dcterms_description":["Lucy Anne Davis, who was born and raised in the Carver neighborhood of Richmond, Va., discusses her early childhood in the neighborhood. She describes what it was like to grow up in the Carver area; her early family life; and how living in the neighborhood affected her family relationships. Ms. Davis also recalls some of the neighborhood events and activities; reasons why they stopped and how they could have a positive effect on the community. She also describes changes to the neighborhood over time that she has witnessed; and her hopes for the future of the Carver area.","Part of a series of interviews conducted as part of a Carver-VCU Partnership project documenting the history of the Carver neighborhood in Richmond, Virginia."],"dc_format":["audio/mpeg","application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Richmond, Va. : VCU Libraries"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Carver Living Newspaper Project","Carver Neighborhood - VCU Partnership Archives, RG 59-1"],"dcterms_subject":["African American neighborhoods--Virginia--Richmond--Social conditions","Lucas, Lucy Anne--Childhood and youth--Anecdotes","Lucas, Lucy Anne--Interviews"],"dcterms_title":["Lucy Anne Lucas interview (2000-02-18)"],"dcterms_type":["Text","Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["James Branch Cabell Library. Special Collections and Archives"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://digital.library.vcu.edu/islandora/object/vcu%3A37134"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted","This material is protected by copyright, and copyright is held by VCU. You are permitted to use this material in any way that is permitted by copyright. In addition, this material is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/). Acknowledgment of Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries as a source is required."],"dcterms_medium":["sound recordings","oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["Track 1: 41.6 MB (22 minutes, 45 seconds)"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Lucas, Lucy Anne","Davis, Trina"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"noa_sohpcr_k-0646","title":"Oral history interview with Charles Adams, February 18, 2000","collection_id":"noa_sohpcr","collection_title":"Oral Histories of the American South: The Civil Rights Movement","dcterms_contributor":["Van Scoyoc, Peggy","Southern Oral History Program"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, North Carolina, Wake County, 35.79012, -78.65022","United States, North Carolina, Wake County, Cary, 35.79154, -78.78112"],"dcterms_creator":["Adams, Charles, 1937?-"],"dc_date":["2000-02-18"],"dcterms_description":["Charles Adams was born and raised in Cary, North Carolina. His father was Henry Adams, a prominent member of the community who owned a local drugstore and then, later, an appliance store. Adams describes his father's commitment to education and his advocacy of equal opportunities for African American children. Because of his social ideals, Adams's father became a member of the Wake County Board of Education, and, during the 1950s and 1960s, helped to spearhead the integration process in Wake County. Adams describes how his father worked with members of the black community and how he dealt with opposition from certain sectors of the white community. By the early 1960s, school officials had agreed to integrate Wake County schools, using Cary schools to pioneer the process. By that time, Adams had become a teacher and coach at one of the Cary high schools and had witnessed the integration process at first hand. Adams describes how school officials worked with the school board and with the black community to devise gradual desegregation plans that were intended to facilitate full integration within a few years. Adams notes that the Cary schools were the first to integrate in Wake County (though as he points out, Raleigh schools operated separately from the Wake County schools at that time) and that Cary served as a model for other schools to emulate. According to Adams, the process was generally smooth, although he acknowledges opposition to the implementation of school busing in the early 1970s. Additionally, Adams emphasizes the important role of athletics in the integration process. As the assistant director (later the director) of the North Carolina High School Athletic Association during the 1970s, Adams believed that athletics provided a common ground for black and white students to come together for competition and teamwork. Adams concludes the interview by offering the names of other local people who could offer interesting perspectives on school desegregation in Wake County.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["text/html","text/xml","audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of Oral histories of the American South collection."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["High school teachers--North Carolina--Cary","School integration--North Carolina--Cary","Cary (N.C.)--Race relations","School sports--North Carolina"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview with Charles Adams, February 18, 2000"],"dcterms_type":["Text","Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Documenting the American South (Project)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://docsouth.unc.edu/sohp/K-0646/menu.html"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["transcripts","sound recordings","oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["Title from menu page (viewed on Nov. 10, 2008).","Interview participants: Charles Adams, interviewee; Peggy Van Scoyoc, interviewer.","Duration: 01:02:38.","This electronic edition is part of the UNC-Chapel Hill digital library, Documenting the American South. It is a part of the collection Oral histories of the American South.","Text encoded by Jennifer Joyner. Sound recordings digitized by Aaron Smithers."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Adams, Charles, 1937?