Little Rock School et al v. Pulaski Cty School et al

Filing 5559

ORDER: The Court is attaching Ms. Powell's seventh summary report, which covers monitoring matters at PCSSD. No. 5502 at 2-3. The Court appreciates her work. Signed by Chief Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 1/10/2020. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION

LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.

PLAINTIFFS

No. 4:82-cv-866-DPM
PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL
DISTRICT, JACKSONVILLE/NORTH
PULASKI SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.
EMILY McCLENDON, TAMARA EACKLES,
VALERIE STALLINGS, TIFFANY ELLIS,
and LINDA MORGAN

DEFENDANTS

INTERVENORS

ORDER

The Court is attaching Ms. Powell's seventh summary report,
which covers monitoring matters at PCSSD. NQ 5502 at 2-3.
Court appreciates her work.
So Ordered.
D .P. Marshall {r.
United States District Judge

The

UPDATE ON THF: STATUS OF THE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL
DISTRICT'S IMPLEMENTATION OF PLAN 2000 - MONITORING
On July 18, 2019, Chief U.S. Distlict Judge D. Price Marshall, Jr., directed the Court Expert to
issue written status reports on the remaining areas of the Pulaski County Special School
District's (PCSSD) desegregation plan (Plan 2000) that still remain under Court supervision.
(Doc 5502). 'This report is number seven of eight.

MONITORING (Plan 2000-Section N)
Note: Although the Joshua Intervenors have been renamed the McClendon Intervenors, for
clarity, this report uses the original names and titles.found in Plan 2000.

PLAN PROVISION
The Assistant Supc~rintendent fi.1r Desegregation shall: (i) develop a plan so that he (or she) and
his (or her) staff focus their monitoring and compliance efforts on the specific elements of the
Plan; and (ii) provide the Joshua Intervenors within 30 days of the court's approval of this Plan a
list, geared to the sections of this Plan, identifying the staff member or members with particular
responsibilities for its implementation and the position held by each. N(l), pg.7

BACKGROUND
On October 29, 2007, the PCSSD petitioned the comi for full unitary stah1s. The petition was
heard from March l through March 18, 2010. On May 19, 2011, the court granted PCS SD
unitary status in several areas: student assignment, interdistrict schools, multicultural education,
and school resources. The district has since been declared unitary with respect to advanced
placement and the gifted and talented honors programs, scholarships, special education, and staff.
The district was found partially unitary in Monitming. The court's findings under Section N,
subsection ( 1), read in part; " .. .it is clear that Pulaski County has not complied in good faith with
the requirements of subsection one. This is the case because it failed to timely submit the
required documents to Joshua; it took more than two years to adopt a monitoring pla.n, and the
monitoring plan it finally submitted was rejected outright by the ODM as woefully inadequate."

Findings
According to the Assistant Superintendent for Equity and Pupil Services, the PCSSD
presents its annual monitoring report to the school board each August and sends a written
copy of the Board report to Joshua.
ODM's status reports on the PCSSD's compliance with Plan 2000 indicated that it
wasn't until 2008 that the district "produced a monitoring report that tied observations
and findings to the provisions of Plan 2000." The ODM report also noted the document
was "a significant improvement over the previous monitoring reports submitted after Plan
2000 was approved."
•
An exarnination of the district's monitoring reports for the past three years reveal that
little has changed with respect to the format. Most of the entries show what the
0

"

monitoring has revealed in each area, but show little detail with respect to corrective
actions or interventions where problems were found.
The PCSSD has a new monitoring tool that should greatly improve its monitoring
processes and possibly eliminate most, if not all, of the shortcomings found in past
monitoring rcpo1is.
The Coordinator of Equity Initiatives points out that the new repo1ting process focuses on
the multicultural aspects of each area of Plan 2000. The new monitoring tool:
"Educational Equity School Monitoring" combines several sections of Plan 2000,
resulting in the following; Elementary Equity Report; Secondary Equity Report; and
School Profile Report
The response and observation forms are detailed and verifiable. As a result, district
officials and school personnel can examine each element of the educational process in a
school to determine where there are problems and then make a plan to address the area(s)
in question ..
The site-based equity monitoring team in each school collects information based on:
classroom observations, school data (test scores, diverse staff, documentation that black
students are recrnited for Advanced Placement, programs developed and implemented to
decrease achievement differences between black and non-black students), and many other
Plan related actions.
Should a school's report show deficiencies in any area(s), the school is placed on Alert
Status. The school's administration must develop a "clear, concise well-written Action
Pla..'1 for specific improvement."
A year 1 Alert Status goes to the school principal and requires a meeting with the school
equity committee. The district's equity committee will provide assistance and give
directions to help school personnel to con-ect the problem(s) identified in the monitoring
rep011.

