{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1723","title":"Court filings: District Court, memorandum brief in support of motion for an immediate declaration of unitary status; District Court, exhibits one through three from memorandum brief","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":["2002-03-15"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Joshua Intervenors","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Knight Intervenors","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School districts","School management and organization","School integration","Educational statistics","School employees","Student assistance programs","Universities and colleges","School improvement programs","Education--Curricula","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, memorandum brief in support of motion for an immediate declaration of unitary status; District Court, exhibits one through three from memorandum brief"],"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/1723"],"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":["20 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Wright, Susan Webber, 1948-"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVED PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MAR 1 5 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN IMMEDIATE DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS I. Introduction. On April 10, 1998, this Court granted the joint motion of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") and the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") and approved the LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"). See Docket Nos. 3107, 3136 and 3144. The Revised Plan expired by its own terms on May 31, 2001, the last day of classes for the 2000- 01 school year. See Revised Plan 9. The LRSD moves for an immediate declaration of unitary status and an end to court supervision based on its substantial compliance with the Revised Plan in accordance with Revised Plan  11. Section 11 of the Revised Plan provided: 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 ofLRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSD's compliance bears the burden of proof. Ifno party challenges LRSD's compliance, the abovedescribed order shall be entered without further proceedings. The LRSD reported on March 15, 2001, that it had substantially complied with the Revised Plan. See Docket No. 3410. Joshua challenged the LRSD's compliance with a limited number of Revised Plan sections. See Docket No. 3447. Joshua bears the burden of proving that the LRSD I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I failed to substantially comply with those Revised Plan sections. See Revised Plan  11. Unitary status should be granted if the Court finds either that the LRSD complied with those Revised Plan sections challenged by Joshua or that the LRSD's noncompliance does not cast doubt on the District's intent to comply with the Constitution absent court supervision. See Cody v. Hillard, 139 F.3d 1197, 1199 (8th Cir. 1998). In proceedings before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright, the Court heard five and onehalf days of testimony and received 201 exhibits on the Revised Plan sections covering academic achievement( 2.7), program assessment( 2.7.1) and student discipline( 2.5 - 2.5.4). The LRSD should be granted unitary status with regard to these Revised Plan sections based on the record of those proceedings. Joshua failed to come forward with any evidence that the LRSD failed to comply with those sections or that would cast doubt on the LRSD's intent to comply with the Constitution absent court supervision. Additionally, the LRSD should be granted summary judgment as to all remaining Revised Plan sections with respect to which Joshua challenged the LRSD's compliance. The discovery process revealed that Joshua has no evidence that would cast doubt on the LRSD's intent to comply with the Constitution in the future absent court supervision. As a result, there are no material factual disputes, and additional hearings are unnecessary. Cody. 139 F.3d at 1200 (\"They do not cite any cases stating that a hearing is a necessary prerequisite to terminating supervision of a decree . . . . At any rate, the necessity of a hearing depends on whether there are disputed factual issues.\"). Finally, the LRSD should be granted unitary status with regard to those Revised Plan sections to which no party filed a timely challenge to the LRSD's compliance. See Revised Plan 11. 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II. Discussion. A. Background. 1. 1954 Through 1972. On May 20, 1954, three days after the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), the LRSD released a public statement declaring its intent to comply with the Constitution and to integrate the LRSD. See Aaron v. Cooper, 156 F. Supp. 220, 222-23 (E.D. Ark. 1957). The first LRSD desegregation plan was adopted in 1956 and was approved by the Eighth Circuit in 1957. See Cooper v. Aaron, 243 F.2d 361 (8th Cir. 1957). That plan called for gradual desegregation based on geographic attendance zones and was to be fully implemented by 1963. Id. Governor Orval Faubus' attempt to block implementation of this plan resulted in the infamous \"crisis\" at Central High School in 1957. However, as noted by the Supreme Court in Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 9 (1958), \"the Governor's action had not been requested by the school authorities, and was entirely unheralded.\" In 1966, the Eighth Circuit approved, with two minor modifications, a \"freedom of choice\" desegregation plan for the LRSD. See Clark v. Little Rock School District, 369 F.2d 661 (8th Cir. 1966). The Eighth Circuit noted the LRSD's good faith commitment to desegregation: Many of the problems encountered are not of the Board's making or choosing and, we believe, the Board has evidenced a genuine desire to follow the commands of the Brown case to ultimately place into effect a non-racially operated school system. Id., at 666. The freedom of choice plan was in effect through the 1968-69 school year. In 1968, the Supreme Court held that \"freedom of choice\" plans, standing alone, failed to satisfy the constitutional obligation of school districts formerly segregated by law. See Green v. County Sch. Bd. ofNew Kent County. 391 U.S. 430, 439-440 (1968). Accordingly, the LRSD developed a new desegregation plan based on geographic attendance zones for the 1969-70 school year. See Clark v. Little Rock School District, 426 F.2d 1035 (8th Cir. 1970). Due to segregated housing patterns which existed in Little Rock at that time, however, a number 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I of racially identifiable schools remained under this plan, and the Eighth Circuit found this plan to be \"constitutionally infirm.\" Clark, 426 F.2d at 1044. The LRSD began massive crosstown busing of students to achieve racial balance in grades 6 through 12 in the 1971-72 school year. See Clark v. Little Rock School District, 328 F. Supp. 1205, 1209 and 1214 (E.D. Ark. 1971). Racial balance was achieved in grades 4 and 5 by means of crosstown busing in the 1972-73 school year. See Clark v. Little Rock School District, 465 F.2d. 1044, 1046 (8th Cir. 1972). By the 1973-74 school year, all LRSD schools and all LRSD grade levels were racially balanced. See Exhibit 1 attached, Memorandum and Order filed July 9, 1982, p. 16. 2. 1973 Through 1982. The LRSD maintained almost perfect racial balance in its schools from 1973 through 1982 with voluntary periodic adjustment of attendance zones. The district court in Clark noted that \"the Little Rock School District has operated in compliance with court decrees for nine years as a completely unitary desegregated school system . . . . \" See Exhibit 1, p. 16. Despite nine years of successful desegregation, however, the LRSD was on its way to becoming a one race school district. In the fall of 1971, the LRSD was 42% black. In each year from 1971 through 1981, the number of black students increased while the number of white students decreased. See Exhibit 2 attached, Austin Study, p. 17. In the fall of 1981, 76% of elementary students were black and 55% of high school students were black. See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 584 F. Supp. 328,335 (E.D. Ark. 1984)(\"LRSD v. PCSSD\"). If existing trends continued, it was expected that 90% of the students entering the first grade in the LRSD in the fall of 1989 would be black. See Exhibit 2, p. 19; see also LRSD v. PCSSD, 584 F. Supp. 328, 351 (E.D. Ark. 1984)(\"The Little Rock School District in spite of its good faith efforts to comply with orders of this court and to establish a unitary school system will become a segregated all-black district in a few years if present trends continue, which appears highly likely.\"). 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I In early 1981, the LRSD commissioned a study of desegregation in the LRSD by the Desegregation Assistance Team from Stephen F. Austin University (the \"Austin Study\"). The Austin Study concluded that the demographic trends which accounted for the decrease in white enrollment in the LRSD were \"long-term\" and \"deeply rooted,\" and as a result, \"[t]hey are not likely to be fundamentally altered by any change in the desegregation plan within the city .... The changes are rooted in migration patterns, housing segregation practices, changing birth rates, factors that determine the location of new private market housing, and decisions on the location of new subsidized housing.\" Exhibit 2, p. 28. The \"fundamental\" problem, according to the study, \"has been the school board's inability to expand its boundaries in pace with a very rapidly expanding urban area.\" Exhibit 2, p. 28. Thus, the Austin Study concluded that the LRSD had done all it could do within its borders to desegregate its schools and that, if the LRSD's accomplishments were not to be undone by the \"vast forces of demographic change,\" the LRSD would have to seek an interdistrict remedy. See Exhibit 2, p. 28. As an initial step to stem the tide of white flight, the LRSD adopted the Partial K-6 Plan on April 26, 1982. Under this plan, the LRSD created twelve K-6 neighborhood schools and retained fourteen paired schools with grades K-3 at one site and grades 4-6 at another. Eight of the 12 neighborhood schools were racially balanced and four were virtually all black. The plan converted Booker from a junior high school to an intermediate school. Finally, the Partial K-6 Plan provided for the creation of a magnet school west of University Avenue and required that a committee be appointed to ensure that the four virtually all black schools would be treated equally. See Clark v. Little Rock School District, 705 F.2d 265 (8th Cir. 1983). The Partial K-6 Plan was approved by the Eighth Circuit in 1983. Clark, 705 F.2d at 272. 3. Interdistrict Relief. In late 1982, the LRSD filed the present case against the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\"), the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") and the State of Arkansas seeking consolidation of the three school districts into one metropolitan school district and state 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I funding to assist in eliminating any remaining vestiges of segregation in the three school districts. On April 13, 1984, the Honorable Henry Woods found the PCSSD, the NLRSD and the State of Arkansas liable for interdistrict constitutional violations. LRSD v. PCSSD, 584 F. Supp. at 328. Judge Woods ordered consolidation of the three districts in a memorandum opinion dated November 19, 1984. LRSD v. PCSSD, 597 F. Supp. 1220 (E.D. Ark. 1984). The Eighth Circuit reversed Judge Woods' consolidation order a year later, finding consolidation too drastic a remedy. LRSD v. PCSSD, 778 F.2d 404 (8th Cir. 1985). In reversing, the Eighth Circuit ordered as part of a comprehensive interdistrict remedy that each district \"revise its attendance zones so that each school will reasonably reflect the racial composition of its district\" and permitted a variance of plus or minus 25% of the minority race. Id., 778 F.2d at 435. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 839 F.2d 1296, 1305 (8th Cir. 1988). The Eighth Circuit also ordered the adjustment of district boundaries, making the LRSD coterminous with the City of Little Rock. LRSD v. PCSSD, 778 F.2d at 435. Recognizing the need for the LRSD to grow with the City of Little Rock, Judge Woods interpreted the Eighth Circuit's order to require the automatic expansion of the LRSD upon expansion of the City of Little Rock. Unfortunately, the Eighth Circuit disagreed with Judge Woods' interpretation and effectively eliminated further boundary changes as a means to desegregating the LRSD. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 805 F.2d 815, 816 (8th Cir. 1986). The LRSD's \"controlled choice\" desegregation plan was approved by Judge Woods on February 27, 1987. Docket No. 739. Under this plan, the LRSD was divided into two attendance zones of approximately equal racial balance. Students were assigned to schools so that each grade at each school reflected the racial balance within that attendance zone. After a student was assigned to a particular school, the student's parents could request reassignment to another school within their attendance zone. That request would be granted so long as each school would remain within a range of plus or minus one-eighth of the black student population at the school. Additionally, the plan provided for eight magnet schools (four elementary, two 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I junior high and two high schools) with seats reserved for students of each of the three Pulaski County school districts. The target racial composition of the magnet schools was 50%-50%. A Magnet Review Committee was established with representatives of each of the three districts. Joshua and the Knight Intervenors were each granted a non-voting member on the committee. This plan was implemented beginning with the 1987-88 school year. See Docket No. 670. The controlled choice plan resulted in many central and east Little Rock schools having fewer than fifty white students. The LRSD submitted a new desegregation plan for the 1988-89 year which was approved by Judge Woods. The 1988-89 school year was to be a \"stabilizing year\" to allow the LRSD to carefully plan for the 1989-90 school year and beyond. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 716 F. Supp. 1162, 1188 (E.D. Ark. 1989). Negotiations related to the development of a long-term desegregation plan for the LRSD culminated in a settlement agreement in March of 1989 (the \"Settlement Agreement\").1 The Settlement Agreement also included desegregation plans for the PCSSD and the NLRSD, as well as an interdistrict desegregation plan. 4. 1989 Settlement Agreement. The LRSD's 1989 desegregation plan reflected the fact that the LRSD was, and had been for some time, unitary with regard to student assignments, faculty and staff. See Exhibit 1, p. 18. While these areas had been the focus of past desegregation plans, the 227-page 1989 plan contained only a six-page section on student assignments and no separate section specifically dedicated to the hiring and assignment of faculty and staff. The 1989 desegregation plan focused instead on secondary desegregation issues, such as improving African-American academic achievement. The Settlement Agreement was initially rejected by Judge Woods who ordered implementation of a more comprehensive plan known as the Tri-District Plan. The parties appealed, and the Settlement Agreement as originally written was approved by the Eighth Circuit 1 A revised Settlement Agreement was agreed to by the parties on September 28, 1989. None of the revisions are relevant to this motion. \"Settlement Agreement\" as used hereinafter shall refer to the agreement as revised September 28, 1989. 7 I I in December of 1990. LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1374 (8th Cir. 1990). In approving the Settlement Agreement, the Eighth Circuit recognized that, \"It may be necessary, in order to make I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I a smooth transition, for the details of the settlement plans to be adjusted to produce an appropriate fit between their future application and existing circumstances.\" Id., at 1394. Judge Woods recused following the Eighth Circuit's December 1990 decision, and the case was reassigned to the Honorable Susan Webber Wright. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 740 F.Supp. 632 (E.D. Ark. 1990). The parties agreed to modifications to the desegregation plans and submitted them to Judge Wright for approval. On June 21, 1991, Judge Wright rejected the modifications, finding that they exceeded the authority granted by the Eighth Circuit. LRSD v. PCSSD, 769 F. Supp. 1483 (E.D. Ark. 1991). The parties appealed, and on November 14, 1991, the Eighth Circuit vacated Judge Wright's opinion and remanded for consideration of the proposed modifications based on the analysis set forth in its opinion. Appeal ofLRSD, 949 F.2d 253 (8th Cir. 1991). On May 1, 1992, Judge Wright issued an order approving in part and rejecting in part the revised desegregation plans. No appeal was taken. 5. Implementation of the 1989 Plan. The Settlement Agreement required the LRSD to implement its 1989 desegregation plan for six years.2 The parties agreed, in effect, that implementation of the plan would eliminate to the extent practicable any remaining vestiges of discrimination resulting from the interdistrict constitutional violations by the defendants. See Settlement Agreement, p. 1. Because the Tri-District Plan was substantially similar to, but more comprehensive than, the LRSD's 1989 desegregation plan, the LRSD considered implementation of the Tri-District Plan during the 2The six-year term of the plan was one of the primary reasons that the Settlement Agreement was rejected by Judge Woods. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 716 F. Supp. at 1167 (\"LRSD admits that the double funding is guaranteed for only six years, but contends that it 'retains its commitment to provide compensatory and enhancement funding to any school which might remain racially identifiable.' That commitment does not appear in the plan.\"). The LRSD argued to Judge Woods that its six-year plan could be successful: \"We think a six-year plan can succeed where a one-year plan has failed. There are several components in place to help us assure the Court that a six-year plan can succeed.\" Tr. May 30, 1989, p. 13. 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1990-91 school year as the first year of implementation of its six-year desegregation plan. During the 1995-96 school year, the LRSD conducted an audit of its desegregation obligations and found that it had substantially and in good faith complied with 96% of its desegregation obligations. See Exhibit 3 attached, p. 1. Accordingly, on May 17, 1996, the LRSD moved for a declaration of unitary status and an end to federal court supervision. See Docket Nos. 2665 and 2666. Without a hearing, Judge Wright denied the LRSD's Motion to End Federal Court Supervision, finding \"nothing in the settlement plans which would release the LRSD from the Court's jurisdiction after six years of implementation of the plans.\" See Docket No. 2821, p. 10. Although Judge Wright recognized that the LRSD compared favorably to other urban school districts already declared unitary, Judge Wright focused on the ambitious \"goals\" of the 1989 plan. See Docket No. 2821 , p. 12. Judge Wright stated, \"Reports of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and other evidence received in hearings in this matter reflect that the LRSD has fallen short of its goals with respect to many aspects of the plan.\" Id. In conclusion, Judge Wright invited the parties to niodify those parts of the LRSD desegregation plan which had proved \"ineffective and unworkable.\" Id. 6. The Revised Plan. Rather than appeal Judge Wright's denial of unitary status, the LRSD decided to work with Joshua to reach an agreement for ending more than 40 years of federal court control of the LRSD. On January 21, 1998, the LRSD and Joshua filed a joint motion seeking approval of the LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. See Docket No. 3107. The Revised Plan addressed numerous deficiencies in the 1989 desegregation plan. First, to prevent the plan's express or implied goals from being construed as obligations, the Revised Plan included a footnote which stated: The identification of specific goals in this Revised Plan is not intended to create an obligation that LRSD shall have fully met the goal by the end of the plan's term. LRSD's failure to obtain any of the goals of this Revised Plan will not be considered a failure to comply with the plan ifLRSD followed the strategies 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I described in the plan and the policies, practices and procedures developed in accordance with the plan. Revised Plan, p. 14 n.2. Second, the 277-page 1989 plan included too much detail and provided too little flexibility. The Revised Plan simply obligated the LRSD to implement \"programs, policies and/or procedures\" in 13 different areas. See Revised Plan 2. With some exceptions, the LRSD had discretion to determine the \"programs, policies and/or procedures\" to be implemented. The Revised Plan included a process by which Joshua or any other party could raise compliance issues, including a failure by the LRSD to adopt or implement the required programs, policies and/or procedures. See Revised Plan  8.2 and 8.3. The LRSD also agreed in advance to pay Joshua to monitor the LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan, and Joshua billed the LRSD for monitoring the LRSD's Compliance. See Exhibits 7 and 8 attached. Even so, Joshua raised no objection to the programs, policies or procedures implemented by the LRSD during the term of the Revised Plan. Finally, the Revised Plan included a definite term and a process for terminating federal court supervision at the conclusion of that term. The term of the Revised Plan was \"three (3) years beginning the 1998-99 school year and ending the last day of classes of the 2000-01 school year.\" See Revised Plan, 9. The last day of classes for the 2000-01 school year was May 31, 2001. Section 11 of the Revised Plan provided: 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 LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSD's compliance bears the burden of proof. If no party challenges LRSD's compliance, the abovedescribed order shall be entered without further proceedings. See Revised Plan,  11. 7. Status of Current Proceedings. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The LRSD provided the Court and the parties with an Interim Compliance Report on March 15, 2000 (\"Interim Report\") \"to help the District assess its progress toward full compliance and to reassure the court, the parties, and the community of the District's good faith efforts to be in total compliance with the Revised Plan.\" See Docket No. 3344, Interim Report, p. 1. The Interim Report expressly requested that the parties and other interested persons submit comments on the content or format of the report. Id. No party commented on the Interim Report or otherwise challenged the District's \"progress toward full compliance.\" See Docket No. 3410, Final Report, p. iv. One year later, on March 15, 2001, the LRSD reported that it had substantially complied with all provisions of the Revised Plan (\"Final Report\"). See Docket No. 3410. On June 25, 2001, and after being granted two extensions of time, Joshua filed a pleading challenging the LRSD's compliance with some, but not all, sections of the Revised Plan. Joshua's challenge included little more than general allegations of noncompliance. Hearings were held on July 5-6, August 1-2 and November 19-20, 2001, on the issues of academic achievement( 2.7), program assessment( 2.7.1) and discipline( 2.5 - 2.5.4).3 B. Substantial Compliance. The Revised Plan does not define \"substantial compliance.\" In Cody v. Hillard, supra, the Eighth Circuit discussed the meaning of the term \"substantial\" as it related to compliance with and termination of a consent decree. The consent decree in that case arose out of prison reform litigation in the State of South Dakota. Prison officials moved to terminate the consent decree after operating under the decree for nearly 11 years. The plaintiffs opposed the motion 3Judge Wright stated at the conclusion of the November 20, 2001, hearing that Joshua could have 25 minutes to present true rebuttal evidence, even though Joshua had used all of their allotted time. Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, 399 and 575. Judge Wright defined rebuttal evidence as evidence necessary to respond to evidence presented by the other side which could not have been anticipated. Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, 399. The LRSD submits that it presented no evidence which could not have been anticipated by Joshua, rendering Joshua's request for rebuttal time moot. The Court could resolve this matter by requiring Joshua to proffer their purported rebuttal evidence as a part of their response to this Motion. 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I and requested a hearing. The district court refused to order a hearing, but ordered the plaintiffs to submit evidence supporting their allegations of noncompliance. Id. at 1198. The plaintiffs filed a report from their expert, Robert Powitz, which stated that he inspected the prison and found \"a number of conditions that pose serious health or safety risks,\" but he failed to specify how those conditions violated the consent decree. The plaintiffs then filed a supplemental brief linking those conditions to provisions of the consent decree. Without a hearing, the district court entered a two-paragraph order terminating the consent decree but making no findings of fact with regard to the conditions identified by Powitz. Id. at 1199. stating: The plaintiffs appealed, and the Eighth Circuit remanded the case for factual findings We cannot determine the basis for the district court's decision from this brief order. The record indicates that there have been failures in the past to comply with the decree and supplemental orders, and that there are at least some violations of the decree. The district judge's order does not give us enough information to determine whether he ignored the evidence of past and present violations or whether he considered any violations inconsequential in the context of substantial compliance. If the conditions Powitz complained of constitute violations of the consent decree, the district court must exercise its discretion in determining whether those violations were serious enough to constitute substantial noncompliance and to cast doubt on defendants' future compliance with the Constitution. See McDonald [v. Carnahan]. 109 F.3d [1319,] 1322-23 [(8th Cir. 1997)]. Moreover, the ultimate question of whether the defendants are likely to comply with the Constitution in the absence of court supervision is a question of fact, see [Board of Educ. v.] Dowell, 498 U.S. [237,] 247, 111 S.Ct. [630,] 636-37 [(1991)], for which the district court made no finding. Id. at 1199-1200 (emphasis supplied). Therefore, a party to a consent decree substantially complies with the decree so long as the party's noncompliance does not \"cast doubt on [the party's] future compliance with the Constitution.\" Id. See Manning v. The School Bd. of Hillsborough County. 244 F.3d 927, 946 (11 th Cir. 2001)(\"[I]n determining whether a school board has acted in good faith, a court should not dwell on isolated discrepancies, but rather should 'consider whether the school board's policies form a consistent pattern of lawful conduct directed at eliminating earlier violations,\"' quoting Lockett v. Bd. of Educ. of Muscogee County. 111 F.3d 839, 843 (11 th Cir. 1997)). 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Both the past and recent conduct of the LRSD Board of Directors confirms the District's commitment to complying with the Constitution. Three days after the Supreme Court's 1954 decision in Brown, the LRSD released a public statement declaring its intent to comply with the Constitution and integrate the LRSD. In 1982, the district court in Clark stated that \"the Little Rock School District has operated in compliance with court decrees for nine years as a completely unitary desegregated school system . . . . \" See Exhibit 1, p. 16. Having done all that it could do on its own, the LRSD filed the present case that same year, seeking and obtaining interdistrict relief. During the term of the Revised Plan, the LRSD Board of Directors (\"Board\") conducted a comprehensive review of all District policies. See CX 719. Fifteen of the 21 policies making up the District's \"Foundation and Basic Commitments\" express the District's commitment to fighting discrimination of all types. See CX 719, Section A. Among those were regulations setting forth the District's commitment to comply with the Revised Plan and to establish procedures for employees and patrons to raise compliance issues. See CX 719, Policy ACG-Rl, R2 and R3. The Board institutionalized numerous provisions of the Revised Plan by making them official Board policy. See CX 719.4 Finally, in anticipation of being released from court supervision, the Board adopted the \"Covenant for the Future\" (\"Covenant\") on January 11, 2001. In the Covenant, the Board promised to continue to exercise its best efforts to: (1) improve the academic achievement of all students, (2) comply with the Constitution and ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis or race, color or ethnicity in the operation of the District, and (3) provide equitable educational resources, programs and opportunity in a nondiscriminatory environment for all students attending LRSD schools. See Final Report, p. 1, CX 739, and CX 719, Policy AB. 4The following Board policies and regulations come directly from the Revised Plan: ACBB, ACBE, ACG, ACG-Rl, ACG-R2, ACG-R3, GCE, GCE-R, IHBH, JB, IBA, JBA-R, JC, JCA, n, JJ, JJ-R, JllA, JnB, JnB-Rl, JnB-R2, JLD, JMA, JMA-R, JRAA, and JRAA-R. See ex 719. 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I To be sure, the LRSD is not a perfect school system, but the Constitution does not require perfection. See Belle v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 269 F.3d 305, 335 (4th Cir. 2001) (Traxler, J.)(\"This is not to say that CMS is a perfect school system- it is not.\"). The ultimate question is whether the Board can be trusted to comply with the Constitution absent court supervision. In the five and one-half days of hearings held to date, Joshua presented no evidence indicating that it could not. C. Revised Plan Sections Already Litigated. 1. Revised Plan 2.7: Academic Achievement. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan. The LRSD identified and described the programs, policies and procedures implemented pursuant to Revised Plan 2.7 in the Interim Report (pp. 41-69 and 93-127) and the Final Report (pp. 51-148). Although Joshua monitored the LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan and received fees for doing so, Joshua did not raise any objection during the term of the Revised Plan to the programs, policies and procedures pertaining to academic achievement which were outlined in the Interim Report and the Final Report. Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 370-71. Joshua's belated challenge to the LRSD's compliance with 2.7 is based on the long-standing achievement gap between African-American and non-African-American students on standardized tests (hereinafter \"achievement gap\"). See Docket No. 3447, pp. 28-30. Joshua's challenge fails because the Revised Plan contained no requirement that the LRSD eliminate or reduce the achievement gap. The Revised Plan simply required the LRSD to implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve African-American achievement. See Revised Plan,  2. 7. To that end, the LRSD began in the Spring of 1998 what has been perhaps the most comprehensive curriculum reform in the history of the District. As a part of the reform effort, the District adopted research-based teaching strategies that have been proven to be effective in improving 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I African-American achievement. Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 195-210. The District provided its teachers with comprehensive, in-depth professional development. See Final Report, pp. 32-33 (Gifted and Talented), 60-61 (K-12 Social Studies), 67-68 (middle schools), 73 (PreK), 81-90 (early childhood and primary grade literacy), 96-102 (intermediate grade literacy), 109-111 (secondary literacy), 117-123 (math and science) and 138-143 (technology). New instructional materials, including technological applications, were adopted in all curriculum areas. See Interim Report, pp. 41-51 (generally), 96 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1743","title":"District Court, exhibits four through nine from memorandum brief.","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["2002-03-15"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st century","Education--Arkansas","Little Rock School District","School integration","Education--Evaluation","School employees","Students","Parents","Education--Standards","African Americans--Education","Literacy","School improvement programs","Educational statistics","School districts","Educational planning"],"dcterms_title":["District Court, exhibits four through nine from memorandum brief."],"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/1743"],"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":["14 page scan, typed"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\u003c?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\"?\u003e\n\u003citems type=\"array\"\u003e  \u003citem\u003e   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_description type=\"array\"\u003e   \n\n\u003cdcterms_description\u003eThis transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.    I Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Presented to the Board of Education Little Rock School District October 2001 - Prepared by Dr. Bonnie A. Lcslc~ Dr. Ed Williams Patricia Price Pat Busbea Ann Freeman Ken Savage \"\" EXHIBIT Anita Gilliam i Sharon Kiilsgaard l ~ l 1-28-020111 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table of Contents Section I: Introduction Introduction Research Questions Methodology Outline of Program Evaluation Sections Outline of Appendices Section II: Background on Program Design Background on Program Requirements: Design of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Background on Program Requirements: LRSD Strategic Plan Background on Program Requirements: Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Section III: The Assessments The Assessments: Observation Survey The Assessments: Developmental Reading Assessment Definition of \"Readiness\" vs. \"Proficiency\" Reliability and Validity: National Study Reliability and Validity: LRSD Study Developmental Appropriateness of Testing Instruments The Assessments: Achievement Level Tests in Reading and Language Usage 1-6 1-2 3 3-5 5-6 6 7-13 7-8 8 8-13 14-25 14-15 15-21 16-19 19-20 20-21 21 -23 23-25 Section IV: Alignment with National Research on Early Literacy 26-29 Section V: Description of Tables 30-42 Table 1: Kindergarten, 1999-2000, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance 31 Table 2: Kindergarten, 2000-01, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance 31 Table 3: Gradel, 1999-2000, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance 32 Table 4: Grade 1, 2000-01, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance 33 Table 5: Grade 2, 1999-2000, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance 33 1-28-020112 Table 6: Grade 2, 2000-0 I, Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance 34 Table 7: Cohort 1, Kindergarten Fall 1999 and Grade 1 Spring 2001 35 Table 8: Cohort 2, Grade 1 Fall 1999 and Grade 2 Spring 2001 35 Table 9: Grades K-2, 1999-2000, Fall to Spring Performance, All Students 36 Table 10: Grades K-2, 2000-01, Fall to Spring Performance, All Students 3 7 Table 11: Percent of Maximum Scores, Kindergarten Black Students 37 Table 12: Percent of Maximum Scores, Kindergarten Non-Black Students 38 Table 13: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 1 All Students 38 Table 14: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 1 Black Students 38 Table 15: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 1 Non-Black Students 38 Table 16: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 1 All Students 39 Table 17: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 2 Black Students 39 Table 18: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 2 Non-Black Students 39 Table 19: Percent of Maximum Scores, Grade 2 All Students 39 Table 20: Cohort 1-All Students, Kindergarten Fall 1999 and Grade 1 Spring 2001 40 Table 21 : Cohort 2-All Students, Grade 1 Fall 1999 and Grade 2 Spring 2001 40 Table 22: Percent Readiness, DRA, Black and Non-Black Students 41 Table 23: Percent Readiness, DRA, All Students 41 Table 24: Grade 2 Reading, ALT, Black and Non-Black Comparisons 41 Table 25: Grade 2 Reading, ALT, All Students 42 Table 26: Grade 2 Language Usage, ALT, Black and Non-Black Comparisons 42 Table 27: Grade 2 Language Usage, ALT, All Students 42 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o\" \"'?\u0026gt; I ~'o .. oi '\\- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Section VI: Analysis of Results, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Letter Identification Word Test Concepts about Print Writing Vocabulary Hearing and Recording Sounds Developmental Reading Assessment Section VII: Additional Data Achievement Gap Among Schools Impact of Professional Development Section VIII: Program Evaluation Findings and Recommendations for Improvement Research Question I-Program Effectiveness Research Question 2-Achievement Disparities Research Question 3-Professional Development Research Question 4-Four Literacy Models Research Question 5-Program Strengths and Weaknesses Research Question 6-Cost Effectiveness Recommendations for Improvement Instruction Parent Involvement Interventions Professional Development Schools Identified for Improvement Year 3 Program Evaluation 43-67 43-46 47-51 52-54 55-59 60-63 64-67 68-71 68-70 70-71 72-113 7~-80 81-96 96-100 100-103 103-105 105-106 106- 107-109 109-110 110-112 112 112 112-113 Section IX: Bibliography - 114-116 Section X: School-Level Data Letter Identification, Kindergarten Word Test, Kindergarten Concepts about Print, Kindergarten Writing Vocabulary, Kindergarten Hearing and Recording Sounds, Kindergarten Developmental Reading Assessment, Kindergarten Letter Identification, Grade 1 Word Test, Grade 1 Concepts about Print, Grade 1 Writing Vocabulary, Grade 1 Hearing and Recording Sounds, Grade 1 117-205 119-122 123-126 127-130 131-134 135-138 139-142 143-146 147-150 151-154 155-158 159-162 1-28-020114 Developmental Reading Assessment, Grade 1 Word Test, Grade 2 Writing Vocabulary, Grade 2 Hearing and Recording Sounds, Grade 2 Developmental Reading Assessment, Grade 2 Cohort I-Letter Identification, Black and Non-Black Cohort I-Word Test, Black and Non-Black Cohort I-Concepts about Print, Black and Non-Black Cohort I-Writing Vocabulary, Black and Non-Black Cohort I-Hearing and Recording Sounds, Black and Non-Black Cohort I-Developmental Reading Assessment, Black and Non-Black Cohort 2-Word Test, Black and Non-Black Cohort 2-Writing Vocabulary, Black and Non-Black Cohort 2-Hearing and Recording Sounds, Black and Non-Black Cohort 2-Developmental Reading Assessment, Black and Non-Black Percent Readiness, Developmental Reading Assessment, K-2 Percent Readiness, DRA, Rank Order, K-2 Percent Readiness, DRA, Black and Non-Black 163-166 167-170 171-174 175-178 179-182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193-195 196-198 199-201 Grade 2 ALT, Reading-All Students 202 Grade 2 ALT, Reading, Black and Non-Black 203 Grade 2, ALT, Language Usage, All Students 204 Grade 2, ALT, Language Usage, Black and Non-Black 205 Appendices A. PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan B. Section 5.2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan's March 2000 Interim Compliance Report C. Section 5.2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan's March 200 I Compliance Report D. Presentation to the Board of Education, January 2000 (update on program implementation and early results) \".2s-02011 s I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I E. Update on the Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan, Highlights of Grades K-2 Results: Developmental Reading Assessment, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, and a copy of the slides for the June 2001 presentation to the Board of Education 1-28-020116 Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Section I: Introduction Introduction During March 2000 the Little Rock School District provided to the Board of Education, the federal court, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and administrators an Interim Compliance Report, which included a status report on the implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program (pp. 93-105) relating to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (RDEP). In August 2000 the Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) office provided to the Board and staff a draft copy of a program evaluation for the first year of implementation of the K-2 Literacy Program. At least two subsequent drafts were developed as more data became available, but these were not presented to the Board of Education- just discussed among staff members. An implementation update was provided to the Board in January 2001 by the curriculum staff, on the status of program implementation and including an analysis of available data, along with an outline of next steps. Then in March 2001 the staff provided a summary evaluation in the Compliance Report (pp. 72-93) relating to the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan that was filed with the federal court and provided to members of the Board of Education. The Board of Education approved on second reading in March 2001 a new policy on program evaluation. Policy IL: Evaluation oflnstructional Programs requires that the staff evaluate the instructional programs designated by the Board of Education in their annual approval of the program evaluation agenda. Each evaluation is to \"provide valuable insights into how programs are operating, the extent to which they are serving the intended purpose of increasing student achievement, the strengths and weaknesses, the cost-effectiveness, and directions for the future.\" In August 1999, 2000, and 2001, the Board of Education included the PreK-2 literacy program on its approved research agenda for the following year. An interim program evaluation was provided to the Board of Education in June 2001, the first analysis of the scores on the Developmental Reading Assessment in grades K-2 for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 . At that time the scores were reported as the percent of students at each grade level, by race, who met the standard for \"readiness,\" the level that would predict success at the next grade level (level 2 at kindergarten; level 16 at grade 1; and level 24 at grade 2). Copies of that report, plus the summary and the slides were immediately sent via e-mail to principals to use in their own analysis and to provide to I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I teachers and parents. (See Appendix E.) Elementary principals used these materials in their August 2001 preschool inservice sessions. This \"Year 2 Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District\" builds on the information provided in all earlier reports. It is intended to meet the requirements specified in Policy IL for the 2000-01 school year, as well as to fulfill the requirements in Section 2. 7 .1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan for the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan. The grade levels evaluated include only grades kindergarten through grade 2. Another report will include grades 3 through 5. The curriculum staff received from PRE on July 19, 2001 , the report on the mean scores for K-2 students on both the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment for 2000-01 . Achievement Level Test data were available earlier, but they had not yet been disaggregated by race. This program evaluation, therefore, differs from , but builds upon, the evaluation report that was presented to the Board of Education in June. It includes a much more detailed analysis of data; it includes the results of the five sub-tests of the Observation Survey; and it includes the average performance scores for each school on each sub-test-not just the percent of students meeting the standard. It also includes the results of the grade 2 Achievement Level Tests in reading and language usage. The new data permit the staff to calculate and analyze the scores in a different way (mean performance vs. percent readiness), and they permit the calculation of a black to nonblack student ratio so that the degree to which the achievement gap in narrowed can be measured, as well as how the gap has changed over the two years of program implementation. One caution in comparing the 1999-2000 and 2000-01 pre-test scores on the Observation . Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment is that some schools did not complete their fall testing by the deadline in 1999 and so their pre-test scores were higher than they would have been had the testing been done in a timely manner. There were instances when there were several weeks' difference in the test date, so this variance would affect the pre-test scores. The kindergarten pre-test scores in fall 2000, for instance, were generally lower than those for fall 1999, for both black and non-black students. These differences do not necessarily indicate that this past year's kindergarten class was that much weaker than the one the year before--especially when this past year's end-of-year scores were higher than the previous class's end-of-year scores. The third and fourth tests administered are the Achievement Level Tests in reading and language usage that are given in spring of grade 2. Those scores, combined with the results of the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment, enable the District to assess the effectiveness of the early literacy program in LRSD, including its impact on \"the improvement of the academic achievement of African American children.\" 1-28-020118 2 Research Questions Using the obligations set forth in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (RDEP), the Board's Strategic Plan, and the Board's Policy IL, the following research questions were established to guide this study: 1. Are the new curriculum standards/benchmarks, instructional strategies, and materials effective in teaching primary grade students how to read independently and understand words on a page? (See Section 5 .2.1 a of RDEP and Strategy 2 of the Strategic Plan.) 2. Is the new program effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African American students? (See Section 2.7 of RDEP.) 3. Is there a relationship between teacher participation in professional development and student achievement? (See Policy IL expectation to examine cost effectiveness and Strategy 7 of the Strategic Plan.) 4. Is there evidence of success in each of the four literacy models in use-Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) only; ELLA and Reading Recovery; Success for All; and Direct Instruction? (See Section 2.7 of RDEP.) 5. What are the program's strengths and weaknesses? (See Policy IL.) 6. Is the program cost effective? (See Policy IL and Strategy 3 of the Strategic Plan.) Methodology An interdisciplinary team was assembled to prepare the program evaluation for the PreK- 2 literacy program for Year 2. Several staff members provided assistance and support in the construction of 27 separate tables of district-level data to display not only the mean scores for each sub-test, by race and for all students, on the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment, but also to display the percent who scored at or above the \"readiness\" level on the Developmental Reading Assessment and the median RIT score on the sub-tests of the Achievement Level Tests. Calculations were verified three times by separate staff members to ensure the highest possible degree of accuracy. Among the calculations that were made to assist in the analysis of data were numbers of points of growth from fall to spring for each of the two years, spring to spring, and fall of one grade to spring of the following grade (for a two-year growth). Black to non-black ratios were calculated to determine the degree to which black students were attaining essential knowledge and skill at the same level as non-black students. Growth ratios were also determined-the degree to which growth in a given year by black students was at the same level or higher than that of non-black students. The percent of growth for one year of instruction and then two years of instruction in the program was calculated for each level and each sub-test, although these calculations were not used in the section on \"findings\" or in the recommendations made for improvement. And, finally, the mean 1-28-020119 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I score on the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment was divided by the maximum possible score to determine the average percent for each score. An additional table was constructed to display the achievement gap between/among schools for each sub-test at each grade level. The District's statistician conducted three statistical studies that informed the study: one of the average number of days of teacher participation in professional development on the implementation of ELLA, by program model, and another of descriptive statistics between teacher participation in professional development on ELLA implementation and student achievement. A third study was conducted to determine the validity of the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment in relationship to the Achievement Level Tests. Finally, 87 tables of school-level data were constructed to add to the study and to provide the critical information for school-level staff members to conduct their own analyses at the school level. Throughout the writing of this report individual staff members, both program staff and assessment specialists, were interviewed and queried in order to clarify issues of program implementation, testing administration, instructional procedures, and data interpretation. Their assistance was invaluable. The research studies which guided the initial design of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan were again reviewed-especially the research on the identification of prerequisite knowledge and skills that children must acquire on their pathway to learning to read. These findings were once again mapped with the implementation plan for LRSD, as well as the assessment instruments to ensure ongoing alignment. Serendipitously, the National Center for Education Statistics published a report in July 2001 entitled Educational Achievement and Black-White Ineguality, which proved to be very helpful in interpreting Little Rock results in a national context, and which is cited in this program evaluation, along with other external studies. Multiple strategies to analyze the data were employed so as to establish as thoroughly and comprehensively as possible a basis for determining the program's quality. The detailed analysis is found in Section VI. No attempt was made in this study to analyze the results for limited-English proficient children since that program is evaluated separately. It is important to note, however, that the scores of limited-English proficient students are included in each school's results. The District requires them to take the tests so their progress in learning English, as well as in learning to read, may be monitored. And, finally, credible research studies were consulted, as were informed staff, in the  determination of recommendations for improvement or determining next steps in becoming even more effective. 1-28-020120 4 Before the program evaluation was published, it was reviewed by many individuals, including Dr. Steve Ross of the University of Memphis, and groups, including the Early Literacy program staff, PRE staff representatives, and School Services staff. The District is grateful to all who offered feedback and suggestions for the improvement of this report. To the best of the writer's ability, the suggestions for improvement were incorporated into the draft. Others were added to recommendations for the Year 3 study. Outline of Program Evaluation Sections This report is organized into ten sections: 1. Section I includes the Introduction, as well as a delineation of the Research Questions for the study and a description of the methodologies employed. 2. Section II provides background information on the program design and its relationship to the Strategic Plan and the Revised Desegregation Plan. 3. Section III describes the selection of appropriate assessments for grades K-2 and the processes by which \"readiness\" standards were established for each grade level for the Developmental Reading Assessment. It also includes information on national and local validation studies of the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment, as compared to the Achievement Level Test. 4. The literacy plan's design in relationship to the findings in national research studies on early literacy is described in Section IV. This section also includes an alignment of the research with the assessments selected by the District. 5. Three major sections on data analysis follow. Section Vis a description of each of the tables that was constructed from the data reports to assist the writers of this report and its readers in analyzing the results on the eight measurements: the five sub-tests on the Observation Survey (OS); the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA); and the reading and language usage sub-tests of the Achievement Level Tests (ALTs). 6. Section VI is a detailed analysis of the data in each table and a comparison of 1999-2000 and 2000-01 data, by race. 7. Additional data are provided in Section VII on the achievement gap among schools and on some statistical studies that were conducted relating to program effectiveness and the relationship between teacher participation in professional development and the achievement of their students. 8. Following the data analysis is Section VIII that summarizes the program strengths and weaknesses and specifies the implications for instruction, with specific recommendations for improvements in 2001-2002. 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 9. Section IX is the Bibliography for the study. 10. Section X includes 87 tables of school-level data. Those interested in individual school performance or comparisons are encouraged to use the model in this report for data analysis at the District level to conduct similar analyses at the school level. Behind Section X are appendices A-E for more background and further reference: A. \"PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan\" B. Section 5.2.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan's March 2000 Interim Compliance Report C. Section 5.2.l of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan's March 2001 Compliance Report D. Presentation to the Board of Education, January 2000 (update on program implementation and early results) E. \"Update on the Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan,\" \"Highlights of Grades K-2 Results: Developmental Reading Assessment, 1999-2000 and 2000-01,\" and a copy of the slides for June 2001 presentation to the Board of Education I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1-28-020122 6 '---- --- - - - - II. Background on Program Design Background on Program Requirements: Design of the PreK-3 Literacy Program During early fall 1998 a committee was formed in the Division of Instruction of the Little Rock School District to design a new elementary literacy program, with an emphasis on the primary grades of PreK-3. The processes and ultimate design of that plan are described in the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan in Appendix A. All elementary schools in the Little Rock School District are expected to teach the same curriculum standards and grade-level benchmarks, regardless of the instructional strategies and/or materials that are selected according to the various implementation models. Twenty-seven of the District's 35 schools are implementing the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) instructional strategies that are the content of the professional development program for PreK-2 teachers. This model was developed through a collaborative effort that included the Reading Recovery Training Center at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, the Arkansas Reading Recovery teacher leaders, and the Arkansas Department of Education. Nine schools are implementing the Reading Recovery program, a first-grade intervention, developed by Marie Clay. Seven schools are implementing the Success for All model that was developed at Johns Hopkins University. Little Rock schools receive their training for this program from the University of Memphis. Both ELLA and Success for All training are designed from the same research base on early literacy; they differ in implementation strategies and materials. One school is implementing Direct Instruction through an approved waiver from the District program. Both the Success for All schools and the Direct Instruction school are supplementing their programs, in some cases, with ELLA strategies for greater effectiveness. According to Busbea (2000), In ELLA the importance of helping students feel like readers and writers on the first day of school is stressed. In order to achieve such a goal, teachers must provide students with the needed materials and opportunities for literacy activities. A balanced literacy approach is used to give students these opportunities. The children are engaged in whole text, but they are given formal instruction based on their strengths and needs (30-31 ). The literacy components taught in the ELLA professional development program, again according to Busbea, are as follows:  Read aloud.      Shared reading . Guided reading . Familiar reading . Modeled writing or shared writing . Interactive writing . 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I      Writing aloud . Revising and editing . Independent writing and conferencing . Phonetic skills . Classroom management. Each school is required to dedicate a two and one-half hour block of uninterrupted time daily for literacy instruction. Background on Program Reguirements: LRSD Strategic Plan The District adopted its Strategic Plan in 1996, and it was updated in fall 1998. Three of the eleven strategies were important in the development of the PreK-2 Literacy Program Plan: Strategy 2: In partnership with our community, we will establish standards in the core curriculum (reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies) at each appropriate level, as well as develop the means of assessing whether students have met these standards. Strategy 3: We will develop and implement a broad range of alternatives and interventions for students scoring below the 5dh percentile on standardized tests or who are at serious risk of not achieving District standards in the core curriculum. Strategy 7: We will design a comprehensive staff development system to best achieve the mission and objectives in the Strategic Plan. Background on Program Reguirements: Revised Desegregation and Education Plan The charge to the design committee of the PreK-3 Literacy Plan included three major sections of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan that was approved by the federal court in February 1998: Section 2.7, Section 2.7.1, and Se_ction 5.2.1. The first of these sections (2. 7) establishes the obligation to improve the achievement of students, especially those who are African American. Section 2. 7: LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan. On January 21, 1998, Mr. John Walker, on behalfofthe Joshua Intervenors, signed an agreement with the Little Rock School District that was filed with the federal court, which included the following statement: With regard to the achievement disparity, the January 16 Revised Plan recognizes that the only legitimate means to eliminate the racial disparity in achievement is by improving African-American achievement (2). 1-28-020124 8 - ---- - - - To that end and to address the obligation in Section 2.7, the staff made a conscious decision to emphasize \"designed to improve ... the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students,\" rather than to \"remediate\" that achievement, given the failure of most remediation efforts not only in Little Rock, but across the country. This is not to say that the District abandoned its remediation efforts. It did not. Re-teaching, tutoring, Title I programs, computer-assisted instruction, inter-sessions in the Extended Year schools, after-school programs, summer school, and Reading Recovery (first-grade intervention in some schools) continued as much as ever, but as supplemental to the efforts going on in every classroom to prevent as much failure as possible, rather than try to correct failure after it had occurred. These remediation efforts are documented in the schools' School Improvement Plans and their Title I Plans. And, of course, the Success for All program implemented in seven LRSD elementary schools and Direct Instruction at Washington Magnet can be described as both preventative and remedial in nature. This decision to emphasize prevention of failure vs. remediation is supported in the published work of the National Research Council, Preventing Reading Difficulties Among Young Children (1998); the research in scores of studies sponsored by the International Reading Association; and from Marie Clay, who developed the Reading Recovery program. The National Research Council concluded in their massive study the following: The majority of reading problems faced by today's adolescents and adults are the results of problems that might have been avoided or resolved in their early childhood years. It is imperative that steps be taken to ensure that children overcome these obstacles during the primary grades (5). Marie Clay writes the following: Teachers and parents of 11- to 16-year olds often believe that schools have done nothing for the reading difficulties of the young people they are concerned about. Yet the older child has probably been the focus of a whole sequence of wellintentioned efforts to help, each of which has done little for the child. This does not mean that children do not sometimes succeed with a brilliant teacher, a fantastic teacher-child relationship, a hard-working parent-child team. What it does mean is that the efforts often fail (15). Dorothy Strickland makes a similar finding: Historically, educators focused their attention on remediation, allowing children to fail before help was given. The importance of intervening early and effectively is well established among educators and social service providers (325). She explains that\" the cycle of failure often starts early in a child's school career\" arid that \"there is a near 90% chance that a child who is a poor reader at the end of grade 1 will remain a poor reader at the end of grade 4.\" Therefore, as the child continues to experience \"failure and defeat,\" he/she becomes likely to drop out of school (326). Also, 1-28-020125 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I she states that \"supplementary remedial programs such as Title I and replacement programs that substitute for regular, in-class instruction have had mixed results over the years\" (326). She concludes: Those who have turned their attention to early intervention state that it is ultimately less costly than years of remediation, less costly than retention, and less costly to students' self-esteem. This final point may be the most compelling of all because the savings in human suffering and humiliation is incalculable. Teachers in remedial programs often observe that students who feel they are failures frequently give up and stop trying to learn despite adequate instructional opportunities (326). Linda Dom (1998), Reading Recovery Teacher Leader Trainer and developer of the Arkansas Early Literacy and Literacy Coach model, and her colleagues French and Jones explain this shift in understanding about teaching as follows: Recently, Linda asked a group of teachers in a college course how they taught reading to their lowest achieving children. From their responses, it was clear that their theory was a deficit one guided by their concern about how much the children did not know. Traditionally, we have tested children to identify their weak areas and then designed instruction based on what they do not know. This theory of learning is in direct opposition to what research tells us about how the brain acquires information and then organizes related information into larger networks. .. . instruction that is based on inadequate background is grounded in a deficit model, which may force young learners to rely on low-level processes (24-25). In their summary of Chapter 1, they wrote: Prevention ofreading problems must begin in the early grades. If children are not reading on grade level by the end of third grade, their chance of success in later years is minimal. One significant characteristic of problem readers is their lack of literacy experiences during their preschool years. Schools must compensate by providing the children with rich literacy classroom programs and supplemental literacy services that focus on early intervention (15). In other words, those who persist in insisting on remediation of learning as the primary emphasis for the lowest-achieving children doom those children to lessons that never get beyond the rote memorization of basic information, and those children will never have an opportunity to understand anything well, much less apply higher-order thinking skills. Dorn, ~ ill ( 1998) urge teachers, therefore, to \"identify the strengths of young children and use this infonnation as the basis for designing rich learning experiences that emphasize problem-solving (p. 25).