State's high court stays court case over LR district takeover

State Board of Education Chairman Sam Ledbetter (right) talks with Arkansas Department of Education attorney Jeremy Lasiter Thursday morning during a hearing at the Pulaski County Courthouse on a lawsuit challenging the state's decision to take over the Little Rock School District.
State Board of Education Chairman Sam Ledbetter (right) talks with Arkansas Department of Education attorney Jeremy Lasiter Thursday morning during a hearing at the Pulaski County Courthouse on a lawsuit challenging the state's decision to take over the Little Rock School District.

UPDATE:

The Arkansas Supreme Court has issued a stay immediately halting a hearing that was ongoing in a lawsuit filed over the state's move to take over the Little Rock School District.

The hearing before Pulaski County Circuit Judge Wendell Griffen was continuing about 2 p.m. Thursday with Little Rock Superintendent Dexter Suggs on the stand when Willard Proctor Jr., an attorney for the plaintiffs, stood up and informed Griffen the stay had just come through.

The state had sought the stay while they appeal the lawsuit to the high court, arguing it should be tossed because such complaints can't be filed against the state.

Griffen quickly excused the court.

"We'll await the Supreme Court's decision," he told the two sides.

The Little Rock School Board was dissolved in January after the state Education Board voted to take over the district because six of its schools — Baseline Elementary; Cloverdale and Henderson middle; and J.A. Fair, Hall and McClellan high schools — were in academic distress. Fewer than 49.5 percent of the students at those schools had scored proficient or better on state math and literacy exams over three years, which prompted the academic distress classification.

The order came through on the second day of a hearing that Griffen warned might extend into the night as he considered whether to issue a preliminary injunction halting the state takeover. Suggs, the Little Rock superintendent whose job was shifted from permanent to interim when the takeover occurred, was on the stand when the proceedings were cut short.

Suggs testified that a "tense" relationship with the Little Rock board had prevented some of his initiatives aimed at improving academic troubles in the district.

He said there were times when board members refused to support a proposal they hadn't even read.

"It was almost the attitude of let's just sit around, let's wait and do nothing," he said, adding that votes of substance were never unanimous on the seven-member board and often went along "color lines," or coincided with the races of the members.

He said the district did have a plan for changing curriculum in the academically troubled schools, but the board failed to come through on other key aspects of a full plan, including how to pay for it.

"There was always a very extensive fight with the board to do what we felt as professional educators what we felt was in the best interest of students and the community and the school district," he said.

See Friday's Arkansas Democrat-Gazette for full coverage.

EARLIER:

Proceedings have entered a second day in a hearing on a lawsuit challenging the state's decision to take over the Little Rock School District.

After a full day of testimony before Pulaski County Circuit Judge Wendell Griffen, the hearing resumed for day two shortly after 10 a.m. Thursday.

Dianne Curry, who had served on the Little Rock board since 2006, was first to take the stand Thursday, saying the local board had a plan in place to improve achievement in the six schools and it appears the state does not.

Curry said she's heard from parents with concerns about what will happen next in the schools.

"Who do they talk to?" she said. "They're hearing nothing on their schools. ... They just feel they're at a disadvantage."

Jeremy Lasiter, an attorney for the state, on cross-examination of Curry noted a "lack of continuity" in Little Rock superintendents over the time Curry served on the board. And he questioned Curry about a five-year plan the board passed in 2010 that called for closing the achievement gap and also set benchmarks for significant improvements in standardized test proficiency.

Lasiter asked whether those goals had been reached.

"Not for the six schools [in academic distress]," she responded. "But for other schools, yes."

Three members of the dissolved Little Rock School Board and two parents brought the suit and are seeking a preliminary injunction to halt the state from intervening in the district. Two of those displaced board members testified Wednesday, saying they were surprised by the takeover because the board was committed to bettering achievement in six schools classified as being under academic distress.

The state Board of Education voted in January to intervene after fewer than 49.5 percent of the students at those six schools — Baseline Elementary; Cloverdale and Henderson middle; and J.A. Fair, Hall and McClellan high schools — scored proficiently on math and literacy exams over three years, which resulted in the academic distress classification.

Former Little Rock board member Jim Ross, one of the three who brought the suit, testified Wednesday that positive changes were occurring in those schools, the board was committed to making sweeping reforms and that the takeover leaves the district without a solid plan for improvements.

Ross took the stand again on Thursday for further questions. He called it "arbitrary" how the state in 2013 shifted its definition of schools in academic distress from those with 25 percent of students scoring below proficiency on state exams to the 49.5 percent threshold.

"Plans had been made to meet the standards that were in place," he said, adding he and three other recently-elected board members had intended to "radically transform the status quo" in the district.

"Now, because that number was changed, we no longer have that right," he said.

Also testifying Thursday was Daniel Whitehorn, associate superintendent for middle schools in the Little Rock District. He said he did not believe the state should have dissolved the local board.

"They were taking very seriously, in my opinion, the academically-distressed schools and doing everything they could to move in that direction and improve instruction at those schools," he said.

After questioning from attorneys on both sides, Griffen then asked Whitehorn if he knew of any public meetings that had occurred since the Jan. 28 state takeover. He said he did not know of any.

"How does the public know what the school improvement efforts are since Jan. 28, 2015?" the judge asked.

"I'm not sure, to tell you the truth," Whitehorn replied. "I don't know how they know."

Griffen warned both sides at the beginning of the day that the hearing would continue into the night if it's not complete by 5 p.m., noting that lawyers and judges are "used to late hours."

Thursday's hearing could be interrupted at any time if the Arkansas Supreme Court issued a ruling in an emergency stay sought by the state, which contends Arkansas' constitution doesn't allow it or a state agency to be sued.

photo

Little Rock School District Superintendent Dexter Suggs talks with State Board of Education member Diane Zook before a hearing Thursday on a lawsuit challenging the state's takeover of the Little Rock district. At right are state board members Alice Mahoney and Vicki Saviers.

See Friday's Arkansas Democrat-Gazette for full coverage.

Upcoming Events