"

A year 2 Alert Status would require that the school administrators send all pertinent
information relating to the identified problem area(s) to the District Equity Committee for
review and assistance.
A year 3 Alert would require the Coordinator of Equity Initiatives to provide specific
training for the building's equity committee and the school staff. Later in the school year,
all of the parties participate in a walk-through of the facility noting the effects of the
interventions implemented after the training.

PLAN PROVISION
Upon Reasonable notice, the Joshua Intervenors shall have the opportunity: (i) to examine and
secure copies of records relating to the PCSSD's compliance with this Plan, including records
identified in the Plan, and (ii) to meet with the Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation or a
staff member responsible for a particular part of the implementation of the Plan. N(2), Pg 7

Note: In his May 19, 201 l ruling, Judge Miller wrote: "PCSSD has acted in good faith to
substant;alfv comply with this subsection. However, PCSSD is not relieved of its duty to
continue implementing this provision in good faith until it is declared entirely unitary and
excused.fhnn supervision. "

Findings
There is no evidence that the PCS SD bas not complied with this subsection of Plan 2000.
0

PLAN PROVISION

The PCSSD shall submit statistical rep011s showing the following:
The enrollment in each school by race;
The enrollment in gifted and talented programs, honors programs, and advanced
placement classes, by school and race;
(c)
The make~up of special education programs:(i) by disability category, including
Section 504, by race, and by sex; and (ii) by school, by race, and by sex; provided
that the system may comply with this reporting requirement by providing copies
of materials submitted to ADE, as long as they include all information designated
in this paragraph;
(d)
For each school system, the number of instances of each form of discipline, by
race and by sex; or each school and the system, the number of students receiving
each fonn of discipline, by race and by sex.;
{e)
The racial make-up, in each school, of (i) the administrators, (ii) the faculty, (iii)
other professional staff: and (iv) support staff;
(f)
The racial make-up, by category, of the various categories of administrators,
faculty, support staff, and other workers employed in the PCSSD.
The information in all sub-paragraphs other than sub-paragraph (d) shall be submitted not later
than November 1 of each year, and the information in sub-paragraph (d) twice a year, not later
than 30 days afl:er the end of each semester.
(a)
(b)

Note: In his lvlay 19, 2011 ruling, Judge ,\;filler wrote: "The evidence thus indicates that Pulaski
County is unitary ·with respect to subsection three. This does not, however, relieve Pulaski
County of ifs duly to continue implementing this provision in good faith until it is declared
entirely unitll!y and excused.from court supervision. "

Fhulings
The PCSSD continues to submit the statistical reports required under Plan 2000. All of
them are required by the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE).

0

COMMENTS
As a former monitor for the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM), I can understand how
difficult "monitoring" can be. W11en the ODM first got started, our team noted that there were no
real definitions of what "monitoring" meant. We had to visit other states to get an idea of how
other monitors were reporting their information. We found there were no two monitoring teams
alike and that the Pulaski Cmmty's school desegregation case was the only one of its kind. There
are no desegregation monitoring manuals to work from. AH of the parties to the Pulaski County
school desegregation case (LRSD, NLRD, and PCSSD) modeled their reports based on the
reporting guidelines of the ADE. Unfortunately, those kinds ofrepmts fell sho1t on the kinds of
details needed to evaluate compliance with the areas in Plan 2000 that were (and still are) under
court supervision

The Office of Desegregation's (ODM) monitoring report on the PCSSD's compliance with Plan
2000, filed on June 3, 2014, noted the following: "The PCSSD continues to monitor the areas in
Plan 2000 still under Court supervision." The report also states: "Except for data updates, the
report remains virtually unchanged from year to year." Since that report, the district's reports
have been fleshed out somewhat, but still are not very detailed.
Plan 2000 is twenty years old, and information gathering and methods used to interpret data has
changed considerably. Schools have tools and ways of gathering and processing information that
were not available when the Plan was written. Virtually every element of the educational process
has an on.line component. Fortunately, the PCSSD has progressed into the new era ofinformation
gathering and data processing, and has a new monitoring tool; Educational Equity School
Monitoring. This new computer program has promises of being a real game ch,mger. The new
monitoring reports have more detailed jnfonnation reflecting the school's entire educational
process and, the report has an equity focus in each area examined. School personnel no longer
have to wait until the end of the school year to modify or eliminate programs, practices, or
interventions that are not working. In the PCSSD, if an updated monitoring report is needed
today, it's available today.