\" In these ways, schools can prevent failure. 1-28-020126 It should be noted that the District sees its HIPPY and expansive pre-kindergarten program as a part of its overall prevention-of-failure efforts. (See Compliance Report of March 2001, pp. 72-73, for a break-down of the 1312 youngsters involved in early childhood education during 2000-01 .) The second section from the Revised Plan (2. 7. l) requires the District to conduct annual assessments of English language arts and mathematics in order to determine their effectiveness in improving the achievement of African American students-and then to take appropriate action if the program is not effective by either modifying the program's implementation or replacing it. Section 2. 7.1: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2. 7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve AfricanAmerican achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. Prior to fall 1999 there was not in place a reading assessment (except the eight-week assessments in the Success for All schools) that measured student progress in their acquisition of learning-to-read skills in the early grades. For a time the SAT9 was administered in grades 2-3, but it was not used to drive instructional practice as much as it was used to identify students for the gifted/talented program. The Literacy Benchmark examination required by the State of Arkansas in grade 4 was the first formal assessment of whether students could read independently. The design committee believed strongly that to comply with the Revised Plan and also, importantly, to be able to diagnose potential reading difficulties, as well as to identify progress and grov.1h of individual students, classrooms, schools, and the District, an annual assessment would be required. The District could not afford to wait until grade 4 to find out whether every student had learned to read independently, a goal established in the Revised Plan. After a review of the available literacy assessments for young children and after consulting with the experts involved in the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) professional development program and with specialists at the Arkansas Department of Education, District staff decided to adopt two sets of measurements--the Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement developed by Marie M. Clay and the Developmental Reading Assessment developed by Joetta Beaver. Subsequently, because of a need to have a measurement for the identification of students for the grade 3 gifted/talented program, the Achievement Level Test developed by the Northwest Evaluation Association in collaboration with LRSD teacher teams was added to the assessment plan for grade 2. The results of these data would be the primary basis for evaluating program effectiveness. 1-28-020127 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The third section (5.2 .1) of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan establishes several curriculum, instruction, professional development, assessment, and parental involvement obligations: Reading/Language Arts Section 5.2. l: Primary Grades. LRSD shall implement at least the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in kindergarten through third grade: a. Establish as a goal that by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and show understanding of words on a page; b. Focus teaching efforts on reading/language arts instruction by teaching science and social studies through reading/language arts and mathematics experiences; c. Promote thematic instruction; d. Identify clear objectives for student mastery of all three reading cueing systems (phonics, semantics, and syntax) and of knowing-how-to-learn skills; e. Monitor the appropriateness of teaching/learning materials to achieving curricular objectives and the availability of such materials in all classrooms; f Establish uninterrupted blocks of time for reading/language arts and mathematics instruction; g. Monitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices; h. Provide parents/guardians with better information about their child's academic achievement in order to help facilitate the academic development of the students; i. Provide pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, and first grade learning readiness experiences for students who come to school without such experiences; j. Train teachers to manage successful learning for all students in diverse, mainstreamed classrooms; k. Use the third and/or fourth grade as a transition year from focused reading/language arts and mathematics instruction to a more traditional school day; and I. Provide opportunities for students to perform and display their academic training in a public setting. Rather than repeat in this program evaluation the information provided in a number of earlier reports, the relevant pages from those earlier reports are included in the appendices. The document in Appendix E entitled \"Update on the Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan\" includes the following list of initiatives that have been implemented from the PreK-3 plan and which require emphasis (pp. 2-3): 1-28-020128 12 --- ----            Title I programming was restructured and aligned with the District's program. 'A moratorium was placed on adding any new supplemental reading/ language arts programs. Some programs in previous use were abandoned . A waiver was granted to Washington Magnet to keep its Direct Instruction program. Cuniculum standards, instructional strategies, instructional materials, assessments, and professional development were tightly aligned. Each school established a sacred, uninterrupted, two and one-half hour daily block for the teaching of reading/language arts. A new English-as-a-Second Language program was implemented that is also tightly aligned with the District's general education program. New assessments that are developmentally appropriate and aligned with the curriculum and instructional program were implemented. Animated Literacy, a phonemic awareness program, was implemented in kindergarten. Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) was implemented in grades K-2, with Pre-ELLA added in fall 2000 for prekindergarten students. More than $350,000 was expended in the purchase of reading and other cuniculum support materials during the past two years.  A committee has almost completed work on a new elementary report card.     Most primary teachers experienced a minimum of one week of ELLA training, with follow-ups as necessary and appropriate (See Compliance Report in Appendix C for lists of professional development sessions.) The Parent-School Compact was revised, and the Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) was developed and implemented. The Parent Program was restructured in May 2000 . An ESL Parent Coordinator was employed in spring 2001 . 1-28-020129 13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I III. The Assessments Marie Clay makes the point repeatedly in her book, An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement (1993), that no one observation task is satisfactory on its own when one needs to make important instructional decisions for children (p. 20). She would find strong support from Grant Wiggins, who is a national expert in assessment. In his book, Assessing Student Performance: Exploring the Purpose and Limits of Testing (1993), Wiggins wrote: One test signifies nothing, let us emphatically repeat, but five or six tests signify something. And that is so true that one might almost say, 'It matters very little what the tests are so long as they are numerous\"' (13). In the Little Rock School District, the tests are numerous. The Assessments: Observation Survey Below is summary information about what the five sub-tests in the Observation Survey measure. Letter Identification This sub-test answers the following questions: What letters does the child know? Which letters can he/she identify? All letters, lower and upper case, are tested. The observation includes an analysis of the child's preferred mode of identifying letters; the letters a child confuses; and the unknown letters. (Clay, p. 43) The maximum score is 54. This test is administered in grades K-1. Word Test The student is tested over the most frequently occurring words in whatever basic reading texts are being used. Scores on this measure are useful in determining a child's \"readiness to read.\" (Clay, p. 53) The maximum score is 20. This test is administered in grades K-2. Concepts about Print This sub-test (5-10 minutes) includes testing whether the student knows the front of the book, that the print (not the picture) tells the story, that there are letters, that are clusters of letters called words, that there are first letters and last letters in words, that you can choose upper or lower case letters, that spaces are there for a reason, and that different punctuation marks have meanings. Scores on this measure have proven to be a sensitive indicator of behaviors that support reading acquisition. (Clay, p. 47) The maximum score is 24. This test is administered in grades K-1. Writing Vocabulary The student is asked to write down in ten minutes all the words he/she knows how to write, starting with his/her own name and making a personal list of words 1-28-020130 14 he/she has managed to learn. There is no maximum score. This test is administered in grades K-2. Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words The teacher asks the child to record a dictated sentence. The child's performance is scored by counting the child's representation of the sounds (phonemes) by letters (graphemes). The maximum score is 37 at grades K-1 and is 64 at grade 2. This test is administered in grades K-2. The Assessments: Developmental Reading Assessment The Developmental Reading Assessment is a one-on-one assessment of reading skillsprimarily accuracy of oral reading and comprehension through reading and re-telling of narrative stories. The assessment consists of stories that increase in difficulty. Factors which contribute to the gradient of difficulty of the stories include the number of words on a page, complexity of vocabulary, length of the stories, degree of support from the pictures, as well as complexity of sentence and story structure. The assessment formats are as follows: Levels A-2 (Kindergarten Grade Level), 7-8 minutes 1. Teacher selects book 2. Teacher introduces text 3. Teacher reads one or two pages 4. Child points and reads rest of story; teacher takes running record 5. Teacher asks print questions 6. Teacher asks preference questions Levels 3-16 (First Grade Level), 10-15 minutes 1. Teacher selects book 2. Teacher introduces text 3. Child looks at pictures; tells what is happening 4. Child reads story aloud; teacher takes running record  5. Child retells story 6. Teacher asks response questions 7. Teacher asks preference questions Levels 18-44 (Second Grade Level), 15-20 minutes 1. Teacher selects range of three texts 2. Child previews and chooses one 3. Teacher introduces text 4. Child reads first 2-4 paragraphs aloud 5. Child predicts what will happen in story 6. Child reads complete story silently in another location 7. Child retells story 8. Teacher asks response questions 9. Child reads selected portion of text; teacher takes running record 1-28-020131 15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10. Teacher asks preference questions 11. Teachers asks one or two inference questions (L~vels 28-44). \"Readiness\" levels for the Little Rock School District have been established as follows:  Kindergarten- Level 2  Grade I-Level 16; and  Grade 2-Level 24. The explanation below (developed in summer 2000) on \"Definition of 'Readiness' vs. 'Proficiency\"' is a delineation of the District's efforts to define appropriate cut scores for each grade level so that a determination could be made of the percent of students who are achieving a standard of \"readiness\" for success at the next grade level. Definition of \"Readiness\" vs. \"Proficiency\" The Arkansas Department of Education has defined performance at four levels: Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced for the Benchmark examinations that are administered at grades 4, 6, and 8 and the end-of-level examinations for designated high school courses. \"Proficient\" is the performance standard that all students should achieve. The ADE definition follows: Proficient students demonstrate solid academic performance for the grade tested and are well-prepared for the next level of schooling. They can use Arkansas' established reading, writing, and mathematics skills and knowledge to solve problems and complete tasks on their own. Students can tie ideas together and explain the ways their ideas are connected. The Developmental Reading Assessment allows teachers to assess reading \"levels\" of students through a one-on-one test reading conference between teacher and student. Teachers observe student performance during the test, make notes on reading behaviors, and score the performance as they go along. The desire was to establish appropriate cut points that would define \"proficient\" performance. To gauge which \"level\" is equivalent to how Arkansas defines \"proficiency,\" the staff used national reading standards for each grade level as defined in Reading and Writing Grade by Grade: Primary Literacy Standards from Kindergarten through Third Grade (New Standards Primary Literacy Committee, National Center on Education and the Economy and the University of Pittsburgh, 1999). The staff then identified the DRA level that corresponds to that specific performance. Standards and DRA equivalents by grade level follow: 1-28-020132 16 Grade Level Readinl! Standards DRA Level Kindergarten Children at the end of kindergarten should Assessment texts A through 2 consist of a repeated word or Gradel Grade 2 understand that every word in a text says sentence pattern with natural language structures. The simple something specific. They can demonstrate this illustrations include animals and objects familiar to primary competence by reading Level B books that they children and highly support the text. One or two lines of text have not seen before, but that have been appear on the left page and are large and well spaced so that previewed for them, attending to each word in children can point as they read. The number of words in the seouence and l!Cttinl! most of them correct. texts ranees from ten to thirtv-six . By the end of the year, we expect first-grade Assessment texts 16 through 28 arc stories with beginnings, students to be able to: middles, and ends, throughout which problems are presented read Level 16 books that they have not seen and resolved. The characters are either imaginary (giants and before, but that have been previewed for them, elves) or animals with human characteristics. The content with 90 percent or better accuracy of word begins to move beyond children 's personal experiences and recognition (self-correction allowed). builds a basis with which to compare and contrast other When they read aloud, we expect first graders stories. Literacy language structures are integrated with to sound like they know what they are reading. natural language. Some description of characters and setting Fluent readers may pause occasionally to work is included. Illustrations provide moderate to minimum out difficult passages. By the end of the year, support. The text may be three to twelve lines above or we expect first-grade students to be able to beneath the illustrations, or a full page. The number of words independently read aloud from Level I books in these texts starts at 266 and increases with each level of that have been previewed for them, using difficulty. intonation, pauses and emphasis that signal the structure of the sentence and the meaning of the text. By the end of the year, we expect second-grade Assessment texts 16 through 28 arc stories with beginnings, students to be able to independently read aloud middles, and ends, throughout which problems are presented unfamiliar Level 24 books with 90 percent or and resolved. The characters are either imaginary (giants and better accuracy of word recognition (self- elves) or animals with human characteristics. The content correction allowed). begins to move beyond children's personal experiences and builds a basis with which to compare and contrast other stories. Literacy language structures are integrated with natural language. Some description of characters and sett ing is included. Illustrations provide moderate to minimum support. The text may be three to twelve lines above or beneath the illustrations, or a full page. The number of words in these texts starts at 266 and increases with each level of difficultv. The staff also considered the work of others who use the DRA in their determination of appropriate cut points to define proficiency at each grade level. Several states and many school districts have adopted the DRA for early literacy assessment. One example is the chart establishing \"proficiency levels\" developed by the East Baton Rouge Parish School System in Louisiana. They have determined that \"On Grade Level\" is defined by a kindergarten student's performance at levels 1, 2 on the DRA; grade 1 is levels 16, 18; and grade 2 is levels 24, 28. \"Above Grade Level\" is defined as levels 3-14 at kindergarten; levels 20-28 at grade 1; and levels 30-38 at grade 2. In Lindsay, California, the \"Approaching Proficiency\" levels are defined similarly: level 2 at kindergarten; levels 10-12 at grade 1; and level 24 at grade 2. 1-28-020133 17 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I A program evaluation conducted by the Austin, Texas, Independent School District indicates that the \"Grade Level\" performance on the DRA was defined as level 2 at kindergarten; level 16 at grade 1; and levels 24-28 at grade 2. The State of Ohio defined \"Success Indicators\" for reading for each grade level. These can be compared to the national standards developed by the National Center for Education and the Economy:  At the end of kindergarten, children should be able to write in a left to right/top to bottom manner, have a firm grasp of letters and their sounds, and recognize a few simple words.  By the end of first grade, students should be using and integrating phonics and reading strategies as they read, writing simple stories, reading independently, and demonstrating comprehension of stories through drawing, writing, discussion, and dramatization.  By the end of second grade, students should be reading silently for extended periods and reading orally with appropriate use of punctuation. They should demonstrate that they can gather information by reading, predict how stories will end, compare and contrast story elements, sequence evens from a story, retell a story, and relate what they read to their lives. The State of Connecticut uses the Developmental Reading Assessment as a part of their state accountability system in grades 1-3. Grade 1 students who perform at or below level 10 and grade 2 students who perform at or below level 16 at the end of the year are identified as \"substantially deficient.\" Such students then receive a personal or individual reading plan that outlines additional instructional support and monitors student progress-similar to the District's Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP). Although Connecticut does not identify grade-level proficiency levels, they have established the literacy standard for LEP students to exist the bilingual program: at kindergarten the student must perform at level 2; at grade 1 level 16; and at grade 2 level 28. Ve-rmont, likewise, uses the DRA in their state assessment program and has established similar levels of proficiency. Joetta Beaver, the developer of the Developmental Reading Assessment (published by Celebration Press in 1997), suggests that districts should define proficiency levels so that students performing below those levels receive necessary interventions and remediation. Her recommended proficiency levels are levels 1-2 for kindergarten; levels 16-18 at grade 1; and levels 24-28 at grade 2. All these efforts to define proficiency are either exactly aligned with the decisions made by LRSD staff or are very close. 1-28-020134 18 Given, however, the difficulty of establishing with confidence an equivalent definition of \"proficiency\" that would predict achievement on the grade 4 Benchmark examination, District staff members have made the decision to use what in their best judgment are the appropriate cut scores (based on all the research cited), but to use the term \"Readiness\" to define the desired performance. When the District has multiple years of data and when the 1999-2000 kindergarten students take the Grade 4 Benchmark examination in spring 2004, then the staff can do some statistical calculations that will enable the District to set cut scores that reliably predict \"Proficient\" performance on the grade 4 Benchmark. Reliability and Validity: National Study The development of the Developmental Reading Assessment began in 1988 by a team of teacher-researchers. According to the national validation study, \"the purpose of the assessment was to guide teachers' ongoing observations of student progress over time within a literature-based reading program\" (p. 2). Over the next six years there were numerous revisions in response to teacher feedback. In spring 1996 the first formal validation study was conducted. Seventy-eight teachers from various parts of the United States and Canada participated. (p. 3) The results of the study were very positive, and where the correlations were not as strong as they possibly could be, revisions to the instrument were made to strengthen validity. In summary, the DRA was found to be a valid assessment. Teachers found it very helpful in  determining individual students' instructional text reading level;  describing his/her performance as a reader;  selecting appropriate interventions and/or focus for instruction; and  identifying students who may be reading below proficiency (11). A reliability study of the Developmental Reading Assessment was conducted in spring 1999 by Dr. E. Jane Williams. In this study eighty-seven teachers from ten states participated. All had prior experience in administering the DRA .. The findings were that both the inter-rater reliability and the internal consistency of the test were strong to very strong (6). The construct validity of the DRA was also established through an additional study. Construct validity ensures that the test measures what was intended that it measure. The statistics for this study were done using DRA individual student scores compared to individual scores on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. They correlated positively, and for the ITBS Total Reading subscale, very positively. The conclusion, then, was that \"the DRA validly measures a child's ability to decode and understand/comprehend what he/she has read\" (6). Of importance to the LRSD was another conclusion to this study: It should be noted that a major purpose of the DRA is to help guide instruction. Ninety-eight percent of the teachers and raters agreed or strongly agreed to the 19 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I statement that the information gained about the reader during the DRA conference helped them better identify things that the child needed to do or learn next ( 9). It was the intent of the design committee and is the intent of the curriculum staff that the multiple assessments selected for grades K-2 be used to drive instruction-for the data gathered from those assessments to be used to assist teachers in deciding what to do next for each individual child. LRSD embraces the joint position statement of the International Reading Association and the National Association for the Education of Young Children that was adopted in 1998: Throughout these critical years accurate assessment of children's knowledge, skills, and dispositions in reading and writing will help teachers better match instruction with how and what children are learning. However, early reading and writing cannot be measured as a set of narrowly defined skills on standardized tests. These measures often are not reliable or valid indicators of what children can do in typical practice, nor are they sensitive to language variation, culture, or the experience of young children. Rather, a sound assessment should be anchored in real-life writing and reading tasks ... and should support individualized diagnosis needed to help young children continue to progress in reading and writing\" (20). Reliability and Validity: LRSD Study The following correlational matrix constructed by the District's statistician in spring 2001 displays the relationships between the scores on the Achievement Level Tests (AL Ts) and the Observation Survey and Developmental Reading Assessment scores. Correlational Matrix, Spring 2001 ALT Reading RIT, ALT Reading Goal RITs, Observation Survey, and DRA Scores Goal I : Word Goal 2: Goal 3: Goal 4: Observation Observation Observation Meaning Literal Interpretive Evaluative Survey: Survey: Survey: Compreben Compreben Comprehen Word Test Writing Dictation sion sion 1ion . Vocabulary Reading RIT Score 0.937 0.940 0.922 0.917 0.280 0.467 0.638 Goal I : Word Meaning 0.839 0.805 0.815 0.255 0.438 0.602 Goal 2: Literal :: 1 .. 0.823 0.822 0.223 0.418 0.577 Comnrehension ; l ' Goal 3: Interpretive Comprehension .. 0.795 0.1 99 0.410 0.535 Goal 4: Evaluative Comprehension 0.207 0.413 0.574 Observation Survey: Word Test ' \" 0.276 0.351 Observation Survey: Writiug Vocabulary .. 0.442 Observation Suney: Dictation . . ' All correlations arc significantat the .05 level DRA 0.788 0.733 0.724 0.696 0.719 0.360 0.478 0.683 N's range from 1577 to 1684 1-28-020136 While all the relationships are significant at the .05 level, some relationships are stronger than others. All of the ALT scores relate strongly to the DRA, with values of .696 to 20 .788. Only Hearing and Recording Sounds (Dictation) on the Observation Survey has a value above .50--.683. Also, within the Observation Survey correlational values are lower. The staff anticipated this result since the Observation Survey measures learninghow- to-read skills, and the Developmental Reading Assessment measures more difficult comprehension skills. The large sample size gives power to this matrix and contributes to significance at apparent low correlational values. The statistician subsequently ran a statistical test called Cronbach's Alpha, which is a reliability test for internal consistency of an assessment. Reliability is a measure of a test's stability; that is, if one gives the same test more than once, a reliable test would produce a similar or same result. A test with an acceptable Alpha indicates that the variability in scores is a result of the test taker, while a low Alpha indicates that the variability in scores is a result of a poorly designed or inconsistent test. A test with an Alpha of .60 and greater is usually considered to be internally consistent. The Alpha coefficients for the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment for both fall and spring administrations are as follows: Fall K Grade 1 Grade 2 .63 .66 .74 Spring .85 .62 .65 Therefore, both the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment appear to have stability and are internally consistent. The Alpha for the spring grade 2 Achievement Level Test is .97. What these data are indicating is that the Developmental Reading Assessment is a valid and reliable test. The lower correlation values of the  Observation Survey are more likely a product of these tests measuring pre-reading knowledge and skills, as opposed to the reading comprehension skills measured on the grade 2 Achievement Level Test. Developmental Appropriateness of Testing Instruments Both the sub-tests on the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment are administered one-on-one by the classroom teacher to the student. The teacher scores the student's performance, based upon rubrics and scoring instructions provided to the teacher in a mandated training session and in writing. The teacher then bubbles in on each child's answer sheet his/her level of performance and sends those answer sheets to the Director of Early Literacy for processing and the compilation of scoring reports. One caution, therefore, in interpreting the data is that the teacher has scored his/her own students' performance, and bias may be possible. The District has conducted a procedure to verify the accuracy of the spring scores- those most likely to be influenced by bias. Students' spring scores are matched with their fall scores the following year, and then ifthere is a wide discrepancy, that score can be flagged. When there is a pattern of significantly higher spring scores from one teacher than the next year's fall scores, then an investigation must be conducted. One school with suspiciously high spring scores was flagged for review in fall 2000. However, when 1-28-020137 21 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I the match of scores was run, the staff found absolutely no evidence of cheating. The fall 2000 scores were closely in line with those of the previous spring, even though the children in the fall were in several different schools, and there were more than seven teachers administering the fall tests. The staff also has collected some anecdotal evidence that a few teachers may, in fact, be under-reporting student achievement rather than overreporting, due to their own low expectations. To avoid even the appearance of bias, some would recommend that the District use a standardized examination with individual students writing their own answers and then the answer sheets scored by machine. The problem with this approach is that the results would likely be even more questionable than the ones produced through one-on-one testing. Experts in early literacy and in early education have developed strongly stated positions against the use of standardized tests for young children, ages 3 through 8. For example, a position statement, Leaming to Read and Write: Developmentally Appropriate Practices for Young Children, was issued in 1998 by the International Reading Association (IRA) and the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). The section on assessment follows: Group-administered, multiple-choice standardized achievement tests in reading and writing skills should not be used before third grade or preferably even before fourth grade. The younger the child, the more difficult it is to obtain valid and reliable indices of his or her development and learning using one-time test administrations. Standardized testing has a legitimate function, but on its own it tends to lead to standardized teaching-one approach fits all-the opposite of the kind of individualized diagnosis and teaching that is needed to help young children continue to progress in reading and writing (11). A 1987 position paper by NAEYC, Standardized Testing of Young Children 3 Through 8 Years of Age, is even more explicit: Young children are not good test takers. The younger the child, the more inappropriate paper-and-pencil, large group test administrations become. Standards for administration of tests require that reasonable comfort be provided to the test taker (AERA, AP A, \u0026amp; NCME, 1985). Such a standard must be broadly interpreted when applied to young children. Too often, standardized tests are administered to children in large groups, in unfamiliar environments, by strange people, perhaps during the first few days of school or under other stressful conditions. During such test administrations, children are asked to perform unfamiliar tasks, for no reason that they can understand. For test results to be valid, tests are best administered to children individually in familiar, comfortable circumstances by adults whom the child has come to know and trust and who are also qualified to administer the tests (5). In conclusion, therefore, the staff made the determination that the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment met all the criteria for selecting good assessment instruments for the children in K-2 classrooms. They were closely aligned 1-28-020138 22 - - -------- with the curriculum and teaching strategies that were to be used by teachers; they measured the learning-to-read skills that were essential for children becoming independent readers; they provided teachers with necessary diagnostic and summative data; they were developmentally appropriate; their administration procedures met test administration standards for young children; and their results were much likely to be valid and reliable than if a standardized test was used. The Assessments: Achievement Level Tests in Reading and Language Usage The Achievement Level Test (ALT) at grade 2 in reading and language usage was first administered in spring 2000. The AL Ts are a series of tests that are aligned with the Little Rock School District curriculum and the Arkansas state standards. Because the scores are along one continuum over the grade levels, they allow staff and others who are interested to calculate the amount of growth for individual students, classrooms, schools, and the District as a whole from year to year. With the AL Ts, students take tests at a level that matches their current achievement level. The test should be challenging, but neither too difficult nor too easy. Because the tests match the achievement level of the student, teachers receive accurate information that helps them to monitor each student's academic growth. ALTs are not timed, and they take about one hour per subject for most students. The District scores the AL Ts, and the results are returned to the schools as quickly as possible, sometimes within 48 hours. Any retesting that is necessary is completed, so school reports cannot be printed until all testing is finished, and district reports cannot be completed until all schools finish their testing. Reports are also produced for parents, teachers, and administrators. Once a student has been through two administrations of the AL Ts, a trend report is produced for parents that allows them to monitor the growth of their child compared to the growth of the District and the growth of the national group that takes the test. Student progress is reported in a scale score called the Rasch Unit (RIT). It is an equal interval measure. It can be compared to measuring a child's physical growth in inches and then comparing it to an expected growth chart. The test measures achievement growth with a RIT scale and compares the growth to an expected national growth chart. By monitoring the growth of students, staff can pinpoint areas where individual students might need extra help or attention. District staff and Campus Leadership Teams use the information to make data-driven decisions about school improvement plans, curriculum and instructional changes, and professional development needs. The scores are also used in program evaluations. There are four goals/standards that are measured on the reading sub-test: 1. Word Meaning A. Phonetic skills B. Context clues C. Synonyms, antonyms, homonyms D. Component structure (prefix, suffix, origin, roots) E. Multiple meanings 1-28-020139 23 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2. Literal Comprehension A. Recall/identify significant details B. Identify main idea C. Locate information D. Follow directions E. Sequence details 3. Interpretive Comprehension A. Inference B. Identify cause and effect C. Author's purpose D. Prediction E. Summarize F. Identify literacy elements (character, plot, setting, theme, etc.) 4. Evaluative Comprehension A. Evaluate conclusions, validity (supporting context) B. Identify fact and opinion C. Identify literary techniques (figurative language, mood, tone, etc.) D. Distinguish text forms E. Identify bias, stereotypes. Three goals/standards are tested on the Language Usage sub-test: l . Writing Process A. Prewriting skills B. Drafting and revising C. Editing/proofreading D. Choosing appropriate format E. Sentence choice appropriate to purpose F. Paragraph skills (topic and concluding sentences, indenting, etc.) 2. Grammar and Usage A. Sentence patterns B. Phrases and clauses C. Noun forms D. Verb usage: tenses, irregular verbs, subject-verb agreement E. Adjective forms F. Adverb forms G. Pronoun forms H. Pronoun-antecedent agreement I. Negative forms 3. Mechanics A. End punctuation B. Commas C. Apostrophes D. Enclosing punctuation E. Titles F. Beginning capitalization G. Proper nouns and adjectives 1-28-020140 24 H. Capital I The staff made a deliberate decision to delay the use of this formal, group-administered test until the end of second grade. Even then, many teachers, principals, central office staff, and parents question its usefulness in measuring learning-to-read skills and knowledge. The data are included in this program evaluation because they exist and because they provide another measurement of student achievement that may be used to inform decision-making about the program. 1-28-020141 25 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IV. Alignment with National Research on Early Literacy Background on the Context: National Research on Early Literacy A publication of the National Research Council, (1998), Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, is nationally recognized, and it was used to a high degree in the design of the LRSD PreK-2 literacy program. Below is a short summary of the report's recommendations for early learners:       Prekindergarten: Preschool programs .. . should be designed to provide optimal support for cognitive, language, and social development, within this broad focus. However, ample attention should be paid to skills that are knovm to predict future reading achievement, especially those for which a causal role has been demonstrated. Kindergarten: Kindergarten instruction should be designed to stimulate verbal interaction; to enrich children's vocabularies; to encourage talk about books; to provide practice with the sound structure of words; to develop knowledge about print, including the production and recognition of letters; and to generate familiarity with the basic purposes and mechanisms of reading. Beginning readers need explicit instruction and practice that lead to an appreciation that spoken words are made up of smaller units of sounds, familiarity with spelling-sound correspondences and common spelling conventions and their use in identifying printed words, \"sight\" recognition of frequent words, and independent reading, including reading aloud. Fluency should be promoted through practice with a wide variety of wellwritten and engaging tests at the child's own comfortable reading level. Children who have started to read independently, D'J)ically second graders and above, should be encouraged to sound out and confirm the identities of visually unfamiliar words they encounter in the course of reading meaningful texts, recognizing words primarily through attention to their letter-sound relationships. Although context and pictures can be used as a tool to monitor word recognition, children should not be taught to use them to substitute for information provided by the letters in the word. Because the ability to obtain meaning from print depends so strongly on the development of word recognition accuracy and reading fluency, both of the latter should be regularly assessed in the classroom, permitting timely and effective instructional response when difficulty or delay is apparent. Beginning in the earliest grades, instruction should promote comprehension by actively building linguistic and conceptual knowledge 1-28-020142 26    in a rich variety of domains, as well as through direct instruction about comprehension strategies such as summarizing the main idea, predicting events and outcomes of upcoming texts, drawing inferences, and monitoring for coherence and misunderstandings. This instruction can take place while adults read to students or when students read themselves. Once children learn some letters, they should be encouraged to write them, to use them to begin writing words or parts of words, and to use words to begin writing sentences. Instruction should be designed with the understanding that the use of invented spelling is not in conflict with teaching correct spelling. Beginning writing with invented spelling can be helpful for developing understanding of the identity and segmentation of speech sounds and sound-spelling relationships. Conventionally, correct spelling should be developed through focused instruction and practice. Primary-grade children should be expected to spell previously studied words and spelling patterns correctly in their final written products. Writing should take place regularly and frequently to encourage children to become more comfortable and familiar with it. Throughout the early grades, time, materials, and resources should be provided with two goals: (a) to support daily independent reading of texts selected to be of particular interest for the individual student, and beneath the individual student's capacity for independent reading and (b) to support daily assisted or supported reading and rereading of texts that are slightly more difficult in wording or in linguistic, rhetorical, or conceptual structure in order to promote advances in the student's capabilities. Throughout the early grades, schools should promote independent reading outside school by such means as daily at-home reading assignments and expectations, summer reading lists, encouraging parent involvement, and by working with community groups, including pu~lic librarians, who share this goal (7-9). Similar research is quoted, and similar recommendations are found in an earlier study from the Center for the Study of Reading at the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign (1990), Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams. Then in April 2000 with the publication of the findings of the National Reading Panel in their report, Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction, one finds similar findings and recommendations. The research-based practices for kindergarten and primary grades advocated by the International Reading Association (IRA) and the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) in their 1998 position paper, Leaming to Read and Write: Developmentally Appropriate Practices for Young Children, follow: 1-28-020143 27 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I        daily experiences of being read to and independently reading meaningful and engaging stories and informational texts; a balanced instructional program that includes systematic code instruction along with meaningful reading and writing activities; daily opportunities and teacher support to write many kinds of texts for different purposes, including stories, lists, messages to others, poems, reports, and responses to literature; writing experiences that allow the flexibility to use nonconventional forms of writing at first (invented or phonic spelling) and over time move to conventional forms; opportunities to work in small groups for focused instruction and collaboration with other children; an intellectually engaging and challenging curriculum that expands knowledge of the world and vocabulary; and adaptation of instructional strategies or more individualized instruction if the child fails to make expected progress in reading or when literacy skills are advanced (10). This research base under-girds the work of Linda Dorn of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, developer of the Arkansas Early Literacy and Literacy Coach model that is recommended by the Arkansas Department of Education and was adopted by the Little Rock School District. The alignment between the research on what works in early litera~y and the assessments selected by the District to measure children's progress in these pre-reading and early reading skills should be evident when comparing the list of recommended practices cited above and the descriptions of what is tested in the assessments described in the following section.  For example, \"knowledge about print\" is assessed in the sub-test on the Observation Survey called \"Concepts about Print.\"    The \"production and recognition of letters\" is assessed in \"Letter Identification.\" \"Recognition of frequent words\" is assessed in the sub-test, \"Word Test.\" \"Word recognition and reading fluency\" are tested in the \"Word Test\" and on the Developmental Reading Assessment. 1-28-020144 28   \"Writing words and parts of words\" is tested in \"Writing Vocabulary.\" \"Linguistic and conceptual knowledge\" is tested on the Developmental Reading Assessment, in \"Writing Vocabulary,\" and in \"Hearing/Recording Sounds.\" 1-28-020145 29 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I V. Description of Tables Numerous tables displaying test data for each of the three assessments used in K-2 literacy are included in this section. The District-level results only are reported. The tables displaying data for each school on the Observation Survey, the Developmental Reading Assessment, and the Achievement Level Test are in Section IX. Tables lA, 2A, etc. include a calculation of the \"Percent Improvement.\" Some statisticians do not see value in this calculation since it sometimes may mislead a reader. For instance, it is possible to show a greater percent of improvement for a low-performing group than for a higher performing group, even when the lower group gained fewer total points than the higher group. On the other hand, many readers are familiar with the calculation since it is commonly used in the news media to report changes in stock prices, changes in the crime rate, and other reports on issues of interest to the general public. The evaluators made a decision to leave the calculation in the tables in Section V and in the analysis of those tables in Section VI so that the reader may draw his or her own conclusions about their use. They are not used, however, in any way in arriving at the \"findings\" or recommendations for improvement in Section VIII. Table 1 Description Table l displays the mean performance levels of kindergarten black and non-black students in 1999-2000-both the fall pre-test and the spring post-test scores. The third set of data in this table, \"B/NB Ratio,\" is a calculation of the black student scores divided by the white student scores as a method of determining the achievement gap at each stage of testing. For instance, black students entered kindergarten in fall 1999 scoring 0.95, as compared to non-black students who scored 2.72. If one divides 0.95 by 2.72, he/she finds that entering black kindergarten students' scores were 35 percent of non-black kindergarten students' scores. The \"Growth\" column in the first two sets of data is simply a subtraction of the fall scores from the spring scores to determine the year's growth. One can compare/contrast the \"Growth\" columns for black and non-black students to determine whether black students were growing at the same pace as non-black students in terms of total points. The \"Growth\" column in the third set of columns, \"B/NB Ratio,\" is a calculation of the number of points gained by black kindergarten students divided by the number of points gained by non-black kindergarten students. This ratio then defines the degree to which black student growth approximates non-black student growth over the year. Where this ratio is equal to or more than l 00 percent, black student growth for the year equaled or exceeded non-black student growth. 1-28-020146 30 Table I: Kindergarten, 1999-2000 Fall to Spring Black and !'ion-Black Performance lllad, Students l'ion-lllark Studnr, II/II.II Rotio Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth 1999 2000 1999 2000 1999 2000 Letter Identification 27.59 48.48 20.89 34.08 50.30 16.22 81% 96% Word Test 1.75 11.33 9.58 3.05 14.91 11.86 57% 76% Conceots about Print 6.54 14.30 7.76 9.50 17.56 8.06 69% 81% Writin2 Vocabularv 2.93 14.50 I 1.57 4.70 22.13 17.43 62% 66% Hearin1\u0026gt;/R~cordin2 3.58 17.02 13 .44 6.66 24.37 17.71 54% 70% ORA 0.95 3.09 2.14 2.72 7.12 4.40 35% 43% Table 1 A Description Table IA includes the same data for 1999-2000 as Table 1, except for two columns. Rather than compute simply the number of points of \"Growth,\" as Table 1 displays, Table IA includes in that column for both black and non-black students a column called \"Percent Improvement.\" This column indicates the rate of growth. That is, the number of growth points in Table 1 for a given sub-test was divided by the fall score to calculate the growth rate for that year. By comparing the two columns, one can determine whether black students grew at or less/more than the rate of non-black growth on each sub-test. Table 1A: Kindergarten, 1999-2000 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance, with Percent Improvement lll~ck Studrnls l\\nn-lllack S1udr111s Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Percent Fall Spring Growth Percent 1999 2000 lmnrv. 1999 2000 lmnrv. Letter Identification 27.59 48.48 20.89 76% 34.08 50.30 16.22 48% Word Test 1.75 11.33 9.58 547% 3.05 14.91 11.86 389% Concepts about Print 6.54 14.30 7.76 119\"/o 9.50 17.56 8.06 85% Writinl! Vocabularv 2.93 14.50 11.57 395% 4.70 22.13 17.43 371% Hearin1?1Recordin2 3.58 17.02 13.44 375% 6.66 24.37 17.71 266% ORA 0.95 3.09 2.14 225% 2.72 7.12 4.40 162% Table 2 Description Table 2 includes the same data as Table 1 for kindergarten students, except for school year 2000-0 l. Table 2: Kindergarten, 2000-01 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance Hlack s111drnt, !\\on-lllack Students U/MI Ratio Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth 2000 2001 2000 2001 2000 2001 Ratio Letter Identification 27.43 49.38 21.95 33.02 51.06 18.04 83% 97% 122% Word Test 1.38 13.41 12.03 2.59 16.32 13.73 53% 82% 88% Concepts about Print 5.95 16.02 10.07 8.30 18.41 10.11 72% 87% 100% Writing Vocabularv 1.96 18.82 16.86 3.36 26.42 23.06 58% 71% 73% Hearim!/Recordin2 2.16 19.59 17.43 4.66 25.69 21.03 46% 76% 83% ORA 0.35 3.56 3.21 0.85 7.47 6.62 41% 48% 48% Table 2A Description Ratio 129% 81% 96% 66% 76% 49% Table 2A includes the same data as Table IA for kindergarten students, except for school year 2000-01. 1-28-020147 31 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 2A: Kindergarten, 2000--01 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance, With Percent Improvement lllackStull,nh 1\\011-lllack Stullcnls Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth , Percent Fall Spring Growth Percent 2000 2001 lmorv. 2000 2001 lmorv. Lener Identification 27.43 49.38 21.95 80% 33.02 51.06 18.04 55% Word Test 1.38 13.41 12.03 872% 2.59 16.32 13.73 530% Concepts about Print 5.95 16.02 10.o7 169% 8.30 18.41 10.11 122% Writinl! Vocabulary 1.96 18.82 16.86 860% 3.36 26.42 23.06 686% Hearim?1Recordin2 2.16 19.59 17.43 807% 4.66 25.69 21.03 451% DRA 0.35 3.56 3.21 917% 0.85 7.47 6.62 779% Table 3 Description Table 3 includes the same data for 1999-2000 as Table 1, except Table 3 displays grade 1 data. Table 3: Grade 1, 1999-2000 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance lllack Students l\\nn-lllack St111knts 11/1\\ll Ratio Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth 1999 2000 1999 2000 1999 2000 Ratio Letter Identification 47.44 52.80 5.36 49.54 52.96 3.42 96% 100% 157% Word Test 5.75 16.87 11.12 7.89 18.34 10.45 73% 92% 106% Conceots about Print 13.81 19.46 5.65 15.70 20.91 5.21 88% 93% 108% Writin2 Vocabularv 13.54 37.11 23.57 15.65 44.04 28.39 87% 84% 83% Hearim!/Recordin2 17.25 30.87 13.62 21.98 34.l l 12.13 78% 91% 112% DRA 4.29 16.67 12.38 6.68 24.37 17.69 64% 68% 70% Table 3A Description Table 3A includes the same data for 1999-2000 as Table IA. except Table 3A displays grade I data. Table 3A: Grade I, 1999-2000 Fall to SprinG Black and Non-Black Performance. With Percent Improvement lllack Studrnh l\\nn-lllack Students Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Percent Fall Spring Gro,.1b Percent 1999 2000 lmorv. 1999 2000 - Imorv. Lener Identification 47.44 52.80 5.36 11% 49.54 52.96 3.42 7% Word Test 5.75 16.87 11.12 193% 7.89 18.34 10.45 132% Conccots about Print 13.81 19.46 5.65 41% 15.70 20.91 5.21 33% Writing Vocabularv 13.54 37.11 23.57 174% 15.65 44.04 28.39 181% Hearin g/Recording 17.25 30.87 13.62 79% 21.98 34.11 12.13 55% DRA 4.29 16.67 12.38 289\"/o 6.68 24.37 17.69 265% Table 4 Description Table 4 displays the same data for 2000-2001 as Table 2, except Table 4 displays grade 2 data. 1-28-020148 32 Table 4: Grade I, 2000--01 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance lllack Sludcnh l\\on-lllack Student. 11/:\\11 Ratio Suh-Test Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth 2000 2001 2000 2001 2000 2001 Ratio Letter ldenti Ii cation 48.95 53.01 4.06 49.66 53.08 3.42 99% 100% 119% Word Test 5.81 17.33 11.52 8.49 18.53 10.04 68% 94% 115% Conccots about Print 13.51 19.76 6.25 16.11 21.22 5.11 84% 93% 122% Writin2 Vocabulary 12.94 40.16 27.22 16.15 45.44 29.29 80/c, 88% 93% HeaJinc,IRecordin2 17.49 31.70 14.21 23.55 34.40 10.85 74% 92% 131% ORA 3.72 17.94 14.22 7.95 25.41 17.46 47% 71% 81% Table 4A Description Table 4A displays the same data for 2000-2001 as Table 2A, except Table 4A displays grade 2 data. Table 4A: Grade I, 2000--01 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance, With Percent Improvement lllack Studcnl, 1\\1111-lllack Student\\ Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Percent Fall Spring Growth Percent 2000 2001 lmprv. 2000 2001 lmprv. Lener Identification 48.95 53.01 4.06 8% 49.66 53.08 3.42 7% Word Test 5.81 17.33 11.52 198% 8.49 18.53 10.04 118% Conceots about Print 13.51 19.76 6.25 46% 16.11 21.22 5.11 32% Writin2 Vocabulary 12.94 40.16 27.22 210% 16.15 45.44 29.29 181% Hearin2/Recordin2 17.49 31.70 14.21 81% 23.55 34.40 10.85 46% ORA 3.72 17.94 14.22 382% 7.95 25.41 17.46 220% Table 5 Description Table 5 includes the same data for 1999-2000 as Table 1, except Table 5 displays grade 2 data. Letter Identification and Concepts about Print are not administered after grade 1. Table 5: Grade 2, 1999-2000 Fall to Spring Black aod Non-Black Performance lllack Sludcnh l\\nn-lllack Srud,nts 11/:\\U Ratio Sul\u0026gt;-Ttst Fall Spring Growth Fall Sprini: Growth Fall Spring Growth 1999 2000 1999 2000 1999 2000 Ratio Word Test 16.11 18.93 2.82 18.07 19.80 1.73 89% 96% 163% Writing Vocabulary 35.09 50.27 15.18 36.91 60.99 24.08 95% 82% 63% Hcaring/Recordin2 42.16 50.34 8.18 48.96 57.17 8.21 86% 88% 100% ORA 17.81 27.92 JO.II 24.21 36.00 11.79 74% 78% 86% Table 5A Description Table 5A displays the same data for 1999-2000 as Table IA except Table 5A displays grade 2 data. 1-28-020149 33 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table SA: Grade 2, 1999-2000 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance, With Percent Improvement lllatk Studl'nls l\\cm-lllack Stud,nh Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Percent Fall Spring Grol'1h Percent 1999 2000 lmnrv. 1999 2000 lmnrv. Word Test 16.1 I 18.93 2.82 18% 18.07 19.80 1.73 10%, Writinl( Vocabularv 35.09 50.27 15.18 43% 36.91 60.99 24.08 65% Hearinu/Recordin2 42.16 50.34 8.18 19% 48.96 57.17 8.21 17% DRA 17.81 27.92 JO. I I 57% 24.21 36.00 11.79 49\"/o Table 6 Description Table 6 displays the same data for 2000-2001 as Table 2, except Table 6 displays grade 2 data. Table 6: Grade 2, 2000-01 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance lllack Students l\\nn-lllack Studl'nls 11/llill Ratio Sub-Telil Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth 2000 2001 2000 2001 2000 2001 Ratio Word Test 16.00 18.06 2.06 17.60 18.91 1.31 91% 96% 157% Writing Vocabularv 29.80 55.76 25.96 35.43 63 .97 28.54 84% 87% 91% Hearim?!Recordin2 45.50 51.60 6.10 52.44 56.78 4.34 87% 91% 141% DRA 18.20 28.75 10.55 26.01 35.88 9.87 70% 80% 107% Table 6A Description Table 6A displays the same data for 2000-2001 as Table 2A, except Table 6A displays grade 2 data. Table 6A: Grade 2, 2000-01 Fall to Spring Black and Non-Black Performance, With Percent Improvement lllack Stud,nts l\\nn-lllack Students Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Percent Fall Spring Growth Percent 2000 2001 lmnrv. 2000 2001 lmnrv. Word Test 16.00 18.06 2.06 13% 17.60 18.91 1.31 7% Writin2 Vocabularv 29.80 55.76 25.96 87% 35.43 63 .97 28.54 81% Heari n11./Recordin2 45.50 51.60 6.10 13% 52.44 56.78 4.34 8% DRA 18.20 2875 10.55 58% 26.01 35.88 9.87 38% Table 7 Description Table 7 displays black and non-black students' performance for a cohort of students as they moved from kindergarten in fall 1999-2000 to the end of grade 1 in spring 2000-01 . In other words, the table displays the evidence of two years of growth. Although the data include all students enrolled for the full year each of the two years, not just those who were in LRSD for both years, they provide a good picture of the growth of a cohort of students over a two-year period, while Tables 1-6 compared different groups of students at a given grade level. The black/non-black ratios that are displayed in the third set of columns were calculated by dividing the black student scores by the non-black scores. Where the growth is at or above 100 percent in the last column indicates that black growth over the two-year period was more than that of non-black growth, based on total points of growth. 1-28-020150 34 Table 7: Cohort I Kindergarten, Fall 1999-2000 and Grade I, Spring 2000-01 lllack Stud~nh Non-lllack Student, 11/lliB Ralio Sub-Tut Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Gro.,tb Fall Spring Gro,.th 1999 2001 1999 2001 1999 2001 Ralio Letter Identification 27.59 53.01 25.42 34.08 53.08 19.00 81% 100% 134% Word Test 1.75 17.33 15.58 3.05 18.53 15.48 57% 94% 101% Concepts about Print 6.54 19.76 13.22 9.50 21.22 11.72 69% 93% 113% Writing Vocabulary 2.93 40.16 37.23 4.70 45.44 40.74 62% 88% 91% Hearing/Recording 3.58 31.70 28.12 6.66 34.40 27.74 54% 92% 101,~ DRA 0.95 17.94 16.99 2.72 25.41 22.69 35% 71% 75% Table 7 A Description Table 7 A displays the same data as Table 7 except that instead of the number of \"Growth\" points being displayed in the third column for black and non-black students, the table includes \"Percent Improvement.\" This calculation was the result of dividing the number of growth points in Table 7 by the fall 1999 score for black and then non-black students to determine the growth rate. A comparison of these two columns will reveal the degree to which the program is especially effective for African-American students, as compared to non-black students. Sub-Test Lener ldenrificarion Word Test Concepts about Print Writing Vocabulary Heari nj!{Recordinl! DRA Table 8 Description Table 7A: Cohort I-Percent Improvement Kindergarten, Fall 1999-2000 and Grade I, Spring 2000--01 lllack S1udents Non-Black Studenh Fall Spring Growth Percenl Fall Spring Growth 1999 2001 Jmprv. 1999 2001 27.59 53.01 25.42 92% 34.08 53.08 19.00 1.75 17.33 15.58 890% 3.05 18.53 15.48 6.54 19.76 13.22 202% 9.50 21.22 11.72 2.93 40.16 37.23 1271% 4.70 45.44 40.74 3.58 31.70 28.12 785% 6.66 34.40 27.74 0.95 17.94 16.99 1788% 2.72 25.41 22.69 Percenl lmprv. 56% 508% 123% 867% 417% 834% Table 8 is similar to Table 7, except that the cohort data displayed if for fall 1999-2000 grade 1 black and non-black students and spring 2000-2001 grade 2 black and non-black students. Letter Identification and Concepts about Print were not administered after grade 1. Table 8: Cohort 2 Grade I, Fall 1999-2000 and Grade 2, Spring 2000--01 Ulock Sludents 1'011-Black Studlnls 81!\\8 Ratio Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth 1999 2001 1999 2001 1999 2001 Ratio Lener Identification 47.44 NIA 49.54 NIA 96% NIA Word Test 5.75 18.06 12.31 7.89 18.91 11.02 73% 96% 112% 13.81 NIA 15.70 NIA 88% NIA Writin 13.54 55.76 42.22 15.65 63.97 48.32 87% 87% 87% Hearin 17.25 51.60 34.35 21.98 56.78 34.80 78% 91% 99% DRA 4.29 28.75 24.46 6.68 35.88 29.20 64% 80% 84% '\\-28-020'\\ 5'\\ 35 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 8A Description See description of Table 7A and 8 above. Table 8A: Cohort 2,-Percent Improvement Grade 1, Fall 1999-2000 and Grade 2, Spring 2000-01 lllark Studrnls l\\on-lllark Studtnh Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Percent Fall Spring Growth 1999 2001 lmnrv. 1999 2001 Lener Identification 47.44 NIA 49.54 NIA Word Test 5.75 18.06 12.31 214% 7.89 18.91 11.02 Concepts about Print 13.81 NIA 15.70 NIA Writing Vocabulary 13.54 55.76 42.22 312% 15.65 63.97 48.32 Heannj!/Recordin2 17.25 51.60 34.35 199% 21.98 56.78 34.80 DRA 4.29 28.75 24.46 570% 6.68 35.88 29.20 Table 9 Description Percent lmprv. 140\"/o 309% 158% 437% Table 9 displays the kindergarten, grade 1, and grade 2 performance of all students in 1999-2000, including the amount of fall to spring growth on each sub-test. This table includes only those students who were present for both fall and spring testing, not all those enrolled. Table 9: Grades K-2, 1999-2000 Fall to Spring Performance, All Students h:ind1rj!artrn c;rade I Gradr2 Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth 1999 2000 1999 2000 1999 2000 Lener Identification 29.72 49.05 19.33 48.11 52.86 4.75 Word Test 2.18 12.48 10.30 6.43 17.34 10.91 16.76 19.23 2.47 Concepts about Print 7.52 15.37 7.85 14.41 19.91 5.50 Writin11: Vocabulary 3.51 16.99 13.48 14.20 39.30 25.10 35.71 53.80 18.09 HearinJ!/Recordin11: 4.59 19.41 14.82 18.75 31.89 13.14 44.34 52.51 8.17 DRA 1.52 4.40 2.88 5.05 19.11 14.06 19.85 30.50 10.65 Table 9A Description Table 9A calculates the growth rate for all students from fall to spring in 1999-2000. Table 9A: Grades K-2, 1999-2000 Fall to Spring Performance, All Students, with Percent of Improvement h:inderj!nrtrn (iradr I Grade 2 Sub-Test Fall Spring Percent Fall Spring Percent Fall Spring Percent 1999 2000 lmnrv. 1999 2000 lmnrv. 1999 2000 lmnrv. Lener Identification 29.72 49.05 65% 48.11 52.86 10% NIA Word Test 2.18 12.48 472% 6.43 17.34 170% 16.76 19.23 15% Conceots about Print 7.52 15.37 104% 14.41 19.91 38% NIA Writin2 Vocabulary 3.51 16.99 384% 14.20 39.30 177% 35.71 53 .80 51% Heatin~IRecordin2 4.59 19.41 323% 18.75 31.89 70% 44.34 52.51 18% DRA 1.52 4.40 189% 5.05 19.11 278% 19.85 30.50 54% 1-28-020152 36 --- ---- ----- - ----- Table 10 Description Table 10 is similar to Table 9 except that it includes 2000-2001 data for all students. Table 10: Grades K-2, 2000-01 Fall to Spring Performance, All Students h:inderi:artcn \u0026lt;.rade I Gradc2 Sub-Test Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth Fall Spring Growth 2000 2001 2000 2001 2000 2001 Letter Identification 29.05 49.79 20.74 49.07 53.02 3.95 Word Test 1.81 14.29 12.48 6.68 17.67 10.99 16.48 18.33 1.85 Concepts about Print 6.67 16.75 10.08 14.29 20.21 5.92 Writing Vocabulary 2.41 21.07 18.66 14.02 41.72 27.70 31.59 58.35 26.76 Hearinl!/Recording 3.00 21.42 18.42 19.46 32.48 13.02 47.53 53.07 5.54 DRA 0.52 4.80 4.28 5.10 20.24 15.14 20.56 30.93 10.37 Table 1 OA Description See description of Table 9A and 10 above. Table JOA: Grades K-2, 2000--01 Fall to Spring Performance, All Students, With Percent or Improvement Kindtrcarltn (;rndc 1 (;rade 2 Sub-Test Fall Spring Percent Fall Spring Percent Fall Spring Percent 2000 2001 lmorv. 2000 2001 lmorv. 2000 2001 lmnrv. Lener Identification 29.05 49.79 71% 49.07 53.02 8% NIA Word Test 1.81 14.29 690\"/o 6.68 17.67 165% 16.48 18.33 11% Concepts about Print 6.67 16.75 151% 14.29 20.21 41% NIA Writing Vocabulary 2.41 21.07 774% 14.02 41.72 198% 31.59 58.35 85% HearinivRccordinR 3.00 21.42 614% 19.46 32.48 67% 47.53 53.07 12% DRA 0.52 4.80 823% 5.10 20.24 297% 20.56 30.93 50% Table 11 Description Table 11 displays for each sub-test the percent of the maximum score that black kindergarten students on average attained for school years 1999-2000 and 2000-01 . Each test score is divided by the maximum score to calculate the percent score. Sub-Test l\\ln. Letter Identification 54 Word Test 20 Concepts about Print 24 Writing Vocabulary None Heannj!/Rccording 37 DRA 44 Table 12 Description Table 11: Percent or Maximum Scores-Kindergarten Black Students Fall Pcncnt Spring Percent an 1999 2000 2000 27.59 51% 48.48 90\"/o 27.43 1.75 9% 11.33 57% 1.38 6.54 27% 14.30 60% 5.95 2.93 NIA 14.50 NIA 1.96 3.58 10% 17.02 46% 2.16 0.95 2% 3.09 7% 0.35 l'crcent Spring 1'11rcent 2001 51% 49.38 91% 7% 13.41 67% 25% 16.02 67% NIA 18.82 NIA 6% 19.59 53% 1% 3.56 8% See Table 11. Table 12 is the same, except that the data are for non-black students. 1-28-020153 37 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Sub-lc,t Max. Letter Identification 54 Word Test 20 Concepts about Print 24 Writin11 Vocabulary None HearinltfRecordin11 37 DRA 44 Table 13 Description Table 12: Percent of l\\luimum Scores-Kindergarten Non-Black Students au P,rccnt Sprini: l'crc,nt Fall 1999 2000 2000 34.08 63% 50.30 93% 33.02 3.05 15% 14.91 75% 2.59 9.50 40% 17.56 73% 8.30 4.70 NIA 22.13 NIA 3.36 6.66 18% 24.37 66% 4.66 2.72 6% 7.12 16% 0.85 Pcrc.,nl Spri111: 2001 61% 51.06 13% 16.32 35% 18.41 NIA 26.42 13% 25.69 2% 7.47 See Table 11. Table 12 is the same, except that the data are for all students. Sub-Test !