-"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"vrc_car_37191","title":"Viola Robinson interview (2000-02-11)","collection_id":"vrc_car","collection_title":"Carver-VCU Partnership Oral History Collection","dcterms_contributor":["Carver-VCU Partnership","James Branch Cabell Library. Special Collections and Archives"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Virginia, City of Richmond, 37.55376, -77.46026"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2000-02-11"],"dcterms_description":["In this interview, Viola Robinson, a resident of the Carver area of Richmond, Va., talks about her memories of the neighborhood, including her early jobs and the big band names that came to the area. She also discusses changes to Carver that she noticed since her departure and return to the area, her participation in the Martin Luther King march to Washington, D.C.; and her hopes for the area in the future.","Part of a series of interviews conducted as part of a Carver-VCU Partnership project documenting the history of the Carver neighborhood in Richmond, Virginia."],"dc_format":["audio/mpeg","application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Richmond, Va. : VCU Libraries"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Carver Living Newspaper Project","Carver Neighborhood - VCU Partnership Archives, RG 59-1"],"dcterms_subject":["African American neighborhoods--Virginia--Richmond"],"dcterms_title":["Viola Robinson interview (2000-02-11)"],"dcterms_type":["Sound","Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["James Branch Cabell Library. Special Collections and Archives"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://digital.library.vcu.edu/islandora/object/vcu%3A37191"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted","This material is protected by copyright, and copyright is held by VCU. You are permitted to use this material in any way that is permitted by copyright. In addition, this material is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International license (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/). Acknowledgment of Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries as a source is required."],"dcterms_medium":["sound recordings","oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["Track 1: 38.8 MB (21 minutes, 12 seconds)"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Robinson, Viola","Davis, Trina","Lucas, Lucy Anne","Robinson, Viola--Childhood and youth--Anecdotes","Robinson, Viola--Interviews"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"hbcula_becu_243","title":"Bethune-Cookman College Inspirational Gospel Choir in Concert, February 10, 2000","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":["2000-02-10"],"dcterms_description":["This video shows a performance by the Bethune-Cookman College Inspirational Gospel Choir in concert at Heyn Chapel."],"dc_format":["video/mpeg"],"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","Groups and organizations","African American singers"],"dcterms_title":["Bethune-Cookman College Inspirational Gospel Choir in Concert, February 10, 2000"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"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/243"],"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. http://www.cookman.edu/academics/library/index.html"],"dcterms_medium":["vhs"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"loc_rosaparks_48912","title":"Happy birthday, Ms. Parks! [graphic].","collection_id":"loc_rosaparks","collection_title":"Rosa Parks Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2000-02-08"],"dcterms_description":["Title from item.","Drawing sent to Rosa Parks by a student at Christ the Rock Christian Academy, Memphis, Tennessee. Signed: Susan Rakow."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":null,"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Birthday cards"],"dcterms_title":["Happy birthday, Ms. Parks! [graphic]."],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Library of Congress"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.48911","http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.48912"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Please contact holding institution for information regarding use and copyright status."],"dcterms_medium":["drawingscolor2000-2010.gmgpc","children's art2000-2010.gmgpc","birthday cards"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"loc_rosaparks_48918","title":"Happy birthday, Ms. Parks! [graphic].","collection_id":"loc_rosaparks","collection_title":"Rosa Parks Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2000-02-08"],"dcterms_description":["Title from item.","Drawing sent to Rosa Parks by a student at Christ the Rock Christian Academy, Memphis, Tennessee. Signed: Hannah."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":null,"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Birthday cards"],"dcterms_title":["Happy birthday, Ms. Parks! [graphic]."],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Library of Congress"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.48917","http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.48918"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Please contact holding institution for information regarding use and copyright status."],"dcterms_medium":["drawingscolor2000-2010.gmgpc","children's art2000-2010.gmgpc","birthday cards"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"loc_rosaparks_48914","title":"Happy birthday, Ms. Parks! Happy birthday Ms. Parks! [graphic].","collection_id":"loc_rosaparks","collection_title":"Rosa Parks Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2000-02-08"],"dcterms_description":["Title from item.","Drawing sent to Rosa Parks by a student at Christ the Rock Christian Academy, Memphis, Tennessee. Signed: Clara."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":null,"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Birthday cards"],"dcterms_title":["Happy birthday, Ms. Parks! Happy birthday Ms. Parks! [graphic]."],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Library of Congress"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.48913","http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.48914"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Please contact holding institution for information regarding use and copyright status."],"dcterms_medium":["drawingscolor2000-2010.gmgpc","children's art2000-2010.gmgpc","birthday cards"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":389,"next_page":390,"prev_page":388,"total_pages":6766,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":4656,"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}}]}}