\\lax. Letter Identification 54 Word Test 20 Conceots about Print 24 Writing Vocabulary None Hearing/RecordinJZ 37 DRA 44 Table 14 Description Table 13: Percent of Maximum Scores-Kindergarten All Students Fall Perca,nt Spring l'crccnt fall 1999 2000 2000 29.72 55% 49.05 91% 29.05 2.18 11% 12.48 62% 1.81 7.52 31% 15.37 64% 6.67 3.51 NIA 16.99 NIA '.!.42 4.59 12% 19.41 52% 3.00 1.52 3% 4.40 10% 0.52 Percent Spring 2001 54% 49.79 9% 14.29 28% 16.75 NIA 21.07 8% 21.42 1% 4.80 Percmt 95% 82% 77% NIA 69% 17% Percent 92% 71% 70% NIA 58% 11% See Table 11 description. This table is the same, except that the data are for grade 1 students. Sub-Test l\\lax. Letter Identification 54 Word Test 20 Concepts about Print 24 Writing Vocabulary None Hearinu!Recordin2 37 DRA 44 Table 15 Description Table 14: Percent of Mui mum Scores-Grade 1 Black Studenu 'Fall l'crccnt Sprini: l'crccnt Fall 1999 2000 '2000 47 .44 88% 52.80 98% 48.95 5.15 29%, 16.87 S4% 5.81 13.81 58% 19.46 81% 13.51 13.54 NIA 37.11 NIA 12.94 17.25 47% 30.87 83% 17.49 4.29 10% 16.67 38% 3.72 Percent Spring Percent 2001 91% 53.01 98% 29% 17.33 87% 56% 19.76 82% NIA 40.16 NIA  47% 31.70 86% 8% 17.94 41% See Table 11 description. This table is the same except that the data are for grade 1 non-  black students. Sub-Test Mu. Letter Identification 54 Word Test 20 Concepts about Print 24 WritinJZ Vocabulary None Hearing/Recording 37 DRA 44 Table 15: Percent of Maximum Scores-Grade 1 Non-Black Students Fall Percent Sprlni: Percent Fall 1999 2000 2000 49.54 92% 52.96 98% 49.66 7.89 39% 18.34 92% 8.49 15.70 65% 20.91 87% 16.11 15.65 NIA 44.04 NIA 16.15 21.98 59% 34.11 92% 23.55 6.68 15% 24.37 55% 7.95 l'crcent Spring l'ercent 2001 92% 53.08 98% 42% 18.53 93% 67% 21.22 88% NIA 45.44 NIA 64% 34.40 93% 18% 25 .41 58% 1-28-020154 38 Table 16 Description See Table 11 description. This table is the same except that the data are for grade I-all students. Sub-Test l\\ln. Letter Identification 54 Word Test 20 Concepts about Print 24 Writing Vocabulary None Hearing/Recording 37 ORA 44 Table 17 Description Table 16: Percent of Maximum Scores-Grade 1 All Students l'all l'ercent Spring Percent Fall 1999 2000 2000 48.11 89% 52.86 98% 49.07 6.43 32% 17.34 87% 6.68 14.41 60% 19.91 83% 14.29 14.20 NIA 39.30 NIA 14.02 18.75 51% 31.89 86% 19.46 5.05 11% 19.11 43% 5.10 Percent Spring l'erccnt 2001 91% 53.02 98% 33% 17.67 88% 60% 20.21 84% NIA 41.72 NIA 53% 32.48 88% 12% 20.24 46% See Table 11 description. This table is the same except that the data are for grade 2 black students. Sub-Tt,st !\\lax. Word Test 20 Writing Vocabulary None Hearinl!iRecordinl! 64 ORA 44 Table 18 Description Table 17: Percent of Mui mum Scores-Grade 2 Black Students f\"all Pl'rcent Spring l'ncent Fall 1999 2000 2000 16.11 81% 18.93 95% 16.00 35.09 NIA 51.27 NIA 29.80 42.16 66% 50.34 79% 45.50 17.81 40% 27.92 63% 18.20 l'ercent Spring Percent 2001 80% 18.06 90% NIA 55.76 NIA 71% 51.60 81% 41% 28.75 65% See Table 11 description. This table is the same except that the data are for grade 2 nonblack students. Sub-Test !\\lax. Word Test 20 Writing Vocabularv None Hearinl!/Recordinl! 64 ORA 44 Table 19 Description Table 18: Percent of Maximum Scores-Grade 2 Noa-Black Students Fall Percent Sprini: l'crcent Fall 1999 2000 2000 18.07 90% 19.80 99\"/o 17.60 36.91 NIA 60.99 NIA 35.43 48.96 77% 57.17 89% 52.44 24.21 55% 36.00 82% 26.01 Percent Spring Percent 2001 88% 18.91 95% NIA 63.97 NIA 82% 56.78 89% 59% 35.88 82% See Table 11 description. This table is the same except that the data are for grade 2-all students. Sub-Trst !\\lax. Word Test 20 Writine: Vocabularv None Hearinl!IRccordine: 64 ORA 44 Table 19: Percent of Maximum Scorn-Grade 2 All Students Fall l'ernnt Sprin~ Percent Fall 1999 2000 2000 16.76 84% 19.23 96% 16.48 35.71 NIA 53.80 NIA 31.59 44.34 69% 52.51 82% 47.53 19.85 45% 30.50 69% 20.56 Percent Spring l'crccnt 2001 82% 18.33 92% NIA 58.35 NIA 74% 53 .07 83% 47% 30.93 70% 1-28-020155 39 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 20 Description Table 20 displays the all-student cohort data for fall 1999-2000 kindergarten students and end-of-year 2000-01 grade 1 students. Table 20: Cohort I-All Students Kindergarten, fall 1999-2000 and Grade I, Spring 200~1 Suh.\"l\u0026lt;'\u0026lt;I Fall 1999 Sprin:? 2001 (;rm,th Letter Identification 29.72 53.02 23.30 Word Tesl 2.18 17.67 15.49 Concepts aboul Print 7.52 20.21 12.69 Writinl! Yocabularv 3.51 41.72 38.21 Hearine/Recordin2 4.59 32.48 27.89 ORA 1.52 20.24 18.72 Table 20A Description Table 20A calculates the growth rate for the fall 1999-2000 kindergarten and 2000-01 grade! cohort. Table 20A: Cohort I-All Students, Percent Improvement IGndergarten, Fall 1999-2000 and Grade I, Spring 2~1 Suh-1 c,1 F:ill 1999 Sprinl! :?001 (;rm,th 0/.,lmpn. Letter Identification 29.72 53.02 23.30 78% Word Test 2.18 17.67 15.49 711% Conceots abou1 Print 7.52 20.21 12.69 169% Writine Yocabularv 3.51 41.72 38.21 1089\"/4 Hcaring/RecordinR 4.59 32.48 27.89 608% ORA 1.52 20.24 18.72 1232% Table 21 Description Table 21 is similar to Table 20 except that it includes the fall 1999-2000 grade I and endof- year 2000-2001 grade 2 cohort data. Table 21: Cohort 2-AII Students Grade 1, Fall 1999-2000 and Grade 2. Spring 2001 Suh-1 l'St Fall 1999 Spri111? 2001 Grnnlh Letter Identification 48.11 NIA Word Test 6.43 18.33 11.90 Conccnts about Print 14.41 NIA Writine Vocabularv 14.20 58.35 44.15 Hearine/Recordine 18.75 53.07 34.32 ORA 5.05 30.93 25.88 Table 21A Description See description of Table 20A and 21 above. 1-28-020156 40 Table 21A: Cohort 2--AII Students, Percent Improvement Grade I, Fall 1999-2000 and Grade 2, Spring 2001 Suh-1.,,t Fall 1999 Spring 2001 \u0026lt;iro\\\\th %lmpn. Letter ldcntifica1ion 48.11 NIA NIA Word Test 6.43 18.33 11.90 185% Conceots about Print 14.41 NIA NIA Writin~ Vocabulary 14.20 58.35 44.15 311% Hearinl!IRccordinl! 18.75 53.07 34.32 183% DRA 5.05 30.93 25.88 512% Table 22 Description Table 22 includes for the Developmental Reading Assessment at all three grades tested the percent of black and non-black students who scored at or above the \"readiness\" level. Also shown is the perfonnance disparity (gap) between blacks and non-blacks for each of the two years of the testing data and, in the last column, the difference between those gaps. Table 22 Percent Readiness, Developmental Reading Assessment Black and Non-Black Students Gradt: Black 1'011-II Gap lllacl, :\\011-B Gap +I-Spr. 2000 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2001 K10der 69.3 84.7 15.4 77.0 88.8 I 1.8 3.60 Grade I 48.3 71.2 22.9 57.4 77.3 19.9 -3 .00 Grade 2 63.8 81.6 17.8 69.8 86.8 17.0 -0.80 Table 23 Description Table 23 provides District-level data on the percent of students at each grade level who scored at or above the \"readiness\" level for each of the two years of the testing. Kinder,:art Spr. 2000 72.2 I Table 24 Description Table 23 Percent Readiness, Developmental Reading Assessment All Students Grade I pr. 2000 Spr. 200 63.8 Table 24 includes District-level ALT data on the perfonnance of black, non-black, and all students on the spring 2000 and spring 2001 administrations of the Reading and Language Usage sub-tests of the Achievement Level Tests for grade 2. Table 24 Grade 2 Reading, Achievement Level Test Median RIT Scores, Black and Non-Black Comparisons 1-28-C,20157 41 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 25 Description Table 25 includes the median RIT score on the grade 2 Achievement Level Test- Reading for spring 2000 and spring 2001 . Table 2S Grade 2 Reading, Achievement Level Test Median RJT Scores, All Students Spr. 2001 ffllrk,iit\u0026amp; 183 21 Table 26 Description Table 26 is the same as Table 24, except that the data display the results of the Language Usage sub-test. Table26 Grade 2 Langua~ Usage, Achievement Level Test Median RJT Scores, Black and Non-Black Comparisons r:-u7m# : .. ,..196a .~-14 ,\"118:4 ilil19:6 11-1 21 1 Table 27 Description Table 27 is the same as Table 25, except the data display the results of the Language Usage sub-test. Table 27 Grade 2 Language Usage, Achit\\'ement Level Test Median RJT Scores, All Students rffi\"m Spr. 2001 188 1-28-020158 42 - -- - ------ ------- VI. Analysis of Results, 1999-2000 and 2000-01 For each sub-test of the Observation Survey and for the Developmental Reading Assessment at grades K-2 and for each sub-test of the Achievement Level Tests at grade 2, results are analyzed below in several ways, particularly in what they reveal about the achievement of African American children. Letter Identification Letter identification is tested at the kindergarten and grade I level. Out of a maximum of 54 points, students performed on this measure as follows in 1999-2000 and 2000-01: Fall and Spring Performance Comparisons  Black kindergarten students scored 27.59 on the fall test in 1999-2000 and 27.43 in fall 2000-01--a difference of .16. Although the 2000-01 group performed at a slightly lower level on the fall test than those in 1999-2000, they ended the year a little stronger--from 48.48 in spring 1999-2000 to 49.38 in spring 2000-01--a difference of .90. (See Tables 1 and 2.)    Non-black kindergarten students scored 34.08 on the fall 1999-2000 test and 33.02 in fall 2000-01--a difference of 1.06. Non-black kindergarten students,just as blacks, started lower in fall 2000-01 than in fall 1999- 2000, yet they too ended the year a little stronger than the previous year's group--from 50.30 in 1999-2000 to 51.06 in 2000-01--a difference of.76. (See Tables l and 2.) Black grade 1 students scored 4 7.44 on Letter Identification in fall 1999 and 48.95 in fall 2000--an improvement of 1.51 points, perhaps indicating the strength of the 1999-2000 kindergarten instructional program for African-American students, even in its first year of implementation. As in kindergarten, the grade 1 black students in 2000-0J ended the year stronger than the grade 1 black students in 1999-2000--from 52.80 in spring 2000 to 53.01 in spring 2001--a difference of .21. (See Tables 3 and 4.) Non-black grade 1 students scored 49.54 in fall 1999 and 49.66 in fall 2000--a difference of .12. As in kindergarten and as for black students, the grade 1 non-black students ended spring 2001 at a higher level than they were in spring 2000--from 52.96 in 2000 to 53.08 in 2001--a difference of .12--the same amount of difference, then, as the fall to fall scores. (See Tables 3 and 4.) 1-28-020159 43 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I One-Year Growth Black kindergarten students grew 20.89 points on Letter Identification in 1999-2000 and 21.95 points in 2000-01, again indicating more growth in the second year of the program implementation than in year one for African-American students. (See Tables 1 and 2.)   Non-black kindergarten students also grew more in the second year of the program--from 16.22 points in 1999-2000 to 18.04 in 2000-01. (See  Tables 1 and 2.) Black grade 1 students grew 5.36 points in Letter Identification in 1999- 2000 and 4.06 in 2000-01 . Perhaps the reason for the declining amount of growth was that the 2000-01 grade 1 students were closer to the maximum score in 2000-01 than they were in 1999-2000. (See Tables 3 and 4.)  Non-black grade 1 students grew 3.42 points in both 1999-2000 and 2000- 01. (See Tables 3 and 4.) Growth Rate {Percent Improvement)  Black kindergarten students' percent improvement (rate of growth) in 1999-2000 on Letter Identification was 76 percent, as compared to 80 percent in 2000-01. (See Tables lA and 2A.)  Non-black students' percent improvement in 1999-2000 was 48 percent as compared to 55 percent in 2000-01. (See Tables IA and 2A.)  Black grade l students' percent improvement in 1999-2000 was 11 percent, as compared to 8 percent in 2000-01. (See Tables 3A and 4A.)  Non-black grade 1 students' percent improvement. was 7 percent in both 1999-2000 and 2000-01. (See Tables 3A and 4A.) Kindergarten Spring and Grade 1 Fall Comparison  Black kindergarten students ended the 1999-2000 school year with a score of 48.48, and they entered grade 1 with a score of 48.95--a slight improvement of .4 7, indicating no regression over the summer. (See  Tables 1 and 4.) Non-black kindergarten students ended the 1999-2000 year with a score of 50.30, and they entered grade 1 in 2000-01 with a score of 49.66- a slight regression over the summer of .64. (See Tables 1 and 4.) 1-28-020160 44 Black to Non-Black Ratios  In fall 1999 the black kindergarten students ' scores on Letter Identification were 81 percent those of non-black students. By the end of that year their scores were 96 percent of those of non-black students--indicating an improvement of 15 percentage points. The achievement gap was virtually closed, therefore, on this measure by the end of the kindergarten year.   (See Table I.) In fall 2000 the black kindergarten students' scores started the year at 83 percent of those of non-black students--two points higher than they were at the beginning of the previous kindergarten class. By the end of the year their scores were 97 percent of those of non-black students--one point closer to closing the achievement gap on this measure than at the end of the previous kindergarten year. (See Table 2.) In fall 1999 the black grade 1 students' scores were 96 percent of those of non-black students. By the end of the year their scores were almost exactly the same as non-black students--I 00 percent. The achievement gap was closed on this measure. (See Table 3.)  Again in fall 2000 the black grade I students' scores were 99 percent of those of non-black students, and by the end of the year the achievement gap closed when black scores were 100 percent of non-black scores on this measure. (See Table 4.) Black to Non-Black Growth Ratios  In 1999-2000 black kindergarten student growth was 129 percent ofnonblack student growth. In 2000-01 black kindergarten growth continued to exceed non-black growth--this time at 122 percent. (See Tables 1 and 2.)  In 1999-2000 black grade 1 student growth was 157 percent of non-black student growth. That pattern continued in 2000-01 when black grade 1 growth was 119 percent of non-black growth. (See Tables 3 and 4.) Kindergarten--Grade 1 Cohort {Fall 1999 to Spring 2001)  Black kindergarten students grew from 27.59 in fall 1999 to 53.01 in spring 2000-01 when they were in grade 1--a total of25.42 points. (See Table 7.)  Non-black kindergarten students grew from 34.08 in fall 1999 to 53.08 in spring 2001 when they were in grade 1--a total of 19.00 points. (See Table 7.) 1-28-020161 45 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I K.indergarten--Grade 1 Cohort (Fall 1999 to Spring 2001) Growth Rate  Black kindergarten students' percent improvement from fall 1999-2000 to spring 2000-01 in grade 1 was 92 percent. Given that black students began kindergarten knowing a little more than half of their letters, they almost doubled their knowledge in this area over the two-year period. (See Table 7A.)  Non-black kindergarten students' percent improvement from fall 1999 to spring 2001 in grade l was 56 percent. Even though black students grew at a rate considerably higher than non-black students over the two years, non-black students continued also to improve. (See Table 7 A.) Black to Non-Black Ratios for Kindergarten to Grade 1 Cohort  In fall 1999 the black kindergarten students' scores were 81 percent of those of non-black students. By the end of grade 1, the achievement gap was closed with black scores at 100 percent of non-black scores. (See Table 7.)  During the two-year period the black growth was 134 percent of non-black growth on this measure. (See Table 7.) 1-28-020162 46 Word Test The Word Test, with a maximum score of 20, is administered at all three grades levels, K-2. Observations about student performance in 1999-2000 and 2000-01 follow: Fall and Spring Performance Comparisons  Black kindergarten students scored 1. 75 on the fall test in 1999-2000 and 1.38 in fall 2000-01--a difference of .37, repeating the pattern seen on the Letter Identification test--slightly lower perfonnance in fall 2000 than in fall 1999. Again, however, just as in Letter Identification, the spring 2001 scores were higher than they were in spring 2000. The spring 2000 score was 11.33, and the spring 2001 score was 13.41--a difference of 2.08 points--a good increase in decoding skill. (See Tables l and 2.)      Non-black kindergarten students scored 3.05 in fall 1999 and 2.59 in fall 2000--a slightly lower score, .46 lower. Again the pattern holds, however. The spring 2001 scores were higher than the spring 2000 scores--from 14.91 in spring 2000 to 16.32 in spring 2001--a difference of 1.41 points. (See Tables 1 and 2.) Black grade I students scored 5.75 on the Word Test in fall 1999 and 5.81 in fall 2000--continuing the pattern of higher scores at the beginning of the year for students who had been in the program two years. Also, black students in spring 2001 had higher scores than those in spring 2000. Spring 2000 scores for grade I black students were 16.87, and they were 17.33 in spring 2001--a difference of .46 points. (See Tables 3 and 4.) Non-black grade I students scored 7.89 in fall 1999 and 8.49 in fall 2000-an increase of .60. In spring 2000 the scores were 18.34, and in spring 2001 they were 18.53--again higher by .19. (See Tables 3 and 4.) Black grade 2 students scored 16.11 in fall 1999 an the Word Test and 16.00 in fall 2000--down .11. The spring performance for 2000 was 18.93, and the spring performance for 2001 was 18.06--down .87. (See Tables 5 and 6.) Non-black grade 2 students scored 18.07 in fall 1999 and 17.60 in fall 2000--down .47 from the previous year. The spring performance for 2000 was 19.80 and for spring 2001 18.91--down .90. (See Tables 5 and 6.) One-Year Growth  Black kindergarten students grew 9.58 points in 1999-2000 and 12.03 points in 2000-01, again indicating more growth the second year of the program implementation than in year one. (See Tables 1 and 2)  Non-black kindergarten students grew 11.86 points in 1999-2000 and 13.73 points in 2000-01. (See Tables I and 2.) 1-28-020163 47 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I  Black grade 1 students grew 11 .12 points in 1999-2000 and 11.52 points in 2000-01 . (See Tables 3 and 4.)  Non-black grade 1 students grew 10.45 in 1999-2000 and 10.04 in 2000- 01 . One possible reason for this reduced growth is that the non-black students in grade 1 were already getting close to the maximum score of 20 on this measure. (See Tables 3 and 4.)  Black grade 2 students grew 2.82 points in 1999-2000 and 2.06 points in 2000-01. (See Tables 5 and 6.)  Non-black grade 2 students grew 1.73 in 1999-2000 and 1.31 in 2000-01. (See Tables 5 and 6.) Growth Rate (Percent Improvement)  Black kindergarten students' percent improvement (rate of growth) in 1999-2000 was 54 7 percent, as compared to 872 percent in 2000-0 l. Although black kindergarten students did not grow as many points as nonblack students in either 1999-2000 or 2000-01, their percent of improvement or growth rate far exceeded that of non-black students. (See Tables IA and 2A.)  Non-black kindergarten students' percent improvement in 1999-2000 was 389 percent, and in 2000-01, it was 530 percent. (See Tables IA and 2A.)     Black grade 1 students' growth rate in 1999-2000 was 193 percent, as compared to 198 percent in 2000-01. At grade 1 in 2000-01 not only did black students have a higher growth rate than in 1999-2000, they also grew more in terms of points. (See Tables 3A and 4A.) Non-black grade 1 students' growth rate in both 1999-2000 was 132 percent, and in 2000-01 it was 118 percent. Again, black students' higher growth rate indicates a closing of the achievement gap on this measure. (See Tables 3A and 4A.) Black grade 2 students' growth rate in 1999-2000 was 18 percent-considerably lower than in kindergarten and grade l, but due to the approximation of the maximum score of 20. In 2000-01 the growth rate was 13 percent. (See Tables SA and 6A.) Non-black grade 2 students' growth rate in 1999-200 was 10 percent and in 2000-01, 7 percent. (See Tables SA and 6A.) 1-28-020164 48 Kindergarten Spring and Grade 1 Fall Comparison: Grade 1 Spring and Grade 2 Fall Comparison  Black kindergarten students ended the 1999-2000 school year with a score of 11.33 on the Word Test, and they entered grade 1 in fall 2000 with a score of 5.81--indicating, most likely, little reinforcement of school vocabulary during the summer months. (See Tables 1 and 4.)  Non-black kindergarten students ended the 1999-2000 school year with a score of 14.91, and they entered grade 1 in fall 2000 with a score of 8.49-again indicating little reinforcement of school vocabulary during the summer months. (See Tables 1 and 4.)   Black grade 1 students ended the 1999-2000 school year with a score of 16.87, and they entered grade 2 in fall 2000 with a score of 16.00--a slight regression of .87. Summer regression may decline when students begin to read independently. It is interesting that the regression between grade 1 and 2 is much lower than between kindergarten and grade 1. (See Tables 3 and 6.) Non-black grade 1 students ended the 1999-2000 school year with a score of 18.34 and began grade 2 in fall 2000 with a score of 17 .60--a regression of .74. (See Tables 3 and 6.) Black to Non-Black Ratios  In fall 1999 the black kindergarten students' scores were 57 percent of those of non-black students. By the end of the year, they were 76 percent of those of non-black students--indicating an improvement of 19 percentage points in the first year of instruction. (See Table 1.)    In fall 2000 the black kindergarten students' score:. were only 53 percent of those of non-black students. By the end of the year, however, they were 82 percent of those of non-black students--an improvement of29 percentage points. (See Table 2.) In fall 1999 the black grade 1 students' scores were 73 percent of those of non-black students. By the end of the year, however, they were 92 percent of those of non-black students--an improvement of 19 percentage points. (See Table 3.) In fall 2000 the black grade 1 students' scores were 68 percent of those of non-black students. By the end of the year, however, they were 94 percent of those of non-black students--an improvement of 26 percentage points in one year and an indication that the achievement gap is ahnost closed. (See Table 4.) 1-28-020165 49 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I   In fall 1999 the black grade 2 students' scores were 89 percent of those of non-black students. By the end of the year, however, they were 96 percent of those of non-black students--an improvement of7 percentage points in one year. (See Table 5.) In fall 2000 the black grade 2 students' scores were 91 percent of those of non-black students. By the end of the year, they were 96 percent, and the achievement gap on this measure was virtually closed after three years of instruction. (See Table 6.) Black to Non-Black Growth Ratios In 1999-2000 black kindergarten student growth was 81 percent of nonblack student growth. In 2000-01 black kindergarten growth was 88 percent of non-black student growth. (See Tables I and 2.)   In 1999-2000 black grade 1 student growth exceeded that ofnon-blacks-- 106 percent. The growth ratio in 2000-01 for grade I students was 115 percent, so, again, black growth exceeded non-black growth in grade l . (See Tables 3 and 4.)  In 1999-2000 black grade 2 student growth greatly exceeded the growth of non-black students--163 percent. The growth ratio in 2000-01 continued at a high rate--157 percent. Black students made their greatest gains in closing the achievement gap on this measure in grade 2. (See Tables 5 and 6.) Kindergarten--Grade 1 Cohort {Fall I 999 and Spring 2001)  Black kindergarten students grew from 1.75 in fall 1999 to 17.33 in spring 2000 when they were in grade 1--a total of 15.58 points. (See Table 7.)  Non-black students in this cohort grew from 3.05 in fall 1999 to 18.53 in spring 2001--a total of 15.48 points. (See Table 7.) Grade 1--Grade 2 Cohort (Fall 1999 and Spring 2001)  Black grade l students grew from 5. 75 to 18.06 in spring of grade 2--a total of 12.31 points. (See Table 8.)  Non-black grade 1 students grew from 7 .89 to 18. 91 in spring of grade 2-a total of 11.02 points. (See Table 8.) Kindergarten--Grade 1 Cohort Growth Rate  Black kindergarten students' percent improvement from fall 1999 to spring 2001 in grade 1 was 890 percent. (See Table 7A.) 1-28-020166 50    Non-black kindergarten students' percent improvement from fall 1999 to spring 2001 in grade 1 was 508 percent. (See Table 7 A.) Black grade l students' percent improvement from fall 1999 to spring 2001 in grade 2 was 214 percent. (See Table SA.) Non-black grade l students' percent improvement from fall 1999 to spring 2001 in grade 2 was 140 percent. (See Table SA.) Black to Non-Black Ratios for Kindergarten to Grade 1 Cohort  In fall 1999 the black kindergarten scores were 57 percent of those ofnonblack students. By spring 2001 at the end of grade 1, the black scores were 94 percent of t    This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e\n   \n\n\u003c/dcterms_description\u003e   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n   \n\n\u003c/item\u003e\n\u003c/items\u003e"},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_753","title":"Unitary status: ''Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2002-03-15"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School management and organization","Educational law and legislation","School integration","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Unitary status: ''Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status''"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/753"],"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\nUnited States District Court, Eastern Arkansas District of Arkansas, Western Division\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROC SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 1, ET AL RECEIVED MRS. LORE,NE JOSHUA, ET AL MAR 1 5 2002 DEFENDANTS KATHERDJT KNIGHT, ET AL OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MCl'ION FOR AN IMMEDIATE DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Motion for an Immediate Declaration g. Unitary Status states: 1. Che LRSD moves for an immediate declaration of unitary status and an end to court superx uion based on its substantial compliance with the Revised Plan in accordance with ' Revised Plan 11, which provides: At th'^ conclusion of the 2000-01 school year, the district court shall enter an order relf-a.\".ng LRSD from court supervision and finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied witli Its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSC shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 indicating the state of LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSD's compliance bears the burden of proof. If no party challenges LRSD's compliance, the above- descnbed order shall be entered without further proceedings. 2. The LRSD reported on March 15, 2001, that it had substantially complied with the Revises! Pisa. See Docket No. 3410. 3. The Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") challenged the LRSD's compliance with a limited number of Revised Plan sections. See Docket No. 3447. 4. In proceedings before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright, the Court heard five and one-halt days of testimony and received 201 exhibits on the Revised Plan sections covering academic achievement ( 2.7), program assessment ( 2.7.1) and.student discipline ( 2.5 -2.5.4). The LRSD should be granted unitary status with regard to these Revised Plan sections based on the record of those proceedings. Joshua failed to come forward with any evidence that the LRSD failed to comply with those sections or that would cast doubt on the LRSD's intent to comply with the Constitution in the future absent court supervision. 5. Additionally, the LRSD should be granted summary judgment as to all remaining Revised Plan sections with which Joshua challenged the LRSD's compliance. The discovery process revealed that Joshua has no evidence that would cast doubt on the LRSD's intent to comply with the Constitution in the future absent court supervision. As a result, there are no material factual disputes, and additional hearings are unnecessary. 6. Finally, the LRSD should be granted unitary status with regard to those Revised Plan sections to which no party filed a timely challenge to the LRSD's compliance. See Revised Plan  11. 7. The accompanying brief and the attached exhibits are hereby incorporated by reference. WHEREFORE, the LRSD prays that an Order be entered without further evidentiary hearings granting the LRSD unitary status and releasing the LRSD from court supervision and that it be awarded all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) BVi Christopher Heller 2 ACERTIFICATE 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 March 15, 2002: 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 (hand-delivered) Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 stopher Heller 3 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. LET AL RECEIVED DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL MAR 1 5 2002 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN IMMEDIATE DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Statement of Material Facts Not In Dispute Submitted in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status states: 1. 2. The LRSD substantially complied with its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. There is no reason to doubt the LRSD Board of Directors' intent to comply with the Constitution in the future absent court supervision. WHEREFORE, the LRSD prays that an Order be entered without further evidentiary hearings granting the LRSD unitary status and releasing the LRSD from court supervision and that it be awarded all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled.Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 37^,2\u0026amp;tt--~\\ BY:, istopher Heller 2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on March 15, 2002: 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 (hand-delivered) Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Hei 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVED PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. LET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MAR 1 5 2002 office OF desegregation monitoring DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN IMMEDIATE DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS Introduction. On April 10, 1998, this Court granted the joint motion of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") and the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") and approved the LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\"). See Docket Nos. 3107, 3136 and 3144. The Revised Plan expired by its own terms on May 31,2001, the last day of classes for the 2000- 01 school year. See Revised Plan  9. The LRSD moves for an immediate declaration of unitary status and an end to court supervision based on its substantial compliance with the Revised Plan in accordance with Revised Plan  11. Section 11 of the Revised Plan provided: 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 LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSD's compliance bears the burden of proof. If no party challenges LRSD's compliance, the abovedescribed order shall be entered without further proceedings. The LRSD reported on March 15,2001, that it had substantially complied with the Revised Plan. See Docket No. 3410. Joshua challenged the LRSD's compliance with a limited number of Revised Plan sections. See Docket No. 3447. Joshua bears the burden of proving that the LRSD failed to substantially comply with those Revised Plan sections. See Revised Plan  11. Unitary status should be granted if the Court finds either that the LRSD complied with those Revised Plan sections challenged by Joshua or that the LRSD's noncompliance does not cast doubt on the District's intent to comply with the Constitution absent court supervision. See Cody v. Hillard. 139 F.3d 1197, 1199 (8* Cir. 1998). In proceedings before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright, the Court heard five and one- half days of testimony and received 201 exhibits on the Revised Plan sections covering academic achievement ( 2.7), program assessment ( 2.7.1) and student discipline ( 2.5 - 2.5.4). The LRSD should be granted unitary status with regard to these Revised Plan sections based on the record of those proceedings. Joshua failed to come forward with any evidence that the LRSD failed to comply with those sections or that would cast doubt on the LRSD's intent to comply with the Constitution absent court supervision. Additionally, the LRSD should be granted summary judgment as to all remaining Revised Plan sections with respect to which Joshua challenged the LRSD's compliance. The discovery process revealed that Joshua has no evidence that would cast doubt on the LRSD's intent to comply with the Constitution in the future absent court supervision. As a result, there are no material factual disputes, and additional hearings are unnecessary. Cody, 139 F.3d at 1200 (\"They do not cite any cases stating that a hearing is a necessary prerequisite to terminating supervision of a decree.... At any rate, the necessity of a hearing depends on whether there are disputed factual issues.\"). Finally, the LRSD should be granted unitary status with regard to those Revised Plan sections to which no party filed a timely challenge to the LRSD's compliance. See Revised Plan 11. 2t I : f' r-' n. Discussion. A. Background. 1. 1954 Through 1972. I (  r (' On May 20, 1954, three days after the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education. 347 U.S. 483 (1954), the LRSD released a public statement declaring its intent to comply with the Constitution and to integrate the LRSD. See Aaron v. Cooper, 156 F. Supp. 220,222-23 (E.D. Ark. 1957). The first LRSD desegregation plan was adopted in 1956 and was approved by the Eighth Circuit in 1957. See Cooper v. Aaron, 243 F.2d 361 (8th Cir. 1957). That plan called for gradual desegregation based on geographic attendance zones and was to be fully implemented by 1963. Id. Governor Orval Faubus' attempt to block implementation of this plan resulted in the infamous \"crisis\" at Central High School in 1957. However, as noted by the Supreme Court in Cooper v, Aaron, 358 U.S. 1,9 (1958), \"the Governor's action had not I been requested by the school authorities, and was entirely unheralded. (I 1 In 1966, the Eighth Circuit approved, with two minor modifications, a \"freedom of choice\" desegregation plan for the LRSD. See Clark v. Little Rock School District. 369 F.2d 661 (8th Cir. 1966). The Eighth Circuit noted the LRSD's good faith commitment to desegregation: Many of the problems encountered are not of the Board's making or choosing and, we believe, the Board has evidenced a genuine desire to follow the commands of the Brown case to ultimately place into effect a non-racially operated school system. Id., at 666. The freedom of choice plan was in effect through the 1968-69 school year. In 1968, the Supreme Court held that \"freedom of choice\" plans, standing alone, failed to satisfy the constitutional obligation of school districts formerly segregated by law. See Green County Sch. Bd. of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430,439-440 (1968). Accordingly, the LRSD developed a new desegregation plan based on geographic attendance zones for the V. 1969-70 school year. See Clark v. Little Rock School District. 426 F.2d 1035 (Sth Cir. 1970). Due to segregated housing patterns which existed in Little Rock at that time, however, a number 3of racially identifiable schools remained under this plan, and the Eighth Circuit found this plan to be \"constitutionally infirm.\" Cl^, 426 F.2d at 1044. The LRSD began massive crosstown busing of students to achieve racial balance in grades 6 through 12 in the 1971-72 school year. Clark v. Little Rock School District. 328 F. Supp. 1205, 1209 and 1214 (E.D. Ark. 1971). Racial balance was achieved in grades 4 and 5 by means of crosstown busing in the 1972-73 school year. See Clark v. Little Rock School District. 465 F.2d. 1044,1046 (8th Cir. 1972). By the 1973-74 school year, all LRSD schools and all LRSD grade levels were racially balanced. S^ Exhibit 1 attached. Memorandum and Order filed July 9,1982, p. 16. 1. 1973 Through 1982. The LRSD maintained almost perfect racial balance in its schools from 1973 through 1982 with voluntary periodic adjustment of attendance zones. The district court in Clark noted that the Little Rock School District has operated in compliance with court decrees for nine years as a completely unitary desegregated school system . . . .\" See Exhibit 1, p. 16. Despite nine years of successful desegregation, however, the LRSD was on its way to becoming a one race school district. In the fall of 1971, the LRSD was 42% black. In each year from 1971 through 1981, the number of black students increased while the number of white students decreased. Exhibit 2 attached, Austin Study, p. 17. In the fall of 1981, 76% of elementary students were black and 55% of high school students were black. See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. 584 F. Supp. 328, 335 (E.D. Ark. 1984)(\"LRSD v. PCSSD\"). If existing trends continued, it was expected that 90% of the students entering the first grade in the LRSD in the fall of 1989 would be black. See Exhibit 2, p. 19\nalso LRSD v. PCSSD. 584 F. Supp. 328, 351 (E.D. Ark. 1984)(\"The Little Rock School District in spite of its good faith efforts to comply with orders of this court and to establish a unitary school system will become a segregated all-black district in a few years if present trends continue, which appears highly likely.\"). 4 I i r\n( -  1 In early 1981, the LRSD commissioned a study of desegregation in the LRSD by the Desegregation Assistance Team from Stephen F. Austin University (the \"Austin Study\"). The Austin Study concluded that the demographic trends which accounted for the decrease in white enrollment in the LRSD were \"long-term\" and \"deeply rooted,\" and as a result, [t]hey are not likely to be fundamentally altered by any change in the desegregation plan within the city.... The changes are rooted in migration patterns, housing segregation practices, changing birth rates, factors that determine the location of new private market housing, and decisions on the location of new subsidized housing.\" Exhibit 2, p. 28. The \"fundamental\" problem, according to the study, \"has been the school board's inability to expand its boundaries in pace with a very rapidly expanding urban area.\" Exhibit 2, p. 28. Thus, the Austin Study concluded that the LRSD had done all it could do within its borders to desegregate its schools and that, if the LRSD's accomplishments were not to be undone by the \"vast forces of demographic change,\" the LRSD would have to seek an interdistrict remedy. See Exhibit 2, p. 28. As an initial step to stem the tide of white flight, the LRSD adopted the Partial K-6 Plan on April 26, 1982. Under this plan, the LRSD created twelve K-6 neighborhood schools and retained fourteen paired schools with grades K-3 at one site and grades 4-6 at another. Eight of the 12 neighborhood schools were racially balanced and four were virtually all black. The plan converted Booker from a junior high school to an intermediate school. Finally, the Partial K-6 Plan provided for the creation of a magnet school west of University Avenue and required that committee be appointed to ensure that the four virtually all black schools would be treated a equally. Sgg Clark v. Little Rock School District. 705 F.2d 265 (Sth Cir. 1983). The Partial K-6 Plan was approved by the Eighth Circuit in 1983. Clark. 705 F.2d at 272. 3. Interdistrict Relief. In late 1982, the LRSD filed the present case against the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\"), the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") and the State of Arkansas seeking consolidation of the three school districts into one metropolitan school district and state 5funding to assist in eliminating any remaining vestiges of segregation in the three school districts. On April 13,1984, the Honorable Henry Woods foimd the PCSSD, the NLRSD and the State of Arkansas liable for interdistrict constitutional violations. LRSD v. PCSSD. 584 F. Supp. at 328. Judge Woods ordered consolidation of the three districts in a memorandum opinion dated November 19,1984. LRSD v. PCSSD. 597 F. Supp. 1220 (E.D. Ark. 1984). The Eighth Circuit reversed Judge Woods' consolidation order a year later, finding consolidation too drastic a remedy. LRSD v. PCSSD. 778 F.2d 404 (8th Cir. 1985). In reversing, the Eighth Circuit ordered as part of a comprehensive interdistrict remedy that each district II. 'revise its attendance zones so that each school will reasonably reflect the racial composition of its district\" and permitted a variance of plus or minus 25% of the minority race. Id., 778 F.2d at 435. See LRSD v. PCSSD. 839 F.2d 1296, 1305 (8th Cir. 1988). The Eighth Circuit also ordered the adjustment of district boundaries, making the LRSD coterminous with the City of Little Rock. LRSD V. PCSSD, 778 F.2d at 435. Recognizing the need for the LRSD to grow with the City of Little Rock, Judge Woods interpreted the Eighth Circuit's order to require the automatic expansion of the LRSD upon expansion of the City of Little Rock. Unfortunately, the Eighth Circuit disagreed with Judge Woods' interpretation and effectively eliminated further boundary changes as a means to desegregating the LRSD. See LRSD v. PCSSD. 805 F.2d 815, 816 (8^ Cir. 1986). The LRSD's \"controlled choice\" desegregation plan was approved by Judge Woods on February 27, 1987. Docket No. 739. Under this plan, the LRSD was divided into two attendance zones of approximately equal racial balance. Students were assigned to schools so that each grade at each school reflected the racial balance within that attendance zone. After a student was assigned to a particular school, the student's parents could request reassignment to another school within their attendance zone. That request would be granted so long as each school would remain within a range of plus or minus one-eighth of the black student population at the school. Additionally, the plan provided for eight magnet schools (four elementary, two 6junior high and two high schools) with seats reserved for students of each of the three Pulaski County school districts. The target racial composition of the magnet schools was 50%-50%. A Magnet Review Committee was established with representatives of each of the three districts. Joshua and the Knight Intervenors were each granted a non-voting member on the committee This plan was implemented beginning with the 1987-88 school year. Docket No. 670. The controlled choice plan resulted in many central and east Little Rock schools having fewer than fifty white students. The LRSD submitted a new desegregation plan for the 1988-89 year which was approved by Judge Woods. The 1988-89 school year was to be a \"stabilizing year\" to allow the LRSD to carefully plan for the 1989-90 school year and beyond. S^ LRSD v. PCSSD, 716 F. Supp. 1162, 1188 (E.D. Ark. 1989). Negotiations related to the development of a long-term desegregation plan for the LRSD culminated in a settlement agreement in March of 1989 (the \"Settlement Agreement\").' The Settlement Agreement also included desegregation plans for the PCSSD and the NLRSD, as well as an interdistrict desegregation plan. 4. 1989 Settlement Agreement. The LRSD's 1989 desegregation plan reflected the fact that the LRSD was, and had been for some time, imitary with regard to student assignments, faculty and staff. See Exhibit 1, p. 18. While these areas had been the focus of past desegregation plans, the 227-page 1989 plan contained only a six-page section on student assignments and no separate section specifically dedicated to the hiring and assignment of faculty and staff. The 1989 desegregation plan focused instead on secondary desegregation issues, such as improving Afiican-American academic achievement. The Settlement Agreement was initially rejected by Judge Woods who ordered implementation of a more comprehensive plan known as the Tri-District Plan. The parties appealed, and the Settlement Agreement as originally written was approved by the Eighth Circuit A revised Settlement Agreement was agreed to by the parties on September 28, 1989. None of the revisions are relevant to this motion. \"Settlement Agreement\" as used hereinafter shall refer to the agreement as revised September 28,1989. 7in December of 1990. LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1374 (8th Cir. 1990). In approving the Settlement Agreement, the Eighth Circuit recognized that, \"It may be necessary, in order to make a smooth transition, for the details of the settlement plans to be adjusted to produce an appropriate fit between their future application and existing circumstances.\" Id., at 1394. Judge Woods recused following the Eighth Circuit's December 1990 decision, and the case was reassigned to the Honorable Susan Webber Wright. S^ LRSD v. PCSSD. 740 F.Supp. 632 (E.D. Ark. 1990). The parties agreed to modifications to the desegregation plans and submitted them to Judge Wright for approval. On June 21, 1991, Judge Wright rejected the modifications, finding that they exceeded the authority granted by the Eighth Circuit. LRSD v. PCSSD. 769 F. Supp. 1483 (E.D. Ark. 1991). The parties appealed, and on November 14, 1991, the Eighth Circuit vacated Judge Wright's opinion and remanded for consideration of the proposed modifications based on the analysis set forth in its opinion. Appeal of LRSD. 949 F.2d 253 (Sth Cir. 1991). On May 1,1992, Judge Wright issued an order approving in part and rejecting in part the revised desegregation plans. No appeal was taken. 5. Implementation of the 1989 Plan. The Settlement Agreement required the LRSD to implement its 1989 desegregation plan for six years.^ The parties agreed, in effect, that implementation of the plan would eliminate to the extent practicable any remaining vestiges of discrimination resulting from the interdistrict constitutional violations by the defendants. See Settlement Agreement, p 1. Because the Tri-District Plan was substantially similar to, but more comprehensive than, the LRSD's 1989 desegregation plan, the LRSD considered implementation of the Tri-District Plan during the The six-year term of the plan was one of the primary reasons that the Settlement Agreement was rejected by Judge Woods. S^ LRSD v. PCSSD, 716 F. Supp. at 1167 (\"LRSD admits that the double funding is guaranteed for only six years, but contends that it 'retains its comrnitment to provide compensatory and enhancement funding to any school which might remain racially identifiable.' That commitment does not appear in the plan.\"). The LRSD argued to Judge Woods that its six-year plan could be successful: \"We think a six-year plan can succeed where a one-year plan has failed. There are several components in place to help us assure the Court that a six-year plan can succeed.\" Tr. May 30, 1989, p. 13. 8f f i t 1990-91 school year as the first year of implementation of its six-year desegregation plan. During the 1995-96 school year, the LRSD conducted an audit of its desegregation obligations and found that it had substantially and in good faith complied with 96% of its desegregation obligations. See Exhibit 3 attached, p. 1. Accordingly, on May 17, 1996, the LRSD moved for a declaration of unitary status and an end to federal court supervision. See Docket Nos. 2665 and 2666. ( Without a hearing. Judge Wright denied the LRSD's Motion to End Federal Court Supervision, finding \"nothing in the settlement plans which would release the LRSD from the Court's jurisdiction after six years of implementation of the plans.\" See Docket No. 2821, p. 10. Although Judge Wright recognized that the LRSD compared favorably to other urban school districts already declared unitary. Judge Wright focused on the ambitious \"goals\" of the 1989 plan. See Docket No. 2821, p. 12. Judge Wright stated, \"Reports of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and other evidence received in hearings in this matter reflect that the LRSD has fallen short of its goals with respect to many aspects of the plan.\" Id. In conclusion. Judge Wright invited the parties to modify those parts of the LRSD desegregation plan which had proved \"ineffective and unworkable.\" Id. 6. The Revised Plan. t f Rather than appeal Judge Wright's denial of unitary status, the LRSD decided to work with Joshua to reach an agreement for ending more than 40 years of federal court control of the LRSD. On January 21,1998, the LRSD and Joshua filed a joint motion seeking approval of the LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. See Docket No. 3107. The Revised Plan addressed numerous deficiencies in the 1989 desegregation plan. First, to prevent the plan's express or implied goals from being construed as obligations, the Revised Plan included a footnote which stated: The identification of specific goals in this Revised Plan is not intended to create an obligation that LRSD shall have fully met the goal by the end of the plan's term. LRSD's failure to obtain any of the goals of this Revised Plan will not be considered a failure to comply with the plan if LRSD followed the strategies 9r- f r described in the plan and the policies, practices and procedures developed in accordance with the plan. Revised Plan, p. 14 n.2. Second, the 277-page 1989 plan included too much detail and provided too little flexibility. The Revised Plan simply obligated the LRSD to implement \"programs, policies and/or procedures\" in 13 different areas. See Revised Plan  2. With some exceptions, the LRSD had discretion to determine the \"programs, policies and/or procedures\" to be implemented. The Revised Plan included a process by which Joshua or any other party could raise compliance issues, including a failure by the LRSD to adopt or implement the required programs, policies and/or procedures. See Revised Plan  8.2 and 8.3. The LRSD also agreed in advance to pay Joshua to monitor the LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan, and Joshua billed the LRSD for monitoring the LRSD s Compliance. See Exhibits 7 and 8 attached. Even so, Joshua raised no objection to the programs, policies or procedures implemented by the LRSD during the term of the Revised Plan. Finally, the Revised Plan included a definite term and a process for terminating federal court supervision at the conclusion of that term. The term of the Revised Plan was \"three (3) years beginning the 1998-99 school year and ending the last day of classes of the 2000-01 school year. See Revised Plan,  9, The last day of classes for the 2000-01 school year was May 31, 2001. Section 11 of the Revised Plan provided\nAt 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 tliis Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 indicating the state of LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSDs compliance bears the burden of proof. If no party challenges LRSD's compliance, the abovedescribed order shall be entered without fiirther proceedings. See Revised Plan, 11. 7. Status of Current Proceedings. 10r  f ( f  The LRSD provided the Court and the parties with an Interim Comphance Report on March 15, 2000 (\"Interim Report\") \"to help the District assess its progress toward full compliance and to reassure the court, the parties, and the community of the District's good faith efforts to be in total compliance with the Revised Plan.\" See Docket No. 3344, Interim Report, p. 1. The Interim Report expressly requested that the parties and other interested persons submit comments on the content or format of the report. Id. No party commented on the Interim Report or otherwise challenged the District's \"progress toward full compliance.\" See Docket No. 3410, Final Report, p. iv. One year later, on March 15,2001, the LRSD reported that it had substantially complied with all provisions of the Revised Plan (\"Final Report\"). See Docket No. 3410. ( I On Jime 25,2001, and after being granted two extensions of time, Joshua filed a pleading challenging the LRSD's compliance with some, but not all, sections of the Revised Plan. Joshua's challenge included little more than general allegations of noncompliance. Hearings were held on July 5-6, August 1-2 and November 19-20, 2001, on the issues of academic achievement ( 2.7), program assessment ( 2.7.1) and discipline ( 2.5 - 2.5.4). B. Substantial Compliance. I I The Revised Plan does not define \"substantial compliance.\" In Cody v. Hillard, supra. the Eighth Circuit discussed the meaning of the term \"substantial\" as it related to compliance with and temunation of a consent decree. The consent decree in that case arose out of prison reform litigation in the State of South Dakota. Prison officials moved to terminate the consent decree after operating under the decree for nearly 11 years. The plaintiffs opposed the motion t Judge Wright stated at the conclusion of the November 20,2001, hearing that Joshua could have 25 minutes to present true rebuttal evidence, even though Joshua had used all of their allotted time. Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, 399 and 575. Judge Wright defined rebuttal evidence as evidence necessary to respond to evidence presented by the other side which could not have been anticipated. Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, 399. The LRSD submits that it presented no evidence which could not have been anticipated by Joshua, rendering Joshua's request for rebuttal time moot. The Court could resolve this matter by requiring Joshua to proffer their purported rebuttal evidence as a part of their response to this Motion. 11 and requested a hearing. The district court refused to order a hearing, but ordered the plaintiffs to submit evidence supporting their allegations of noncompliance. Id. at 1198. The plaintiffs filed a report from their expert, Robert Powitz, which stated that he inspected the prison and found It a number of conditions that pose serious health or safety risks,\" but he failed to specify how those conditions violated the consent decree. The plaintiffs then filed a supplemental brief linking those conditions to provisions of the consent decree. Without a hearing, the district court entered a two-paragraph order terminating the consent decree but making no findings of fact with regard to the conditions identified by Powitz. Id. at 1199. The plaintiffs appealed, and the Eighth Circuit remanded the case for factual findings stating: We cannot determine the basis for the district court's decision from this brief order. The record indicates that there have been failures in the past to comply with the decree and supplemental orders, and that there are at least some violations of the decree. The district judge's order does not give us enough information to determine whether he ignored the evidence of past and present violations or whether he considered any violations inconsequential in the context of substantial compliance. If the conditions Powitz complained of constitute violations of the consent decree, the district court must exercise its discretion in determining whether those violations were serious enough to constitute substantial noncompliance and to cast doubt on defendants future compliance with the Constitution. See McDonald Iv. Carnahan], 109 F.3d [1319,] 1322-23 [(8 Cir. 1997)]. Moreover, the ultimate question of whether the defendants are likely to comply with the Constitution in the absence of court supervision is a question of fact, see [Board of Educ. v.] Dowell. 498 U.S. [237,] 247, 111 S.Ct. [630,] 636-37 [(1991)], for which the district court made no finding. Id. at 1199-1200 (emphasis supplied). Therefore, a party to a consent decree substantially complies with the decree so long as the party's noncompliance does not \"cast doubt on [the party's] future compliance with the Constitution.\" Id. See Manning v. The School Bd. of Hillsborough County. 244 F.3d 927,946 (11* Cir. 2001 )(\"[I]n determining whether a school board has acted in good faith, a court should not dwell on isolated discrepancies, but rather should 'consider whether the school board's policies form a consistent pattern of lawful conduct directed at eliminating earlier violations,\"' quoting Lockett v. Bd. of Educ. of Muscogee County. 111 F.3d 839, 843 (11* Cir. 1997)). 12Both the past and recent conduct of the LRSD Board of Directors confirms the District's commitment to complying with the Constitution. Three days after the Supreme Court's 1954 decision in Brown, the LRSD released a public statement declaring its intent to comply with the Constitution and integrate the LRSD. In 1982, the district court in Clark stated that \"the Little Rock School District has operated in compliance with court decrees for nine years as a completely unitary desegregated school system . . . .\" See Exhibit 1. p. 16. Having done all that it could do on its own, the LRSD filed the present case that same year, seeking and obtaining interdistrict relief. During the term of the Revised Plan, the LRSD Board of Directors (\"Board\") conducted a comprehensive review of all District policies. See CX 719. Fifteen of the 21 policies making up the District's \"Foundation and Basic Commitments\" express the District's commitment to fighting discrimination of all types. See CX 719, Section A. Among those were regulations setting forth the District's commitment to comply with the Revised Plan and to establish procediues for employees and patrons to raise compliance issues. See CX 719, Policy ACG-Rl, R2 and R3. The Board institutionalized numerous provisions of the Revised Plan by making them official Board policy. See CX 719.\"* Finally, in anticipation of being released from court supervision, the Board adopted the \"Covenant for the Future\" (\"Covenant\") on January 11, 2001. In the Covenant, the Board promised to continue to exercise its best efforts to: (1) improve the academic achievement of all students, (2) comply with the Constitution and ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis or race, color or ethnicity in the operation of the District, and (3) provide equitable educational resources, programs and opportunity in a nondiscriminatory environment for all students attending LRSD schools. See Final Report, p. 1, CX 739, and CX 719, Policy AB. 4' 'The following Board policies and regulations come directly from the Revised Plan: ACBB, ACBE, ACG, ACG-Rl, ACG-R2, ACG-R3, GCE, GCE-R, IHBH, JB, JBA, JBA-R, JC, JCA, JI, JJ, JJ-R, JJIA, JJIB, JJIB-Rl, JJIB-R2, JLD, JMA, JMA-R, JRAA, and JRAA-R. See CX719. 13To be sure, the LRSD is not a perfect school system, but the Constitution does not require perfection. See Belk v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ.. 269 F.3d 305,335 (4* Cir. 2001) (Traxler, J.)(\"This is not to say that CMS is a perfect school system - it is not.\"). The ultimate question is whether the Board can be trusted to comply with the Constitution absent court supervision. In the five and one-half days of hearings held to date, Joshua presented no evidence indicating that it could not. c. Revised Plan Sections Already Litigated. 1. Revised Plan $ 2.7: Academic Achievement. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan. The LRSD identified and described the programs, policies and procedures implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2.7 in the Interim Report (pp. 41-69 and 93-127) and the Final Report (pp. 51-148). Although Joshua monitored the LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan and received fees for doing so, Joshua did not raise any objection during the term of the Revised Plan to the programs, policies and procedures pertaining to academic achievement which were outlined in the Interim Report and the Final Report. Tr. Nov. 19,2001, pp. 370-71. Joshua's belated challenge to the LRSD's compliance with  2.7 is based on the long-standing achievement gap between Afiican-American and non-African-American students on standardized tests (hereinafter \"achievement gap\"). See Docket No. 3447, pp. 28-30. Joshua's challenge fails because the Revised Plan contained no requirement that the LRSD eliminate or reduce the achievement gap. The Revised Plan simply required the LRSD to implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed io improve Afiican-American achievement. See Revised Plan,  2.7. To that end, the LRSD began in the Spring of 1998 what has been perhaps the most comprehensive curriculum reform in the history of the District. As a part of the reform effort, the District adopted research-based teaching strategies that have been proven to be effective in improving 14African-American achievement. Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 195-210. The District provided its teachers with comprehensive, in-depth professional development. See Final Report, pp. 32-33 (Gifted and Talented), 60-61 (K-12 Social Studies), 67-68 (middle schools), 73 (PreK), 81-90 (early childhood and primary grade literacy), 96-102 (intermediate grade literacy), 109-111 (secondary literacy), 117-123 (math and science) and 138-143 (technology). New instructional materials, including technological applications, were adopted in all curriculum areas. S^ Interim Report, pp. 41-51 (generally), 96-101 (primary language arts), 105-107 (intermediate grades language arts), 109-161 (secondary language arts)\n117-118 (K-12 mathematics)\nand Final Report pp. 51- 54, 57-59 and 62-65 (generally), 72-73 (early childhood), 75-79 (primary language arts), 93-95 (intermediate language arts), 105-109 (secondary language arts) and 115- 117 and 126-131 (math and science). See also CXs 696, 697, 699 and 714. The District rewrote and began implementation of an instructional technology plan (see Interim Report, pp. 122-126 and Final Report, pp. 136-38 and CX 705, tabs 19 and 20)\nrestructured its parent involvement program (see Interim Report, pp. 69-77 and Final Report pp. 149-157)\nrevised the Districts policies and procedures related to teaching and learning (see Interim Report, pp. 17-20 and 93 and Final Report, pp. 51-55). Among the policy changes have been enhanced graduation standards, the design of a recommended curriculum and higher standards for the honors diploma (see Interim Report, pp. 17-20 and Final Report, p. 30), and an emphasis on the improved access to and success in advanced courses by Afiican-American students. See Interim Report, pp. 17-41 and Final Report, pp. 30-50. It is too early to make a final judgment about the success of the LRSD's efforts to improve African-American achievement given the implementation status of the District's reform efforts. Dr. Steven Ross, one of two desegregation experts retained by the LRSD with approval from Joshua, wrote in a September 8,2000, memo: There is substantial rationale, both logical and empirical, for giving programs time to impact student achievement. The first stage of impact is program implementation, the next is changing instruction and/or conditions for learning, and after these effects occur, achievement may be impacted. In our Memphis 15r i f study, it took at least two years for school reform programs to show positive results. In fact, after the first year, achievement went down! This same pattern was replicated with three different cohorts of schools. f ex 702, tab 15. While the LRSD remains in the process of changing conditions for learning, early indications are that the LRSD's reform efforts are working. These include: Improvements in reading achievement at the K-2 level, especially in schools implementing the District literacy model, including Reading Recovery, s^ Interim Report, pp. 90-93, CX 703, tabs 1-27, and Exhibit 4 attached. Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001', r Advances in closing the achievement gap in all areas of early literacy in grades K- 2, see Exhibit 4, pp. 81-100\nI Improvements in the percent scoring at the proficient/advanced level on both the grade 4 literacy and mathematics state benchmark examinations, see Final Report, pp. 102-104 (language arts), 131-32 (math), CX 704, tabs 7, 12, 13, 15,18, and 19 and CX740\nDecreased numbers and percentages of students performing in the below basic level of both the grade 4 literacy and mathematics state benchmark examinations, see Final Report, pp. 102-104 and 131-132 and CX 740\nImprovements in the percent scoring at the proficient/advanced level on both the grade 8 literacy and mathematics state benchmark examinations, s^ CX 740\ni . Decreased numbers and percentages of students performing in the below basic level of both the grade 8 literacy and mathematics state benchmark examinations, see CX 740\nt Tremendous increases in the enrollment of students, including African-American students, in upper-level science and mathematics courses, see Final Report, pp. 126-129 and Exhibit 5 attached, 2000-2001 CPMSA Annual Report-, More than 100 percent increase of Afiican-American students enrolled in Advanced Placement courses at the high school level, see Final Report, pp. 37-39, Exhibit 5 and CX 705, tab 15. Significant increases in the enrollment of Afiican-American students enrolled in Pre-Advanced Placement courses in English, mathematics, science, and social studies at the middle and high school levels, see Final Report, pp. 39-43, Exhibit 5 and CX 705, tab 15\n( Significantly more Afiican-American students taking the ACT for college admission, see Final Report, pp. 47-49\nSignificantly more Afiican-American students taking the Advanced Placement examinations, Final Report, pp. 43-44 and CX 705, tab 15\nand 16Increases in the number of volunteer hours recorded by Volunteers in Public Schools, see Final Report, p. 157. While the LRSD believes these indicators portend improving Afiican-American achievement, factors beyond the LRSD's control make it unlikely that the achievement gap will be eliminated in the near future. In 1996, Judge Wright called Dr. David Armor and Dr. Herbert Walberg as court-appointed experts. Both testified that, given the current socioeconomic differences between Afiican-Americans and whites, it is impossible to eliminate the achievement gap. Dr. Armor testified: Q Doctor Armor, if I understood correctly yesterday, did you testify that, to your knowledge, there's no desegregation plan that has ever overcome the achievement gap between black and white students, that you're aware of? A That I'm aware of, yes. Q And I think you also testified that making the achievement gap zero is virtually impossible? A Well, impossible as long as there are socioeconomic differences between black and white families that exist today in this country. Tr. May 15,1996, p. 152-53. Dr. Walberg explained: Well, as an educational psychologist, I would like to have all students learn as much as they possibly can. But given the fact that students spend only about ten percent of their time in school, to say that a school district can remove the achievement gap between blacks and whites, I think, is too much. I think it's making a promise that can't be kept. If 90 percent of the students' time is outside of the school, where there are many other factors that affect the students' learning and capacity to learn, I think that it's an impossible promise to keep. Tr. May 13,1996, p. 33. Joshua may argue that the Eighth Circuit's decision in Appeal of Little Rock School District, 949 F.2d 253, 256 (8^ Cir. 1991), requires the LRSD to eliminate the achievement gap The LRSD introduced evidence fiom the Arkansas Department of Health and U.S. Census documenting the socioeconomic differences between Afiican-Americans and whites in the City of Little Rock, State of Arkansas and throughout the country. See CX 716 and 717. 17 before it may be released from court supervision. In that decision, the Eighth Circuit reviewed Judge Wright's decision prohibiting the parties from making modifications to their desegregation plans approved by the Eighth Circuit in Little Rock School District v, Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371 (8* Cir. 1990). The Eighth Circuit identified seven \"crucial\" elements of the 1989 plans \"with respect to which no retreat should be approved.\" Appeal of LRSD, 949 F.2d at 256. One of those crucial elements was the agreed \"effort\" to eliminate the achievement gap. Id. (emphasis supplied). Even so, nothing in the Eighth Circuit's opinion suggested that the \"effort\" to eliminate the achievement gap must be successful in order for the LRSD to be released from court supervision. Moreover, no court has held that elimination of the achievement gap is a necessary prerequisite to being released from court supervision. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has cautioned against reliance on African-American achievement as a basis for continued judicial supervision. Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70, 101-02,115 S.Ct. 2038, 2055-56 (1995). As the Supreme Court explained: Just as demographic changes independent of de jure segregation will affect the racial composition of student assignments. Freeman fv. Pittsl. 503 U.S. [467], at 494-95, 112 S.Ct. [1430], 1447-48 [(1992)], so too will numerous external factors beyond the control of the KCMSD and the State affect minority student achievement. So long as these external factors are not the result of segregation, they do not figure in the remedial calculus. See [Pasadena City Bd. of Educ. v.1 Spangler, 427 U.S. [424], at 434, 96 S.Ct. [2697], at 2703-2704 [(1976)]\nSwann [v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ.1.402 U.S. [1], at 22, 91 S.Ct. [1267], at 1279 [(1971)]. Insistence upon academic goals unrelated to the effects of legal segregation unwarrantably postpones the day when the KCMSD will be able to operate on its own. Id. Accordingly, the achievement gap has not prevented other school districts around the country from being declared unitary. See, e.g.. Coalition to Save Our Children v. State Bd. of Educ.. 901 F.Supp 784, 819 (D. Del. 1995) (\"Because the environment outside school is so strong, cumulative, and varied, schools cannot overcome such environmental differences among children.\"), affd 90 F.3d 752 (3\" Cir. 1996)\nKeves v. School District No. 1. 902 F. Supp. 1274, 1300 (D. Colo. 1995)(\"There are too many variables, including societal and socio-economic 18 factors, to infer causation from prior unconstitutional conduct.\")\nTasbv v. Woolerv. 869 F. Supp. 454, Aril (N.D. Tex. 1994) (\"The Court is unable to find that the achievement gap in DISD is a vestige of the prior segregated school system.\"). Finally, Joshua bore the burden of establishing the LRSD's noncompliance with the Revised Plan. See Revised Plan, 11. To meet that burden, Joshua would have been required to come forward with evidence that the achievement gap resulted from the LRSD's noncompliance. rather than other factors. See People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., 246 F.3d 1073, 1076- 77 (7* Cir. 2001). As the Com! of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has recognized: The reality is that imtil minority students achieve parity of educational achievement with the white students in the Rockford public schools, the plaintiffs will contend that the minority students are victims of the unlawful discrimination of an earlier period in Rockford's history. Yet it is obvious that other factors besides discrimination contribute to unequal educational attainment, such as poverty, parents' education and employment, family size, parental attitudes and behavior, prenatal, neonatal, and child health care, peer-group pressures, and ethnic culture. Some of these factors may themselves be due to or exacerbated by discrimination, but not to discrimination by the Rockford school board. The board has no legal duty to remove those vestiges of societal discrimination for which it is not responsible. Insofar as the factors that we have mentioned, rather than unlawful conduct by the Rockford school board in years past, are responsible for lags in educational achievement by minority students, the board has no duty that a federal court can enforce to help those students catch up. It may have a moral duty\nit has no federal constitutional duty. Id. Joshua made no effort to prove that the LRSD's alleged noncompliance caused or contributed to the current achievement gap. Therefore, Joshua failed to meet their burden to prove the LRSD's noncompliance with Revised Plan  2.7. The LRSD agreed to implement programs, policies and procedures designed to improve African-American achievement, and it has done so. Early indicators suggest that the programs, policies and procedures being implemented are improving African-American achievement. While it is unlikely that these efforts will completely eliminate the achievement gap anytime soon, neither the Revised Plan nor the Constitution requires elimination of the achievement gap as a prerequisite to ending court supervision. The LRSD should be declared unitary and released from court supervision in the area of student achievement. See Freeman v, 19Pitts, 503 U.S. 467,489, 112 S.Ct. 1430 (1992)(\"Partial relinquishment of judicial control, where justified by the facts of the case, can be an important step in fulfilling the district court's duty to return the operations and control of schools to local authorities.\"). 2. Revised Plan  2.7.1: Program Assessment. LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African- American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. Joshua alleges that the LRSD had done \"no assessment of the academic programs for each of the three years following the court's approval of the modified desegregation plan.\" See Docket No. 3447, p. 27. At the hearing, Joshua focused on the program evaluations prepared by the District's Department of Planning, Research and Evaluation (\"PRE\"), and in particular, the program evaluations identified on the bottom of page 148 of the Final Report. On the bottom of page 148, the Final Report states: In addition to the three programs on the Board-i evaluated the following programs\nadopted research agenda, PRE Extended Year Schools Summer School HIPPY Program Charter School Campus Leadership Teams English as a Second Language Lyceum Scholars Pro^am at Philander Smith College Southwest Middle School's SEDL Program Onward to Excellence (Watson Elementary) Collaborative Action Team (CAT) Vital Link While the term of the plan was three years beginning with the 1998-99 school year, the first semester of the 1998-99 school year was a transition period in preparation for implementation of the Revised Plan. See Revised Plan,  9 and 10. 20Joshua's focus on the evaluations listed on the bottom of page 148 resulted, at least in part, from comments made by Judge Wright. Judge Wright had expressed concern that \"the District has not accomplished what it set out with respect to monitoring programs that were geared toward raising the achievement level of African-American students.\" Tr. July 9,2001, p. 31. The LRSD later learned that this concern likely had sprung from the Court's ex parte commumcations with Ann Marshall of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Marshall informed Judge Wright that the District had not performed certain program evaluations listed on page 148 of the Final Report after the District failed to provide the reports to her office. See Exhibit 6 attached, Marshall, pp. 59-60. In fact, PRE had either provided data for an evaluation or had evaluated each program identified on bottom of page 148 of the Final Report. See CX 720-730. The failure of PRE to provide the evaluations to ODM resulted from the departure from the District of the Assistant Superintendent for PRE, Dr. Kathy Lease, in June of 2001. See Tr. Nov. 20,2001, p. 369. As a result of Dr. Lease's departure, the task fell on Dr. Lesley to locate the evaluations. Dr. Lesley candidly admitted that her initial search failed to reveal all of the evaluations, but eventually they were all located. See Tr. Nov. 20,2001, pp. 356-369\nsee also CX 616. The evaluations were introduced as Court's Exhibits 720-730. Joshua's focus on the evaluations listed on the bottom of page 148 reflects an effort to distort the meaning of Revised Plan  2.7.1 to suit their case. Revised Plan  2.7.1 required the administration of an assessment each year, not formal program evaluations. The LRSD continuously used available assessment data \"to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement.\" See Revised Plan,  2.7.1, See Tr. Nov. 19,2001, p. 246. Dr. Lesley provided several examples of how the District used assessment data to make program decisions\nidentifying implementation problems with the Success for All program (Tr. Nov. 19,2001, pp. 247-264), refusing to extend for another year a curriculum waiver to Mann Magnet Middle School (Tr. Nov. 19,2001, pp. 264-267)\nmodifying the pre-kindergarten curriculum (Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 269-271)\ndeveloping pacing guides for 21 i middle school math teachers (Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 271-273)\nand revising the class schedule for ninth grade English students (Tr. Nov. 19,2001, pp. 273-75). While no formal program evaluations were required, the LRSD evaluated some programs as a part of its efforts to comply with Revised Plan  2.7.1. Those programs were part of the Board-adopted research agenda also discussed on page 148 of the Final Report. See also Interim Report, p. 53. Additional evaluations performed by PRE were included on the bottom of page 148 so the Final Report would not be misleading. The District did not want to leave the impression that PRE had done nothing more than the three evaluations from the Board-adopted research agenda. See Tr. Nov. 20,2001, pp. 354-56. The evaluations on the bottom of page 148 would be relevant only if Revised Plan  2.7.1 required a formal program evaluation every year of every program affecting African-American achievement. To impose such a requirement would blur the distinction between an \"assessment' and an \"evaluation.\" While these words might be interchangeable in some contexts, they have separate and distinct meanings in the field of education. See Tr. Nov. 19,2001, p. 242-43. S^ .11 AMI Civil 4 3014 (Supp. 2001) (\"You should interpret words or phrases associated with particular trade or occupation as experienced and knowledgeable members of that trade or a occupation use them, unless evidence discloses that the parties used them in a different sense.\"). An assessment is a norm-referenced or criterion-referenced test administered to students. Norm- referenced assessments compare a student's achievement to that of a sample of students known the norming group. Criterion-referenced assessments seek to determine the level of student achievement of specific academic standards. See Exhibit 9 attached, Arkansas Comprehensive as Testing, Assessment \u0026amp; Accountability Program, p. 4 and Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 242-43. Assessments may be one component of a formal program evaluation. See CX 586. Formal program evaluations are typically long-term, time consuming and very expensive. See Tr. Nov. 20,2001, p. 339. Dr. Lesley testified that she was not aware of any school district that formally 22 evaluates all of its programs and that, in her opinion, it would be impossible to do so given the District's limited resources. See Tr. Nov. 20,2001, pp. 339-40. From the very beginning, Joshua and ODM knew that the LRSD did not intend to prepare a formal program evaluation every year for every program in the District affecting African- American achievement, yet Joshua raised no objection during the term of the Revised Plan. S^ Tr. Nov. 20,2001, pp. 370-71. See AMI Civil 4\"' 3015 (Supp. 2001) (\"You should give weight to the meaning placed on the language by the parties themselves, as shown by their statements, acts, or conduct after the contract was made.\"). ODM issued a monitoring report on August 11, 1999, on the LRSD's \"Preparations for Implementation of its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan.\" With regard to program assessment, ODM reported, \"According to the Assistant Superintendent [Dr. Lease], the PRE staff will select programs to be evaluated each year rather than attempting to evaluate the district's entire instructional program at any one time.\" See Docket No. 3289, ODM Report, August 11,1999, p. 42. ODM offered no recommendations in the area of program assessment and did not suggest that the Revised Plan required that every program affecting African-American achievement be evaluated every year. See Docket No. 3289, ODM Report, August 11, 1999, p. 43. On August 26, 1999, the Board voted to formally evaluate three programs being implemented pursuant to the Revised Plan: the pre-kindergarten through grade 3 (\"preK-3\") literacy program, the transition to middle schools and the math and science project funded by the National Science Foundation. See Tr. Nov. 20,2001, pp. 319-321 and CXs 718 and 739. These three formal program evaluations became known as the Board-adopted research agenda. At the same Board meeting, the Board separately approved an \"assessment\" plan. The assessment plan included not only the state-mandated benchmark examinations, but also locally adopted criterion- 7' t The evaluation of the English as a Second Language program was also part of the Board- adopted research agenda. Obviously unrelated to the District's Revised Plan obligations, a memorandum agreement between the District and OCR required this evaluation. See Tr. Nov 20, 2001, p. 354. 23 referenced tests for grades K-2 reading and for grades 2-9 in English, language arts, mathematics, and science. See Tr. Nov. 19,2001, p. 216. Both the Board-adopted research agenda and the assessment plan were explained in the Interim Report. See Interim Report, pp. 53 (Board research agenda), 56-57 (assessment plan), 101 (primary grade language arts), 107 (intermediate grade language arts), 113 (secondary language arts), and 118 (math). Even after publication of the Interim Report, Joshua raised no objection to the Board-adopted research agenda or the assessment plan. See Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, pp. 370-71. The District's evaluations made pursuant to the Board-adopted research agenda were admitted into evidence as a part of Court's Exhibits 703 (literacy), 705 (math and science) and 711 (middle schools). Joshua will likely argue that these evaluations were poorly written and never approved by the Board. While it is true that the Board never approved the evaluations, nothing required the Board to approve them. When presented to the Board in August of 2000, the Board voted to table consideration of the evaluations until additional assessment data were available. See CX 739, Minutes of August 24, 2000, meeting, p. 5. If anything, the Board's tabling of the evaluations demonstrates its good faith commitment to having quality evaluations. It is also true that Dr. Lesley was not satisfied with the quality of the evaluations. See Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, pp. 329-330. Dr. Lesley discussed her concerns with Dr. Les Camine, then the The District paid particular attention to alignment between the District's curriculum and the assessments in order to better gauge the achievement of Afiican-American students. Dr. Bonme Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, explained: Alignment is absolutely critical, particularly in an urban school district, because alignment means that everything you are going to test kids over, that you have given them a chance to leam that, that you have got that included in the curriculum. And so, without alignment, poor kids in particular suffer most, because there may not be an opportunity for them to get that knowledge or skill anywhere else. Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 199-200. Results of the assessments were included in the final report. See Final Report, pp. 55-56 (assessments generally), 79 (early literacy), 90-93 (primary grade language arts), 102-105 (intermediate grade language arts), 111-114 (secondary language arts), 125-129 (math and science), and 131-135 (math). See also CXs 699, 700 and 701. 24 1.i District's Superintendent. Dr. Gamine sent the evaluations for review by Dr. Ross, one of the desegregation consultants approved by Joshua. See Tr. Nov. 20, 2001, p. 330. After reviewing the evaluations. Dr. Ross e-mailed Dr. Gamine stating, \"I have read three of the recent program evaluation reports completed by your research department. They appear to be of very good quality - well-written, clear and comprehensive.\" GX 702, tab 15. Not surprisingly, Dr. Lesley's dissatisfaction with PRE's evaluations created a rift between Dr. Lesley and Dr. Lease. Joshua sought to capitalize on this rift by offering numerous District e-mails as exhibits. As a whole, these prove nothing more than the fact that Dr. Lesley was willing to fight for better program evaluations, even if Dr. Ross found them to be \"of very good quality.\" Therefore, notwithstanding questions about the quality of PRE's formal program evaluations, Joshua failed to meet their burden in establishing noncompliance with Revised Plan  2.7.1. Revised Plan  2.7.1 required annual assessments, not annual program evaluations. The District administered assessments at least annually at each grade level. The District continuously used available assessment data to make program decisions. The Board and Dr. Lesley's concerns about the quality of PRE's program evaluations evidence their good faith commitment to improving Afiican-American achievement. Accordingly, the LRSD should be declared unitary and released from court supervision with regard to Revised Plan  2.7.1. See Freeman, 503 U.S. at 489. 3. 2.5. Revised Plan 2.5 - 2.5.4: Student Discipline. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline. 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 disciplined in a fair and equitable manner. 2.5.2. LRSD shall purge students' discipline records after the fifth grade and 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. 252.5.3. 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. 2.5.4. LRSD shall work with students and their parents to develop behavior modification plans for students who exhibit frequent misbehavior. Dr. Linda Watson, Assistant Superintendent for Student Hearings, led the District's effort to ensure no racial discrimination in student discipline by strict adherence to the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook (the \"Handbook\"). See Tr. Nov. 19,2001, pp. 24-25: see also Interim Report, pp. 13-16. Dr. Watson testified that the her goal was to reduce the number of suspensions and expulsions while at the same time strictly adhering to the Handbook. See Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 45 and 55. Dr. Watson achieved her goal. The number of suspensions decreased 21 percent from the 1997-98 school year through the 1999-2000 school year - a decrease of over 1,100 suspensions. See Tr. Nov. 19,2001, pp. 72-73. Expulsions dropped from 109 during the 1997-98 school year to 3 in 1999-2000. See Final Report, p. 24. The improved learning environment was obvious to both teachers and students. In 1999-2000, 94 percent of teachers indicated they felt safe at school, compared to only 42% in 1997-98. See Interim Report, p. 14. Also in 1999-2000, 93 percent of parents that expressed an opinion felt that their child was safe at school. See Final Report, pp. 24-25. Dr. Watson explained a number of strategies implemented by the District to ensure strict adherence to the Handbook. First, each year the District involved all stakeholders (students, parents, teachers and administrators), including Joshua, in the process of revising the Handbook. See Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 33-34. Second, the District provided training to students, teachers and administrators on the provisions of the Handbook. See Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 33 and 38-44 and CXs 672-675. Third, the District asked all parents to sign a \"parent contract\" by which a parent stated that he or she had read the Handbook and agreed to ensure his or her child's 26 compliance with the Handbook. Tr. Nov. 19,2001, p. 33 and CXs 661-670 (back cover). Fourth, the District created the Ombudsman position to investigate student complaints of racebased mistreatment in student discipline. See Tr. Nov. 19,2001, pp. 16-17. Finally^ Dr. Watson monitored schools' compliance with the Handbook in two ways. Dr. Watson (or another hearing officer working under her supervision) reviewed every long-term suspension and expulsion and those short-term suspensions that were appealed. Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 35-37 and 54. Dr. Watson testified that any failure by the school to follow the Handbook resulted in the suspension or expulsion being expunged from the student's record and the student being returned to school. See Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 26-27 and 35-37. Dr. Watson also prepared and reviewed quarterly Discipline Management Reports cataloging the number of suspensions and expulsions at each school. Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 55-56 and CXs 678-681 (annual reports). Dr. Watson provided these reports to Joshua on a regular, ongoing basis. Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 62-63 and CX 682. She used these reports to identify schools having discipline problems and would conference with the school's administrators to work out solutions. Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 64-71 and CXs 684 and 685. The District also engaged in a number of activities designed to decrease the number of suspensions and expulsions. First, the District revised the curriculum in an effort to make it more engaging. Students engaged in learning are less likely to misbehave. See Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, p. 45. Second, the District established a number of new alternative learning environments to allow students with behavioral problems to remain in an educational setting. See Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, pp. 49-55. Third, each year schools were asked to develop strategies for reducing the number of suspensions and expulsions. See Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, p. 48 and CX 677. Fourth, the District offered traimng for teachers and other personnel in classroom management and effective discipline. See Tr. Nov. 19,2001, pp. 45-46 and CX 676. Fifth, the District provided training to students in conflict resolution and peer mediation and provided group counseling and case managers. See Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, p. 46. Finally, for those students who violated the Handbook's 27 !code of conduct, the District followed progressive discipline imposing lesser sanctions before suspending students. Behavior modification plans were used as a part of the progressive discipline process. Tr. Nov. 19,2001, p. 46. Despite the substantial decrease in the number of suspensions and expulsions, there was no decrease in the percentage of suspensions going to Afiican-American students. Courts have used a statistic called the total suspension index to measure the extent to which Afiican- American students are disproportionately suspended, often referred to as the \"discipline disparity.\" The total suspension index is calculated by dividing the percentage of Afiican- American students suspended and expelled by the percentage of Afiican-American students in the total student population. Thus, proportional discipline of Afiican-American students would yield a total suspension index of 1.00. SSS Hoots v. Pennsylvania. 118 F.Supp.2d 577, 608 n.25 (W.D. Pa. 2000). The LRSD's total suspension index has ranged from 1.31 to 1.25 from the 1992-93 school year through the 2000-01 school year. See Exhibit 743 and Docket No. 2226, Exhibit 17. According to 1998' data from the Office of Civil Rights, the total suspension index for all of Arkansas was 2.16. The national total suspension index was 2.24. Other school districts around the country have been declared umtary despite a total suspension index greater than that of the LRSD. See Coalition of Save Our Children. 901 F.Supp. at 817 (total suspension index of 1.81) and Hoots. 118 F.Supp.2d at 608 (total suspension index of 1.50). Joshua will likely argue that the District should have done more to try to reduce the discipline disparity. However, the Revised Plan did not require the LRSD to reduce the discipline disparity. The Revised Plan required strict adherence with the Handbook, irrespective of whether strict adherence to the Handbook resulted in a discipline disparity. The only way to ensure proportional discipline is racial disciplinary quotas. In reversing a remedial decree requiring proportional discipline, the Seventh Circuit noted\n^This was the most recent data available at the time of the hearings. 28( . r' Racial disciplinary quotas violate equity in its root sense. They entail either systematically overpunishing the innocent or systematically imderpunishing the guilty. They place race at war with justice. They teach schoolchildren an unedifying lesson of racial entitlements. And they incidentally are inconsistent with another provision of the decree, which requires that discipline be administered without regard to race or ethnicity. People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ.. Ill F.3d 528, 538 (7** Cir. 1997). See Keyes. 902 1  F.Supp. at 1304 (\"If a student's conduct violates the discipline policy, it is expected that he or she will be disciplined regardless of the potential disparate effect on racial/ethnic statistics.\"). See also Ark. Code Ann.  6-18-506(c) (\"Every school district board of directors in this state shall hold its pupils strictly accountable for any disorderly conduct in school, on the school grounds, in r a school bus, or at any school function.\"). Similarly in the present case, mandating proportional discipline would violate the Revised Plan's promise of \"no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline.\" See Revised Plan  2.5. ( Joshua came forward with no evidence that the current racial disparity resulted from systematic discrimination by the LRSD. Not a single student testified that he or she had been discriminated against by the LRSD in the imposition of discipline. Dr. Watson, an Afiican- American, testified that, based on her experience as a hearing officer, Afiican-American students were being suspended more because they were engaging in behavior requiring suspension imder the Handbook. See Tr. Nov. 19,2001, pp. 83-84. Dr. Watson stated that socioeconomic factors likely explain the current disparity. See Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, p. 84. The District's Ombudsman, ^^Similarly, Dr. Walberg testified: Q I asked you about whether or not socioeconomic status was related, or bore a relationship to disparity in Special Education, you indicated that it was. I think you mentioned also gifted and talented as another area that would be impacted in the same manner. What about discipline, suspensions, expulsions, that type of activity? Are you familiar with the relationship between socioeconomic status and school discipline? A It's not my primary area of interest, but I am somewhat familiar, and the relation is what you would expect from the other research that poor children more often get into difficulties of various kinds of indiscipline and so on, and are suspended from school. Tr. May 13, 1996, p. 183. See also Tr. May 13, 1996, p. 189. 29 {-  iJames Washington, an African-American, investigated student claims of race-based mistreatment with regard to discipline. Washington testified: Q. A. Finally, Mr. Walker asked you about the over representation of black students among students suspended and expelled. Based on your experience as Ombudsman and your experience in the District, do you have any reason to believe that the over-representation of African-Americans in discipline has resulted from any systematic discrimination by the Little Rock School District? No, sir, I have no reason to believe that that is true. S^Tr.Nov. 19,2001, p. 21. Therefore, the LRSD successfully endeavored to reduce the number of suspensions while at the same time strictly adhering to the Handbook. The Revised Plan did not require the LRSD to eliminate the discipline disparity. To the contrary, the Revised Plan required \"no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline.\" See Revised Plan  2.5. Joshua failed to meet their burden in establishing that the current racial disparity was caused by systematic racial discrimination by the LRSD. Accordingly, the LRSD should be declared unitary and released from court supervision with regard to Revised Plan  2.5 - 2.5.4. See Freeman, 503 U.S. at 489. D. Siunmary Judgment. For purposes of summary judgment, the Revised Plan sections can be divided into two categories: sections timely challenged by Joshua and those that were not. With regard to those Revised Plan sections not timely challenged by Joshua, the Revised Plan requires that the LRSD be immediately granted unitary status and released from court supervision. See Revised Plan  11. With regard to sections timely challenged by Joshua but not yet litigated, the LRSD moves for summary judgment. Discovery has revealed no evidence that the Board cannot be trusted to comply with the Constitution in the future absent court supervision. Consequently, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the LRSD should be granted judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)\nCelotex Corp, v. Catrett. 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) Cody. 139 F.3d at 1200. 30I i There will hkely be a dispute as to what Revised Plan sections were timely challenged by Joshua. On April 4, 2001, Judge Wright issued a scheduling order pertaining to challenges to the LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. The order stated, \"Any challenges to the LRSD's compliance must be filed on or before May 18, 2001.\" See Docket No. 3414, p. 2. Following two extensions of time, Joshua's challenges to the LRSD's compliance were due June 25,2001. See Docket Nos. 3434 and 3445. On June 25, 2001, Joshua filed a pleading challenging the LRSD's compliance with following sections of the Revised Plan: 2.1, 2.1.1,2.2,2.2.1,2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.2.5, 2.2.6, 2.2.7, 2.3, 3.6, 2.4, 2.5, 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5.3, 2.5.4, 2.6, 2.6.1, 2.6.2, 2.7, 2.7.1, 2.8, 2.9,2.11.1, 3.4, 3.6, 5.4 and 5.6. Docket No. 3447. Joshua's June 25, 2001, pleading included little more than general allegations of noncompliance. As Judge Wright recognized at the June 29, 2001, pretrial hearing, \"His objections are very general I might add.\" Tr. June 29,2001, p. 49. In preparation for hearings scheduled for July 5-6, 2001, and August 1-2,2001, Judge Wright admonished Joshua: THE COURT: ... Try to tailor your evidence, so that the Court hears the strongest evidence you have against these people. MR. WALKER: Yes. Your Honor, we would ask - THE COURT: I mean, I am not saying that you have any evidence against them, but don't fritter away your time with - MR. WALKER: I understand. THE COURT:  with trivial matters, you know. And I am not like some judges, but I do get, you know, and all of us get tired of hearing just, you know, the trivial things. We want to hear the, you know, we want to hear the strongest evidence you have got. Tr. Jxme 29, 2001, pp. 54-55. On July 5-6, 2001, Joshua called as witnesses Junious Babbs, the LRSD's Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services, and Dr. Gamine, the LRSD's Superintendent during the term of the Revised Plan.'^ Joshua wasted almost an entire day ^^At the conclusion of these hearings. Judge Wright observed, \"[I]t has occurred to me that more likely than not, just more likely than not, if all we were looking at were the constitution, that is the FGreen v. County Sch. Bd. of New Kent County. 391 U.S. 430(1968)] factors. Little Rock is probably unitary.\" Tr. July 6,2001, p. 553. The Green factors are: (1) 31 Iquestioning Babbs about Revised Plan sections for which he was not directly responsible. See, e^, Tr. July 5,2001, pp. 249-250 . As a result, it became obvious that additional time would be needed beyond the August 1-2, 2001 hearing dates, and that time limits would be necessary. On July 9,2001, Judge Wright scheduled two additional hearing days on Revised Plan  2.7, 2.7.1 and 2.5 - 2.5.4 for November 19-20, 2001, and advised the parties that all remaining hearing time would be split evenly between the LRSD and Joshua. Tr. July 9,2001, p. 64. In addition. Judge Wright set aside the week of January 28,2002, for a hearing on the LRSD's compliance with other Revised Plan sections challenged by Joshua. In preparation for the January 28, 2002, hearing. Judge Wright directed Joshua to narrow the issues by specifically identifying how the LRSD had failed to comply with the Revised Plan sections identified in Joshua's general objections filed June 25,2001. Judge Wright stated: I want you, Mr. Walker, to decide between now and, I will give you a date, but sometime in December, what other issues you want to bring to the Court's attention, and what other issues you object to, and want to carry a burden of proving that the District is not in compliance on. And I want you to be very specific about these in terms of what parts of the Compliance Report you are objecting to, so that we can once again, beginning January 28th, have a hearing a discrete part of this plan, if that is what you want to do. I don't want just general objections. I want it to be, you know, very explicit, as to why you think this District has not complied. If you have just a more general objection, such as the one you filed initially, that still stands of record. on Tr. 536 (11/20/01) (emphasis supplied). In response to Judge Wright's directive, however, Joshua simply identified additional sections of the Revised Plan that it \"intend[ed] to show noncompliance by the [LRSD].\" See Docket No. 3557. More disturbing to the LRSD than the lack of specifics was the fact that Joshua for the first time challenged the LRSD's compliance with Revised Plan  2.11, 3.1, 3.8, 3.9,4.0, 5.5,6.0, 7.0 and 8.3. Compare Docket No. 3447 with 3557. Joshua's challenge to these Revised Plan sections was untimely pursuant to Judge Wright's order of April 4, 2001, and the LRSD should be granted immediate unitary status with student assignment, (2) facilities, (3) faculty, (4) staff, (5) transportation and (6) extracurricular activities. Id. at 435. 32 regard to Revised Plan  2.11, 3.1, 3.8, 3.9, 4.0, 5.5, 6.0, 7.0 and 8.3. as required by Revised Plan  11. See Freeman. 503 U.S. at 489. in. Conclusion. This Court has a \"duty to return the operations and control of schools to local authorities' ,11 at the earliest practicable date. Freeman, 503 U.S. at 489. The Supreme Court explained: As we have long observed, 'local autonomy of school districts is a vital national tradition.' Dayton Bd. of Education v, Brinkman, 433 U.S. 406,410, 97 S.Ct. 2766, 2770, 53 L.Ed.2d 851 (1977) (Dayton I). Returning schools to the control of local authorities at the earliest practicable date is essential to restore their true accountability in our governmental system. When the school district and all state entities participating with it in operating the schools make decisions in the absence of judicial supervision, they can be held accountable to the citizenry, to the political process, and to the courts in the ordinary course. Id. at 490 (emphasis supplied). See also Missouri v. Jenkins. 515 U.S. 70,138 (1995) (\"Usurpation of the traditionally local control over education not only takes the judiciary beyond its proper sphere, it also deprives the States and their elected officials of their constitutional powers. At some point, we must recognize that the judiciary is not omniscient, and that all problems do not require a remedy of constitutional proportions.\")\nFreeman v. Pitts. 503 U.S. 467, 505-06 (1992)(Scalia, J., concurring)('\"From the very first, federal supervision of local school systems was intended as a temporary measure to remedy past discrimination.' Dowell. 498 U.S., at 247, 111 S.Ct., at 637 (emphasis added). We envisioned it as temporary partly because '[n]o single tradition in public education is more deeply rooted than local control over the operation of schools,' Milliken v. Bradley. 418 U.S. 717, 741, 94 S.Ct. 3112, 3125,41 L.Ed.2d 1069 (1974) (Milliken I), and because no one's interest is furthered by subjecting the Nation's educational system to 'judicial tutelage for the indefinite future,' Dowell, supra. 498 U.S., at 249, 111 S.Ct., at 638\nsee also Dayton Bd. of Education v. Brinkman. 433 U.S. 406, 410, 97 S.Ct. 2766, 2770, 53 L.Ed.2d 851 (1977)\nSpangler v. Pasadena City Bd, of Education. 611 F.2d 1239, 1245, n. 5 (CA9 1979) (Kennedy, J., concurring). But we also envisioned it as temporary, I think, because the rational basis for the extraordinary presumption of causation simply must dissipate as the de jure system and the school boards who produced it recede fiirther 33 into the past. Since a multitude of private factors has shaped school systems in the years after abandonment of de jure segregationnormal migration, population growth (as in this case), 'white flight' Iftom the inner cities, increases in the costs of new facilities-the percentage of the current makeup of school systems attributable to the prior, government-enforced discrimination has diminished with each passing year, to the point where it caiuiot realistically be assumed to be a significant factor.\")\nBd. of Educ. v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237, 248 (1991)(\"Dissolving a desegregation decree after the local authorities have operated in compliance with it for a reasonable period of time properly recognizes that 'necessary concern for the important values of local control of public school systems dictates that a federal court's regulatory control of such systems not extend beyond the time required to remedy the effects of past intentional discrimination. See Milliken v. Bradley [Milliken 11 ], 433 U.S., at 280-82, 97 S.Ct., at 2757-58.' Spangler v. Pasadena City Bd. of Education, 611 F.2d, at 1245, n. 5 (Kennedy, J., concurring).\"). The \"ultimate question\" before this Court is \"whether the [LRSD] [is] likely to comply with the Constitution in the absence of court supervision ...Cody. 139 F.3d at 1199-1200. Joshua bears the burden of proof on this question. See Revised Plan 11. Joshua has not and cannot meet their burden. After over 40 years of court supervision of the LRSD, the time has come to return control to the democratically elected Board. Fourth Circuit Chief Judge Wilkinson's final thoughts in affirming the district court's granting of unitary status to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school district apply with equal force to the LRSD: No decisions are more sensitive and difficult than those involving public schools, and no process more wrenching than that of matching limited resources to the limitless array of educational needs. But these challenges are better met by communities than by courts and, after thirty-five years of sporadic judicial supervision, the time has come to conclude. If not now, when? Each child is a human being to educate. If this essential task of education has become too daunting for democracy, then I know not who we are or what we shall become. Belk, 269 F.3d at 356 (Wilkinson, C.J., concurring). For the reasons set forth above, the LRSD should be granted unitary status and released from court supervision without further evidentiary hearings. 34f' Respectfully Submitted, f  LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT   Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR_22201-3493 (5011 r^ii r BY: :hristopher Hi r I 35 bp 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 March 15, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 I 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 I Ms. Ann Marshall (hand-delivered) Desep-egation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Hellei ( f 36 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION DELORES CLARK, ET AL. VS. NO. LR 64 C 15S THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER FILED UAOtsnocT courr EASTtWH DtSnRCT AKKANSAS JUL 91982 CA^R. BRENTS, CLERK OE^.CLLRA PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS The Board of Education of the Little Rock School District has petitioned the Court for approval of a revised elementary school student assignment plan. The plan is referred to as the \"Partial K-6 Plan\". 1 In 1973, after years of litigation, 2 the plaintiffs ana the school district reached a mutually satisfactory agreement involving a number of issues, including a student assignment plan, and a moratorium was declared with respect to further litigation. Beginning in the school year 1973-74, the elementary schools were essentially desegregated. Because the eastern parts of the district are essentially black residential areas and western parts of the district are essentially white residential areas, it has been necessary to employ extensive bussing to achieve school desegregation. Over the years, there has been a steady trend of increasing black enrollment and decreasing white enrollment in the elementary schools. The trend is present, although less pronounced, in the upper grades. 1. DX 20. 2. The original desegregation case against the Little Rock School District was filed in 1956. The pending case, was simply a continuation of the original litigation, in 1964. The pending case which was filea : exhibit J 1 The following chart 3 illustrates the trend' which has been established and maintained since 1971: Little Rock Public Schools, Grades 1-12 Change in Student Enrollment, Fall 1971 to Fall 1981 Year Number of Whites Number of Blacks Decline in Whites Percent DecIn In Whites 1971 13,413 9,814 1,256 1972 11,926 9,909 1,487 11.1 1973 10,999 10,096 927 7.8% 1974 10,303 10,246 696 6.3% 1975 9,760 10,730 543 5.3% 1976 9,320 10,991 440 4.5% 1977 8,708 11,089 612 6.6% 1978 7,979 11,142 729 8.4% 1979 7,454 11,517 525 6.6% 1980 6,806 11,780 648 8.7% 1981 6,291 11,813 515 7.5%' b.b% The trend is generally explained by a number of demographic factors, such as population shifts by whites to the suburbs. increase in black population in the district, differences in birth rates, and, to some extent, the element of \"white 4 flight\". As previously mentioned, the increasing disparity in the ratio between black and white students attending the district is most pronounced at the elementary school level. The following chart^ illustrates that trend. 3. DX 19, page 17. 4. 5. DX 19, pages 12-28\ntestimony of Dr. Dewitt Davis. Composite from Exhibits 2 through 13. 2I Little Rock Public Schools, Grades 1-6 Change in Student Enrollment, Fall 1971 to Fall 1981 Year Number of Whites Number of Blacks Decline in Whites Percent beclin in Whites 1971 7,283 5,712 1972 6,497 5,933 786 10.8% 1973 5,700 5,822 797 12.3% 1974 5,012 5,805 688 12.1% 1975 4,560 5,864 452 9.1% 1976 4,374 5,928 186 4.1% 1977 4,066 6,022 308 7.1% 1978 3,871 6,218 195 4.8% 1979 3,459 6,637 412 10.7% 1980 3,152 6,661 307 8.9% 1981 2,501 6,953 651 20.8% During the 1977-78 school year. it became apparent that the student assignment plan implemented in earlier years was not accomplishing the desegregation goals established by the district. 7 The district took the initiative in correcting the problem. A \"Reorganization Committee\" was formed which studied various proposals and, as a product of that work. the district adopted a reorganization of the student assignment plan which was implemented in the 1978-79 school year. 6. The Court was given two sets of figures for student enrollment in the 1979-1980 school year. This chart is basea on the figures contained in Defendant's Exhibit 12. 7. Testimony of Dr. Leonard Thalmueller. 3Under -^e 1978-79 reorganization plan, the first three grades were designated prinary grades and graaes four through six were designated as intermediate graaes. At that tine blacks accounted for 63% of the students in graaes one through six. One of the goals of reorganization was to maintain a black-white attendance ratio at each school which was within a ten percent variation from the district average at the elementary school level. 8 For example, as a result of the 1978-79 reorganization plan. Forest Park School had the lowest percentage of black students at 53% and Garland and Mitchell Schools had the highest percent at 70%. By 1980-81 the declining white enrollment, particularly * in the primary grades, again resulted in significant deviations in the black-white ratio at a number of schools. For example. at Williams School, which is located in a predominantly white residential area, only 8 white children enrolled in the first grade for the 1981-82 school year while 117 black children enrolled. There were seven schools, grades one through six, irtiich had black enrollment of 80% or more, one in excess of 86%. Although the School District has been conscious of the trend of decreasing white enrollment and taken some measures to curtail the erosion. 9 nothing has significantly affected the trend. All of the persuasive evidence indicates the school district will have an enrollment which is essentially all black, particularly in the elementary grades, within the next few years. 8. Testimony of Dr. Thalmueller. 9. The administration has done an admirable job of offering quality education. Considerable effort has been drrectea toward providing curricula calculated to attract whites who have left the district's schools because of a belief that the district was not offering quality education. These efforts include honors classes, ability grouping. emphasis on improvement in basic skills, etc. Addi- tionally, the administration has worked with the civic community and volunteer groups in efforts to encourage support for public schools and improvement in the quality of education provided. 4Faced with a significantly reduced white enrollment in the primary grades and a vocal protest by white parents against white racial insolation in some of the primary classes, the School Board adopted a \"65-35\" classroom assignment plan in the fall of 1981. The plan was a hurriedly conceivea stopgap measure to appease white parents of primary age children. The plan required that white children be assigned to home room classes with other whites until the percentage reached 35% in each class. The plan had the effect, of course, of creating some all black classes. The plan was disapproved by this Court following an evidentiary hearing in September, 1981. In the fall of 1981, the Little Rock School Board faced a host of problems which prompted reconsideration of the school attendance plan. For example, a significant disparity had developed in the black-white ratio of attendance at the various elementary schools and there was reason to believe the ratio would increase. Some of the black parents complained that their children were being bussed across the city to attend all black classes. Additionally, the last two milleage increase proposals had been defeated by the electorate and the district is faced with severe financial problems and an eroding financial base. The overall declining enrollment in the district and financial considerations dictated the closing of some school buildings. The Board took several steps in response to the problems. A \"Patrons Reorganization Committee^ was appointed to receive and review various proposals for pupil assignment plans and determine the feasibility of implementing the pro- posals. The Committee was asked to conduct public hearings 10. The committee was a twenty member committee composea of 10 blacks and 10 whites, 10 who were males and 10 females. 5in various parts of the city in order to get as much input from the public as possible. The Board arranged for a stuay of the district's desegregation efforts by the Technical Assistance Center of Stephen F. Austin State.University. This \"Desegregation Assistance Team\" submitted a report of its findings and conclusions to th_e Board in December, 1981. 11 The Biracial Committee, which is an advisory com- mittee formed as a result of the agreement in 1973, was asked to review the various plans and proposals for changes in the attendance plan. The administrative staff was assigned the task of compiling information and lending support assistance to committees. The Board also investigated the possibility of seeking an interdistrict remedy through legal proceedings against the adjacent County School District and has hired a law firm to pursue that remedy. Some 15 proposed plans or concepts for elementary pupxl assignment were submitted to the Board, Patrons Committee and Biracial Committee for consideration. The plans were reduced to three, and finally \"Partial K-6 Plan\" was adopted by the Board after a number of minor modifications. The Board apparently views Partial K-6 as a temporary plan which provides the best chance for maintaining an integrated school system pending a decision in the interdistrict remedy suit. Partial K-6 Plan produces a number of results the Board views as preferable over the present plan. 1. The plan eliminates the primary-intermediate grouping, (or 3-3) plan (or has the same effect by pairing schools). Apparently one of the recurring complaints about the present plan is that students are moved from school to school too frequently. 11. DX 19. 6and their classmates change every three years. K-6 permits elementary age children to attend the same school or at least attend with the same schoolmates for six years, thereby fostering a sense of security, continuity and stability. 2. Partial K-6 permits the organization of nine neighborhood schools. 3. Approximately 1,000 fewer students will be bussed under Partial K-6. The number of bus routes will be reduced from 104 to 72 with an estimated immediate savings of $132,000. Furthermore, the number of school opening and closing times can be reduced. 4. Two elementary school buildings will be closed under partial K-6. 5. Partial K-6 employs the concept of a magnet school with a curricula attractive to some parents who are concerned about the quality of education. 6. The number of schools with a black ratio of 80% or more will be reduced from seven to four. Plaintiffs oppose the plan for several reasons. The \"objections to petition\" will be discussed in the order raised in plaintiffs' response to the Board's petition. 1. The \"plaintiffs object to additional black school closings\". This objection revolves around the part of Partial K-b which proposes that Booker Junior High School be changed to an elementary school. Although it is asserted that Booker will be \"closed\", such is not the case. 7Because of declining enrollments in junior high school. the Board concluded that one junior high facility was not needed. Booker had the fewest number of students ano reassignment of its students to other schools caused the least disruption. Thus, Booker was selected for conversion to an elementary school. Under the final plan, the schools which will be closed are Jefferson and King. Jefferson is in a white neighborhood and King is in a black neighborhood. The Board commissioned an evaluation of school physical plants and a report was submitted to the Board (the Leggett report) which indicatea that the cost of refurbishing and repairing King Elementary would be 51,500,000. On the basis of that estimate. King was selected for closing. Plaintiffs' argument that converting Booker to an elementary school causes a \"burden\" on blacks is puzzling. as is the claim that such a move is calculated \"to further relieve white stufendts (sic) of educational presence in the Black community.\" First, if there is a burden on black junior high students, there is a corresponding buroen on white elementary students who will be transported to Booker. Second, the black neighborhood will certainly have the \"presence\" of those white elementary age students who attend Booker, Third, while black junior high students may be transported from the Booker neighborhood to other areas. black elementary age children will be relieved of that burden. It would seem that bussing older children is preferable to transporting elementary age children. With respect to the general allegations that school closings have, over the years, had the effect of relieving the \"proportionate burden\" upon white children and enhancing it for black children, such is simply not supported by the evidence. First, all site selection for construction has 8been the subject of court approval. (Testimony of Lacey). Second, plaintiffs failed to produce any evioence that a school has been \"closed or downgraded* because of improper consideration. Third, if there has been a \"disproportionate burden\" caused by transportation of students, it has fallen on white students, not blac)c, and such will continue as the case under Partial K-6. (Testimony of Thalmueller and Lacey). The only bases for this objection are conclusory allegations which are not supported by persuasive evidence. 2. \"Plaintiffs object to the efforts to develop four 'segregated' or 'racially' identifiable\" schools. Under Partial K-6, four elementary schools will have a black enrollment of 90% or more. These schools are locatea in black residential areas. The black enrollment in the eighteen remaining elementary schools will range from bU% to 77%. Currently, the average black elementary enrollment in the district is 76%. Plaintiffs contend that creating four schools which have a black enrollment in excess of 90% is simply an effort to establish segregated schools and, that if allowed, \"there will be no prohibition upon the defendants in establishing them for white school children\". Plaintiffs further argue that by simply \"adjusting\" the attendance zones of the present plan a racial l\u0026gt;alance can be maintained in each school. The Board's decision to depart from the present plan was prompted by a numljer of factors. First, the present plan is not working. Although attendance zones can be drawn based upon school age census in the zone, predictions as to the number of students who actually enroll in school from that zone cannot be made with any degree of accuracy. Predictions as to enrollment by grade from a zone are even more troublesome. A good example of the problem is the 9situation last school year at Williams Elementary where b white children and 117 black children enrolled in the first grade. The problem of maintaining a racial balance at each school is compounded by the declining white enrollment at the elementary age level. In 1981-82, only 2,501 white elementary age students enrolled. 1 This was a decline of bSl from the previous year. Obviously, if the trend continues. t and there is no reason to believe otherwise, in a matter of two or three years there will be no \"critical mass\" of white students in any elementary school for the purpose of meaningful integration. Dnder the present plan, seven schools have a black I i enrollment of 80S or more. The Board's conclusion that \"meaningful integration\" did not exist at those schools is apparently supported by a majority of authorities on the subject of desegregation. Those authorities think that in order to have meaningful integration, 20S'of the students must be of the second race. 12 Given the difficulties in predicting enrollment and the sharp decline each year in white enrollment, there is no reason to believe that a I simple \"adjustment\" in attendance zones will reduce the number of schools with a black enrollment in excess of 80%. 3. Plaintiffs argue that Partial K-6 is \"reimposition\" of the concept of separate but equal. This argument would have some persuasiveness if there was any realistic hope of stabilizing the ratio of blacks and whites enrolled in elementary schools. Such stabilization plus a reasonable degree of predictability as to enrollment 12. DX 19, pages 7, 8. Testimony of Orfield, page 2b. 10?! by grades from an attendance zone may permit the maintenance of a \"balanced ratio\" at each school. Unfortunately, such is not the case. Partial K-6 is simply recognition of the fact that a substantial number of black students are now being bussed across the district to attend classes which ctre essentially all black. Although maintaining a \"balanced ratio\" at each school is a worthy goal of any desegregation plan, it is not the sole criterion. Most importantly, the four elementary schools in question are not part of a separate school system for blacKs. Attendance is determined by neighborhood, not by race. Furthermore, under a modification to the plan, black students are given the opportunity of transferring from those four schools to other schools in the district. 4. Plaintiffs make a number of general objections to the plan which will be discussed collectively. Plaintiffs contend the plan violates a part of the moratorium agreement which required that the primary grades would be located in the black community when the black enrollment reached 65%. No such agreement has been established by the evidence. Furthermore, if there was such an agreement, it has not been enforced because black enrollment in the primary grades has been in excess of 65% for several years. In any event, any informal agreement between the parties reached in 1973 cannot reasonably be applied so as to dictate the terns of an attendance plan in 1982.* - During the evidentiary hearing plaintiffs contended that the facilities at the four essentially all black schools would be \"overcrowded\". Defendants' witnesses denied the 11allegation And contend that guidelines in the plan are calculated to insure quality education at the four schools. The Court is unwilling at this point to predict failure or the Board's stated goals of insuring quality education at the four schools. If any disparity develops in the facilities or the quality of education offered at the four schools, the plaintiffs can always file a motion seeking correction of the disparity. Plaintiffs contend the Partial K-6 plan is actually the same as the \"65-35\" plan offered by the Board and rejected by this Court in September, 1981. The argument is made that Partial K-6 effectively segregates by placing clacks in separate school buildings instead of separate classes, which was the effect of the 65-35 plan. There is little parallel between the two plans. The 65-35 plan was an ill-conceived reaction to vocal white parents who were alarmed about racial insolation in the primary grades. The partial K-6 plan is the product of a reorganization project which utilized the' Patrons Committee, Biracial Committee and administrative staff in an effort to seek community involvement in a student attendance plan. Moreover, the factors influencing the adoption of the plan are legitimate considerations for any student assignment plan. The only weight which can be given the 65-35 plan in any evaluation of Partial K-6 is on the issue of the Board's motive. The Court concludes that the Board is not motivated by a desire to resegregate the schools in adopting.Partial K-6. Finally, plaintiffs contend that the district has not achieved unitary status in that \"vestiges of discrimination\" have not been totally eliminated. Particularly, plaintiffs claim that discrimination persists in the \"faculty, staff. programs, activities, discipline and site selection policies and practices of the district\". Since this same argument 12has come up at the last three hearings, the Court will address it although resolution is not essential to the issue at hand. The claim is asserted that administrative and faculty positions are filled in a discriminatory manner. The issue regarding the recent employment of_ a white superintendent over plaintiffs' objections was decided following our evidentiary hearing in February, 1982, and need not be reviewea again. The question of faculty and administrative staffing has been monitored for years by Dr. J.J. Lacey, a black wno is Special Assistant to the Superintendent for Desegregation in the district. Dr. Lacey knows and understands the require-' ments of the Clark decrees and, without reviewing the details, the Court accepts Dr. Lacey's testimony that the district has been, and is, in compliance with those guidelines. Plaintiffs suggested, during the evidentiary hearings, that the black-white faculty and staff ratio should coincide with the ratio of black to white students. The Court concurs with Dr. Lacey's view that the available labor market more appropriately determines the racial composition of the faculty and staff than does the ratio of students. Plaintiffs claim all the \"heads of departments\" are white. This is not a fact but, in any event, the supervisor of all the academic department heads is Dr. Benjamin Williams, a black. The argument is made that currently there are no black principals of any of the three high schools, white principals and one position is vacant. There are two A black woman was recommended by Dr. Masem^^ for the vacant position, but she was not hired by the Board. Plaintiffs also argue that 13. Dr. Paul Masem was Superintendent of the District for a little over three years and the Board voted to replace him. Dr. Masem's departure was not an amicable he harbors some bitterness toward the District. him. one ana 13Dr. Ruth Patterson was denied a position because of racxal reasons and that racial considerations influenceo personnel decisions involving William Thrasher and Paul Margrow. These arguments are supported solely by conclusions ana opinions of the witnesses. In any event, the opinions ana conclusions from such witnesses as~Dr. Patterson, who can hardly be characterized as a disinterested witness, are not persuasive evidence that the district pursues discriminatory personnel practices. 14 Plaintiffs point to the fact that whites predominate in the honors courses, advanced academic courses and language courses as a \"vestige\" of discrimination. While it is true that whites predominate in those courses, there is absolutely no evidence that such enrollment is the product of any discriminatory policy or practice pursued by the Board. To the contrary, advanced academic courses and language courses are \"open\" to anybody who elects to take the courses. There is no evidence that the honors program is administered in anything other than an objective fashion. According to br. Benjamin Williams, the administration has been conscious of the disproportionate numbers of whites in these programs as well as the fact that blacks are represented in disproportionate numbers in the basic courses. If there was any explanation grounded in racially discriminatory practices, surely those reasons would have been produced. Reference was made to disciplinary action and the claim that blacks are disciplined in disproportionate numbers to 14. Dr. Patterson has a lawsuit pending against the district asserting her claims that she has been subjected to discriminatory treatment, . I 15. Testimony of Dr. Williams. 14) whites. Dr'. Lacey monitors the discipline situation and says that he makes \"every effort\" to see that discriminatory practices play no part in disciplinary procedures. Plaintiffs produced no evidence that any practice or policy regarding discipline was discriminatory or applied in a discriminatory manner. The suggestion has been made that one vestige of discrimination is the fact that whites are represented in disproportionate numbers on the cheerleader squads. A reference is also made to discrimination in \"extracurricular activities\". There is no evidence before the Court as to how cheerleaders are selected, the composition of the cheerleader squads or even a description of the policy or practice adopted by the district which is supposed to discriminate against black students. The Court has no idea what other \"extracurricular activities\" are involved in the allegation. Site selection for school closing and construction is alleged as a vestige of discrimination. That allegation has been discussed in preceding sections. Plaintiffs point to the fact that the Board has only one black member. 16 Plaintiffs claim the \"at large\" election procedure discriminates against blacks and that under Arkansas law the Board has the power to change the procedure so that members will be elected by wards. The Board's failure to oo so is asserted as further evidence of official discrimination. Although plaintiffs' attorney assured the Court at trial that an Arkansas statute exists which confers that power upon the Board, he has been unable to furnish the citation to the statute and the Court cannot find any sucn procedure in the Arkansas Code. In any event, the Board 16. T.E. Patterson, a black, had been a Board member for at least 10 years. In 1981, B.G. Williams, a black. against Patterson and defeated him. ran 15can hardly be criticized for failing to employ a proceaure which is nonexistent. Plaintiffs are critical of the Board for failing to take affirmative measures to halt the trend of increasing black enrollment in the district and stop the decreasing white enrollment. Specifically, plaintiffs' attorney repeatedly asked witnesses if the Board had taken any steps to \"de-annex\" black residential areas from the district. Changes in district boundaries require, under Arkansas law. concurrence of the electorate in the affected districts. Ark. Stat. S80-404, et seg. Unilateral action taken by the Little Rock School Board is ineffective. The surrounding Pulaski County District has publicly announced that it has no interest in merging with the Little Rock District. Aside from the legal impediments, it would seem that \"de-annexing\" black residential areas in order to deliberately get blacks out of the district is unprecedented and, undoubtedly constitutional. unIn summary, the Court finds no evidence of vestiges of discrimination in the district policies or practices. The Court adopts the opinion of Dr. Orfield and the Austin Stuay Group that the district has done an admirable job in the task of desegregation. Doubtless, there will always be allegations of racial discrimination when any school decision is reviewed in an adversary setting, particularly when there is an integrated enrollment of almost 18,000 pupils and 1,250 teachers and administrators operating under court order. Nevertheless, the Little Rock School District has operated in compliance with court decrees for nine years as a completely unitary desegregated school system and isolateo complaints of discrimination without persuasive specific evidence to the contrary do not detract from that record. 16Conclusions of Law The only serious question in this case is whether that portion of Partial K-6 which produces four elementary scoools with black enrollment in excess of 90% is unconstitutional. Although racial balance in each school is one method which may be used for dismantling \"dual school systems, there can be no serious claim that \"racial balance\" in the public schools is constitutionally mandated. Milliken v. Bradley, 418 D.S. 717, 740-741 (1974)\nSwann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 22-25\nand Pasadena City Bd. of Education v. Spangler, 427 U.S. 424, 434. Furthermore, a small number of onerace, or virtually one-race, schools within a district is not in and of itself the mark of a system that still practices segregation by law. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Education, supra at 26. This is particularly true where, as here, the one race schools are the product of demographics over which the Board has no control. Pasadena City Bd. of Education, supra at 436. As a tool for accomplishing desegregation of elementary grades, the present plan has, perhaps, outlived its usefulness. The dual system has long since been eliminated and the Board should be permitted to consider factors other than \"racial balance\" in structuring an elementary attendance plan. Neighborhood schools, a magnet school, financial considerations, and the desirable aspects of a K through 6 grouping are legitimate factors which may be considered when weighing the educational benefits of one attendance plan against another. Given the declining value of the present plan for desegregation purposes, the Board is certainly entitlea to adopt an attendance plan which meets constitutional standards and permits the district to achieve other educational goals. 17Under the circumstances of this case, Partial K-b Plan is a constitutionally sound plan which may be implementea by the Little Rock School District. Dated this day of July, 1982. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 IBuilding on a Generation of Accomplishment Maintaining and Strengthening Desegregation in Little Rock A Report to the Little Rock School District Desegregation Assistance Team December 16, 1981 The Technical Assistance Center Box 13010A, SFA Station Nacogdoches, Texas 75962 (713) 569-5307 Bennat Mullen, Director J EXHIBIT 2- Dr. Bennat C. Mullen, Team Manager and Director of the Technical Assistance Center Dr. Shirley McCune, Chairperson, Committee on the Maintenance of Quality Integrated Education Dr. Gary Orfield, Committee to Examine the Current Desegregation Plan and to Explore Options Dr. McCune and Dr. Orfield respectively drafted the reports for the two committees above. Other members of the visiting team are listed on the following page.VISITING TEAM Ms. Wanda Banks Jonal Coordinator P.O. Box 39 Marianna, AR 72360 (501) 295-5429 Dr. Clara Jenning.s Chairperson Dept, of Elem/Early Childhood Education University of Arkansas Pine Bluff, AR 71601 (501) 541-6854 \"r. Glenn Campbell Executive Director of Desegregation Monitoring Office 911 Locust St. St. Louis, MO 63101 (314) 231-4153 Dr. Alex John Dean of University Relation.s Northeast Ixjuisiana University 1-5 Administration Bldg. Monroe, LA 71209 (318) 342-2055 Ms. Linda Yee Chew Assistant Director Technical Assistance Center of the Southwest Box 13010A-SFA Station Nacogdoches, TX 75962 (713) 569-5307 Dr. Sheryl Uenbo, Director Race Desegregation Assistance Center The zimcrican University SbO8 Carlynn Drive Bethesda, MD 20034 (202) 686-3511 Dr. Ralph Eddins Professor of Secondary Education Stephen F. Austin State University Box 13023-SFA Station 75962 , TX Nacogiloche (713) 509-3409 Ms. Donna Grady Speech Therapist Marianna School District 212 Church Marianna, AR (501) 295-3364 72360 Dr. Burnett Joiner Dean, College of Education Granibling State University . P.O. Box 46 Grambling, LA 71245 (318) 247-6941 Dr. Lee Mahon Associate Director Project Equity 2047 Ticonderoga Drive San Mateo, CA 94402 (408) 984-4696 Dr. Shirley McCune Director Education Commission of the States State Services Division 1860 Lincoln St. Denver, CO 80295 (303) 830-3786 Mr. George Mirnbal, Manager Shreveport Chamber of Coiiiiiierce P.O. Box 20074 529 Crockett Street Shreveport, LA 71120 (318) 226-8521 Lois Hart Consultant Technical Assistance Center of the Southwest Box 13010A-SFA Station Nacogdoches, TX 75962 (713) 569-5307 Dr. Bennat C. Mullen Director Technical Assistance Center of the Soutliwe.st Box 13010A-SFA Station Nacogdoches, TX 75962 (713) 569-5307Ms. Willia Murphy Senior Program Administrator Technical Assistance Center of the Southwest Box 13010A-SFA Station (713) 569-5307 Mr. Allen E. Alonzo Desegregation Coordinating Supervisor East Baton Rouge Parish School Board P. 0. Box 2950 Baton Rouge, LA 70821 (504) 928-2651 Dr. Gary Orfield, Guest Scholar in Governmental Studies Brookings Institution and Professor at at the University of Illinois 1775 Mass N.W. Washington, D.C. (202) 797-6066 (217) 333-2574 (217) 352-0696 20006 Mr. Win Grant East Baton Rouge Parish School Board P. 0. Box 2950 Baton Rouge, LA 70821 (504) 928-2651 Ms. Susan Paynter Instructor of Secondary Education Stephen F. Austin State University Box 13018-SFA Station Nacogdoches, TX 75962 (713) 569-2908 Dr. Kay Rogers 3809 Sevier North Little Rock, AR 42116 (501) 450-3110 Dr. Donnya Stephens Professor of Secondary Education Stephen F. Austin State University Box 13018-SFA Station Nacogdoches, TX 75962 (713) 569-2908 RESOURCE PERSONS Dr. Dewitt Davis, Demographer Associate Professor of Geography The University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff 4003 Old Warren Road Pine Bluff, AR 71603 (501) 541-6855 Mr. Nathaniel Griffin, Urban Planner Director of Comprehensive Planning City Hall Markham 4 Broadway, Room 311 Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 371-4790 Dr. J. J. Lacey Special Assistant to the Superintendent for Desegregation Little Rock Public Schools West Markham 6 Izard Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 374-3361 Mr. Paul Masem Superintendent of Schools Little Rock Public Schools West Markham \u0026amp; Izard Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 490-2000Technical Assistance Center of the Southwest December 16, 1981 Mr. Paul Masem Superintendent of Schools Little Rock Public Schools West Markham and Izard Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Masem: Herewith in this report are the results .of the study that you asked our Center The support and cooperation that you, members of your staff. Board to conduct. of Education, faculty, students, and community gave us throughout the long course of the study was beyond anything that could have been expected. The quality of interest in and support of the school district exhibited during this study will surely enable the community to meet some of the very real challenges that exist. The visiting team members were again and again impressed with the quality of personnel and the quality of programs found within the district. You and the members of the Board of Education can indeed be proud of the affirmative progress and the quality education progress that are in evidence. At Stephen F. Austin State University we are pleased to have been a part with you of a major effort to simultaneously address equity and excellence in education. The report is organized around those two concerns. It is believed that they complement each other very well. It is our hope that you will find this report useful as you plan for the future. On behalf of our University, the staff of the Technical Assistance Center, and the members of the visiting team I thank you for your hospitality and wish you well. Sincerely yours. Bennat C. MiXLlen Director BCM:pc Box 13010 A SFA Station Nacosdoches, Texas 75962 (713) 569-5307 INTRODUCTION into The image of nine Black children being accompanied by military personnel Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957 is etched into the minds of many adult Americans. This event, the result of the confrontation between Governor Orval Faubus and President Eisenhower, captured the drama of the nations' commitment to dismantle dual school systems and end school deseg- regation. Less well known to Americans, however, is the current status of desegregation and the quality of public education in Central High School and the Little Rock schools. Today, Little Rock's ten all Black schools and 23 all white schools are integrated. The quality of education in Little Rock has shown steady improvement and progress despite the usual setbacks and controversies. Much has been accomplished through the leadership provided by the community and the steady efforts of local school personnel. Once again the commitment of the Little Rock community to the maintenance of quality, integrated, public education is being tested. Concerns about increasing racial isolation, white flight, differential treatment and achievement of Black and white students, and the future of Little Rock schools have been raised. Most of Little Rock citizens recognize that these problems will be increased in the future if nothing is done. The solutions of the past can no longer meet the needs of the community and the schools. The situation found in Little Rock is similar to that of many other cities. Changes in our societydemographic changes, economic changes, socialpolitical changes, and technological changesare as evident in Little Rock as in other areas of the nation. In 1957, Little Rock was a community with a Black population of approximately 25,352 of the total population of 107,813. Little Rock served as the trading center for an agricultural economy. Today,the community consists of 393,494, with a Black population of approximately 82,865, and it has become a growing industrial center. The structure and needs of the community have changed during this period of time and these changes require a reevaluation of the evolving needs and the steps which are required if progress is to be maintained in future years. The following is a report of the observations of a team of twenty-two social scientists, business leaders, educators and technical assistance specialists from all parts of the United States who are involved in the study of school desegregation issues. This team visited the Little Rock community in November, 1981, under the auspices of the Technical Assistance Center located in Nacogdoches, Texas. This Center, a project of Stephen F. Austin State University, serves schools in the states of Arkansas, Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and New Mexico. The team spent four days in Little Rock observing schools\ninterviewing community leaders, parents and school personnel\nand reviewing available research and program documentation. The purpose of the visit was to review the progress of desegregation in Little Rock and to identify ways that the progress could be maintained and expanded. Considerable information had been collected prior to the teams' visit in Little Rock, but it was not anticipated that the team would be able to devote the time or effort necessary for an in- depth study of the Little Rock schools. Rather, the goal of the visit was to utilize the experience of the team as a means of gaining general impressions and recommendations and identifying those areas where further study and consideration was needed. The team was divided into two groups. One group focused on an examination of the current desegregation plan, the demographics and attitudes of the community, and the alternatives which are available for the maintenance andimprovement of Integrated education programs. The second group focused on the internal structure and operation of school programs, the quality of education services provided to Black and white students, and the steps which could be taken to improve the quality of education for all students. A primary assumption of the team was that the maintenance and Im- provement of the quality of education is an essential component of any desegregation effort. The report is organized in two primary sections. The first section deals with the report of the community teamthe feasible adjustments in the desegregation plan within the community and the demographic change and racial trends in Little Rock. The second section of the report focuses on the general quality of integrated education in Little Rock and the opportunities for improvement within the school system. The team was Impressed by the level of community concern about maintaining quality, integrated, public education in Little Rock and the openness and can- dor of school officials and personnel. The team was provided complete coopera- cion and access to schools and information. School personnel were candid in discussing weaknes\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_1445","title":"Report: ''2001-02 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District,'' Office of Desegregation and Monitoring","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":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dc_date":["2002-03-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School enrollment","School integration","School management and organization","School improvement programs","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Report: ''2001-02 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District,'' Office of Desegregation and Monitoring"],"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/1445"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":["20 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1734","title":"Court filings concerning ODM report, ''2001-02 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)'', LRSD motion for an immediate declaration of unitary status, and statement of material facts not in dispute","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":["2002-02/2002-03"],"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","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education and state","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","School enrollment"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning ODM report, ''2001-02 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)'', LRSD motion for an immediate declaration of unitary status, and statement of material facts not in dispute"],"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/1734"],"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":["45 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, three orders; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''2001-02 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; District Court, motion for an immediate declaration of unitary status; District Court, statement of material facts not in dispute submitted in support of motion for an immediate declaration of unitary status; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, motion for extension of time to respond to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for an immediate declaration of unitary status  This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURfSTf:fW ';'STR'~T /\\ 0 \"\"\"\" 1SAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FEB 1/  2002 WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W, fvicCLl  1 ' K, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. * * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * * * * * ORDER Bv:=-- ......... ~~-- 01:P.CLERK No. 4:82CV00866 WRW ;Y There will be a telephone conference at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, February U , 2002. Lawyers for all parties should be available to participate. DATED this 10th day of February, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH ~LE 58 AND/OR ~yep ON ~fJ.l/0 ~ BY_..!.-~~4:---~~-- 5 7 02/13/2002 14:26 5016045137 USDC IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT,  Plaintiff, * vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * Intervenors, * KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., lntervenors. * * ORDER No. 4:82CV00866 WRW PAGE 01/02 The Little Rock School District (LRSD) and the Joshua Intervenors (Joshua) asked to mediate the issue of unitary status of the LRSD. I granted that request. During a telephone conference held on February 12, 2002, the State of Arkansas (State) and the Knight Intervenors (Knight) asked to be included in those mediation discussions. In response to this request, the Joshua lntervenors suggested that initial discussions take place between LRSD and Joshua, and that other parties be brought in only ifLRSD and Joshua come to a tentative agreement. Lawyers for all parties understand, of course, that any agreement between LRSD and Joshua would be binding only on those two parties, and that any agreement is subject to Court approval. 02/1 3/ 2002 14:26 50160451 37 USDC PAGE 02/02 With those limits in mind, I will permit LRSD and Joshua to pursue settlement discussions between themselves. If those two parties reach agreement, and if that agreement materially affects any other party in the case, then that party would then be brought in to the settlement talks. For the present, however, LRSD and Joshua may proceed with settlement talks without the presence of lawyers for other parties in the case. Counsel for Knight orally asked that the Knight Motion to Compel PCS SD Compliance with Plan 2000, Section F (Discipline) (docket entry# 3526) be held in abeyance. That oral motion is GRANTED. I will decide Pulaski County Special School District's Motion for Approval of Middle School Site (docket entry # 3562) on or before Friday, February 22, 2002. Any additional briefs or information on this motion should be fil~/tore 2:00 p.m,, Wednesday, February 12, 2002. IT IS SO ORDERED this } '},} day of February, 2002. 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION UTILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATIIERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * ORDER No. 4:82CV00866 WRW t-'AGE 02 The Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) has moved for approval of a middle school site (docket entry# 3562). Specifically PCSSD, \"seeks a determination by this Court that Plan 200 authorizes the construction of a new middle school within the city limits of the Town of Maumelle.\" The Joshua Intervenors oppose the motion on two grounds: first, that there is no justification for a new school anywhere in Pulaski County at this time; and second, that PCS SD is, in truth, requesting an advisory opinion from the Court. Of course, advisory opinions are not permissible in these circumstances. (They are rarely, if ever, proper in federal litigation.) It is undeTstatem.ent to say that this Court is not writing on a blank slate in this case. The case was filed almost twenty years ago, and the opinions of the Court of Appeals, as well as the - - -------- - - - U.J.LI\\.,, various agreements of the parties are binding, not only the parties, but upon this Court. PCSSD's - current desegregation plan, Pulaski County Special School District Plan 2000 (Plan 2000), was approved March 20, 2000. It is, thus, Plan 2000 which not only guides, but controls. Plan 2000 states, in pertinent part: \"An elementary school, located around 145th Street, and a middle school or junior high school in the Crystal Hill/Maumelle area will be built. The Board will address the development of a plan for new school construction during the term of this Plan if funds are sufficient, including its funding, and report its conclusions not later than 150 days after the court's approval of this Plan. Moreover, the PCSSD shall not close schools which are located in predominantly African-American areas absent reasons of compelling necessity (which does not include the opposition of white patrons to attending such schools).\" PCSSD Plan 2000H(2). PCSSD concedes that it has not done required planning for a Maumelle school, but rather is waiting to \"[obtain] the Court's views upon the matter [of whether Plan 2000 pennits construction of a new school within Maumelle town limits) .. .. \" PCS SD directly asks this Court: \"May (the PCSSD] explore and ultimately propose to this Court a middle school site located within the city limits of Maumelle'?\" I am inclined to agree with the Joshua Intervenors that what PCSSD seeks is an advisory opinion on the suitability of a yet-to-be-selected site for a new middle school. The PCS SD is, of course, free to \"explore\" and \"propose\" construction of a new school in Maumelle, or anywhere else. I fmd nothing in Plan 2000 which categorically rules out a school within Maumelle town limits. On the other hand, court approval of a specific site at this stage would be inappropriate. The query posed is theoretical, and does not go to an actual controversy before this Court. I will consider a t 2 r-1-\\Ut:. t:Jq motion for approval of a new school site when the issue is ripe; that is, after the PCS SD has done - the study, consultation, and analysis required by Plan 2000 and prior court orders. 1 Accordingly, the Motion for Approval of a Middle School Site is denied without prejudice; it is not yet ripe for decision. DATED this ___,r-''--- day of February, 2002. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1PCSSD's memorandum in support of its motion specifically notes that as of December 13, 2001 , \"[the] PCSSD has not yet consulted the administrations of the Little Rock and North Little Rock School Districts, the PCSSD has not yet submitted a proposed site to its bi-racial committee for consideration, no specific site has been finalized and no recent public meetings have been held in the Maumelle and Oak Grove Communities, the District has yet to form a site selection bi-racial committee which include(sJ representative of the LRSD, the NLRSD and the Joshua Intervenors, and the [Office of Desegregation Monitoring] has not yet been specifically consulted concerning a specific site.\" On Wednesday, February 13, 2002, cowisel for the PCSSD notified the Court that since the Motion for Approval was filed, the PCSSD has conducted community forums in Maumelle and in the Crystal Hill area. 3 Fax 3 f- J - 01 07) lo ; HrVJJ ~ , u/)/41 fri ; )~ ~ ~ -- a J:JuJv ~ ~ {),,,___~ 3/tq /o-z- . PAGE 01 RECEIVED MAR 1 - 2002 - OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. NOTICE OF FILING DEFENDANTS r~ ~ In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of ADE's Project Management Tool for February, 2002. Respectfully Submitted, MARK.PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Attorney Genera 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-3643 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, certify that on February 28, 2002, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person( s) at the address( es) indicated: M. SamuelJones,III Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KA THERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of February 28, 2002 ~~~~~1~7i~i~~ffi~~~~~~~~~~\\~g~j~;~~t~~~~~g~~~hJ.$f~~t~icip't~t~aiiM~ B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FILED WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAR - t 2002 JA~ES W. McCO~~K .By. ~K vs. * * * * No. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * 1vfRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * * * * * ORDER RECEIVED MAR - 4 2002 OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING In preparing for hearings in this case, it would help me - and perhaps the parties as well - to have copies of all agreements related to this case which any party believes to be binding ( either on that party or on another party). I have studied the desegregation plans of the school districts, and previous court orders, but there may be other agreements or understandings between or among various parties which affect the resolution of this case. It is important that we all proceed on the same premises, and that all parties understand the obligations and promises of all other parties in the case. Within thirty days of the date of this order, each party must submit to me complete copies of all its agreements with any other party to the case, - whether previously filed or not, which touch on matters relating to the desegregation plans of any 577 - of the three school districts in this case. This is required regardless of the number of parties to an agreement. By \"parties,\" I mean: Little Rock School District, Pulaski County Special School District, North Little Rock School District, State of Arkansas, Joshua Intervenors, and Knight Intervenors. \"Relating to desegregation plans\" includes, but is not limited to, issues surrounding unitary status. If an agreement or understanding relating to desegregation plans has not yet been reduced to writing, but a party believes that it is ( or may be) binding on another party, then all material terms of that agreement or understanding must be summarized in writing and submitted to me. This Order pertains to agreements between or among the parties (and not, for example, a contract with a bus company). Obviously, I already have copies of court-approved desegregation plans, so it is not necessary to include the plans themselves in your submissions. Collective bargaining agreements (and individual contracts between teachers and school districts) are exempt - from this Order, at least for the time being. If there are agreements that a party or parties believe are not covered by this Order, a fair, accurate, and brief summary of those agreements must be submitted along with the copies of the agreements which are produced. I s~ DA TED this ~-___ day of March, 2002. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/O~P ON 311\\0~ BY-~------ 2 ' le ' I ' I ' ' I ,e I I --I I .. I I :- ~-.- :-::.- -- -~ ;::;: u.fJLEo '  EASTERN ol~r~;gT COURT - T ARKANSAS MARO 1 2002 ~::MES W. McCORMACK . , CLERK 2001-02 ENROLLMENT AND RACIAL BALANCE IN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT AND PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Melissa R. Guldin Associate Monitor March 1, 2002 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Ann S. Marshall Federal Monitor Polly Ramer Office Manager ' 1 - IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL RECEIVED MAR 1 5 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS ; INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MOTION FOR AN IMMEDIATE DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status states: 1. The LRSD moves for an immediate declaration of unitary status and an end to court supervision based on its substantial compliance with the Revised Plan in accordance with Revised Plan 11, which 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 ofLRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSD's compliance bears the burden of proof. If no party challenges LRSD's compliance, the abovedescribed order shall be entered without further proceedings. 2. The LRSD reported on March 15, 2001, that it had substantially complied with the Revised Plan. See Docket No. 3410. 3. The Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") challenged the LRSD's compliance with a limited number of Revised Plan sections. See Docket No. 3447. 4. In proceedings before the Honorable Susan Webber Wright, the Court heard five and one-half days of testimony and received 201 exhibits on the Revised Plan sections covering academic ~-~-l;rievement ( 2.7), program assessment( 2.7.1) and student discipline( 2.5 - 2.5.4). The LRSD should be granted unitary status with regard to these Revised Plan sections based on the record of those proceedings. Joshua failed to come forward with any evidence that the LRSD failed to comply with those sections or that would cast doubt on the LRSD's intent to comply with the Constitution in the future absent court supervision. 5. Additionally, the LRSD should be granted summary judgment as to all remaining Revised Plan sections with which Joshua challenged the LRSD's compliance. The discovery process revealed that Joshua has no evidence that would cast doubt on the LRSD's intent to comply with the Constitution in the future absent court supervision. As a result, there are no material factual disputes, and additional hearings are unnecessary. 6. Finally, the LRSD should be granted unitary status with regard to those Revised Plan sections to which no party filed a timely challenge to the LRSD's compliance. See Revised Plan 11. 7. The accompanying brief and the attached exhibits are hereby incorporated by reference. - WHEREFORE, the LRSD prays that an Order be entered without further evidentiary hearings granting the LRSD unitary status and releasing the LRSD from court supervision and that it be awarded all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) B ===~~~~~~~~~ Christopher 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 March 15, 2002: 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 Finn 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall (hand-delivered) Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED MAR 1 5 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MOTION FOR AN IMMEDIATE DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Statement of Material Facts Not In Dispute Submitted in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status states: 1. The LRSD substantially complied with its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 2. There is no reason to doubt the LRSD Board of Directors' intent to comply with the Constitution in the future absent court supervision. WHEREFORE, the LRSD prays that an Order be entered without further evidentiary hearings granting the LRSD unitary status and releasing the LRSD from court supervision and that it be awarded all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 37 ..L..---::--:- B Y: t:::::;;~~~~~~~~~ 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 March 15, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHNW. WALKER,P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 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 (hand-delivered) Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 ~ 3 --- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED MAR 2 8 2002 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of ADE's Project Management Tool for March, 2002. Respectfully Submitted, MARK.PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Attorney Gen r 1 323 Center Street, Suite 0 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-3643 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, certify that on March 26, 2002, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the followingperson(s) at the address( es) indicated: M. SamuelJones,III Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KA THERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan .  - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of March 29, 2002 ll\u0026IJ.il1f.illf illl1l~ll$.if.llii;1;,1~?jrlli;111~~\\f ,9 rnt~tf;JfiJ B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. RECEIVED MAR 2 8 2002 OFACE OF , DESEGREGATION MONITORING ~- ,_,,\u003c~ ., - - . IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT C'Ol:JR'L  - -  ,,. EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS --------.. WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. Jv.lRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS 4r:~= INTER VENO RS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO LRSD'S MOTION FOR AN IMMEDIATE DECLARATION OF UNITARY STATUS Come the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, John W. Walker, P.A., and respectfully move the court for an extension of time for thirty days in which to respond to Plaintiff's Motion for An Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status. Joshua respectfully states: 1. Due to counsel's previous commitments, the unexpected filing of the Plaintiff, the pending requirements imposed upon the parties by the Court and the length and substance of said motion, Joshua needs the requested time in order to prepare a response thereto. 2. Counsel for the Little Rock School District, Mr. Chris Heller, has authorized undersigned counsel to indicate to the Court that the Plaintiff, LRSD, does not object to the requested extension. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully pray that the Court enter an order extending the time which to respond up and including April 18, 2002. Respectfully submitted, John W. Wallcer, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little R9i::k, 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 record via Ullited States mail poitage prepai~~  This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources. "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1136","title":"Little Rock School District, school board meeting minutes and correspondence","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["2002-01-02/2002-12-19"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","School board members","School boards","School management and organization","Meetings"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District, school board meeting minutes and correspondence"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1136"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT D { . U, I 3. 20(JL DESEGREJ[tCE OF ON MONITORING January 2, 2002 Ann Marshall, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Marshall: I am enclosing minutes of the LRSD Board of Directors meetings held on October 25, November 15, and December 6, 2001. Please let me know if you have any questions, or if I can provide additional information. Enclosures Sincerely, ~ Beverly J. Griffin Executive Assistant to the Superintendent 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 324-2012 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING January 10, 2002 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting on Thursday, January 10, 2002, immediately preceding the regularly scheduled agenda meeting in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Baker Kurrus presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Baker Kurrus Judy Magness Tony Rose Mike Daugherty Katherine Mitchell RECEIVED JAN 2 9 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MEMBERS ABSENT: Larry Berkley Sue Strickland ALSO PRESENT: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of the Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER II. President Baker Kum1s called the special meeting to order at 5:07 p.m. Five members of the Board were present at roll call\nMr. Berkley and Ms. Strickland were absent. Ex-officio representatives to the Board were also present: Dorothy Doolittle, teacher at Brady Elementary School, and Kory Lee, student at Parkview Magnet High School. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The agenda for the special meeting included: A. Superintendent's Annual Evaluation - Contract Review / Extension B. Employee Hearings SPECIAL BOARD MEETING January 10, 2002 Page2 III. ACTION IV. The Board immediately went into an executive session for the purpose of conducting the Superintendent's evaluation conference. Ms. Magness made a motion for the executive session, Mr. Rose seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. They returned at 5:26 p.m. and reported that no action had been taken while in executive session. Mr. Rose made a motion to extend the superintendent's current contract for an additional year, which would change the contracted expiration date to June 30, 2005. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Individual Board members commented on the favorable evaluation and review, indicating that Dr. James is doing a very good job during difficult times. Ms. Magness stated that they are proud of his leadership efforts, and optimistic about the future of the LRSD. Dr. Mitchell echoed the previous comments and noted that the Board could take credit for selecting the \"best person for the job.\" Dr. Daugherty stated that he was most impressed with Dr. James' ability to establish good rapport with Board members and staff. Mr. Kurrus thanked Dr. James for his hard work and leadership effo1ts, and said that he was certain Mr. Berkley and Ms. Strickland would also have favorable comments to make when they return. EMPLOYEE HEARINGS The employee hearings scheduled to be held at this meeting were postponed and will be rescheduled after the next regular Board meeting. IV. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 5:35 p.m. on a motion by Mr. Rose, seconded by Dr. Mitchell. APPROVED: 1  Jl/- 0~ H. Baker Kum1s, President LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING January 15, 2002 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting on Tuesday, January 15, 2002, 6:00 p.m., in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Baker Kurrus presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Baker Kurrus Judy Magness Tony Rose Larry Berkley Mike Daugherty Katherine Mitchell Sue Strickland RECEIVED JAN 2 9 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: I. II. T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of the Minutes CALL TO ORDER President Baker Kurrus called the special meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. All members of the Board were present at roll call. Teacher ex-officio representative, Dorothy Doolittle, from Brady Elementary School, was also present. The student representative did not attend. PURPOSE OF THE MEETI G The special meeting was called for the consideration of school closing options for the 2002-03 school year. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING January 15, 2002 Page2 Ill. ACTION Dr. James reviewed documents provided for the Board's consideration regarding potential school closures for the 2002-03 academic year. Board Policy FBC governs procedures and requirements for closing a school site:  Excessive cost of operation due to enrollment\n Excessive cost of renovation and repair due to age and physical condition of the facility\n Inability of the District to deliver the required curriculum in the facility\n Any applicablefederalcourt orders. It was also noted that the policy requires a twelve-month public announcement of the closure except in cases of extreme emergency. After a brief discussion, Dr. James recommended taking Dodd and Fair Park out of consideration for closure at this time and to allow those two schools to remain open for the 2002-2003 school year. Mr. Kurrus stated that allowing schools to remain open should not require any official Board action, and unless there was some interest by other Board members to take a formal vote, then the meeting would proceed with the understanding that these two schools are not a part of the recommendation for closure at this time. The Superintendent continued discussion of the recommended closure of the Residential Charter Program. Current enrollment in the Charter School was eighty-one (81) students as of January 14, 2002. Dr. James recommended that the Board revoke the Charter for this facility. Of the 81 enrolled, 33 are fifth graders and would be moving into a middle school in 2002-03. Forty-eight students are currently enrolled in first through fourth grades and the recommendation was to place these students back at their attendance zone/ area school. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve the Superintendent's recommendation to close the Charter School Program housed at Badgett Elementary School. Mr. Rose seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Dr. James proceeded with the recommendation to close Badgett Elementary School at the close of the current, 2001-02 academic year. He stressed the importance of making the decision to close the facility as soon as possible so that next year's registration and assignment process can be achieved smoothly and effectively. Dr. Mitchell noted that she was concerned that 78% of the students who currently attend Badgett Elementary School are transported there, negating concerns about it being strictly a \"neighborhood\" school. A number of the students who live in that area are currently bused out of the attendance zone, and only 45 of the students who attend there actually \"walk\" to school. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING January 15, 2002 Page3 Mr. Kurrus noted that he had recently driven from Badgett to Rockefeller, to Carver, and to Washington Elementary Schools to see for himself if there was a significant concern regarding transportation. Dr. Daugherty spoke in opposition to the closing of Badgett Elementary School. Regarding Dr. Mitchell's comments on current busing statistics, he noted there must be something significant to attract parents and students to that school, he noted the strong family support for the school, and stated there would be a burden of busing on these children. He also noted consideration for the neighborhood if the building is allowed to remain empty and decay. Mr. Rose asked the Board to emphasize that students who are reassigned from Badgett to another LRSD School will continue to be cared for in their new school and that we have the best interest of the children at heart. Ms. Magness made a motion to uphold the Superintendent's recommendation to close Badgett Elementary School for the 2002-03 school year. After brief discussion, and at the instruction of the District's Counsel, Ms. Magness offered an amendment to the motion to ensure clarity in the motion's intent, that the motion include the following excerpt from the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, Section 3.7, Modification Standard: The LRSD Board of Directors determines: (i) that the educational benefits expected from such action substantially outweigh any adverse effects of the proposed action, (ii) that no practical alternative to the proposed action exists which will accomplish the educational objective, and (iii) that to the extent practicable measures will be initiated to counteract any adverse affects of the proposed action. Ms. Strickland seconded the amendment to the motion, and after brief discussion, the original motion was reworded to state specifically that Badgett Elementary School would be closed at the end of the 2001-02 school year. Ms. Strickland seconded the original motion as amended. A roll call vote was taken\nthe motion carried 6-1, with Dr. Daugherty casting the no vote. IV. ADJOURNMENT Prior to adjournment, Mr. Berkley noted that the Board would be required to look at additional budgetary reductions. He asked the Superintendent to discuss options for accomplishing this. Dr. James stated that a series of budget sessions would be held in conjunction with the regular agenda sessions. He noted that the meetings are held in public and are in the format of study sessions for the Board's deliberation. . . . SPECIAL BOARD MEETI G January 15, 2002 Page4 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m. on a motion by Mr. Rose, seconded by Ms. Magness. APPROVED: \\ -:lL/-0~ H. Baker Kurrus, President LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 24, 2002 RECEIVED MAR 2 2 2002 OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its regularly scheduled meeting at 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 24, 2002, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Baker Kurrus presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Baker Kurrus Judy Magness Tony Rose Larry Berkley Micheal Daugherty Katherine Mitchell Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL President Baker Kurrus called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. All members of the Board were present at roll call. Dorothy Doolittle, teacher at Brady Elementary School, and Kory Lee, student at Parkview Magnet High School, served as ex-officio representatives to the Board for the month of January. II. PROCEDURAL MATTERS/ WELCOMING COMMENTS Mr. Kurrus made brief opening remarks and welcoming comments. He then introduced Dr. James for the presentation of citations. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 24, 2002 Page2 Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Superintendent's Citations Dr. James announced that the Arkansas School Boards Association had recently recognized two LRSD Board members as \"Master\" board members at the annual ASBA luncheon meeting. Mr. Berkley and Mr. Rose received plaques recognizing this achievement. In order to qualify for this distinction, a board member must attain at least 50 hours of continuing education and board member training through the ASBA. The Superintendent introduced Sandy Becker and Reverend Ray Williams to highlight some of the recent Sha ref est activities, which were coordinated through The Nehemiah Group. This group of ministers and church lay people coordinated a day of work in and around LRSD schools and campuses. Their work varied from minor clean up and painting, to planting, landscaping, construction and carpentry projects. Rick Caldwell is the Executive Director of Sharefest, and other members of the Nehemiah Group Leadership team attended the Board meeting, including Bill Elliff, D. L. Richardson, Dan Casey, Jay Blevins, Robert Lewis, Rod Loy, Steve Arnold, and Tracy Shelton. These gentlemen received certificates of appreciation for their efforts in making our schools safer, cleaner and friendlier for our students, parents, teachers and administrators. The final citations were presented to, Dorothy Doolittle, teacher from Brady Elementary, and Kory Lee, student at Parkview Magnet High School, for serving as ex officio representatives to the Board for the month of January. B. Partners in Education: New Partnerships Prior to recognizing the new partnerships, Debbie Milam invited Board members to attend a special showing for LRSD volunteers at the IMAX Theater this Friday night. She also reminded the Board that their volunteer hours are valuable to the District, and that the tally sheets are due to the VIPS office by March 19. She provided forms for submission of volunteer hours. The presentation of certificates in recognition of a new business I school partnerships are listed. Ms. Magness made a motion to accept the new partnerships, Mr. Rose seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 24, 2002 Page 3 The new partnerships were: Carver Magnet School, represented by Diane Barksdale, in partnership with Miles Memorial CME Church, represented by Catherine Gill and other members of the church, including Willie Winston, Forest Brown, Thomas Brannon, Alberta Ewing, Gertrude Stubblefield, and Essie Brannon Mabelvale Magnet Middle School, represented by Ann Blaylock and Stella Cameron, in partnership with: Arkansas Skatium, represented by Jay Gaddy and Otter Creek Homeowners Association, no representative present Pulaski Heights Middle School, represented by Nancy Rousseau, in partnership with Burger King, represented by Jeffrey Williams LRSD Fine Arts Department, represented by Danny Fletcher, in partnership with KLRE / KUAR, represented by Tom Ross, Mary Waldo, and Clyde Snider C. Remarks from Citizens Dee White addressed the Board regarding her experiences with violence and discipline problems at Central High School. Her son was suspended from school for participating in an altercation with several other students. She believes that these students are members of a gang called the East End posse, that these students are responsible for the \"climate of violence,\" and that this group has targeted her son for retribution of previous incidents. She has removed her son from Central, and he is now attending a private boarding school in Mississippi. Prior to hearing from speakers, Mr. Kurrus asked the Board to consider a suspension of the rules to allow two students, Ted Fleming and Wells Harrell, time to speak. These students had not provided notification in advance, thus requiring a consideration of suspension of the rules. Mr. Rose moved to suspend the rules, Ms. Magness seconded the motion, and it carried unanimous!'{. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 24, 2002 Page 4 Ted Fleming thanked the Board for allowing him an opportunity to speak on the topic of semester test exemption for seniors. Wells Harrell echoed Mr. Fleming's remarks and each of them each asked for the Board to reconsider the current semester test exemption policy for second semester seniors. The current policy requires good attendance and a high grade point average, in order to be exempt from some semester tests, but not all. Mr. Harrell stated that taking semester tests was nothing more than an additional stressor for students who were already studying for AP exams. They noted that by the time a student was in the 12 th grade, they had plenty of previous test-taking experiences. In addition, they noted that the majority of these students had already selected and/or had been accepted to college. They felt it was reasonable to allow students with perfect attendance and a high grade point average to be relieved of semester tests altogether. D. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association Clementine Kelley was present but did not have a formal report for the Board. - E. Joshua lntervenors No report. IV. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. Remarks from Board Members Dr. Mitchell expressed appreciation to Jo Evelyn Elston for organizing and hosting the graduate follow-up luncheon in January. She noted that the students who attended represented varying groups, including some who were attending a 4-year college or university, some who were enrolled in two-year vocational training program, some who enlisted in the military, and some who had gone directly to work full time. She found the results of their follow up surveys to be interesting, and noted that the majority of the students did not feel that they were properly prepared to take tests in college. In addition, Dr. Mitchell reported that she had visited Mabelvale Middle Schoof and was pleased with the caring atmosphere and cooperative spirit of the faculty and staff. She noted that the warmth of the environment was very conducive to meeting the needs of the students. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 24, 2002 Page 5 Ms. Magness stated that she had attended the same two events referenced by Dr. Mitchell. She spoke briefly on the Mabelvale Middle School breakfast meeting which was held to showcase the new magnet program that is being implemented there. In addition to Mabelvale, new magnet programs will be implemented at Cloverdale Middle School and at Fair and McClellan High Schools. Mr. Berkley reported on the Board's visit to the new Technology Center that is being constructed on the Metropolitan Vocational Technical Center campus. This center will improve the District's operations by housing the main frame equipment and all technology support staff. The center will improve technology districtwide, for students, parents, teachers and employees. He congratulated the technology committee members and all the individuals who have worked on getting this facility up and running. Ms. Strickland invited her fellow Board members to drive by the Otter Creek campus and look at the \"mess.\" She noted that although the parking lot is now an unfinished work in progress, the staff and residents of the Otter Creek community are happy that the work is being done and that the project is finally underway. Mr. Rose expressed appreciation to all departments within the District for their spirit of cooperation and teamwork. He stated that teachers and kids are at the heart of what we do, but that without the spirit of teamwork from the other divisions, we could not accomplish the task of serving our children. Mr. Kurrus noted that this was the beginning of a new semester and he thanked everyone for doing their best to make this a successful year. He expressed appreciation to Mr. Howard for the work that he has done at Central, and he stated he felt very comfortable with the education his daughter is receiving at Central High School. He noted that she feels very safe attending school at Central, and if there were any questions about safety, he certainly wouldn't send her there. He asked the viewers and the audience to \"be cautious about believing everything you hear\nif there is any question or doubt, you are invited to go see for yourself.\" Kory Lee, exofficio member of the Board, thanked the teachers and staff at Parkview for all they do, and he expressed appreciation to the Board for all the positive improvements going on at his school. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 24, 2002 Page 6 B. Desegregation Update Mr. Babbs provided a brief report on desegregation and compliance issues. He informed the Board that Judge William Wilson had sent a letter, dated January 10, 2002, notifying all parties that he was reviewing documents and trying to come \"up to speed\" on the case. There are no court dates scheduled at this time. He reminded the Board of upcoming activities within the Student Registration office: open houses are being held this week and next in all schools, and open enrollment for new students, kindergarten students, magnet applicants and transfer requests begins next week through the first week in February. He and members of his staff will be attending a Neighborhood Connections meeting on Saturday to provide information and the Magnet School Fair will also be held on Saturday, January 26. In addition, Mr. Babbs reported that the Badgett and Charter School reassignment process had begun and that parents would be receiving individualized communications as needed during the transition process. Most of the attendance zone students will be assigned to Rockefeller and Washington. Charter students will be assigned to their current attendance zone schools, with the options of applying for reassignments, magnet seats, or m-m transfers. C. BudgetUpd~e Dr. Stewart reported that we are still waiting for additional information on county tax collections and on state equalization funding. Preliminary information does not look as good as we had hoped\nreal estate values had only increased by about 1 %, and personal property taxes were up 3% over previous year's collections. The delay on notification from the state is due to estimated revenue reductions and the governor has yet to announce the full impact of the revenue shortfall. We must reduce spending by at least $1.4 million, and possibly more. A budget workshop will be scheduled in the near future, depending on receipt of more current revenue and expenditure projections. Budget managers are still submitting their reports and proposals for reducing expenses. Dr. Stewart also reported that we had received approval on the last request for QZAB funding in the amount of $689,000, which brings our total allocation to a little over $5 million. He is anticipating that once the full lighting project costs are analyzed, we may be able to submit one more application for reimbursement funding. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 24, 2002 Page 7 D. Construction Report: Proposed Bond Projects Mr. Goodman was present to review the printed report which was included in the agenda. In addition, he reported that several schools will be closed this summer for asbestos abatement and that schedule will be provided for review. He reported that the bids on construction at Hall High School were due on Friday, and should be finalized by the end of January. In addition, Mabelvale Middle School will be bid within 30 or 45 days. Construction is in progress now at Watson, Otter Creek and Jefferson Elementary Schools, as well as Mann Magnet. E. Internal Auditors Report Mr. Becker was present to review the report provided in the Board's agenda. He offered to respond to questions or provide additional information requested by the Board. V. APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS VI. A. Minutes Minutes from the regular meeting of the Board of Directors held on December 13, 2001, and from special meetings held on January 10 and January 15, 2002 were presented for review and approval. Dr. Mitchell made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Mr. Rose seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES DIVISION A. LEA Capacity Building and Improvement Activities Grant - Skills Tutoring Program B. LEA Capacity Building and Improvement Activities Grant - IDEA Resource Grant Dr. Gary Smith asked for the Board's approval to submit applications for grant funding from the Arkansas Department of Education. The LEA Capacity Building for Improvement of Special Education Services would provide approximately $3,000.00 to serve students from our District who are incarcerated at Juvenile Detention Centers. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 24, 2002 Page 8 The LEA- IDEA Resource Grant would supplement efforts to improve achievement on the Benchmark exams of students who receive special education services. The request is in the amount of $51,408.00. Ms. Magness made a motion to approve both of these grant applications. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. C. Report: 2000-01 Little Rock Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement Vanessa Cleaver and Dennis Glasgow prepared and presented the 2000-01 annual progress report of the Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement grant of the National Science Foundation. Copies of the full report were provided for the Board's review. To highlight progress made by students as a result of this initiative, a video presentation of Baseline Elementary School faculty and students was shown. Eleanor Cox answered questions and discussed the reasons why the students at Baseline achieved significant improvement in overall test scores. Over a three-year period, districtwide improvement has been realized in fourth and eighth grade mathematics achievement test scores\nmore students are successfully taking and completing higher level mathematics courses (Advanced Algebra, Trigonometry, Calculus and Statistics)\nand more teachers are participating in professional development offerings. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION A. 2002-03 Student Calendar Dr. Hurley provided the proposed 2002-03 student calendar for the Board's review and consideration. The three Pulaski County school districts collaborated on the development of the calendar, and all three will begin school on August 19, 2002. The calendars are slightly different due to our use of five additional staff development days. The extended year calendar will be developed based on this proposal. Dr. Daugherty moved to approve the calendar as submitted\nMs. Magness seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 24, 2002 Page 9 B. Personnel Changes Personnel items were presented as a part of the Board's agenda and the administration recommended Board approval. Dr. Mitchell made a motion to approve the personnel changes as presented. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried unanimousl'f. C. Discussion: Smart Choices I Better Chances Program Jo Evelyn Elston, Director of Pupil Services, provided a review of the Smart Choices I Better Chances Program that will be piloted at Cloverdale Middle School. This is a nationally recognized law education program for students in grades 6 though 12, which will teach students about the criminal justice system and the consequences of violating the law. The Arkansas Attorney General's office will serve as a partner to the LRSD in providing the program to our students. It is hoped that after the initial pilot year, the program will be expanded to include other middle level and high schools in the District. VIII. BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION A. Donations of Property The Board was asked to approve acceptance of recent donations to the District. Dr. Daugherty made a motion to accept the donations and Mr. Rose seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimousl'f. Dr. Daugherty read the list of items as noted in the following chart: DONATIONS SCHOOUDEPARTMENT ITEM DONOR Little Rock School District $3,000 cash to be used for high school restructurino Morgan C. and Judith 8. Magness Central High School $1 ,492 cash to Central's athletic Dr. Wesley Burks program for purchase of pants for the football team Forest Heights Middle School $500 cash to the Aviators Team to be Marfin \u0026amp; Melissa Thoma used at the discretion of team members Watering Stand, valued at $200 to the Athletic Deoartment at FHMS Bemberg Iron Works, Inc. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 24, 2002 Page 10 DONATIONS: (continued) SCHOOUDEPARTMENT Franklin Elementary School Geyer Springs Elementary Pulaski Heights Middle School Woodruff Elementary School Little Rock School District 8. Financials ITEM A hearing machine with phone guards, stickers and audiograms, valued at $960 S 100 cash to be used to purchase holiday turkeys for needy families $1 ,000 grant to be used to purchase materials and supplies for Literacy Program CB-700 drug set complete with symbols and stands valued at approximately $1,900 $300 cash to be applied to the Accelerated Reader Program in the Name of Watkins Fulk, student S1 ,000 mini-grant to be used to purchase student and teacher incentives and classroom materials Monitary donations for the 2001 LRSD Convocation DONOR UALR Share America Children International Geyer Springs PTA Wal-Mart, Inc. Store #124 Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Jack Waggoner Morgan Stanley Dean Witter \u0026amp; Company, in the name of employee Marion Fulk - through the \"Matching Gifts to Education Program\" Wal-Mart, Inc., Store #124 Aerospace Education Center ($50.00) Bank of America Mortgage ($300.00) Cingular Wireless ($300.00) LR Teachers Federal Credit Union ($50.00) Pulaski Technical College ($300.00) Staples ($300.00) UALR ($50.00) VAL/C ($300.00) KATV ($500.00) Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Law Firm ($500.00) Stephens, Inc. ($1 ,000) Mark Milhollen was present to review the financial reports printed in the Board's agenda and to respond to eiuestions. He noted that the report included the first six months of the fiscal year, and was noteworthy due to the funds received from the Pulaski County tax receipts in the amount of $43 million. He commended the Pulaski County Assessor's office for their diligence in collecting delinquent taxes this year. Mr. Rose moved to approve the reports as printed. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 24, 2002 Page 11 IX. SCHOOL SERVICES DIVISION No items for consideration. X. DISTRICT OPERATIONS No items for consideration. XI. CLOSING REMARKS A. Superintendent's Report: Dr. James reported that he had attended a breakfast for prospective directors of the LRSD Foundation. Consultant, Pete Karabatsos, will be in Little Rock at the end of February to aid in the formation of the steering committee, and in the development of by-laws and articles of incorporation. Mr. Berkley serves as the Board's representative to the Foundation Committee. The Superintendent also reported that a representative from the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) would be meeting with District employees to discuss further options for high school reform. A grant application has been made to SREB, which will cover the expenses associated with this initiative. All high schools will participate, as well as two middle schools as pilot sites. Linda Austin will coordinate a workshop for participants on upcoming staff development days. Dr. James announced that Athletic Department staff has been working with sponsors to move some of the high school basketball games to Alltel Arena and Barton Coliseum. He is hopeful that we can secure the bid to host a high school basketball tournament in the near future. XII. EXECUTIVE SESSION - EMPLOYEE HEARINGS At 9:10 p.m., Ms. Magness made a motion to convene an executive session for the purpose of conducting closed personnel hearings. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. REGULAR BOARD MEETING January 24, 2002 Page 12 Dr. Hurley provided a summary report of the circumstances surrounding the non-renewal of contract for Pat Rollins, HIPPY Program aide. Ms. Rollins had been employed in the HIPPY Program for over two years, and had been written up several times for poor job performance, failure to complete required paperwork for HIPPY participants, excessive tardiness and absenteeism. It was noted that Ms. Rollins was not being \"terminated,\" but that at the end of her current contract, she was recommended for \"non-renewal.\" Marian Shead-Jackson, coordinator of the HIPPY Program provided documentation of the unsatisfactory performance, and had recorded 34 instances of tardiness, and 16 instances of failure to appear for 16 weekly inoffice conferences. Ms. Rollins denied ever seeing the documentation presented for the Board's consideration. She denied that she was a poor employee, but did not deny that she had an attendance and tardiness problem. She explained that she had a young child with medical problems, and noted that many days she waited for the child's school bus to arrive before leaving for work. Dr. James recommended that the Board support the decision of the supervisor to \"non-renew\" Ms. Rollins contract. Mr. Berkley made a motion to uphold the Superintendent's recommendation based on the facts presented by the administration. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. On a second personnel issue, the Board agreed unanimously to accept a letter of resignation from Kathy Penn-Norman, effective June 14, 2002. Ms. Penn-Norman will remain on leave of absence pending the resignation date. XIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, Mr, Berkley moved to adjourn at 10:30 p.m. Mr. Rose seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. APPROVED: ~ -1--r V 01--, H. Baker Kurrus, President To\ni~/f/?!l{ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING February 12, 2002 RECEIVED MAR 2 2 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting immediately following the regular agenda session, on Tuesday, February 12, 2002, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Baker Kurrus presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Baker Kurrus Judy Magness Tony Rose Larry Berkley Mike Daugherty Katherine Mitchell Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of the Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER President Baker Kurrus called the special meeting to order at 5:50 p.m., immediately following the regular agenda meeting. A quorum was stipulated without a roll call\nall members of the Board were present. Teacher ex-officio, Suellen DiMassimo, from Carver Magnet Elementary School, and student representative, Mary Rutherford, from Central High School were also present. II. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The special meeting was called for the purpose of approving a resolution supporting the submission of a QZAB funding application, and for conducting personnel hearings. In addition, the Board agreed by consensus to suspend the rules for consideration of first reading on policy IKF, as recommended by administration. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING February 12, 2002 Page 2 Ill. ACTION A. QZAB Resolution Dr. Stewart presented a resolution authorizing a Qualified Zone Academy Bond (QZAB) municipal lease-purchase agreement, which will provide financing for the purchase of energy conservation measures. A copy of the resolution will be attached to these minutes. Ms. Magness made a motion to approve the QZAB application as submitted\nMr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. B. Revision to Policy IKF: General Graduation Requirements Mr. Rose made a motion to suspend the rules to consider action not previously noted as an action item. Ms. Magness seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. During the agenda session, Dr. Lesley asked the Board for immediate consideration and first reading approval of a revision to Policy IKF, General Graduation Requirements. The Arkansas General Assembly passed Act 17 48 during the 2001 session, which requ ires all students K - 9 to participate in one hour each week of \"physical training .\" This requirement cannot be accomplished in our district in the ninth grade without adding an additional course for physical education. Therefore, the emergency revision to the policy was required at this time and recommended by the administration. Ms. Magness moved to approve the revision to IKF on first reading\nMr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. The policy will be presented for second reading and final approval at the regular February meeting of the Board. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The ex-officio representatives to the Board were excused and the Board took a brief break prior to convening an executive session for the purpose of conducting employee hearings. Ms. Magness made the motion for the session, Mr. Rose seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The actual hearings began at 6:15 p.m. Dr. Hurley provided background information for the termination of Forest Heights Middle School teacher, Ms. Jane Sharp. Ms. Sharp was present and was represented by Attorney Ray Baxter of Benton. Eloise Hudson, principal of Forest Heights Middle School, was also present. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING February 12, 2002 Page 3 The Board reviewed the written report presented by Dr. Hurley and heard information surrounding Ms. Sharp's conviction on charges of possession of a controlled substance in March 1999. As a part of a plea agreement, Ms. Sharp agreed not to teach in the public schools for a period of three years. Dr. Hurley reported that the recommendation for termination was based on the fact that Ms. Sharp reported that she had never been convicted of an offense against the law on her original employment application. Attorney Baxter called witnesses in support of Ms. Sharp's character\nPam Burton, principal of Howard Perrin Elementary School, and Betty Berry Gwatney, assistant principal at Benton High School and a former member of the Benton School Board. Mr. Baxter provided a copy of a court order indicating that Ms. Sharp's record had been expunged effective November 14, 2001. In addition, a second order dated January 4, 2001, was presented which specified that Ms. Sharp was given permission by the Court to return to the classroom. Ms. Sharp's application for employment in the LRSD was dated January 15, 2001. Ms. Sharp testified that she \"had a calling to teach,\" and that although she made more money working in the business sector, she wanted to do whatever was necessary to return to the classroom. She stated that she only applied for the teaching position in the LRSD after consulting with her attorney in order to be assured that she would not be in violation of any agreement made with the Court. Ms. Sharp was supported by testimony from Eloise Hudson, principal at Forest Heights Middle School, who said she would like to have Ms. Sharp return to work as a mathematics teacher in her building. Ms. Gail Pitts, Assistant Principal, was also present in support of Ms. Sharp, but was not called to testify. Mr. Baxter asked the Board to reconsider the recommendation of the administration and allow Ms. Sharp to return to the classroom. He stated that the fact her record was expunged should stand alone as evidence to support his request, and that the lawful purpose of the first offenders' legislation was to allow one-time offenders a chance to have their records cleared for future employment opportunities. The Board deliberated briefly and returned at 7:35 p.m. Mr. Berkley made a motion stating \"the facts of the case as presented by the administration are not supported by the evidence.\" Mr. Rose seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Mr. Kurrus noted that this action would allow Ms. Sharp to return to the classroom and no further action was required as a result of the administration's recommendation for termination. Dr. Daugherty left the session at 7:40 p.m. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING February 12, 2002 Page4 The second hearing was to appeal the recommended termination of Mr. Frederick Williams, Day Treatment Classroom Teacher, at Henderson Middle School. Mr. Williams was represented by Attorney Marsha Barnes, who asked that the hearing be held in open session. Dr. Hurley provided copies of investigative reports of an incident at Henderson Middle School, wherein a student accused Mr. Williams of using excessive force during a classroom incident. LRSD Safety \u0026amp; Security officers interviewed witnesses who gave statements regarding the incident, including students and paraprofessional staff who were in the classroom at the time. Witnesses present for the Board hearing included Joann Humphries and Brenda Hunter, both paraprofessional classroom aides who were present at the time of the incident. The school nurse examined the student after the altercation and reported an abrasion on his right leg, a scraped knee, and a split on the inside of his lip. In addition, an investigator from the Arkansas Department of Human Services filed findings that \"an allegation of child maltreatment ... has been determined to be true .\" Neither of the aides who testified at the hearing reported seeing any injuries at the time of the incident. Mr. Williams submitted a written statement indicating that an altercation did occur, but that the student had used profanity, thrown a chair across the room, and had advanced toward him with a pencil in his hand in a threatening manner. In addition, Mr. Williams reported that the student had pulled on his vest in the process of losing his balance and falling to the floor. He contested the excessive force charge, and indicated that he only used the necessary amount of force to restrain a student exhibiting explosive behavior. Attorney Barnes asked the Board to reinstate Mr. Williams based on the facts presented. She stated that Mr. Williams had been trained to teach in a selfcontained classroom, but as a first year teacher, was not properly trained in the techniques of restraining disruptive or violent students. This training had been provided to the Henderson staff after Mr. Williams was suspended from his duties. The student involved in the altercation was not one of the students normally in Mr. Williams' class, but was only there for the administration of a standardized test. In addition, Ms. Barnes called attention to the written statements of the students noting that they were in conflict, as though everyone saw something different. She noted that both of the adults who were present indicated in their statements that the student was aggressive toward the teacher and that he thought at the time he was acting in self-defense, or in defense of the other students in the classroom. She closed by asking the Board to consider the possibility that the administration over-reacted to the situation, to take into consideration that Mr. Williams was a new teacher in a new program, and to give him another chance. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING February 12, 2002 Page 5 The Board deliberated briefly and returned at 10:55 p.m. Mr. Rose made a motion to reject the administration's finding of fact and reinstate Mr. Williams to his position. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried 5-1, with Ms. Magness casting the \"no\" vote. I~ ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 10:56 p.m. on a motion by Mr. Berkley, seconded by Mr. Rose. APPROVED:J_  :)._ 8 . Q :)- H. Baker Kurrus, President Tony RoS: Secretary RESOLUTIO AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELNERY OF A QUALIFIED ZONE ACADEMY BO D MUNICIPAL LEASEPURCHASE AGREEMENT\nAND PRESCRIBING OTHER MATTERS PERTAINING THERETO BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas: Section 1. Qualified Zone Academy Bond. Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas (the \"District\") desires to enter into a Qualified Zone Academy Bond Municipal Lease-Purchase Agreement (the \"Lease\") for the purposes set forth in AC.A. 6-20-402(a), including the purchase of energy conservation measures (the \"Project\"). The form of lease is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Section 2. Terms ofOZAB. Under the authority of the Constitution and laws of the State of Arkansas, including particularly A.C.A.  6-20-401 - 10, the Lease is hereby authorized and ordered delivered for the purpose of financing the Project. The Lease is being entered into as a qualified zone academy bond within the meaning of Section 1397E of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. The Lease shall be entered into on or before May 1, 2002. The Lease shall be registered with the Treasurer of the District and the Arkansas State Board of Education. The terms of the Lease, including but not limited to the principal amount of the Lease, the schedule of lease payments, lessee covenants and representations and the length of the Lease will be set forth in the Lease. Section 3. Ratification of Prior OZABs. The Board of Directors has previously authorized the execution and delivery of other Qualified Zone Academy Bond Municipal LeaseAgreements (the \"Prior Leases\"). The Prior Leases were delivered by the District to Bank of America, N.A. The Prior Leases were also entered into for the purpose of financing the purchase of energy conservation measures. The Prior Leases are hereby ratified, approved and confirmed. Section 4. Authorized Representatives. The following individuals are hereby authorized to execute any documents, including, but not limited to, any agreements in connection with investing moneys held by the Lessor, and any and all other documents as may be necessary and appropriate to fulfill the terms and provisions of this Resolution and the Lease: Donald M. Stewart Mark Milhollen Section 5. Provisions ofResolution are Separable. The provisions of this Resolution are hereby declared to be separable, and in the event that any section, phrase or provisions shall be held or declared to be invalid, such holding or declaration shall not affect the remainder of the provisions, sections and phrases of this Resolution. Section 6. Repealer. All resolutions in conflict herewith are repealed to the extent of such conflict. Section 7. Emergency. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption. CERTJFICATE I, the undersigned, Secretary of the Board of Directors of the above District, certify the foregoing to be a true copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board at a Special (regular or special) meeting of the Board held on the 12th day of February , 2002. The Resolution appears in the official minutes of the meeting which are in my custody. At the time of the meeting the duly elected ( or appointed), qualified and serving members of the Board and their respective votes on the adoption of the Resolution were as follows: Vote Director (Aye. Nay, Abstain or Absent) H. Baker Kurrus Aye Judy Magness Aye Rony Rose Aye Larry Berkley Aye R. Micheal Daugherty Aye Katherine Mitchell Aye Sue Strickland Aye I further certify that the meeting of the Board was duly convened and held in all respects according to law\nthat to the extent required by law due and proper notice of the meeting was given to the members of the Board and to the public\nthat the meeting was open to the public\nthat a legal quorum was present throughout the meeting\nthat all other requirements and proceedings under the law incident to the proper adoption and passage of the Resolution have been duly fulfilled, carried out and otherwise observed\nand that I am authorized to execute this Certificate. CERT1FIED under my hand and seal of the District this 12th day of February 2002. (SEAL) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 21, 2002 RECEIVED APR 3 O 2002 OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its regularly scheduled meeting at 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 21, 2002, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Baker Kurrus presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Baker Kurrus Judy Magness Tony Rose Larry Berkley Micheal Daugherty Katherine Mitchell Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL President Baker Kurrus called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Six members of the Board were present at roll call\nDr. Mitchell arrived at 6: 15 p.m. Cynthia Crawford, teacher at Chicot Elementary School, and Steven Nichols, student at Fair High School served as ex-officio representatives to the Board for the month of March. REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 21, 2002 Page 2 II. PROCEDURAL MATTERS/ WELCOMING COMMENTS Mr. Kurrus made brief opening remarks and welcoming comments. He introduced Dr. James for the presentation of the student performing group and citations. Dr. James introduced the choir from Pulaski Heights Elementary School. The students performed two choral selections. Their director, Adrian Westbrook, and Principal Lillie Carter were also present. Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Superintendent's Citations Prior to the student performance, Dr. James introduced Allyson Pittman for recognition of her volunteer activities. Allyson, a student at Pulaski Heights Middle School, volunteers each morning in the kindergarten class at Pulaski Heights Elementary School. Allyson has been volunteering in Ms. Jimmie Lou Neal's class each morning for three years. Dr. James thanked her for her commitment to making a difference in the lives of these students. The Superintendent introduced Al Flanigan, head coach at Parkview Magnet High School, and the members of the Parkview Patriots basketball team. The Patriots won this year's 5-A championship. Present were Assistant Coaches, Zachary Burks, Jay Pickering, Art Johnson, and Lahoma Howard, and team members Tavarus Blanchard, Bradford Donley, Marcus Twillie, Terrance Akins, Rod Earls, David Kennebrew, Earnest Sweat, Jamal Anderson, Edmond Barnes, Robert Beach, Trey Sally and Mark Winston. The \"Safe Schools, Healthy Students\" program produced a video for middle school students which has been shown in all middle schools and continues to be broadcast on LRSD-TV, channel 4. Mary Paal, Director of this program, worked with the LRSD communications office staff and an independent video production company to develop the informational video. The Public Relations Society of America recently selected this video as the winner of the Prism Award in the area of Electronic Media. Dr. James displayed the Award and thanked staff members who worked on this production. Dr. James called attention to the Wall of Fame in the administration building lobby. This wall displays photographs of teachers in the District who have achieved special recognition over the past year in a variety of organizations. REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 21, 2002 Page 3 Ex officio representatives to the Board were presented with certificates of appreciation for their service during the month of March\nCynthia Crawford, teacher at Chicot Elementary School, and Steven Nichols, J. A. Fair High School student. B. Partners in Education: New Partnerships Prior to the partnership recognition, Debbie Milam announced that the second Parent Institute was scheduled for Saturday, April 6, 2002 at Southwest Middle School. They are preparing for approximately 200 attendees. In addition, Ms. Milam announced the date for the annual Evening for the Stars. It will be held on Tuesday, April 23, 2002, from 5:30 - 7:30 p.m. at the Arkansas State Fairgrounds. Also, a Parent Involvement meeting has been scheduled for Tuesday, April 30 at Parkview Magnet High School. Additional information on all these activities will be provided at a later date. Ms. Milam presented certificates in recognition of new business/ school partnerships as noted below. Ms. Magness made a motion to accept the new partnerships, Mr. Rose seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The new partnerships were:  Accelerated Learning Center, represented by Carol Green and Barbara Coakley, in partnership with: Apex Hospitality, represented by Angela Smith Royal Coach and Tour, represented by L. M. White Arkansas Electric Cooperatives, represented by Don Parrish Sam's Club #8104, represented by Sara Webster Coca Cola Bottling Company, represented by Rusty Campbell C. Remarks from Citizens Tamidra Mason addressed the Board regarding the HIPPY program and possible budget reductions. She related the positive experiences she and her child have had during her two years with HIPPY, and she asked the Board to consider the impact of reducing funding to this early childhood program. Amanda Gray serves as a German teacher at Hall and Parkview High Schools. She asked the Board to reconsider the possibility of reducing the budget for foreign language services to students. She noted that most of these students need the foreign language credits in order to qualify for the colleges they want to attend and reductions would have a very negative impact for these students. REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 21, 2002 Page4 Ms. Gray made several suggestions for alternate budgetary consideration including the athletic program, transportation costs, stipends and study hall. Jennifer Lusk, also a German teacher at Parkview, reported on her participation in the Unitown Program. Unitown provides students an opportunity to talk about what they feel they need to excel and succeed in the classroom thus providing teachers an opportunity to hear directly from the students' perspective. She asked that the Board look closely at programs that are not working before they begin making reductions to the budgets of the programs that directly impact and benefit the children. D. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association Frank Martin addressed the Board and made reference to possible staffing reductions and contract provisions for notification when there are expected reductions. He noted that contracts for the District's support staff have been finalized, and he asked the Board to review these contracts and ratify them. In addition, Mr. Martin referred to an arbitration issue that has not been concluded as directed by the arbitrator. He asked the Board to ensure that the administration has considered this issue and reinstate the individual as recommended by the arbitrator. E. Joshua lntervenors No report. IV. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. Remarks from Board Members Ms. Magness asked Bill Goodman to make a brief presentation in honor of Harold Engstrom, former LRSD Board Member. Mr. Engstrom served from 1955 - 1958, and was on the Board when Central High School was ordered closed by Governor Faubus. Mr. Engstrom recently passed away, and Jim Engstrom prepared a script in honor of his father, which was read by Mr. Goodman. Dr. Mitchell expressed gratitude for the support of her LRSD family and friends in establishing a scholarship fund for future Philander Smith College students. She also thanked everyone for their support and prayers during the time of her sister's illness. REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 21, 2002 Page 5 Dr. Daugherty thanked Mr. Goodman for his presentation honoring Mr. Engstrom and noted that it is important to remember the sacrifices made by Board members and their families during times of crisis, as in the 1957-58 school years. Mr. Kurrus expressed condolences to Dr. Mitchell for the loss of her sister and thanked her for coming to the Board meeting during this difficult time. He also expressed high regard for Mr. Engstrom and for Judge Henry Woods, who also recently died. Mr. Kurrus stated that he was proud that his mother had served on the Women's Emergency Committee in the late '50's. In addition, Mr. Kurrus complimented the ODM staff on their latest report on enrollment in the three districts, but took exception to the statements in the report that noted the numbers of students we have lost over the years 1987 - 2001. He reaffirmed his personal commitment to desegregated education and to neighborhood schools. He stated that he wants the LRSD to \"embrace our diversity\" and he invited the public to join us. Mr. Berkley concurred with Mr. Kurrus' statements and stated that the revised plan and the return to neighborhood schools was a concept embraced by the community. The LRSD's commitment to quality neighborhood schools is intended to make our schools more attractive to our patrons. B. Desegregation Update Mr. Babbs thanked Mr. Kurrus and Mr. Berkley for their statements and said that it is important for us to remain mindful of the commitments made to the public in the revised desegregation and education plan. He noted that the District's patrons are supportive of the neighborhood school configuration, and that as they become more familiar with attendance zone schools the District's enrollment will be impacted positively. In addition, Mr. Babbs noted that applications for the District's four-year-old, Pre-K enrollment are in process, and are to be mailed on April 12. Special transfer requests are being considered and letters notifying parents will be mailed on March 28. C. Budg~Upd~e No report. REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 21, 2002 Page 6 D. Construction Report: Proposed Bond Projects Mr. Goodman reported, noting that his written report was provided as part of the agenda. In addition, he reported that construction projects at Cloverdale Middle School, Franklin Elementary School, and Hall High School would begin next week, and that the media center project at Terry Elementary would be bid on April 10. E. Internal Auditors Report The Internal Auditors' Report was printed as part of the Board's agenda. Mr. Becker was present, but provided no additional information. E. Technology Update Ms. Neal was present and reviewed briefly the report printed in the Board's agenda. She noted that the new telephone systems were operational at Metropolitan and at the administration building. Three more locations are to be switched over to the new system next week, and the phone numbers are posted on the LRSD website as they become effective. The Board took a brief recess and reconvened at 7:25 p.m. V. APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS A. Minutes Minutes from the regular meeting of the Board of Directors held on February 28, 2002 were presented for review and approval. Dr. Daugherty made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Mr. Rose seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. B. Resolution Mr. Rose presented a resolution supporting the Pennbrook- Cloverhill Neighborhood Association's efforts to have the City of Little Rock install a traffic light at Henderson Magnet School on Barrow Road. Mr. Rose made a motion to approve the resolution as read, Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. The original resolution will be mailed to Mayor Dailey, and a copy will be attached to these minutes. REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 21, 2002 Page 7 VI. INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES DIVISION A. Grant Proposal - Arkansas Better Chance The Board was asked to approve the submission of an application for grant funding in early childhood programs. Pat Price, Linda Austin and Bonnie Lesley collaborated in the preparation of a proposal which will provide $273,358.00 from the Arkansas Department of Human SeNices, Division of Early Childhood Education, under the terms of the Arkansas Better Chance Program, Act 212 of 1991 and Act 1132 of 1997. The proposal requires a District match in the amount of 40% of the total proposed budget. Ms. Magness made a motion to approve the grant application, Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION A. Personnel Changes Personnel items were presented as a part of the Board's agenda and the administration recommended Board approval. Dr. Daugherty made a motion to approve the personnel changes as presented. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. VIII. BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION A. Donations of Property The Board was asked to approve acceptance of recent donations to the District. Mr. Rose made a motion to accept the donations, Ms. Magness seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Mr. Rose read the list of items as noted in the following chart: DONATIONS SCHOOUDEPARTMENT ITEM DONOR Booker Arts Magnet School Folk Art and Country Sampler Charlie Huie/ Country Cupboard Engagement Calendars for teachers, \"Cookie Joys\" to be used as refreshments for staff development activities. Total value of donation $717.00 Pulaski Heights Elementary School 300 National Geographic magazines Doug Eaton to be used in the library, valued at aooroximately $624.00 REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 21, 2002 Page 8 DONATIONS: (continued) SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT ITEM DONOR Pulaski Heights Elementary School Rainforest rug, to be used in the Lisenne Rockefeller library, valued at $453.22 Little Rock School District $500.00 cash to be used to offset Major Sports Association costs associated with the Parkview / Central basketball game at Alltel Arena $250.00 cash to be used to offset Wendy's - Fourjay L.L.C. costs associated with the Parkview / Central basketball game at Alltel Arena Compaq Presario 141 0 monitor, Linda Friedlier keyboard and Canon Bubblejet 210 printer to be used where needed, valued at approximately $100.00 B. Financial Report Mr. Milhollen was present to review the financial report printed in the Board's agenda. He noted that the report compares the first eight months of this fiscal year with the same time period last year. In addition, he noted that the annual audit report, which was presented at the last board meeting, is now available for review on the District's website. Ms. Magness made a motion to approve the reports as submitted. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. C. Budget Adjustments Dr. James presented the proposed listing of budget reductions for the Board's consideration and discussion. These items had been presented previously at the agenda meeting and at a budget work session, and Board members had provided feedback and comment as the list was finalized. The items presented would result in a reduction in spending in the amount of $4.5 million, and Dr. James noted that this did not include any elimination of programs. Additional adjustments will have to be made as the enrollment figures are finalized and classes are formed, but these are usual adjustments that ensure appropriate class size ratios. Ms. Magness made a motion to adopt and approve the budget reductions as submitted. Mr. Rose seconded the motion and it carried unanimously by a roll call vote. REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 21, 2002 Page 9 Board members commented on the process of deciding how these budget reductions would be implemented and expressed appreciation to the Superintendent and staff for their hard work. They expressed appreciation that cuts were made as far as possible from the students, and that as the changes take effect they will be monitored so that the instructional environment would not be adversely affected . Dr. Mitchell expressed hope that the State will eventually restore funding to school districts across the state, and at that time some of the areas reduced would be returned to their previous levels of funding. Ms. Strickland noted that the reductions were made at all levels so that no one area or department was forced to take \"a major hit.\" No reductions were made in teacher salaries, and it was noted that they would be funded at the rate agreed in the negotiated contracts. IX. SCHOOL SERVICES DIVISION No items for consideration. X. DISTRICT OPERATIONS A. Easement: City of Little Rock/ Mabelvale Middle School B. Easement: City of Little Rock/ Franklin Elementary School Mr. Eaton presented two requests for easements by the City of Little Rock. The first request provides for road maintenance at Mabelvale Middle School. The request will allow for expansion and widening of Mabelvale Road, and will not impact day-to-day operations of the school. The second submission provides an easement for a drainage structure that will pass diagonally across the playground at Franklin Elementary School. Once the project is complete, it will not impact the operation of the school or interfere with use of the play area. Mr. Rose made a motion to approve both of these easement requests by the City of Little Rock. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING March 21, 2002 Page 10 XI. CLOSING REMARKS A. Superintendent's Report: Dr. James reported that the second LRSD Foundation meeting had been held and that the board members had approved articles of incorporation and bylaws. The documents will be submitted to our attorneys for review and comment. The group reviewed the process for grant applications, and members of Dr. Lesley's staff provided valuable information and assistance. The Superintendent announced that Vicki Saviers will serve as the Director, and he reported that they are seeking additional people to serve on the board in hopes of eventually consisting of 35 members. XIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, Mr. Berkley moved to adjourn at 7:43 p.m. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. APPROVED: l/-J5- 0)\n44. 'f?r.L Wvi1it0/ H. Baker Kurrulfresident Resolution Supporting the Installation of A Traffic Light at Henderson Health Sciences Magnet Middle School WHEREAS the Pennbrook -Cloverhill Neighborhood Association has often requested that the City of Little Rock install a traffic light at Henderson, and WHEREAS the City has accepted the Neighborhood Association's contention that the necessary traffic for installing the light is present, and WHEREAS heavy pedestrian traffic and vehicular traffic near Henderson can be expected twice a day, and WHEREAS the safety of the children of the City is paramount in the hearts of the involved parties, THEREFORE, we, the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District, call upon the City of Little Rock to pursue the installation of a traffic light on Barrow Road at the entrance to Henderson Health Science Magnet Middle School. Dated this 21st day of March, 2002. H. Baker Kurrus, President ,'~ ~ / TonyROS: Secretary LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING April 11, 2002 RECEIVED APR 3 O 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting on Thursday, April 11, 2002, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Baker Kurrus presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Baker Kurrus Judy Magness Tony Rose Larry Berkley Katherine Mitchell Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSENT: Mike Daugherty ALSO PRESENT: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of the Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER Vice President Judy Magness called the special meeting to order at 5:03 p.m. Five members of the Board were present at roll call\nMr. Kurrus arrived at 5: 17 p.m. and Dr. Daugherty was absent. Kathy Daneshmandi, teacher ex-officio representative from Cloverdale Elementary School, and Amy Blackwell, student ex-officio from Hall High School, were also present. II. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The agenda for the special meeting follows: I. Personnel Actions A. McClellan Football Coach B. Summer School Principals II. Student Hearing SPECIAL BOARD MEETING April 11, 2002 Page2 Ill. ACTION Ms. Magness called the meeting to order at 5:03 p.m. A quorum was stipulated without a roll call. Four members of the Board were present\nDr. Mitchell arrived at 5:15 p.m., Mr. Kurrus arrived at 5:17 p.m., and Dr. Daugherty was absent. Personnel Actions A. McClellan Football Coach Dr. James presented a recommendation to employ Bryan Hutson as the head football coach at McClellan High School. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve the Superintendent's recommendation, Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried 4-0. B. Summer School Principals The Superintendent presented recommendations for summer school principalships at the middle and high school levels. Sherry Rogers was recommended to serve as the summer school principal at Pulaski Heights Middle School\nJerome Farmer was recommended for the position at Parkview High School. Mr. Berkley moved to approve the recommended assignments. Mr. Rose seconded the motion and it carried 4-0. The Board recessed at 5:08 p.m. to conduct the agenda session. They reconvened at 6:15 p.m. to conduct a closed student hearing. Student Hearing Mr. Kurrus convened the hearing by noting that the Board had read information provided to them and that they were ready to hear facts related to allegations made against Matthew \"Tommy\" Ransom. Mr. Kurrus read the written report provided by the school administration. Tommy was an eighth grade student at Mann Magnet Middle School and was recommended for expulsion on January 2, 2002. The charges were terroristic threatening, sexual assault, and battery. Since being expelled from Mann, Tommy has been enrolled in an alternative classroom (CIC). Tommy was represented by Attorney Teresa Caldwell and was accompanied by his mother, Sandy Matthews Ransom, and his grandfather. Linda Watson, student hearing officer, and Jim Fullerton, principal at Mann Middle School were present as witnesses to the investigation. The District's attorney, Clay Fendley, was also present. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING April 11, 2002 Page 3 The administration's summary report indicated that the parents of Samantha Hogan and Ashley Garrison notified Mr. Fullerton on January 2, 2002, that Tommy Ransom had threatened Samantha and Ashley on numerous occasions. The allegations were listed as harassment, assault, battery, and terroristic threatening. On this same date, Mr. Fullerton began a full investigation of the allegations by calling in witnesses identified by Samantha and Ashley. He also notified Tommy's mother of the accusations. Samantha Hogan was present for the Board hearing, accompanied by her parents. She stated that the offenses had occurred over several months, and that she did not report them sooner to Mr. Fullerton because she was embarrassed to do so, and felt that reporting the incidents might make matters worse. She read the written statement that she provided to Mr. Fullerton at the beginning of his formal investigation, and admitted that other students who were named as witnesses had encouraged her to report to Mr. Fullerton earlier. Copies of written statements from student witnesses were provided for the Board's review. Ms. Caldwell formally noted her objection to the Board's receipt of the transcript from the hearings held in Dr. Watson's office. She questioned Samantha about her friendship with Tommy and asked her to name other students who might have overheard Tommy threatening her. Ms. Caldwell called witnesses to Tommy's previous behavior and demeanor at school. Charles Moore, mathematics teacher, and Susan Nichols, drama teacher, each testified that they had not observed inappropriate conduct from Tommy during class time. He was described as \"typical eighth grade ... playful, bright, outgoing, creative, talented, friendly, helpful and trusted.\" Each of these teachers had also taught Samantha and described her as \"quiet in class, friendly.\" Ms. Caldwell called as a witness Mary Ann Nolley, who also is an eighth grade student at Mann. She reported that she had known Tommy for three years and that he was her friend. She testified that she got the impression that Tommy was a friend of Samantha and Ashley because she had seen them during the school day, between classes and in theater class, and that they seemed to be good friends on good terms. Mr. Fullerton was called to respond to questions from the perspective of his investigation. He noted that Tommy had not been in serious trouble before this incident, and that he had previously convinced Ms. Ransom to allow Tommy to remain at Mann when she once considered having him transferred to another school. When asked about any reasons why these girls may have delayed reporting the incidents, Mr. Fullerton said that perhaps the girls were ashamed, but perhaps the behaviors just became more offensive as time went on. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING April 11, 2002 Page4 Ms. Caldwell called Ms. Ransom to testify as to her notification of the allegations and other circumstances relating to these incidents. She stated her first official notification was from Mr. Fullerton on January 2, but that her son had a \"face-off' with members of the Hogan family at a mall over the holidays. She stated that Mr. Hogan had threatened Tommy at that time. Ms. Ransom reported that Tommy had excellent grades and citizenship throughout his school years and that she had never known her son to be disrespectful. He was active in theater productions and had been selected to be the lead actor in the school play. She said that Tommy had always had more girls as friends than boys, and that he was not a bully. Ms. Caldwell asked Tommy to come forward and provide his statement. He said that Mr. Fullerton had never asked him to give his side of the story. He reported that he had five classes with Samantha and three classes with Ashley and that he thought they were all friends. He reported that the \"name-calling\" he was accused of was mutual, and that he had never threatened to rape or kill the girls. He stated that he was innocent of all the accusations, and that he knows you are not supposed to horseplay at school. When asked why these girls would accuse him of these actions, he said that he \"did not know why they were trying to destroy him,\" that he thought they were his \"best friends.\" The Board took a brief recess and went into deliberations at 8:25 p.m. They returned from closed session at 9:05 p.m. and reported that no action had been taken in recess.  Mr. Berkley made a motion in favor of the findings of fact presented by Dr. Watson. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried 4-0. As for punitive action, the Board asked the Superintendent to recommend sanctions based on the background information presented. Specifically, that Tommy had no prior disciplinary sanctions, and had consistently good grades. Dr. James recommended that Tommy be removed from Mann and placed in an alternative setting for the remainder of this school year. Mr. Rose made a motion to uphold the superintendent's recommendation\nMs. Magness seconded the motion. Ms. Caldwell asked for the Board to consider allowing Tommy to remain at the CIC where he has been attending school since January. By consensus, the Board agreed to stipulate that Dr. Watson may determine the best placement options for Tommy. The motion, as amended, carried unanimously. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING April 11, 2002 Page 5 IV. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. on a motion by Ms. Magness, seconded by Mr. Berkley. APPROVED: 'f  J-5~ 0 )- M.\u0026amp;ftv~ H. Baker Kurrus, President LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING April 25, 2002 RECEIVED MAY 2 9 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its regularly scheduled meeting at 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 25, 2002, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Baker Kurrus presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Baker Kurrus Judy Magness Tony Rose Larry Berkley Katherine Mitchell MEMBERS ABSENT: Micheal Daugherty Sue Strickland ALSO PRESENT: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL II. President Baker Kurrus called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Five members of the Board were present at roll call\nDr Daugherty and Ms. Strickland were absent. Kathy Daneshmandi, teacher at Cloverdale Elementary School, and Diane Drilling, student at Hall High School seNed as ex-officio representatives to the Board for the month of April. PROCEDURAL MATTERS/ WELCOMING COMMENTS Mr. Kurrus made brief opening remarks and welcoming comments. He introduced the Booker Arts Magnet School string ensemble directed by Mr. Joe Cripps. REGULAR BOARD MEETING April 25, 2002 Page 2 Ill. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Superintendent's Citations Dr. James introduced the District's seventeen National Merit and National Achievement Scholarship winners. Each of the students present was presented with a plaque in recognition of their achievement. National Merit Finalists: Central High School: Elizabeth Arnold, Melissa Bandy, Jay Bauman, Edward Fleming, Chris Fox-Lent, James Harrell, Toby Huang, Charles Lyford, So/vig Pittenger, Alex Schmidt, Gary Slater, James Szenher, Maxwell Teitle-Paule, Tracy Tran Parkview Magnet High School: Anita Budhraja National Achievement Finalists: Central High School: Frederick McKindra and Justin Mercer The second recognition certificates were presented to Mabelvale Magnet Middle School student, Archie Lester, and the Make-A-Wish Foundation, represented by Renee Burks. Archie was diagnosed with cancer, has been undergoing chemotherapy, and had been out of school since August. The Make-A-Wish Foundation granted his wish to visit Hawaii to see Pearl Harbor. Students and faculty members from Mabelvale have joined together to raise money for the Make-A-Wish foundation and have collected over $600.00 to date. Archie was able to return to school two weeks ago, and his cancer is in remission. Dr. James announced that three LRSD schools were selected to receive minigrants from the Arkansas Space Consortium at UALR. The schools are Washington Magnet School, Mabe/vale Magnet Middle School and Forest Heights Middle School. Representatives from these three schools were present to receive their awards from Camille Johnson, K-12 coordinator of the Arkansas Space Grant Consortium. The Superintendent introduced Michael Peterson, principal of Metropolitan Career and Technical Center. Mr. Peterson, in turn, introduced staff members who presented recognition to Metro students who participated in the Statewide VICA competitions. Seventeen of the 23 students will participate in the national competition for their achievement in various vocational areas. REGULAR BOARD MEETING April 25, 2002 Page 3 Ex officio representatives to the Board were presented with certificates of appreciation for their service during the month of April\nKathy Daneshmandi, teacher at Cloverdale Elementary School, and Diane Drilling, Hall High School student. B. Partners in Education: New Partnerships Prior to the partnership recognition, Debbie Milam announced that the District's volunteer service hours for the year were in excess of $6 million. A mock check was on display here as well as at the annual VIPS celebration, An Evening for the Stars. In addition, Ms. Milam announced a parent involvement planning meeting to be held on Tuesday, April 30 at 6:00 p.m., Parkview Magnet auditorium. Interested parents were invited to attend. Ms. Milam presented certificates in recognition of new business/ school partnerships as noted below. Ms. Magness made a motion to accept the new partnerships, Mr. Rose seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The new partnerships were: Dunbar Magnet Middle School, represented by Karen Greenlee in partnership with Arkansas Blue Cross and Blue Shield, represented by Kelly Whitehorn Cloverdale Magnet Middle School, represented by Angela Munns, William Broadnax and Najmah Muhammad in partnership with TSF, Inc., represented by Tom Frazier and Julie Craig C. Special Presentation Jane Harkey, principal of Chicot Elementary School, introduced members of the Chicot Family Literacy Program. These Chicot parents and other community members made a brief presentation on the ESL program and achievements and other efforts to reach the Hispanic families in the Chicot area. They presented Board members with copies of a handbook that was developed as part of their English language and computer training. D. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association Frank Martin and Clementine Kelley were present. Mr. Martin addressed the Board, stating that he was hesitant to bring up a matter that would normally be handled in private through the grievance process. He stated information specific to personnel matters involving two District coaches. REGULAR BOARD MEETING April 25, 2002 Page4 These employee's grievances had been heard and decided by an independent arbitrator, and Mr. Martin stated he felt that the District was violating the PN agreement by not following and accepting the arbitrator's ruling. He asked the Board to ensure that the PN agreement be followed to the letter in matters relating to the assignment of these employees for the next school year. E. Joshua lntervenors No report. IV. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. Remarks from Board Members Ms. Magness congratulated the students at Parkview Magnet School for their outstanding performance in the drama department's production of 'Working.\" She also expressed appreciation to the VI PS staff for their hard work in preparation for the annual Evening for the Stars. Mr. Berkley noted appreciation for all of the VIPS and the hours they contribute to the District. He announced that the Little Rock Public Education Foundation is now incorporated, and he challenged fellow board members to make their donations to the fund. He noted that former board member, Senator John Riggs, had made the first significant donation of $25,000 to the foundation fund. Mr. Rose stated that he had been contacted by some of the developers who are attempting to \"push through\" implementation of TIF districts in Little Rock. He reminded fellow board members to listen with caution as they are approached with the idea that we could benefit from this endeavor. He also made remarks regarding the budget cuts being made by the State of Arkansas, and said that the majority of these fund reductions would fall on the backs of the poorest people in the State. Dr. Mitchell noted that most of the members of the Board and the Superintendent had attended the National School Boards Association annual meeting in New Orleans. She stated that the workshops and staff development sessions made them better Board members, provided motivation for them to do a good job, and gave them an opportunity to bond with each other. REGULAR BOARD MEETING April 25, 2002 Page5 Mr. Kurrus thanked all of the District's volunteers and noted that his wife had received an award at the Evening for the Stars. Commenting on Mr. Rose's remarks earlier referring to the statewide budget cuts for education, Mr. Kurrus noted that the LRSD was \"stepping up\" and would give teachers their raises even though the state has reduced our allocations. B. Desegregation Update Mr. Babbs reported that there was no new information regarding the filing for release from federal court monitoring. He noted that the Joshua intervenors had filed a request for an extension to submit their objections to the release, but the Court has made no decision as yet. C. Budget Update Dr, Stewart reported that another round of budget reductions from the state had been announced, with the projected impact in excess of $600,000. He stated that we might have to tap into reserve funds to finish up this school year in order to balance the budget but, as noted earlier by Mr. Kurrus, salaries will not be impacted at this time. Dr. James stated that additional cuts might occur after June 1.  D. Construction Report: Proposed Bond Projects Mr. Eaton reported for Mr. Goodman. The bond projects status report was printed in the agenda. E. Internal Auditors Report The Internal Auditors' Report was printed as part of the Board's agenda. Mr. Becker was present, but provided no additional information. E. Technology Update Ms. Neal was present and briefly reviewed the report printed in the Board's agenda. Of significant note was that the wide area network would be complete next week. Eleven sites are up and running on the new phone system, and two will be completed each week until they are finished. REGULAR BOARD MEETING April 25, 2002 Page 6 V. APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS A. Minutes Minutes from the regular meeting of the Board of Directors held on March 21, 2002, and from a special meeting held on April 11, 2002, were presented for review and approval. Mr. Rose made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. VI. INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES DIVISION A. First Reading: Revised Policy IHBEA- English as a Second Language Policy IHBEA, which provides for educational provisions for students who are identified as limited English proficient was modified as part of an overall review of these services. Newcomer Centers were originally operational in five elementary schools, two middle schools, and one high school. It was found that services could be provided more effectively if the elementary school students were allowed to attend school in their attendance zone or neighborhood school. As a result, elementary assignment to the Newcomers Centers is being phased out, and secondary level ESL students are being provided the option of attending a school with a Newcomer Center or their attendance zone school. The administration's proposal would result in a savings in transportation costs. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve the revised policy IHBEA on first reading. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. B. Social Studies Textbooks/ Materials for Adoption Secondary level social studies textbook review committees presented the recommended textbooks for the 2002-03 school year. Ms. McNeal and Dr. Lesley were present to review the recommendations and copies of the textbooks were provided for the Board's review. Dr. Mitchell made a motion to approve the recommendations. Mr. Rose seconded the motion and it carried 5-0. REGULAR BOARD MEETING April 25, 2002 Page 7 C. Grant Proposal - - Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Grant Program The Board was asked to approve the submission of a grant proposal in the amount of $1,132,053 to the U. S. Department of Education Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Grant Program. Receipt of these funds will provide for implementation of a rigorous evaluation of preschool curricula that provide information to support early childhood programs. The District will partner with the Waterford Early Reading Program and the Dialogic Reading Preschool program in order to implement the program at ten elementary schools in the LRSD. Local matching funds were not required. Ms. Magness moved to maintain the February submission of this grant. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. D. Report: Safe Schools / Healthy Students Project Mary Paal, Director of the Safe Schools/ Healthy Students project provided an in-depth review of the second quarterly report and project status. A copy of the report had been previously provided for the Board's review and it was noted that this is the second year of the three-year funding cycle. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION A. First Reading: Health Policies -JE, JLC, JLCA, JLCB, JLCC, JLCD and JLCE A review and revision of the entire policy manual section on health-related issues was presented for the Board's consideration. The administration recommended approval of these policies on first reading. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve the policies as presented for first reading. Mr. Rose seconded the motion and it carried 5-0. B. Request to Increase School Breakfast and Lunch Prices The Administrative Services Division of Child Nutrition presented a proposal for increasing the price of school meals effective for the 2002-03 school year. The last increase was during the 1998-99 school year, at which time lunch prices were increased, but breakfast prices remained the same as the cost in 1982-83. The proposed increase is in the amount of $.25 per meal at breakfast and lunch. Ms. Magness made a motion to approve the request for a price increase for breakfast and lunch in the 2002-03 school year\nMr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING April 25, 2002 Page 8 C. Contract Revisions Dr. Hurley presented revisions to the 2000-2003 contracts of security officers, paraprofessionals and custodians. These changes were implemented at the beginning of the contract terms and were presented for formal review and approval of the Board. Dr. Mitchell made a motion to approve the amendments to the contracts for these employee groups. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. D. Personnel Changes Personnel items were presented as a part of the Board's agenda and the administration recommended Board approval. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve the personnel changes as presented. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried 5-0. VIII. BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION A. Resolution Authorizing L~ase of School Buses The Board was asked to approve a resolution authorizing postdated warrants to finance the purchase of twelve used school buses. The payments will run from 2003 to 2009, at an interest rate of 4.5%. Payment will be in seven installments of $65,568.20, with closing costs of $5,020. A majority of the expense will be offset by savings in fuel and maintenance costs and the  amounts received through the sale of old school buses. Dr. Mitchell made a motion to approve the resolution\nMr. Berkley seconded the motion and it . carried unanimously. B. Donations of Property The Board was asked to approve acceptance of recent donations to the District.  Mr. Berkley made a motion to accept the donations, Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Mr. Berkley read the list of items as noted . in the following chart: DONATIONS SCHOOUDEPARTMENT ITEM DONOR Franklin Elementary School Early Literacy materials valued at Union Pacific Railroad/ Adopt-A- $1,500. Child Project Cash in the amount of $1,038. for Second Baptist Church purchase of school uniforms REGULAR BOARD MEETING April 25, 2002 Page 9 DONATIONS: (continued) SCHOOL/DEPARTMENT Forest Heights Middle School Jefferson Elementary School Mabelvale Middle School Metropolitan Career-Technical Center Mitchell Academy Little Rock School District Desegregation Scholarship Fund ITEM Cash in the amount of $100. to the Athletic Deoartment Three (3) laptop computers, valued at approximately $900 each for use in first grade classrooms Cash in the amount of $220. to the Book Fair for vouchers for needy students An American Flag Five dry erase boards and three chalkboards, estimated at $975.00 Two overhead projectors, two electric pencil sharpeners, an electric hole punch, Sony Handcam vision camcorder with tripod, and miscellaneous office supplies valued at$1 ,000 $2,000 cash to the Accelerated Reader Incentive Program to purchase higher-level books, to fund AR incentive parties, and to purchase rewards for top AR students 100 buddy passes, valued at $400 for the AR end-of-year party and ten free oasses valued at $80.00 Miscellaneous mixing materials and agitator lids, valued at $2,500 for auto bodv reoair shoo Miscellaneous school supplies valued at approximately $100.00 $200 cash to be used to purchase books for the library Miscellaneous school supplies and character education book covers, valued at over $500. 1,000 books collected and donated to the school library $150 cash DONOR Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Nolen C. Wilson University of Ar1\u0026lt;ansas Systems Offices University of Ar1\u0026lt;ansas Systems Offices I Dr. Alan B. Sugg UAMS Division of Mental Health Reeves Fasteners and Industrial Supplies Mabelvale Magnet Middle School PTSA Trinity Episcopal Outreach Program Ar1\u0026lt;ansas Skatium Roper Auto Parts Sigma Gamma Rho Sorority, Inc., Theta Sigma Graduate Chapter Jimmy Morris, Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, Inc. , Pi Omicron Chapter Morris Anderson / State Farm Insurance Company Chenal Nelson, Student at Mt. St. Mary's, member of St. Mari\u0026lt; Baptist Church Anonymous REGULAR BOARD MEETING April 25, 2002 Page 10 B. Financial Report Mr. Milhollen was present to review the financial reports printed in the Board's agenda. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve the reports as submitted. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. IX. SCHOOL SERVICES DIVISION A. First Reading: Policy KBBA - Custodial and Non-custodial Parent Rights and Responsibilities Policy KBBA, Custodial and Non-custodial Parent Rights and Responsibilities, was drafted to provide guidance to school personnel with regard to access to students and to school records by parents. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve the policy on first reading. Mr. Rose seconded the motion, and it carried 5-0. B. TAP Update The Board heard a report from Ann Mangan and Sharon Brooks regarding implementation of the TAP Program in their schools. Rockefeller Elementary School will receive $507,450 and Stephens will receive $692,325 for the threeyear implementation period. This initiative, funded by the Walton Family Foundation, stresses accountability and helps to provide higher teacher salaries as a means to improve student achievement. The principals have begun interviewing and selecting master and mentor teachers. X. DISTRICT OPERATIONS A. Easement: City of Little Rock/ Pulaski Heights Elementary B. Quitclaim Deed - Easement: City of Little Rock/ Hall High School C. Dedicated Right of Way I Cloverdale Middle School Mr. Eaton presented requests for easements and right of way requests by the City of Little Rock. The first request provides for an easement at Pulaski Heights Elementary School for the relocation of a sewer line. The second submission requests approval for a deed of approximately 30 feet of frontage property at Hall High School, where a sidewalk will be installed. The third request will authorize the transfer of less than one acre at Cloverdale Middle School to provide street improvements north of the school building. Ms. Magness made a motion to approve the property transfer and easement requests by the City of Little Rock as requested by administration. Dr. Mitchell seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING April 25, 2002 Page 11 XI. CLOSING REMARKS XII. A. Superintendent's Report: Dr. James briefly reminded Board members of the dates for the high school graduation ceremonies. Fair and Hall High graduations are on May 28, Central High graduation is on May 29, and Parkview and McClellan ceremonies will be on May 30. All of the commencement ceremonies are to be held at Alltel arena. The Board recessed briefly at 8:21 p.m. to clear the Boardroom and prepare for an employee hearing. EMPLOYEE HEARING Roderick Alexander, an instructional aide at McDermott Elementary School, was recommended for termination based on charges of using excessive force in disciplining a student. Dr. Hurley provided information for the Board's review, and noted that although Mr. Alexander requested the hearing, he was not present. The administration asked the Board to uphold the recommended termination. Mr. Berkley made a motion to uphold the superintendent's recommendation of termination based on the allegations submitted in the principal's request for termination. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. XIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, Ms. Magness moved to adjourn at 8:43 p.m. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. APPROVED: 5 -.J 3  OJ-H. Baker Kurrus, President Tony Rose,,,Secretary ' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING May 9, 2002 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting on Thursday, May 9, 2002, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. Vice President Judy Magness presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Magness Tony Rose RECEIVED Larry Berkley Mike Daugherty Katherine Mitchell Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSENT: Baker Kurrus ALSO PRESENT: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of the Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER MAY 2 9 2002 OFACE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Vice President Judy Magness called the special meeting to order at 5:04 p.m. Five members of the Board were present at roll call\nDr. Mitchell arrived at 5:08 p.m., Mr. Kurrus was absent. Sherry Chambers, teacher exofficio representative from Dodd Elementary School was also present. The student ex-officio representative from McClellan High School did not attend. II. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The agenda for the special meeting follows: I. Personnel Actions - Central High School Principal II. Report: Urban Land Institute/ Midtown Redevelopment Recommendations SPECIAL BOARD MEETING May 9, 2002 Page2 Ill. ACTION A. Personnel Actions - Central High School Principal Dr. James presented his recommendation to employ Nancy Rousseau as the principal of Central High School. He briefed the Board on the process followed in making his decision, and indicated that all of the candidates were quality individuals. The top three candidates were selected by the screening committee and recommended for the Superintendent's consideration. Ms. Strickland made a motion to approve the Superintendent's recommendation, Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Ms. Rousseau was present and briefly addressed the Board. She expressed her appreciation of their confidence in her abilities to lead the state's largest high school and she committed to working diligently to continue the tradition of excellence and the reputation of Central High School. B. Report: Urban Land Institute / Midtown Redevelopment Recommendations Representatives of the City of Little Rock Planning Commission were present to review recommendations made in a report of the Urban Land Institute, which was commissioned by the City. Present were Craig Berry, Tony Bozynski, and Richard Downing. Board Members were provided with a copy of the ULI Report, which was presented to the City in April 2001. Since that time, the city has been studying the recommendations and gathering data to support the findings of the report. A great deal of emphasis was placed on the redesign of the University Mall area, and the impact this action would have on the mid-town area. Mr. Berry noted that a resolution will be presented to the City Board of Directors on Tuesday, May 21, 2002, and he asked the LRSD Board to support the redevelopment plans. The Superintendent reminded the Board that no official action was anticipated or recommended at this time\nno action item was included on the Board's agenda for this meeting. The report presented tonight was intended solely for the purpose of providing additional information for consideration. '. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING May 9, 2002 Page3 Dr. James thanked the members of the City Planning Commission staff for taking the time to come before the Board and he indicated that if additional information was required, we would contact them at a later time. I~ ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m. on a motion by Mr. Berkley, seconded by Mr. Rose. APPROVED: 5J.30~ H. Baker Kurrus, President To62tttl!cp LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES REGULAR BOARD MEETING May 23, 2002 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held its regularly scheduled meeting at 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, May 23, 2002, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 81 0 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Baker Kurrus presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Baker Kurrus Judy Magness Tony Rose Larry Berkley Micheal Daugherty Katherine Mitchell Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: RECEIVED JUL 1 - 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL President Baker Kurrus called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Six members of the Board were present at roll call\nMs. Strickland arrived at 6:10 p.m. Sherry Chambers, teacher at Dodd Elementary School, served as ex-officio representative to the Board for the month of May. The student representative from McClellan Magnet High School did not attend. REGULAR BOARD MEETING May 23, 2002 Page 2 II. 111. PROCEDURAL MATTERS/ WELCOMING COMMENTS Mr. Kurrus made brief opening remarks and welcoming comments. He asked Mr. Berkley to assist with the citations, recognitions and partnerships. REPORTS/RECOGNITIONS/PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Superintendent's Citations Dr. James introduced the 2002 Stephens Award winners. Each student received a $5,000 scholarship, and each teacher received $5,000 cash award from the City Education Trust Fund. The students were Jay Bauman and Rachael Seidenschnur from Central High School and Marissa McDaniel from Hall High School. The teacher recipients were Sarah Gadberry, Alison Hargis, and Lenora Murray from Central High School, Martha K. Raines from Fair High School, Jennifer Lusk from Parkview Magnet High School, and Adeal Williams from McClellan High School. Each year the District purchases a work of art from one student at each high school. The pieces are then hung in the administration building for public enjoyment. This year's student winners were present to display their work and receive a check in the amount of $200.00. The students were: Anushree Jumde, Central High School\nChristina Pena, Fair High School\nChris Young, Hall High School\nLatarsha Burns, McClellan High School\nand Trevor Bennett, Parkview Magnet High School. James Henson, Safety \u0026amp; Security officer, and Danielle Dickson, student at Fair High School were recognized for their quick thinking and life-saving actions. J. A. Fair teacher, Martha Nahlen, was eating lunch alone in her classroom in mid-April when she began to choke. She entered the hallway where she got the attention of Ms. Dickson, who ran for assistance. Mr. Henson administered the Heimlich maneuver, and dislodged the food from Ms. Nahlen's throat. They were recognized for saving Ms. Nahlen's life by their swift actions. The Central High School chess team won the state championship this year, with a record 5 wins, 0 losses, and 1 tie. Members of the team were introduced and given superintendent's citations for their achievement. The chess team members are: Joe Liu, Joel Amaro, Victor Harris, and Shannon Rogers. Their sponsor is James Hill. REGULAR BOARD MEETING May 23, 2002 Page 3 Superintendent's citations were also presented to the Central High School men's tennis team, who won the state championship for the third consecutive year.- Team members are: Matthew Angulo, Mark Bacon, Scott Bacon, Hunter Benson, Nick Clifford, Andrew Crone, Alex DePriest, Brock Dial, Blake Downing, Daniel Krupitsky, Kevin Luneau, David Mitchell, Ananth Ranganathan, John Shults, and Peter Thomas. The Central High School women's soccer team won the state 5A championship, defeating the four-time state champions of Fayetteville in recent tournament play. Team members are: Anne-Claire Allen, Caroline Allen, Melissa Bandy, Katy Benson, Lindsey Brown, Lauren Cloud, Camille Cook, Allison Corbin, Sally Cunningham, Elizabeth Daters, Riley Duke, Sheffield Duke, Jessica East, Elizabeth Gray, Cara Janton, Elizabeth Manney, Elise Norton, Stephanie Rogers, Lindsey Short, Rebecca Vehik, and Claire Wetzel. Their sponsors are: Betsy Hall-Jones and Ellen Teeter, and the coaches are Keith McPherson and David Duke. Jennie Cooper heads the men's and women's soccer program at Central High School. The teacher ex officio representative, Sherry Chambers, from Dodd Elementary School, was presented with a certificate of appreciation for her service during the month of May. The student representative, from McClellan High School, did not attend. B. Partners in Education: New Partnerships Debbie Milam presented certificates in recognition of new business/ school partnerships as noted below. Mr. Berkley made a motion to accept the new partnerships, Ms. Magness seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. The new partnerships were: Fair Park Elementary School, represented by Principal Samuel Branch, in partnership with Center for Effective Parenting, represented by Dr. Nicholas Long Geyer Springs Elementary School, represented by Principal Donna Hall in partnership with Arkansas Children's Hospital - Insure the Children, represented by Debbie Rushing REGULAR BOARD MEETING May 23, 2002 Page 4 IV. C. Remarks from Citizens Sheffie Akbar, addressed the Board regarding the elimination of an art specialist position at Booker Arts Magnet School. She stated that many parents selected Booker for the arts curriculum, and that eliminating this position, or removing the teacher who is in that position, will \"water down\" the program. She noted that many parents have signed petitions in support of keeping this position. D. Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association Clementine Kelley was present, but indicated that she had no report. E. Joshua lntervenors No report. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. Remarks from Board Members Dr. Mitchell commented on the elections held earlier in the week, and expressed her disappointment that Senator John Riggs was not reelected. She stated that Mr. Riggs has a good record on issues affecting the children of Little Rock, as well as on education efforts across the state. She noted that his dedication and service to the \"education cause\" started during his terms on the LRSD Board. Dr. Daugherty echoed Dr. Mitchell's comments and stated that he was very disappointed that Mr. Riggs lost the election, and even more disappointed that race was brought into the election as an issue by his opponent. On another note, Dr. Daugherty expressed support for the LR Chief of Police and disappointment in the FOP for their public stand against Chief Johnson. Mr. Berkley also commented on Mr. Riggs' election loss, but expressed confidence that Mr. Riggs is not finished with his support of children and educational issues. Ms. Magness expressed appreciation to fellow members of the Board for making comments that invalidate race as an issue. REGULAR BOARD MEETING May 23, 2002 Page 5 Ms. Strickland expressed disappointment in the results of this week's election. She stated that she was \"shocked\" that Mr. Riggs did not win. In addition, she reported that she installed the Parkview PTSA officers for next year. She was impressed that students take an active role in the PTSA process at Parkview and she encouraged other schools to do the same. Mr. Kurrus expressed his high regard for Mr. Riggs, and said that he was proud of all Mr. Riggs has done for the children in Little Rock and Arkansas. He stated confidence that Mr. Riggs will continue to work for education in the future and he expressed hope that the people who were elected will \"step up to the plate\" to do what is right for public education. Mr. Rose remembered his first contact with Mr. Riggs was through the Chicot Elementary School PTA when Mr. Riggs donated his excess campaign funds to various LRSD PTA units. He noted his respect for Mr. Riggs and also expressed confidence he would continue to work to benefit children and education. Mr. Rose announced that he had attended the annual SECME awards banquet at UALR. He thanked the staffs of the LRSD and UALR who work tirelessly to encourage minority students to excel and achieve in math and science. B. Desegregation Update Mr. Babbs reported that the District's compliance committee continues to meet weekly to prepare for court hearings that have been scheduled for the week of July 22. Evidence will be presented as to compliance in the areas of student discipline, achievement, program evaluation, guidance and counseling, AP/Honors courses, and extracurricular activities. Judge Wilson has set aside 5 days for this hearing in response to our efforts to be declared unitary. He reported that other student registration processes are on schedule in preparation for the 2002-2003 school year. C. Budget Update Dr. Stewart reported that the business office staff was in the process of preparing summer payroll checks. In addition, all budget managers have submitted their annual budget requests and this information is being loaded into the system. REGULAR BOARD MEETING May 23, 2002 Page 6 D. Construction Report: Proposed Bond Projects Mr. Goodman reported that a lot of the scheduled construction projects would begin over the summer months and that construction has begun at Romine Elementary. All asbestos projects should be complete by the end of the summer. The updated progress report was printed in the Board's agenda. E. Internal Auditors Report The Internal Auditors' Report was printed as part of the Board's agenda. Mr. Becker was present, but provided no additional information. F. Technology Update Ms. Neal was present and briefly reviewed the report printed in the Board's agenda. V. APPROVAL OF ROUTINE MATTERS A. Minutes Minutes from the regular meeting of the Board of Directors held on April 25, 2002, and from a special meeting held on May 9, 2002, were presented for review and approval. Mr. Rose made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. VI. INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES DIVISION A. Second Reading: Revised Policy IHBEA - English as a Second Language B. First Reading: Revisions to Instructional Policies - - IKACA - Parental Visits and Conferences IKC - Class Rankings/ Grade-Point Averages, with Regulations IKEC - Award of Credit, with Regulations IKF - General Education Graduation Requirements Policy IHBEA provides for educational provisions for students who are identified as limited English proficient and was modified as part of an overall review of these services. As a result of these modifications, elementary assignment to the Newcomers Centers is being phased out, and secondary level ESL students are being provided the option of attending a school with a REGULAR BOARD MEETING May 23, 2002 Page 7 Newcomer Center or their attendance zone school. The proposal will result in a savings in transportation costs. The revised policy was approved on first readlng at the April meeting of the Board and was presented for second reading approval. In addition, first reading approval was requested for instructional policies, IKACA, IKC, IKEC, and IKF. Changes to these policies were proposed in order to bring our policies into compliance with state accreditation standards, and many of the changes incorporate language directly from these standards. Ms. Magness made a motion to approve the revised policy IHBEA on second reading and all of the instructional policies submitted for first reading approval. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. C. Regulation IHCDA-R - Concurrent Enrollment The ADE standards review team recommended revisions to District regulation IHCDA-R, regulating concurrent enrollment. The revision will allow all eligible high school students to participate in the option of dual enrollment. The Board was not required to take action, but was invited to comment or question the recommended changes. D. Report: Jobs for Arkansas' Graduates (JAG) Carol Green provided a brief report for inclusion in the Board's agenda regarding the JOBS for Arkansas' Graduates (JAG) program. This initiative is being implemented at Central, Fair, Hall and McClellan High Schools beginning in the 2002-03 school year. Teresa Dow from the Arkansas Department of Workforce Education attended the agenda meeting with Ms. Green to discuss the mission of the program and answer questions from the Board. The program targets students who are at risk of dropping out of school, and trains these students in employability skills and career development. VII. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION A. Second Reading: Health Policies -JE, JLC, JLCA, JLCB, JLCC, JLCD and JLCE A review and revision of the policy manual on health-related issues was presented for the Board's second reading approval. First reading approval was granted at the April meeting of the Board. Mr. Berkley moved to approve the policies as presented for second reading. Ms. Magness seconded the motion and itcarried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING May 23, 2002 Page 8 B. Revisions to Student Handbook, 2002-03 Dr. Watson presented proposed revisions to the Student handbook for Elementary, Middle, and Senior High School students. Johnnie Johnson was present to review and discuss the policies relating to extracurricular, cocurricular and athletic activities. Dr. Watson noted that the handbooks would be available on the District's website for the next school year. Dr. Mitchell made a motion to approve the revisions and changes to the handbook\nMr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. The Board took a brief recess and returned at 7:20 p.m. C. Personnel Changes Personnel items were presented as a part of the Board's agenda. In addition, the nomination of Ms. Eunice Thrasher for the position of principal at Rightsell Elementary School was presented for the Board's approval. Ms. Thrasher was present and thanked the Board for giving her the opportunity to serve as the instructional leader at Rightsell. Dr. Mitchell moved to approve the appointment of Eunice Thrasher as the principal of Rightsell Elementary School. Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. ' On the remainder of the personnel items, Dr. Daugherty made a motion to approve the changes as presented in the agenda. Mr. Rose seconded the motion and it carried 7- 0. VIII. BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION A. Donations of Property The Board was asked to approve acceptance of recent donations to the District. Mr. Kurrus read the listed donations. Ms. Magness made a motion to accept the donations, Dr. Daugherty seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Donations are listed in the following chart: DONATIONS SCHOOUDEPARTMENT ITEM DONOR Fulbright Elementary School $500.00 cash to be applied toward the Schickel's Cleaners purchase of new playground equipment Dry cleaning coupons in the amount of $200.00 for the Silent Auction REGULAR BOARD MEETING May 23, 2002 Page 9 DONATIONS: (continued) SCHOOUDEPARTMENT ITEM DONOR Geyer Springs Elementary School $2,500.00 challenge grant toward the City of Little Rock with Geyer purchase of a new school sign Springs Neighborhood Association $100.00 cash toward the purchase of Theresa Lane a new school sian Jefferson Elementary School Refreshments and lunch, valued at Harvest Foods Store #6168 approximately $100.00 for Special Olympics Team Play fort, valued at approximately Bob \u0026amp; Debbie Worthington $1,000.00 for the pre-K playground Accelerated Reader test disk valued at Jefferson SECME Club $139.00 Pulaski Heights Elementary School A combo punch and bind machine, Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. William Griffin valued at $427.00 to the kindergarten staff Williams Magnet School Paintings, valued at $400.00 to the art Richard DeSpain and Betty Wright department $11,000 ca.sh to be used to purchase Williams Magnet School PTA a new school sign, _instructional materials, resource materials and special programs for teachers, student awards, certificates and incentives LRSD HIPPY Offir,e Computer desk with hutch valued at Arkansas HIPPY Office aooroximatelv $300.00 LRSD Assorted office furniture, valued at Air Transport International $4,670.00, for use where needed LRSD Professional Development Dept. Books, valued at approximately Cynthia Howell/ Arkansas $3,500.00 to the Mahlon Martin Democrat - Gazette Professional Develooment Librarv B. Financial Report Mr. Milhollen was present to review the financial reports printed in the Board's agenda. He noted that the county collector's office has done a good job of collecting delinquent taxes, therefore revenue from that source is being  received in a more timely manner than in previous years. He noted that the report included in the agenda is for 10 months of the fiscal year and that endof- year budget preparation activities are in progress. June 30 ends the current year, and the final 2001-02 budget report will be presented as soon as it is complete. Ms. Magness made a motion to approve the reports as submitted. Mr. Berkley seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. REGULAR BOARD MEETING May 23, 2002 Page 10 IX. SCHOOL SERVICES DIVISION A. Second Reading: Policy KBBA - Custodial and Non-custodial Parent Rights and Responsibilities Policy KBBA, Custodial and Non-custodial Parent Rights and Responsibilities, was drafted to provide guidance to school personnel with regard to access to students and to school records by parents. It was given first reading approval at the April Board meeting. Dr. Mitchell made a motion to approve the policy on second reading. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion, and it carried 7-0. X. DISTRICT OPERATIONS No report or action presented. XI. CLOSING REMARKS - A. Superintendent's Report: Dr. James reminded Board members of the upcoming graduation dates. He also noted that the June meeting of the Board had been rescheduled from Thursday, June 27 to Tuesday, June 25. He noted that he had spoken to the HIPPY students at their graduation ceremony and at the commencement program for the ACC. XII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, Ms. Magness moved to adjourn at 7:35 p.m. Mr. Rose seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. APPROVED: i J5-01 H. Baker Kurrus, President ~z:xtf!ILR LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS MINUTES SPECIAL BOARD MEETING June 6, 2002 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District held a special meeting on Thursday, June 6, 2002, in the Boardroom of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, Arkansas. President Baker Kurrus presided. MEMBERS PRESENT: Baker Kurrus Judy Magness Tony Rose Larry Berkley Mike Daugherty Katherine Mitchell Sue Strickland MEMBERS ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: RECEIVED JUL 1 - 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools Beverly Griffin, Recorder of the Minutes I. CALL TO ORDER ' . President Baker Kurrus called the special meeting to order at 5:07 p.m. Five members of the Board were present at roll call\nDr. Mitchell arrived at 5: 12 p.m. and Dr. Daugherty arrived at 5: 15 p.m. II. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The agenda for the special meeting follows: I. Personnel Actions - Principal Assignments 11. Employee Hearings SPECIAL BOARD MEETING June 6, 2002 Page2 Ill. ACTION A. Personnel Actions - Principal Assignments Dr. James reported that he had met with the Campus Leadership Teams at Pulaski Heights Middle School and McClellan High School regarding the recommended appointment of the new principals at those school sites. Dr. Daniel Whitehorn was recommended for appointment to the position of principal at Pulaski Heights Middle School and Mr. Larry Buck was recommended to the McClellan High School position. Mr. Berkley made a motion to approve the Superintendent's recommendations\nMs. Magness seconded the motion and it carried unanimously, 5-0. After the vote, and after Dr. Whitehorn and Mr. Buck spoke briefly, Dr. Mitchell arrived. Mr. Berkley made a motion to suspend the rules to allow a second vote on the assignment of principals at PHMS and McClellan, so that Dr. Mitchell would have the opportunity to vote. Ms. Magness seconded the motion to suspend the rules and it carried unanimously. Mr. Kurrus restated Mr. Berkley's original motion\nit was seconded by Ms. Magness and carried 6-0. B. Employee Hearings Ms. Magness made a motion to go into executive session for the purpose of conducting employee hearings. Ms. Strickland seconded the motion and it carried 6-0. Dr. Hurley distributed a packet of information regarding the recommended termination of Ms. Laverne Ervin. Ms. Ervin was an instructional aide at Rockefeller Elementary School. The documentation provided included copies of letters of warning for inappropriate behavior, progressive discipline records, and memorandums regarding other performance-based issues. The superintendent acted on the principals' recommendation for termination on March 15, 2002. In April, Ms. Ervin filed a grievance, and a grievance hearing was held in April. The hearing officer found that Ms. Ervin's termination was for valid reasons, and she filed an appeal, requesting a hearing before the LRSD Board of Directors. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING June 6, 2002 Page3 Frank Martin represented Ms. Ervin in the hearing and asked the Board to consider the testimony of the witnesses only as a basis for the facts given in the Superintendent's letter of termination. He stated that Ms. Ervin had never challenged any of the previous suspensions or disciplinary sanctions, and he asked that she be given a probationary period in which to correct her behaviors and retain her employment with the District. The school principal, Anne Mangan, and other Rockefeller Early Childhood employees were called as witnesses to the behaviors and incidents which led to the recommendation for termination. Those witnesses were: Ann Fileatreau, Martha Roberts, and Vicki Burks. Ms. Ervin testified that she disagreed with the reasons for dismissal and she denied any misconduct. When questioned by Board members, she stated she did not know why the witnesses would have presented testimony against her. The Board took a brief recess to deliberate at 6:40 p.m. They returned at 7:05 p.m. and reported that no action had been taken during recess. Ms. Magness made a motion to uphold the superintendent's recommendation for termination based on the first item noted in his letter - - that Ms. Ervin \"failed to perform basic elements of her job.\" Ms. Strickland seconded the motion, and it carried 7-0. The second hearing was for Velrita Campbell. Dr. Hurley provided summary documents for the Board's review. Ms. Campbell was a security officer at Parkview Magnet High School for over seven years. The Superintendent's termination letter, dated May 3, 2002, stated the reason for the termination recommendation was that she knowingly requested payment for overtime on occasions when she did not work. Frank Martin, in his opening statement to the Board, stipulated agreement that Ms. Campbell signed overtime sheets for events that she did not work. He stated that proof with regard to which events she did or did not work were not an issue for her, but that the issue was whether there was intent to falsify the timesheets. Her contention was that past practices allowed security officers to claim a minimum of three hours of pay for events even if events were cancelled. Dr. Hurley called witnesses to testify that Ms. Campbell was not present for events that she listed on her overtime pay sheet. Witnesses included Judy Goss, Ernie McGee, Debbie Howell, Pat Treadway, Linda Brown, and Ricky Newth. Events included drama department productions, debate tournaments, athletic events, musical and dance department productions, and SAT testing. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING June 6, 2002 Page4 Bobby Jones, Director of Safety \u0026amp; Security, reported that he interviewed over twenty people in the investigation of falsification of timesheets in the security division. He noted that security officers were sometimes paid for events if they were cancelled after the security officer arrived on duty. If events were cancelled in advance of the scheduled start time, the officers were not paid to merely show up. He also noted that it is up to the individual school's administration to make sure that their security staff is appropriately scheduled and notified in the case of cancellations. Dexter Booth, assistant principal, was the administrator responsible for signing timesheets for security officers at the time this issue came to be known. He stated that he signed the timesheets, but that he did not have personal knowledge when security officers worked. He considered the security officers to be on \"the honor system\" and he assumed they only turned in time for when they were actually on duty. He no longer has the responsibility for scheduling and assigning security staff, and he no longer signs the time sheets. Alvin Turner, a retired security officer, testified on behalf of Ms. Campbell. He stated that he had also worked some of the events Ms. Campbell claimed to have worked, and that oftentimes they were on the school parking lot as security officers, even if no one saw him there. He supported her statements that they often worked the parking area together, and oftentimes did not enter the building, sign in, or check with other members of the staff. Floyd Smith, Central High School security officer, testified that they had been given permission by Bennie McDonald, at a security officer's inservice session, to claim three hours when events were cancelled. This was to insure that sufficient security staff was present\nthat it was difficult to get enough people to staff an event if they were only getting paid for one or two hours. Frank Martin asked the Board to consider a suspension of Ms. Campbell, even a suspension without pay, until such time as the District can adopt and implement policies and procedures to govern the practice of security officer overtime pay. He stated that Ms. Campbell had been a long-time employee and that the disciplinary action should fall short of termination. Ms. Magness made a motion to uphold the administration's recommendation for termination for knowingly requesting overtime pay for time not worked. Mr. Rose seconded the motion, and it carried 6-1, with Dr. Daugherty casting the \"no\" vote. SPECIAL BOARD MEETING June 6, 2002 Page5 IV. Gina Norman, a security officer at Hall High School, requested a hearing before the Bo\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_20","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2002-01","2002-02","2002-03"],"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":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/20"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant.\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL RECEIVED JAN 3 0 2002 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFFS DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADESPROJECTMANAGEMENTTOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2002 ~:=:r=~~~=~~:~======~t.~~~::.:~:cil~t~ B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, certify that on January 29, 2002, I caused a copy of the foregoing document t~ be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the followingperson(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. SamuelJones,ll Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 RECEIVED JAN 3 O 2002 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITOIDNS Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 r CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A Hagemeier, certify that on January 29, 2002, I caused a copy of the foregoing document to be served by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. SamuelJones,ill Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2000 NationsBank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222-7388 RECEIVED JAN 3 0 2002 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MOHITORJNG Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Marshal 1 One Union National Plaza I 24 West Capitol, Suite I 895 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL RECEIVED JAN 3 0 2002 OfFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORJNG PLAINTIFFS DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KA THERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. - IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 Based on the information available .at December 31 . 2001 , tlle ADE calculated the Equalization Funding for FY 01102, subject to periodic adjustments. 8. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2002 a~ , .. :i'.~1:ti!RrmijtH?:i'.t1~v,~11~fi!~\\1~~:P~~~m:t~er:':fti200:1!ttitiAoE::caicuia1~d for..FY:-..\n,.X@U'.:S4.bje~fl~tp~i\ni.\u0026lt;\u0026gt;di~ '.~jjjru~trr.i$.ht~i C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1 . Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2002 6iit\u0026gt;~~t-\n~11~'~]JQ'.ii\n~~t~byti8~~'9f\u0026amp;tate Eq~~tti~tion Fundihg for FY 01102 were:ijiJol~s: i.J~,$:t.tH:i$~4\n447i:1:01..._ NtRsttr $13\n045[9.5.o. Pcssot\\i$2s.zoi3~21-2 Ttnf:'~i1.fmei\\is .. of\nt?te.,.EqliciliiiltjPJl' :fun.ding H:alcufated io.f F.Y' 01/di\\a.t De~o,~~h~1.i?9Q:1{su6i~ct tci p~pdic adfustments/ were as foiJows: LRSQ { $.5~~ 189\n357 NLR$.fi\n}~28,093,00.8. PC$SP:2.i$.4,208,571: D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2002 Based o.n the information_available\nthe ADE caicuJated at December 31, 2001 for FY 01/02, subject tp_.peri.odic adjstrnents. E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2002 Based on the information availa.ble, tile ADE calculated at December 31, 2001 for FY 01/02, subject ~Q periodic adjustments .. It should be noted that currently the Magnet Review Committee is reporting this information instead of the staff attorney as indicated in the Implementation Plan. F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 Based.on the information available, the ADE calculated at December 31 , 2001 for FY 01 /02, subject to periodic _adjustments. G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 Distributions for FY 01/02 at December 31 , 2001 , totaled $5,067,913. Allotment calculated for FY 01/02 was $11 ,207,576 subject to periodic adjustments. H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 Calculated for FY 01/02, subject to periodic adjustments. I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2002 Distributions for FY 01/02 at December 31, 2001 were: LRso ~ $1,s1 s,624 NLRSD - $780,324 PCSSD - $3,226,072  ?a  The allotments calculated for FY 01 /02 at December 31, 2001, subject to periodic adjustments, were: LRSD - $3,789,060 NLRSD- $1,950,805 PC$SD- $8,065,184 J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date 2. Ongoing, December of each year. Actual as of January 31, 2002 In September 2001 , the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 01/02 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2002 In September 2001 , General Finance was notified to pay the last one-third payment for FY 00/01 to the Districts. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 In November 2001 , General Finance made the first one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 01/02 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At December 31 , 2001, the following had been paid for FY 01/02: LRSD- $1,156,097.00 NLRSD- $211 ,666.67 PCSSD - $472,132.08 M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98/99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 98/99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In July 1999, each district submitted an estimated budget for the 99/00 school year. In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99/00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2000, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 00/01 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. In September 2001 , paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 01/02 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1 ,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD - 14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD - 12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. The ADE accepted a bid on 16 buses for the Magnet and M/M transportation program. The buses will be delivered after July 1, 1999 and before August 1, 1999. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nPCSSD- 6. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. In July 2000, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $724,165. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD - 6. 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 The bid for 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses was let by State Purchasing on February 22, 2001 . The contract was awarded to Ward Transportation Services, Inc. The buses to be purchased include two type C 47 passenger buses and fourteen type C 65 passenger buses. Prices on these units are $43,426.00 each on the 47 passenger buses, and $44,289.00 each on the 65 passenger buses. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8 of the 65 passenger\nNLRSD - 2 of the 65 passenger\nPCSSD - 2 of the 47 passenger and 4 of the 65 passenger buses. On August 2, 2001 , the ADE took possession of 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses. The total amount paid was $706,898. 0 . Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) Q. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2002 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2002 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCSSD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2002 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2002 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 8 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2002 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 00/01 . Distribution in August2001 for FY 01/02 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 01/02. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97 /98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. Distribution in July 2000 for FY 00/01 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 00/01 . Distribution in August 2001 for FY 01 /02 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 01 /02. 9 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were visited, and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team, the Arkansas State Board of Education, and the Districts and filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 10 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2002 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97/98. 11 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2002 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 12 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring vis its were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SA T-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with (1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. 13 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 (Continued) In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21, 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 2000 and May 9, 2000 respectively. Staff development regarding classroom management was provided to the Franklin Elementary School in LRSD on November 8, 2000. Staff development regarding ways to improve academic achievement was presented to College Station Elementary in PCSSD on November 22, 2000. On November 1, 2000, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Director for Accountability updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and discussed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for February 27, 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. The Implementation Phase Working Group meeting that was scheduled for February 27 had to be postponed. It will be rescheduled as soon as possible. The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2001 . The quarterly Implementation Phase Working Group meeting was rescheduled from June 27. It will take place on July 26, 2001 in room 201-A at 1 :30 p.m. at the ADE. 14 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 (Continued) On July 26, 2001 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Mark Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the court case involving the LRSD seeking unitary status. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for October 11 , 2001 in room 201-A at the ADE. On October 11, 2001 , the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. Mr. Willie Morris, ADE Lead Planner for Desegregation, updated the group on all relevant desegregation issues. Mr. Scott Smith, ADE Staff Attorney, discussed the ADE's intent to take a proactive role in Desegregation Monitoring. The next Implementation Phase Working Group Meeting is scheduled for January 10, 2002 in room 201-A at the ADE. T.tle _lmpieme.ntation Phase _ Working Group Mee.ting tfiat was schedqledjqr J~oyar.y:J O was po~tponedi If has been rescheduled for February 14\n2002Jn ro6rh201-A afthe ADE. 15 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 16 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV. E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV. E. of this report. C. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 17 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of January 31, 2002 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81 st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. 18 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2002 (Continued) On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. 19 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 (Continued) The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. On October 4, 2000, the ADE presented staff development for assistant superintendents in LRSD, NLRSD and PCSSD regarding school laws of Arkansas. The ADE is in the process of forming a committee to review all Rules and Regulations from the ADE and State Laws that might impede desegregation. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will review all new laws that might impede desegregation once the 83rd General Assembly has completed this session. The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations will meet for the first time on June 11 , 2001 at 9:00 a. m. in room 204-A at the ADE. The committee will review all new laws that might impede desegregation that were passed during the 2001 Legislative Session. 20 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 (Continued) The ADE Committee on Statutes and Regulations rescheduled the meeting that was planned for June 11 , in order to review new regulations proposed to the State Board of Education. The meeting will take place on July 16, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on July 16, 2001 at the ADE. The following Items were discussed: (1) Review of 2001 state laws which appear to impede desegregation. (2) Review of existing ADE regulations which appear to impede desegregation. (3) Report any laws or regulations found to impede desegregation to the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts. The next meeting will take place on August 27, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on August 27, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on September 10, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on September 10, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. The next meeting will take place on October 24, 2001 in Conference Room 204-B at 2:00 p.m. at the ADE. The ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation met on October 24, 2001 at the ADE. The Committee is reviewing all relevant laws or regulations produced by the Arkansas State Legislature, the ADE and the Pulaski County school districts in FY 2000/2001 to determine if they may impede desegregation. On December 17, 2001, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation composed letters that will be sent to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. Laws to review include those of the 83rd General Assembly, ADE regulations, and regulations of the Districts. 21 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 (Continued) On January 10, 2002, the ADE Committee to Repeal Statutes and Regulations that Impede Desegregation sent letters to the school districts in Pulaski County. The letters ask for input regarding any new laws or regulations that may impede desegregation. The districts were asked to respond by March 8, 2002. 22 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31, 2002 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 Ongoing C. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31, 2002 Ongoing D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 23 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project ManagementTool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 At each regular monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, the Board is provided copies of the most recent Project Management Tool (PMT) and an executive summary of the PMT for their review and approval. Only activities that are in addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data collection process. Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT. In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 24 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2002 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the ADE's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 25 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2002 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the ADE's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 26 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 27 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's ProjectManagementTool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2002 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: (1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 28 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21 , 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 29 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. On July 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 11 , 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 9, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 11, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 8, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 12, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 9, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. On May 14, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 11, 2001, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 30 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 (Continued) On July 9, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of June. On August 13, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of July. On September 10, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of August. On October 8, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of September. On November 19, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 10, 2001 , the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. Q~:U~hii~r1:ii1/2.[qg1\n:tH~:lti~~n~~:~i~i ~Bq~(.~\\p.f :Ed~tion r.eviewed and approved tfleJ\u0026gt;Mt:aoct.tt:s''~i~tuJive'su.mmaiy'f6H he-.,,ootfioroec~mber. 31 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31 , 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCA/COE peer team visits. 32 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2002 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 33 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97 /98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted. 34 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 35 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. D. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI. F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. 36 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on a project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa, the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Dawson Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys. Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review. In December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31 , 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children. Participants received training from national experts who outlined specific steps that promote and improve the education of black children. 37 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 (Continued) On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the ADE's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NCA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservice training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. 38 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 (Continued) In November 1997, the field service representatives attended the Governor's Partnership Workshop to discuss how to tie the committee's activities with the ECOE process. In March 1998, the field service representatives attended a school improvement conference and conducted workshops on team building and ECOE team visits. Staff development seminars on Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement are scheduled for March 23, 1998 and March 27, 1998 for the Districts. In April 1998, the Districts participated in an ADE seminar to aid them in evaluating and improving student achievement. In August 1998, the Field Service Staff attended inservice to provide further assistance to schools, i.e., Title I Summer Planning Session, ADE session on Smart Start, and the School Improvement Workshops. All schools and districts in Pulaski County were invited to attend the \"Smart Start\" Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Start\" is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. Representatives from all three districts attended. On January 21 , 1998, the ADE provided staff development for the staff at Oak Grove Elementary School designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement. Using achievement data from Oak Grove, educators reviewed trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. On February 24, 1999, the ADE provided staff development for the administrative staff at Clinton Elementary School regarding analysis of achievement data. On February 15, 1999, staff development was rescheduled for Lawson Elementary School. The staff development program was designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement using achievement data from Lawson, educators reviewed the components of the Arkansas Smart Initiative, trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. Student Achievement Workshops were rescheduled for Southwest Jr. High in the Little Rock School District, and the Oak Grove Elementary School in the Pulaski County School District. 39 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 (Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP) . On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. 40 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2002 (Continued) On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT AAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" The ADE provided training on the development of alternative assessment September 12-13, 2000. Information was provided regarding the assessment of Special Education and LEP students. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate in professional development regarding Integrating Curriculum and Assessment K-12. The professional development activity was directed by the national consultant, Dr. Heidi Hays Jacobs, on September 14 and 15, 2000. The ADE provided professional development workshops from October 2 through October 13, 2000 regarding, 'The Write Stuff: Curriculum Frameworks, Content Standards and Item Development.\" Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were provided the opportunity to select a team of educators from each school within the district to participate. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems by video conference for Special Education and LEP Teachers on November 17, 2000. Also, Alternative Assessment Portfolio System Training was provided for testing coordinators through teleconference broadcast on November 27, 2000. 41 VI . REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2002 (Continued) On December 12, 2000, the ADE provided training for Test Coordinators on end of course assessments in Geometry and Algebra I Pilot examination. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation conducted the professional development at the Arkansas Teacher Retirement Building. The ADE presented a one-day training session with Dr. Cecil Reynolds on the Behavior Assessment for Children (BASC). This took place on December 7, 2000 at the NLRSD Administrative Annex. Dr. Reynolds is a practicing clinical psychologist. He is also a professor at Texas A \u0026amp; M University and a nationally known author. In the training, Dr. Reynolds addressed the following: 1) how to use and interpret information obtained on the direct observation form, 2) how to use this information for programming, 3) when to use the BASC, 4) when to refer for more or additional testing or evaluation, 5) who should complete the forms and when, (i.e. , parents, teachers, students), 6) how to correctly interpret scores. This training was intended to especially benefit School Psychology Specialists, psychologists, psychological examiners, educational examiners and counselors. During January 22-26, 2001 the ADE presented the ACTAAP Intermediate (Grade 6) Benchmark Professional Development Workshop on Item Writing. Experts from the Data Recognition Corporation provided the training. Representatives from each district were invited to attend. On January 12, 2001 the ADE presented test administrators training for mid-year End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. On January 13, 2001 the ADE presented SmartScience Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This was shared with eight Master Teachers. The SmartScience Lessons were developed by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association in conjunction with the Wilbur Mills Educational Cooperative under an Eisenhower grant provided by the ADE. The purpose of SmartScience is to provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. The following training has been provided for educators in the three districts in Pulaski County by the Division of Special Education at the ADE since January 2000: On January 6, 2000, training was conducted for the Shannon Hills Pre-school Program, entitled \"Things you can do at home to support your child's learning.\" This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. The school's director and seven parents attended. 42 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 (Continued) On March 8, 2000, training was conducted for the Southwest Middle School in Little Rock, on ADD. Six people attended the training. There was follow-up training on Learning and Reading Styles on March 26. This was presented by Don Boyd - ASERC and Shelley Weir. On September 7, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Chicot Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Karen Sabo, Kindergarten Teacher\nMelissa Gleason, Paraprofessional\nCurtis Mayfield, P.E. Teacher\nLisa Poteet, Speech Language Pathologist\nJane Harkey, Principal\nKathy Penn-Norman, Special Education Coordinator\nAlice Phillips, Occupational Therapist. On September 15, 2000, the Governor's Developmental Disability Coalition Conference presented Assistive Technology Devices \u0026amp; Services. This was held at the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On September 19, 2000, Autism and Classroom Accommodations for the LRSD at Jefferson Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Melissa Chaney, Special Education Teacher\nBarbara Barnes, Special Education Coordinator\na Principal, a Counselor, a Librarian, and a Paraprofessional. On October 6, 2000, Integrating Assistive Technology Into Curriculum was presented at a conference in the Hot Springs Convention Center. Presenters were: Bryan Ayers and Aleecia Starkey. Speech Language Pathologists from LRSD and NLRSD attended. On October 24, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On October 25 and 26, 2000, Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities for the LRSD at J. A. Fair High School was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. The participants were: Susan Chapman, Special Education Coordinator\nMary Steele, Special Education Teacher\nDenise Nesbit, Speech Language Pathologist\nand three Paraprofessionals. On November 14, 2000, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. On November 17, 2000, training was conducted on Autism for the LRSD at the Instructional Resource Center. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. 43 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2002 (Continued) On December 5, 2000, Access to the Curriculum Via the use of Assistive Technology Computer Lab was presented. Bryan Ayres was the presenter of this teleconference. The participants were: Tim Fisk, Speech Language Pathologist from Arch Ford Education Service Cooperative at Plumerville and Patsy Lewis, Special Education Teacher from Mabelvale Middle School in the LRSD. On January 9, 2001, Consideration and Assessment of Assistive Technology was presented through Compressed Video-Teleconference at the ADE facility in West Little Rock. Bryan Ayres was the presenter. Kathy Brown, a vision consultant from the LRSD, was a participant. On January 23, 2001, Autism and Classroom Modifications for the LRSD at Brady Elementary School was presented. Bryan Ayres and Shelley Weir were presenters. The participants were: Beverly Cook, Special Education Teacher\nAmy Littrell, Speech Language Pathologist\nJan Feurig, Occupational Therapist\nCarolyn James, Paraprofessional\nCindy Kackly, Paraprofessional\nand Rita Deloney, Paraprofessional. The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcast on February 5, 2001 . Presenters were: Charlotte Marvel, ADE\nDr. Gayle Potter, ADE\nMarcia Harding, ADE\nLynn Springfield, ASERC\nMary Steele, J. A. Fair High School, LRSD\nBryan Ayres, Easter Seals Outreach. This was provided for Special Education teachers and supervisors in the morning, and Limited English Proficient teachers and supervisors in the afternoon. The Special Education session was attended by 29 teachers/administrators and provided answers to specific questions about the alternate assessment portfolio system and the scoring rubric and points on the rubric to be used to score the portfolios. The LEP session was attended by 16 teachers/administrators and disseminated the common tasks to be included in the portfolios: one each in mathematics, writing and reading. On February 12-23, 2001 , the ADE and Data Recognition Corporation personnel trained Test Coordinators in the administration of the spring Criterion-Referenced Test. This was provided in 20 sessions at 10 regional sites. Testing protocol, released items, and other testing materials were presented and discussed. The sessions provided training for Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy, Algebra and Geometry Pilot Tests. The LRSD had 2 in attendance for the End of Course session and 2 for the Benchmark session. The NLRSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. The PCSSD had 1 in attendance for the End of Course session and 1 for the Benchmark session. 44 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 (Continued) On March 15, 2001 , there was a meeting at the ADE to plan professional development for staff who work with Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students. A $30,000 grant has been created to provide LEP training at Chicot Elementary for a year, starting in April 2001 . A $40,000 grant was created to provide a Summer English as Second Language (ESL) Academy for the LRSD from June 18 through 29, 2001 . Andre Guerrero from the ADE Accountability section met with Karen Broadnax, ESL Coordinator at LRSD, Pat Price, Early Childhood Curriculum Supervisor at LRSD, and Jane Harkey, Principal of Chicot Elementary. On March 1-2 and 8-29, 2001 , ADE staff performed the following activities: processed registration for April 2 and 3 Alternate Portfolio Assessment video conference quarterly meeting\nanswered questions about Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) and LEP Alternate Portfolio Assessment by phone from schools and Education Service Cooperatives\nand signed up students for alternate portfolio assessment from school districts. On March 6, 2001 , ADE staff attended a Smart Step Technology Leadership Conference at the State House Convention Center. On March 7, 2001, ADE staff attended a National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Regional Math Framework Meeting about the Consensus Project 2004. On March 8, 2001 , there was a one-on-one conference with Carole Villarreal from Pulaski County at the ADE about the LEP students with portfolios. She was given pertinent data, including all the materials that have been given out at the video conferences. The conference lasted for at least an hour. On March 14, 2001 , a Test Administrator's Training Session was presented specifically to LRSD Test Coordinators and Principals. About 60 LRSD personnel attended. The following meetings have been conducted with educators in the three districts in Pulaski County since July 2000. On July 10-13, 2000 the ADE provided Smart Step training. The sessions covered Standards-based classroom practices. 45 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2002 (Continued) On July 19-21 , 2000 the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were 200 teachers from across the state in attendance. On August 14-31 , 2000 the ADE presented Science Smart Start Lessons and worked with teachers to produce curriculum. This will provide K-6 teachers with activity-oriented science lessons that incorporate reading, writing, and mathematics skills. On September 5, 2000 the ADE held an Eisenhower Informational meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators. The purpose of the Eisenhower Professional Development Program is to prepare teachers, school staff, and administrators to help all students meet challenging standards in the core academic subjects. A summary of the program was presented at the meeting. On November 2-3, 2000 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching. This presented curriculum and activity workshops. More than 1200 attended the conference. On November 6, 2000 there was a review of Science Benchmarks and sample model curriculum. A committee of 6 reviewed and revised a drafted document. The committee was made up of ADE and K-8 teachers. On November 7-10, 2000 the ADE held a meeting of the Benchmark and End of Course Mathematics Content Area Committee. Classroom teachers reviewed items for grades 4, 6, 8 and EOC mathematics assessment. There were 60 participants. On December 4-8, 2000 the ADE conducted grades 4 and 8 Benchmark Scoring for Writing Assessment. This professional development was attended by approximately 750 teachers. On December 8, 2000 the ADE conducted Rubric development for Special Education Portfolio scoring. This was a meeting with special education supervisors to revise rubric and plan for scoring in June. On December 8, 2000 the ADE presented the Transition Mathematics Pilot Training Workshop. This provided follow-up training and activities for fourth-year mathematics professional development. On December 12, 2000 the ADE presented test administrators training for midyear End of Course (Pilot) Algebra I and Geometry exams. This was provided for schools with block scheduling. 46 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 (Continued) The ADE provided training on Alternative Assessment Portfolio Systems for Special Education and Limited English Proficient students through teleconference broadcasts on April 2-3, 2001 . Administration of the Primary, Intermediate, and Middle Level Benchmark Exams as well as End of Course Literacy took place on April 23-27, 2001 . Administration of the End of Course Algebra and Geometry Exams took place on May 2-3, 2001 . Over 1,100 Arkansas educators attended the Smart Step Growing Smarter Conference on July 10 and 11, 2001 , at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Step focuses on improving student achievement for Grades 5-8. The Smart Step effort seeks to provide intense professional development for teachers and administrators at the middle school level, as well as additional materials and assistance to the state's middle school teachers. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the first keynote address on \"The Character-Centered Teacher''. Debra Pickering, an education consultant from Denver, Colorado, presented the second keynote address on \"Characteristics of Middle Level Education\". Throughout the Smart Step conference, educators attended breakout sessions that were grade-specific and curriculum area-specific. Pat Davenport, an education consultant from Houston, Texas, delivered two addresses. She spoke on \"A Blueprint for Raising Student Achievement\". Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. Over 1,200 Arkansas teachers and administrators attended the Smart Start Conference on July 12, 2001, at the Little Rock Statehouse Convention Center. Smart Start is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. The event began with opening remarks by Ray Simon, Director of the ADE. Carl Boyd, a longtime educator and staff consultant for Learning 24-7, presented the keynote address. The day featured a series of 15 breakout sessions on best classroom practices. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County attended. On July 18-20, 2001 , the ADE held the Math/Science Leadership Conference at UCA. This provided services for Arkansas math and science teachers to support systemic reform in math/science and training for 8th grade Benchmark. There were approximately 300 teachers from across the state in attendance. 47 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 (Continued) The ADE and Harcourt Educational Measurement conducted Stanford 9 test administrator training from August 1-9, 2001 . The training was held at Little Rock, Jonesboro, Fort Smith, Forrest City, Springdale, Mountain Home, Prescott, and Monticello. Another session was held at the ADE on August 30, for those who were unable to attend August 1-9. The ADE conducted the Smart Start quarterly meeting by video conference at the Education Service Cooperatives and at the ADE from 9:00 a.m. until 11 :30 a.m. on September 5, 2001 . The ADE released the performance of all schools on the Primary and Middle Level Benchmark Exams on September 5, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Core Teacher In-Service training for Central in the LRSD on September 6, 2001 . The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for Hall in the LRSD on September 7, 2001. The ADE conducted Transition Checklist training for McClellan in the LRSD on September 13, 2001. The ADE conducted Basic Co-teaching training for the LRSD on October 9, 2001 . The ADE conducted training on autism spectrum disorder for the PCSSD on October 15, 2001 . Professional Development workshops (1 day in length) in scoring End of Course assessments in algebra, geometry and reading were provided for all districts in the state. Each school was invited to send three representatives (one for each of the sessions). LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD participated. Information and training materials pertaining to the Alternate Portfolio Assessment were provided to all districts in the state and were supplied as requested to LRSD, PCSSD and David 0. Dodd Elementary. On November 1-2, 2001 the ADE held the Arkansas Conference on Teaching at the Excelsior Hotel \u0026amp; Statehouse Convention Center. This presented sessions, workshops and short courses to promote exceptional teaching and learning. Educators could become involved in integrated math, science, English \u0026amp; language arts and social studies learning. The ADE received from the schools selected to participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a list of students who will take the test. 48 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2002 (Continued) cin\"t:fec~tob~r::17\n2001 tti~ADEti\u0026gt;ridtrct~ctgrades Bencrntl~rt\u0026lt;sdBri~[tr.aining Fo{tadio'd. arii(rn~ili~::~chli~iH0or:8,1trict=wa$i:lt1vit~\u0026lt;lito 'i~nd '~:'rr.1atHi~rtcf:~ reaaii)\"g $P~d~iiift~Jr~imng'w.as ti~id a.ttfie Hoiiday' Inn Airport ln Littled{Qcl.c: !llitt~:iliti!iiili\nir~~r\n=tz:~:.mr~ti 49 VII. TEST VALIDATION A. Using a collaborative approach, the ADE will select and contract with an independent bias review service or expert to evaluate the Stanford 8, or other monitoring instruments used to measure disparities in academic achievement between black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date March, 1995 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 On March 29, 1995, letters were sent to four national experts about conducting a test bias validation of the Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition, Form K (SAT-8). Dr. Paul Williams, Deputy Director of Educational Testing Service (ETS), contacted the ADE in April of 1995 concerning the proposal for validating the SAT-8 test. The ADE requested that Dr. Williams conduct a validity study of test items used in the SA T-8. Dr. Williams submitted a final proposal for his services. The ADE Bias Review Test Committee met Friday, July 7, 1995, and approved Dr. William's contract proposal. The final contract was forwarded to Dr. Williams for his signature. The contract was signed in August 1995, thereby, completing this goal. B. By April 1994, establish a bias review committee to oversee the bias review process, and invite representatives of the Districts and parties to meet with the bias review committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 Complete. ADE established a Bias Review Committee in April 1994. In accordance with the Implementation Plan, representatives from the Districts and the parties were invited to attend and participate in this and all meetings of the Bias Review Committee. C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. 1. Projected Ending Date March 1995 and ongoing 50 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 Dr. Paul Williams met with the staff of the Psychological Corporation to review their methods and procedures. In August 1995, he met with the staff at Georgia State University to review the statistical methods that would be used in the analysis. Dr. Williams reported difficulty with the bias-review study in receiving the names of the bias panel and the complete SAT-8 data set from the Psychological Corporation. Dr. Williams submitted an invoice totaling $8,961 for Task I activities of the SAT-8 validity study for partial fulfillment of the test validation study. On December 6, 1995, a contract extension for Dr. Williams was reviewed by the Legislative Council. In January 1996, he indicated that he was in the final stages of the test validation, and the ADE was presented a draft report in March 1996. In May 1996, Dr. Williams stated that the wrong data sets were sent to him by the Psychological Corporation resulting in Task 3 having to be redone. A new draft of the final report was received by the ADE in July 1996. In August 1996, copies of the test validation report were provided to the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team for their review. On September 10, 1996, the LRSD notified the ADE that they had reviewed the test validation report and would like to meet with the ADE to discuss the report. The ADE Director indicated that he would schedule a meeting with the LRSD to discuss the report. In October 1996, historical files and data were provided to the ADE Director, the ADE Assistant Director for Technical Services, and the ADE Assistant Director for Planning and Curriculum for their review in preparation for a meeting with the LRSD regarding the validity study. Test validation procedures by the expert have been completed. A recommendation was drafted proposing the use of the SAT-8 by the ADE as the validated test for monitoring. The ADE is presently working to arrange a meeting with the Administration of the LRSD to discuss the test validation study. Effective September 22, 1997, the State Board of Education hired a new Director of the General Education Division, which should allow the ADE to move forward in this matter. 51 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 (Continued) In October 1997, the GED Director was updated on the history of the test validation process to provide the Director with background information in preparation for a meeting with the LRSD. In February 1998, ADE staff met with senior staff members to discuss the test validation and appropriate test scores for consideration by the LRSD. The ADE Director met with the Superintendent of the LRSD to discuss test validation issues. In June 1998, the ADE Director directed the Assistant Director for Accountability to recommend staff to discuss how the ADE would measure LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness thresholds of the Settlement Agreement. Plans were made to meet with the staff Tuesday, June 30, 1998. The Test Validation Committee met on June 30, 1998, and discussed the following: 1. The appropriateness of the use of scaled scores on the SA T-8 test as the metric for assessing LRSD compliance with the loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement\nand 2. The need for an independent analysis of LRSD students' test scores to determine compliance or noncompliance with loan forgiveness standard, and who would bear the cost of such an independent analysis. The Test Validation Committee met on September 10, 1998, to review recent correspondence from LRSD and to further discuss issues related to the loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement. A follow-up administrative meeting was held on October 13, 1998, to discuss issues related to the test validation process. Participants included Tim Gauger, Assistant Attorney General, Dr. Charity Smith, Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Frank Anthony, Assistant Director for Accountability. A meeting was scheduled with Dr. Les Carnine, LRSD Superintendent and Mr. Ray Simon, ADE Director, regarding Test Validation and loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement on May 12, 1999. 52 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 (Continued) On June 14, 1999, the State Board of Education was briefed on the status of LRSD's refusal to make principal and interest payments into escrow as required by the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement and related documents. The Board requested that a draft motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement be prepared and submitted to the Board for review and discussion at the Board's next regularly scheduled meeting. On July 12, 1999, the State Board of Education authorized the fil ing of a motion to compel LRSD to make interest and principal payments into escrow pursuant to the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The State Board of Education instructed the Attorney General's Office to file a motion by March 1, 2000 if a determination is made that the LRSD is not in compliance with Section 6 B of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement regarding the establishment and funding of the escrow account in the loan provision section. On May 8, 2000, the Assistant Director of Accountability was directed by the Director of Education to contact Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement Company about the possibility of conducting a research study on the standardized test composite scores from 1990 through 1999 of LRSD (excluding special education students). The Test Selection Committee met on May 23, 2000, at the ADE and discussed ways to measure LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness threshold of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. An update on the progress with Harcourt Brace was made at that time. Harcourt Brace has been contacted about conducting an initial research report on LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness threshold of the settlement agreement. This report will review all composite scores since 1990 of LRSD's black and white students (excluding special education students). The purpose of the report is to determine if at any time from Spring 1990 to Fall 1999 did the composite scores of LRSD's black students (excluding special education students) reach 90% or greater of the composite scores of LRSD's white students (excluding special education students) on the State mandated norm-referenced test. Company representatives will advise the ADE of the cost and feasibility of producing the report by May 31 , 2000. If the report indicates that LRSD has not meet the loan forgiveness requirements of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement, an additional analysis of the Fall 2000 standardized tests results will be made. 5 3 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2002 (Continued) Harcourt Brace indicated that they would be able to provide the data, but indicated that analysis of the data should be done by an independent consultant. The search for an independent consultant has been undertaken. On February 12, 2001, the ADE Director provided the State Board of Education with a special update on desegregation activities. 54 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING A. Through an interactive process with representatives of desegregating districts, identify in-service training needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. B. Develop in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. C. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. Implement in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31, 2002 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 In April 1995, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee were provided an overview of the Scott Alternative Learning Center's operation and met with students and staff. In May 1995, the Districts were in the process of self-assessment and planning for fall staff development. 55 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 (Continued) The Districts worked on staff development to be incorporated into their fall 95/96 preschool calendars. The uniqueness of each district's needs and their schools was considered in the planning by utilizing the results of needs assessment instruments. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 13, 1995 to plan for an ADE administered Classroom Management grant. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 19, 1995 to finalize the Classroom Management grant proposal. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on October 24, 1995 to discuss program and staff development evaluation models that might be available to the Districts. On November 15, 1995, the ADE met with an ODM representative to discuss the progress the ADE had made in attaining the objectives outlined in the Implementation Plan with regard to inservice training. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on November 21, 1995 to discuss upcoming training events and various NLR programs that focus on non-academic needs. A new program consisting of placing a graduate student of social work, a field supervisor, and a DHS worker in the district at no cost to the district was discussed. Additionally, NLR provided an overview of their program for credit deficient students. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on December 19, 1995 to discuss information dealing with ways to broaden the perspective of multicultural education. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on January 17, 1996 to discuss proposed changes in the standards regarding media centers and NLRSD's staff development strategic planning committee. The committee reviewed a video on diversity produced by the Arkansas Elementary Principals Association. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 21, 1996 to discuss the implications of budget cuts on staff development programs and PCSSD's request for unitary status for their staff development program. They also discussed the need for computer literacy, technology training, and acquisition of hardware and software by the Districts. 56 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 27, 1996 to discuss available resources concerning sexual harassment. ADE regulations in relation to staff members attending professional association conferences as well as the district staff development and potential sites for training seminars were also discussed. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on April 30, 1996 to discuss the reconfiguring of Jacksonville Junior High, PCSSD professional development schedules, and APSCN on-line time lines. A tour of the Washington Magnet school was also conducted. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee received a demonstration of UALR's Baum Decision Support Center's capabilities regarding consensus and planning on May 29, 1996. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee did not meet during September, October, and November 1996 because of scheduling conflicts and the extended medical leave of the ADE liaison. On December 18, 1996, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met to discuss the linkage between the Implementation Plan, staff development, and student achievement. On January 21, 1997, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met and discussed sharing middle school strategies and the Districts' training catalogs. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 25, 1997 to discuss their current staff development programs and an overview of the relationship of their current programs with their desegregation plans. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 26, 1997 to observe the Great Expectations Program. The principal and mentor teachers provided information on the components and philosophy of the program, and students demonstrated selected components. The PCSSD may adopt the program for selected schools in their district. The committee was provided with an update of pertinent information on resources available to the Districts. The committee decided that the ADE liaison to the committee would gather documentation of completed staff development directly from the Districts, instead of the Districts providing this information at the committee meetings. 57 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2002 (Continued) New information on teacher licensure and rules and regulations was shared with the Tri-District Staff Development Committee at their April 1997 meeting. A report was presented to the committee on information from the Arkansas Council for Social Studies about an October 1997 meeting on integrated curriculum. The Districts will provide principal retreats this summer as a part of their staff development. The PCSSD will sponsor a renowned speaker on strategies to serve at risk youth in August 1997 in which the committee is invited to attend. The LRSD shared survey results from a pilot administration to four teachers in each district. The survey found the sample to be strong in content but lacking in context and process. Plans to address these needs will be developed. In another survey to certified and non-certified LRSD staff, stress management was the major concern. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on May 14, 1997 to participate in a teleconference with the five 1996 awardees of the National Awards Program for Model for Professional Development. The PCSSD shared their summer and fall staff development catalog with the members. The committee will reconvene in the fall of the 97/98 school year. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee is scheduled to meet on September 30, 1997 to discuss collaborative actions for FY 97/98. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 30, 1997 to discuss their staff development for the 1997 /1998 school year. The PCSSD had a pre-school in-service for the faculty, and the LRSD conducted a Principals Academy with an expert on the math and science initiative which lasted several days. The NLRSD is providing staff development by satellite. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on October 28, 1997. The LRSD and NLRSD shared some of their staff development course offerings with the committee, and the PCSSD discussed ways of optimizing opportunities for staff development with specific emphasis on the junior high school conflict resolution training. In November 1997, the Lead Planner provided technical assistance to Central High School staff regarding data disaggregation, test score analysis and ways to improve student achievement. 58 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2002 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on November 25, 1997 to discuss the Standards for Staff Development. The LRSD will begin providing technology training to their employees in January by utilizing business teachers. Additionally, they discussed a collaborative venture of the Districts involving a workshop from Chicago on a program called \"Great Expectations.\" The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on December 16, 1997 to discuss technology plans, strategies for obtaining information currently being provided to the education cooperatives, scheduling of Arkansas history, and the development of a comprehensive list of locations available for staff development. Members agreed to bring information on available locations to the January meeting and have set a tentative completion date for the project of May 1998. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on January 27, 1998 to share information for developing a comprehensive list of locations available for staff development. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 24, 1998 to work on the development of the list of locations available for staff development. The committee also discussed the meeting on student achievement sponsored by the ADE for the Districts, principals' staff development in the Districts and emphasis on improving achievement as reflected on the SAT-9. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 19, 1998 to discuss the math and science grant received by the LRSD, the Districts' inservice calendars for August, TESA and Student-Team Learning trainers, and team building for staff. The ADE Deputy Director is scheduled to discuss ways the committee can strengthen their relationship with the regional cooperatives at their May meeting. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on April 27, 1998 to discuss their proposal for involvement with the regional cooperatives. The ADE Deputy Director is scheduled to discuss committee's concerns regarding their relationship with the regional cooperatives at their next meeting. 59 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31, 2002 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Thursday, May 21 , 1998, in the Instructional Resources Center at Little Rock School District. Dr. Woodrow Cummins, ADE Deputy Director, joined the group to discuss ways to develop a closer connection with the Education Service Cooperatives. He also discussed other issues concerning Tri-District Staff Development. Tentative plans were made to meet with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their next regular meeting. The next Central Office meeting will be at 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 29, 1998, in the PCSSD. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee will attend the Educational Cooperative Teacher Center Coordinators' meeting September 1, 1998, in the ADE auditorium. The next regular meeting of the committee is tentatively set for 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 29, 1998, in the PCSSD Central Office. The Tri-County Staff Development Committee met Monday, August 24, 1998, at PCSSD central office with four members present: Marion Woods, LRSD\nDoug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nand Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Topics of discussion included the September 1 meeting scheduled with the regional cooperatives' teacher center coordinators\nthe staff development task force on which Marion Woods is serving\nthe property tax issue\nand various mathematics and reading programs being used in the districts. The committee met Tuesday, September 1, 1998, with the Teacher Center Coordinators, at which time Dr. Woody Cummins presented. Six Tri-District Staff Development Committee members were present: Marion Woods, LRSD\nDoug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nDana Chadwick and Estelle Crawford, NLRSD\nBetty Gale Davis, ADE. The next committee meeting will be 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 24, 1998, at the Little Rock District Instructional Resources Center. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Thursday, September 24, 1998, at the Instructional Resources Center, Little Rock, with five present: Marion Woods and Dr. Bonnie Lesley, LRSD\nDoug Ask, PCSSD\nDana Chadwick, NLRSD\nand Dr. Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Topics of discussion included the meeting with the regional cooperatives' teacher center coordinators\nthe staff development task force on which Marion Woods is serving and the NSCI training\ntraining provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)\ntraining provided by Casio\nand the proposal of a Principals Academy. 60 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of January 31 , 2002 (Continued) Doug Ask will serve as representative to the October 6, 1998 meeting of the Teacher Center Coordinators. He will submit to Donna Harris, president of the group, a request for one other member of the Tri-County Committee (Dana Chadwick) to attend the meeting. Representatives for future meetings (second Tuesday of each month) will be: Marion Woods, November\nMary McClendon, December\nDana Chadwick, January. The next committee meeting will be 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, October 13, 1998, at the North Little Rock School District Central Office. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on Tuesday, October 13, 1998, in the NLRSD Administration Building. Doug Ask represented the committee at the Teacher Center Coordinators' meeting in Fayetteville, October 6. He shared w\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1026","title":"\"Center for Research in Educational Policy's Response to RFQ #23-010,\" The University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee","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, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2002"],"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","University of Memphis. Center for Research in Educational Policy","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning","School integration","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["\"Center for Research in Educational Policy's Response to RFQ #23-010,\" The University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee"],"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/1026"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nRevised Desegregation and Education Plan Program Evaluation Consultant\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\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 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_301","title":"Compliance correspondence","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2002/2006"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Education--Evaluation","School administrators","Walker, John W."],"dcterms_title":["Compliance correspondence"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/301"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["correspondence"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nFriday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEL H FRIDAY (1922-1994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR.. P.A. JOE D. BELL. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY, P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR.. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR., P A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A PAUL B. BENHAM 111. 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 Hl. 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 J. CORNWELL ELLEN M OWENS JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL MICHAEL E. KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON PHILIP B. MONTGOMERY KRISTEN S. RIGGINS ALAN 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 ftnclleyQftc.net January 2, 2002 received The Honorable Susan Webber Wright 522 U.S. Post Office and Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3325 JW3 M OffittOF VIA FAX: 604-5169 RE: Little Rock School District v. PCSSD Dear Judge Wright: We are writing in response to Mr. Walker's fax of December 28, 2001, concerning a continuance of the January 28 hearing. While we do not question the basis on which Mr. Walker requests a continuance, we respectfully submit that Mr. Walker's associate, Robert Pressman, could ably represent the Joshua Interveners at the hearing. Mr. Pressman has been present and participated in previous hearings. In particular, Mr. Pressman examined Dr. Bormie Lesley, who will be the District's primary witness on the issues of achievement and advanced placement courses. The Joshua Interveners will not be prejudiced because Mr. Pressman does not have time to prepare for the hearing. The parties first exchanged exhibits on December 28, 2001, the same date as Mr. Walker's fax. Thus, Mr. Walker has not spent a great deal of time reviewing the District's exhibits which will now have to be duplicated by Mr. Pressman. For several reasons the Little Rock School District wants a decision in this case as soon as possible. One reason is the District's agreement with the State which is a part of the record as Court'sThe Honorable Susan Webber Wright January 2,2002 Page 2 Exhibit 548. Based on that agreement, any delay could eventually result in the District owing the State $5,000,000.00. Accordingly, the Little Rock School District respectfully requests that the January 28 hearing go forward as scheduled. Sincerely, wn C. Fendley, Jr. cc: Ms. Ann Marshall Mr. John Walker Dr. Ken James0: JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE SHAWN CHILDS John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 RECEIVED FEB 1 - 2002 OmCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Via Facsimile - 376-2147 January 30, 2002 Mr. Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD v PCSSD Dear Clay: I am in receipt of your letter dated January 28, 2002. Due to my limited resources and staffing, and since District officials to whom I have directed my correspondence have support personnel, may I suggest that you advise District officials when they receive a request for information or referral from me that they have their support personnel forward copies to your attention. I am not conducting discovery. I am continuing my role as a monitor for the Joshua Intervenors. Furthermore, I am not aware of any order from the Court which states that Joshua monitors are prohibited from monitoring the Districts compliance with its plan(s) as ordered by the 8' Circuit Court of Appeals. Nor am I aware of any order which states that I cannot conduct my monitoring activities as I have done so previously. Finally, I do not believe my monitoring activities are contrary to any court order. Please give me a call if you have a problem with my suggestion that District officials forward any correspondence from me to your attention. Sincerely  Joy C. Springer Joshua Monitor JCS/ cc: Dr. Ken James Mr. Junious Babbs Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1922-1994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR.. P.A JOE D. BELL. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY, P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR.. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A PAUL B. BENHAM III. P.A LARRY W. BURKS. P.A A WYCKLIFP NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL HI. 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 UI. P.A MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR,. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A ROBERT B. BEACH. JR.. P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER, JR.. P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A SCOTT H. TUCKER, P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER. P.A. TONIA P. JONES. P.A. DAVID D. WILSON. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayflrm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3*25 NORTH FLITRALL DRIVE. SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703-4811 TELEPHONE 501-805-2011 FAX 501-895-2147 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-782-2898 FAX 870-762-2918 January 28, 2002 JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GRAF, P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR., P.A JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO. P.A. BRYAN W. DUKE R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON, P.A. GREGORY D. TAYLOR. P.A. TONY L. WILCOX, P.A FRAN C. HICKMAN, P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY, P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON, P.A. JAMES W. SMITH, P.A CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT, P.A. DANIEL L. HERRINGTON. P.A. MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL MICHAEL E. KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH 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 LINDSEY MITCHAM SLOAN OP COUNSEL B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. AD. MCALLISTER JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-3323 FAX 501-2*4-9341 fendley@fec.net VilS C Ms. Joy Springer John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 RE: LRSD V. PCSSD ,'5 e n Z7 Dear Ms. Springer: This letter is in response to your follow-up letter to Mr. Babbs of January 22, 2002, concerning contact with Joshua. District officials were advised of the Court's order quoted in your letter. Without waiving our attorney client privilege, we can tell you that we did not instruct Mr. Washington or Mr. Babbs to stop providing you information. You state in your letter that it has been your practice to put any referrals to the Ombudsman in writing. We would respectfiilly request that you continue to do so. Also, as a courtesy, we ask that you send me a copy of your written requests for information. We have asked District officials to commumcate with you in writing as well. Hopefully, this will avoid disputes about the subject or content of the communications. To respond to your final inquiry, the District will respond within a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner to reasonable requests for information made by you. We continue to object to Joshua conducting discovery via the FOIA or informal requests. To the extent Joshua seeks discovery for upcoming hearings, we respectfully request that Joshua comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.Ms. Joy Springer January 28, 2002 Page 2 Finally, we expect that Joshua will comply with the Court's order concerning contacting District persoimel. As we read your letter, you interpret the Court's order as only applying to oral or in-person communications, but not to written communications. Please let us know if we have misinterpreted your position. We would like to develop a common understanding of the Court's order. We appreciate your cooperation. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, John C. Fendley, Jr. cc: Dr. Ken James Mr. Jnnious Babbs John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney Ar Law 1723 Broadway Ltitle Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 RECEIVED FEB 1 - 2002 OFHCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING JOHN w. WAT,try,B. SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile -324-2281 January 22, 2002 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHenry, P_A. DONNA J. McHenry 8210 Hendeeson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mcheiiryd@swbell.net Mr. Junious Babbs Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services Little Rock School District 501 Sherman Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Babbs\nI am in receipt this date of your letter dated January 14, 2002 in response to mine of January 7, 2002. My request for information from Mr. Washington is a part my continuing role to monitor the activities of the District. I am somewhat puzzled by your letter because you, Mr. Washington, other District staff members and I have communicated on similar issues since the hearings and I have not been advised by you or anyone else that I must first notify counsel for the District in order to receive written requests for information. Moreover, I am not aware of any court order where: Judge Wright instructed Joshua not to communicate with District employees without notifying counsel for the District while litigation was ongoing\" Her order states: the Court directs counsel for Joshua Intervenors to go through counsel for the Little Rock School District when seeking information from district or district officials and personnel that is pertinent to the case, and to inform cowtselfor the Little Rock School District prior to contacting officials and personnel about matters not currently before the Court.  Your letter raises some questions. First of all, if it was the Districts position not-to provide information to me because of Judge Wrights order, it occurs to me that I should have been notified of this position months ago when the requests were made. There is no court order precluding the District from providing the requested information. In addition, my requests were written, not verbal\nand you and/or Mr. Washington could have easily shared them with your counsel before now. Finally, are you saying that District counsel instructed you not to provide the information? It has been my practice to put any referrals to the Ombudsman and requests for information to you and other District personnel in writing. I will continue to do so. It is unclear to me how you, Mr. Washington and other District staff (if you are also speaking for them at this point) intend to respond to my requests for information in the future. I would appreciate clarification from you or Dr. James regarding this question. Joy C. Springei On Behalf of Joshua JCS/ cc: Dr. Kenneth JamesLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Junious C. Babbs, Associate Superintendent Phone: (501)324-2272 icbabbsstuasn.lrsd.kl2.ar.us -i* January 14, 2002 Ms. Joy Springer John W. Walker, P. A. 1723 Broadway St. Little Rock AR 72206 Dear Ms. Springer\nDr. James asked that I respond to your letter of January 7, 2002, concerning the Ombudsman providing you copies of his investigation reports. As you know. Judge Wright instructed Joshua not to communicate with District employees without notifying counsel for the District while litigation was ongoing. Mr. Washington, along with all other District administrators, was advised of Judge Wrights decisiich in this regard. However, Mr. Washington has been authorized to provide you copies of hiss lleetttteerrss ttoo ppaarreennttss rreeppoorrttiinngg tthhee ffimnddiinngess off hhiiss iinnvveessttiicgraattiionnnss rm mni referred to Mr. Washington by you. on matters If I can be of any further assistance, please let me know. Sincerely, Junious Babbs Associate Superintendent Cc\nDr. Ken James James Washington John w. Walker, p.a. ArronNEy At Law 1723 Broadway Lettle Rock, Arkansas 72206 Tels\u0026gt;hone (SOI) 374-3756 FAX (501) 374-41S7 JOHNW. walkek SHAWN CHILDS OP COUNSEL KOBEKT MuLENK?, PA- DONNA J. McSEM\u0026amp;T SaiOHnffiSSUONBw LdTLS SOCS, 72J10 Phons\n(501) 372-S42S  P.y:(60U ElulL isci\u0026gt;eiu7di0\u0026gt;wtMli.aet Via Facsimile\n604-5149 Honorable Wilham R. Wilson United States District Judge 600 W. Capitol Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Judge Wilson\nDuring e hearing we had on July 12,2002,1 indicated that the Court had previously disallowed d^sitions from ODM staff. I was reminded that the one exception to that was the occasion when LRSD filed a motion to have Judge Wright recused. As I understood Her Order, the reason for that occasion was because of the nature of the motion being filed which raised the issue of the Courts possible prejudice against the District. In previous hearings, the Court, Herself, offered elicited testimony for the record from ODM staff. On those occasions, there was neither objection from the parties nor a request for deposition or pre-court interview. I am writing this letter only to clear up a comment that I made which was not totally accurate but in context. My statement did reflect the Courts past procedure. We have no objectiQn to LRSD iaterviewing Ms. MaKhall our presence. any other ODM staff person either in or out of S/nserely, I W. Walker cc\nAU Counsel of Record (via fax)RECEIVED John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JUL 3 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile - 604-5149 July 1, 2002 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (601) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd@swbell.net Honorable Judge William R. Wilson United States District Judge 600 West Capitol, Suite 423 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Case No. 4:82CV0866WRW/JTR LRSD V. PCSSD Dear Judge Wilson: I received your order dated July 1, 2002 after 5:30 p.m. when I returned to the office from a trial before the Honorable George Howard, Jr., USA v. Dennis Williams and Joe Bryant. I am surprised that the Court ruled on the matter before I had an opportunity to reply to it. I note, however, that the Court provides that opportunity to reply post hoc by the filing of a motion and requesting a hearing. The apparent premise of the Order is that the requested FOIA documents are intended for use at the trial on July 22, 2002. Moreover, the Court seems somewhat vexed with counsel. I believe the Court would not be vexed were I to have had a reasonable time in which to respond and to make the following explanation. Joshua has been monitoring the Districts record of compliance since the entry of the original Decree. In that role, we constantly receive concerns from class members about race related matters in each of the three Districts. We first seek to get the Districts information by letter. When that fails, we make a request under FOIA. The District usually responds to our letter requests unless a hearing like the one set for July 22 is approaching. Our monitoring was contemplated by the 8\"* Circuit and the Settlement Agreements herein. The Court has not been involved with respect to our monitoring unless the District claimed some prejudice in its trial preparation. Between 1998 and June 2001, there was not a single hearing before the Court on any matter involving LRSD that was initiated by Joshua. Furthermore, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Joshua have obtained information from the District in the same manner for years. The Court has reacted in haste to a matter which is not, and will not be before it. The reaction is seen in the Courts conclusion that the requested information appears quite certain to be not timely. The Court seems persuaded that we did not meet the deadline for exchanging exhibits and names of witnesses. We each did so. Mr. Hellers office delivered his exhibits to us at the close of business on June 24, 2002 and we returned our witness list and exhibits to Mr. Heller by his own courier. We agree with the Courts comments that the requests are not pertinent to the three remaining issues in this case as the case relates to the Districts compliance as ofMarch 15, 2001. That does not mean, however, that Joshuas monitoring ended upon the filing of the report by the District on March 15, 2001. For the foregoing reasons, I request the Court to simply rescind its Order, afford us a reasonable reply time and then allow either party an opportunity to request a hearing thereon. In that way, the burden of proof would be upon the moving party on the issue rather than having Joshua in the position of being the moving party. For the information of the Court and the other parties, a criminal jury trial in which I am counsel before Judge Howard is expected to last at least through July 8, 2002. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely hn W. Walker JWW:js cc: All Counsel of Record Clerk of the Court SILL WILSON JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT eastern district of ARKANSAS 6OOW. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 UTTUE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3S2S (501) 504-5140 Eaccimila (501) 504-5140 July 10, 2002 BY FAX Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Clay Fendley Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Richard Roacheii Mr. John Walker Mr. Dennis Hanson Re\nLittle Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School, et al. 4\n82CV00866 Dear Counsel: A telephone conference was held on short notice yesterday at about 4:45 p.m. It was among counsel for LRSD and Joshua. I anticipate entering an order based upon information developed at that hearing. It should be filed no later than 2:00 p.m. today, and you may obtain a copy from the clerks office if you wish. Cordially, Wm, R. Wilson, Jr. cc\nThe Honorable J. Thomas Ray Mr. James W. McCormack 20/Z0 39Wd 6t\u0026gt;TSt\u0026gt;09T0S St\u0026gt;:60 2002/0T/Z0 JIX. 10.2002 10:48Hf1 jom W t^KLR P A NO.600 P.2Z2 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS John W. Walker, P.A. attorney At Law 1722 Bro-WWAy Lirru Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile: 604-5149 OK COUNSEL ROBERT McHSNBY, PA. DONNA J. MeHENRY 8210 Henduson Roas ttnu Bock. AKKANaah 722M PSONE: (501) 37J-S425  Rja (Ml) 372.3*28 Emmu niciiiry(i8wbeU.a0t July 10,2002 Honorable William R-Wilson United States District Judge 600 W. Capitol Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Judge Wilson\nI have just been called back to Court on a case before Judge Howard which was expected to end by Friday of last week. The case went to the jury yesterday evening at approximately 4:00 p,m, I was unable to participate in your conference call yesterday because I was in that case. I understand tiiat you extended the deadline for the exhibits until 2:00 p.m. We have worked to provide the exhibits by 2:00 p.m. I am having to go to Judge Howards Court now. I would appreciate it if you would extend the deadline by one hour. If this presents a hardship on any person or a prejudice to the school district, I would be greatly surprised. 1 appreciate your acconunodation for one hour. icereJ W. Walker JWW:Ip cc: AU Counsel of Record 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 Via Facsimile: 604-5149 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY. P.A. DONNAJ.McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchemydl^wbell.net July 11,2002 Honorable William R. Wilson United States District Judge 600 W. Capitol Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 received JUL 15 MO OFFtCE OF DESEQREQATIQN MQMITOWHQ Dear Judge Wilson: Thank you for allowing the additional two hours yesterday in which to submit our exhibits. We are now in the process of preparing for the hearing in the morning on the plaintiffs motion in limine and believe that it is appropriate to make preliminary remarks to the Court before the hearing begins. First, we have attempted to meet the Courts time, date of appearance and substance of testimony requirements in our submission filed yesterday. We have listed 23 witnesses who will testify. We intend to subpoena them pursuant to the Courts Order so that they will be present at 8:30 a.m. on July 22, 2002. Dr. Terrence Roberts and Dr. Steven Ross are outside the range of normal subpoena reach and we may need the Courts help in securing their presence. I intend to speak with them about their availability at the times that I have scheduled their testimony. Because they are out of state, I ask that the Court relieve them of the requirement to be present at 8:30 a.m. on the morning of the 22\"''. Second, the exhibits to which reference is made in Para. 2 of Plaintiff s memorandum have been provided to the plaintiff and the court. Third, plaintiff seeks to exclude its own exhibits as evidence that Joshua may utilize in its presentation. The established procedure in this case is that exhibits identified by either party may be relied upon and used by either party provided that they are otherwise admissible. There has not been stated any reason for deviation from past practice in this case. Moreover, there is no prejudice to the plaintiff if we use the exhibits which it has identified and intended to use itself.Page Two July 11,2002 Fourth, the District objects to our inquiring into good faith except as related to the issues involved in this hearing. We agree. 1) The District, however, in this hearing intends to address good faith itself at myraid points. Quality management was discussed extensively by Dr. Bonnie Lesley at the earlier hearing. The District seeks to readdress the issue through Ms. Sadie Mitchell. 2) The testimony of Mr. Baker Kurrus relates to good faith outside the three areas. The covenant referred to by Mr. Kurrus has not been challenged by Joshua because it was not pail of the negotiated agreement. Moreover, there is no issue raised by Joshua regarding compliance by the District with respect to the fee agreement. Mr. Kurrus testimony about Joshua appearances before the Board cannot be an issue. Although we do not object to Mr. Kurrus being a witness, his anticipated testimony must address the three issues before the Court. 3) The District requests that Joshuas effort to present Mr. Junious Babbs testimony on the tliree subjects be disallowed. We have set forth the areas and anticipated testimony of Mr. Babbs. Judge Wright limited us at the first hearing in such a way that the issues now before the Court were not fully explored. Moreover, Mr. Babbs is the Districts official who has chief responsibility for monitoring and oversight from a desegregative perspective over the counseling areas and as the monitor over each of the areas being presented to the Court. 4) The District wishes to exclude a number of Joshuas exhibits on the basis that they are not related to the issue now before the Court. Most of them are e-mails between District officials. Judge Wright previously allowed these to come in as admissions against interest or as evidence which either put matters into context or as rebuttal to contentions made by the District. We otherwise make reference to the response filed by Joshua, Par. 4 on July 8,2002. 5) Plaintiff wishes to exclude all testimony and evidence which was not brought before the school board in a public meeting. Plaintiff seems intent upon imposing an exhaustion of remedies requirement upon Joshua. The plan does not require exhaustion and with good reason. This was an agreement between parties who stood equally before the Court. The agreement defines the relationship between the parties. Good faith is key to the agreement because the actions flow from the District for the purpose of benefitting the class and for complying with the 8* Circuit commands. We otherwise make reference to our submission of July 8, 2002. 6) Plaintiff suggests that it is not informed of the scope of our rebuttal. The present position of the District is that the ODM assisted the District with its evaluations and assessment and that Ms. Marshall, in particular, consulted with Dr. Leslie regarding certain evaluation reports. Mr. Gene Jones was said to have been a participant in the evaluation process utilized by the District. The rebuttal evidence that they will offer will explain the ODM role. It will also address the issue of evaluation verses assessment which will include the ODM perspective that evaluation differ fromPage Three July 11,2002 look-see type assessment. We note here that Judge Wright had difficulty with the implementation of the evaluation/assessment that appeared on Page 148 of the March IS* report. 7) Plaintiff lists several employee witnesses who will discuss subjects and events that were not included, and which were subsequent to, the March 15, 2001 report. See the references to the anticipated testimony of Dr. Bonnie Leslie which include events that are clearly post March 15, 2001\nthe anticipated testimony of Dr. James regarding any subject because he was not employed by the District as of March 15, 2001\nand the anticipated testimony of Ms. Sadie Mitchell and Ms. JoEvelyn Elston regarding post March 15, 2001 events. The groimd rules for this hearing can only relate to inquiries for information from Joshua or from other parties who are seeking to be informed by District officials of activities and events which occurred and were measured by March 15,2001. Joshua information which is post March 15, 2001 must likewise relate to the status report of the plaintiff for that date. On the other hand, Joshua will seek to exclude documents created subsequently by the District which were prepared for the purpose of buttressing its March 15, 2001 report. The Court has imposed measures to facilitate the trial which are in sync with those followed by Judge Wright. We believe that the observations made herein ai'e absolutely consistent with Judge Wrights earlier ruling and we ask the Court to follow the same process that has been in place during the earlier evidentiary presentation regarding the Joshua opposition to the plaintiffs motion for declaration of unitary status. Thank you for taking the time to read this lengthy letter. fihcferely, 1^. Walker J0hn^. JWW\ncc: Mr. Chi'is Heller Ms. Ann Brown Marshall All Other Counsel of RecordRightFax 7/11/2002 4:23 PAGE 2/2 RightFax EDWARD L. WRIGHT ROBERT S. UNO\u0026amp;r (ISU'IUD ISAAC A. SCOTT, JR. JOHN G. LILE GORDON s Rather JR TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVID M. POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS SUPORD. JR. PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS. JR. JOHR R. TtSOALE KATHLYN GRAVES M SAMUEL IONES \"I JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY lit LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER COWIN L. LOWTKCR, JR. CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E MAY GREGORY T. JONES H. KEitH MORRISON SETTINA e. BROWNSTEIN WALTER U^PADDEN KUGgR D. ROWe JOHN 0. DAVIS Juor StUUONS IICNRY WRIGHT. LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 20C VJEST CAPnOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS ?2201-3699 (so\u0026lt;)371-oeoe FAX (Sot) 370'0442 WWW.wt).com or COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONAIO A MAY JAMES R. VAN DOVER Writer'! Direct Diil No. 501-212-1273 mjonesQwti.com KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX, JR. TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS JAMES U. MOODY. JR KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK OAV'.S CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W KEMNfOV jeRRY J. SALUNOS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL 0. SARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBIKSON WiLBER KYLE R WILSON C. TAO MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRISTI U MOODY J. CKARLeS DOUSHERTY* M. SEAN HATCH J. ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T ALLEN CHRIeTiHE J. DAUGHERTY. PnO. MICHELLE M KAEMMERLING ERIKA ROSS MONTGOMERY SCOTT ANDREW IRBY HOLLY A AOEE MICHELLE HARGIS OILLARD PATRICK 0 WILSON * Ucsmatf to finetu betor* M UnM 5Ws P9Kn andTrasBour* Office July 11,2002 RECEIVED VIA FACSIMILE JUL 1 1 2002 The Honorable Wm. R. Wilson. Jr. U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue. Suite 360 Little Rock. Arkansas 72201 OfTlCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District\net al. USDC Docket No.: 4:82CV00866WRW Dear Judge Wilson: A few moments ago I faxed to the Court and the parties a letter concerning Ray Simmon. Mr. Clay Fendley informs me that Mr. Simmon is not listed as a witness on Joshua's revised witness fist\". Unfortunately, I do not have a copy yet of the revised witness list\nprobably will get it In the mail tomorrow. Assuming this is correct, this seems to remove the sole issue from the proceedings that wrould directly concern the PCSSD. Given that, I would request that the Court excuse me both from the hearing tomorrow and the unitary hearings. By the way, I have another case that is hopping in Your Honor's Court that can be keep me plenty busy. Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP MSJ:wmh M. imuel Jones, ID ( cc: Honorable J. Thomas Ray All Counsel of Record 350455-V1mkjt:. nignirax EDWARD L. WRIGHT nD3.1r7J ROBERT S. LINOSEV .'SAAC A SCO7T. JH. JOHN G. LILE GORDON S. RATHER. JR. TERRY L, MATMEWS DAVID U. POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD. JR. PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS. JR. JOHN fi. TfCnALS KATHUYN GRAVES N. SAMUEL JONES UI JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY III LES J. MULDROW N.M NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JAMES J. GLOVER B9WW . LQTMSf. JU Charles l. scHUUMaERGER WALTER 6. MAY GREGORY T. JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER MCSPADOEN ROGER 0. naVfE ' JOHN D. DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS MEN.RY WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SOI WEST CAP5TOL AVENUE SUrTE 220C Li'TTLc ROCK. ARKANSAS 7220t-56d5 \u0026lt;SC1|371-0808 FAX (SOI) 376-9442 wwfw.wlj.com OF COL'NSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALp A UAY JAMES R. VAN DOVER KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX. JR.' TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS JAMBS M. MOODY. JR KATHRYN A, PRYOR J. nKKf. OAVtS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W. KENNEDY JERRY 4. SAktlNOS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL D. SARNES STEPMEN R. LANCASTER jVGV ROBINSON WILBER KYLE R WILSON C TAS BOHANNON MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRISTI u MOODr J. CHARLES DOUeHERTY* M. SEAN HATCH J. ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN CKRtSTIME J. DAUGHERTY. PKO. MICHEUE M KA6MMERUNC \u0026gt;O9 MOHTQOMeP.Y VIA: FACSIMILE Wrlttr's Dfct Dial No. 501-212-1273 mjonestgwlj.com SCOTT ANOREW tftSY MOLLY A. AOEE MtCHELLE HARflJS DILLARD PATRICK O WILSON ' tcnMOsjnaceMkveinetMee Safei raflw/t M July 11.2002 The Honorable Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. U.S, District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 360 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District' et al USDC Docket No.: 4\n82CV00866WRW Dear Judge Wilson: I have the Courts Letter-Order of July 11, 2002 and I write in my capacity as counsel for the Pulaski County Special School District I have tried to follow the recent proceedings and I have a general sense that the issues lA/ITnOC^ftr' ____i _i . . \u0026gt; ' Witnesses and exhibits have been pared down considerably. y sole interest in the heanngs next week revolves around Joshua's designation of Ray Simmon, Director of The State Department of Education, as a witness whom they intend to call. If memory serves, he is listed as witness number 29 on Joshua's witness list and will be called to give testimony concerning \"the agreement\" between the State and LRSD. That agreement respects terms and conditions of the loan forgiveness to Little Rock and also mciudes a bilateral agreement between Little Rock and the State concerning a sunset provision  -------------\u0026lt; aw WWI I III 1^ a by which payments such as those for magnet schools and M to M transfers wiii cease. Let me first say I cannot fit this particular testimony and this agreement into the 1 7 uaihiui lit Ulis paiucuiar lesiimony and this agreement into the parameters of what I understand to be the issues that will in fact be addressed next week. Al the same time I do not I ccall an order which specifically addressed Mr. Simmon and this agreement. It is my underetanding that this agreement has never been submitted directly to the Court for approval ar disapproval. However, 'when it first surfaced, I did have occasion to -write Judge 350409-vlnxgii cr ux WRIGHT. LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP July 11. 2002 Page 2 Wnght advis^ that the PCSSD had not been a party to either the negotiation of or the execution of this agreement and that we opposed it. If this evidentiary item is not going to be addressed during the unitary hearing, 1 would ^peatfuily request to be excused from those hearings. Evenrf it is gohg^o be addre^ed I would ask me indulgence of the Court to simply require the parties to notify me as to approxirnateiy wnen dunng the proceedings this issue might be addressed so that participation could be limited to that wimess and this issue. my 01 position io assess and address this matter today with the presence at the hearing in the morning would not be required, that would be splendid to know. Thank you very much. Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP MSJ:wmh cc\nHonorable J. Thomas Ray / All Cou.nsel of Record ( '^amuelyilli Iones, ill 350409^rivr aA Z/XX/Z.UV\u0026lt;^ H : LJ KAUE. Z/Z ftigntrax .k EDWARD L. WRIGHT (ISOS-ieTT) ROBERT 5. UNOSEv ISAAC A. SCOTT, JR. JOHN G. LILE GORDON a RATHPR JR TERRY I. MATHEWS DAVID M. POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD. JR. FATRiCX J. GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS, JR. JQHfi R. TtSOALS KATHLYN GRAVES M NAMUeL JONES \"I JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY lit LEE J. MULDROW N M. NORTON CHARLES C. PRICE CHAftuES T. COteWAN JAMES J. 6LOVER EDWIN L. LOWTKCR. JR. CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER WALYFR E MA* GREGORY T. JONES M. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA 5, BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPAOOEN NOGisR O. ROWS JOHN 0. OAVIS JUCY SIMMONS KCKRY WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 20C VVcST CAPnOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS ?220l-3699 (SOI) 37i-080e (SOI) 376.9442 ww.w(|.co(n OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAV JAM6S R. VAN DOVER Writer'! Direct Oral No. 501-212-1273 rnjones@wti.com KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX. JR. TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS uAMES U. MOODY. jR. KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK OAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVIN W KENNEDY JERRY J. SALLINOS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL O. SARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUOY ROBiHSON WILBER KYLE R WILSON C. TAO BOHAHNCn MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRISTI U. MOODY J. CHARLES OOUSmERTY* M. SEAN HATCH J. ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T. ALLEN CKRlSTiME J. OAUGHfiRTY. PnO.' MICHELLE M. KAEMUERUNG SniKA ROSS MONTGOMERY SCOTT ANDREW IRBY HOLLY A. AQEE MICHELLE HARGIS OILLARD PATRICK 0. WILSON * UOBRSM \u0026lt;D tncHec Mlore M UWetf States Pw ano' Tiaatman I ! I I I VIA FACSIMILE The Honorable Wm. R. Wilson, Jr, U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 360 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: July 11,2002 Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District\net al USDC Docket No.\n4:82CV00866WRW Dear Judge Wilson\nA few moments ago I faxed to the Court and the parties a letter concerning Ray Simmon. Mr. Clay Fendley informs me that Mr. Simmon is not listed as a witness on Joshuas revised witness list. Unfortunately. I do not have a copy yet of the revised witness list\nprobably will get it in the mail tomorrow. Assuming this is correct, this seems to remove the sole issue from the proceedings that would directly concern the PCSSD. Given thaL I would request that the Court excuse me both from the hearing tomorrow and the unitary hearings. By the way. I have another case that is hopping in Your Honor's Court that can be keep me plenty busy. Cordially yours. WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS LLP MSJ:wmh cc\nHonorable J. ( M. ^mu^i J^es. Ill ! Thomss Rsy /* All Counsel of Record 350455-V1'jrm \u0026gt; jvmi w WHLKxC-f*? NO.671 P.2/3 I JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attobnby At Law 1723 BsoaDWav Lrmz Bock, Aklucas Telephone (5O1) 374475\u0026amp; FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHNW. Walker SHaWN CHILDS July 15, 2002 OP COUNSEL BOBEET McHENBY. P X DQNNA4.McHENRy \u0026amp;210 HrKDiasON Sgad Linu Rook, Arkansas 72210 PSOtffi: (601) 3T2-5425  PaX (331) STZ-SiSa Email: Mr. Christopher Keller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 W, Cqiitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Chris\nIn preparing for the heanng, I note that Dr. Bonnie Lesley will testify at approximarely 1:00 p.m. on July 24,2002. lam writing to inform you that I will not object to her testimony with respect to the following statements in your detailed statement of her expected testimony\n1) 2) 3) the Districts compliance with Revised Plan Sections 2.6,2.6.1 and 2.6 J2\nthe section on Advanced Placement Courses on Pg. 36 of the Compliance Report of March, 2001\nand we object to any and all of the remaining proposed testimony foi her which includes, but is not limited to\na) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) j) the latest results from the K-2 readily assessments\na description of a recent study conducted by a team in her division on the academic effects of participation by African American students io the Districts Pre-K program for students now in grade K-8 verses the scores of African american Students 'who did not participate\nnew grants to elementary schools for school iinprovenient\nthe post-March State Bench Examinatinns for grades 4,6 and 8\nthe Districts new writing curriculum for Pre-K-12\nefforts by the District at the secondary level and the results achieved by the District so for, two studies related to the Districts Advanced Courses at the .oaenndary level\nthe partnership wifri the Southern Regional Education Board\nthe trend^TBsearch for high schools to admit more and more non traditional students to advanced courses\nthe review of the NaaCPs call for action in education\nw WMursC-f^ NO.671 P.3Z3 1 Page Two July 15,2002 k) D a description of a study that Dr. Lesley conducted on class size at the middle and high school levels and the class sizes of AP courses since March 15 2001\nan update of her testimony from November 2001\nand the Districts plan for implementing new federal legislation and an end the to Districts post Court supervision activities 'a- As you can see, there is little for Dr. Lesley to testify airout from your proposed statement of her expected testimony. Accordingly, she should be limited to the areas that you propose which precede March 15,2001 insofer as the Districts activities are concerned. If you disagree with friis posmon, t^ch e Court has embraced in its Order, and you intend to revisit it at trial, please inform me by return fax. JWW\nIp cc\nAll Counsel of Record received JUL 1 9 2002 OFHCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING BILL WILSON JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 600 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3325 (501)604-5140 Facsimile (501)604-5149 filed U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS July 16, 2002 JUL 1 6 2002 JAMES W Mr. John Walker 1 723 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 BY FAX Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School, et al. 4:82CV00866 Dear Mr. Walker: The clerk reports that you filed no exhibits by 4:00 p.m. yesterday  the deadline for presenting exhibits that would be offered next Monday morning during Joshuas rebuttal. I assume, therefore, that you will offer no rebuttal exhibits. Cordially, Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. cc: The Honorable J. Thomas Ray Counsel of Record Original to the Clerk 1 6-fo -fAf BILL WILSON JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 600 W. CAPITOL. ROOM 423 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3325 (501)604-5140 Facsimile (501) 604-5149 3^IS\u0026lt;fcWF U.S, DISTRICTCOURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL 1 6 2002 JAMES W By\n^CLERK \u0026gt; July 16, 2002 BY FAX RECEIVED Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Clay Fendley Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. John Walker Mr. Dennis Hanson JUL 1 9 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School, et al. 4:82CV00866 Dear Counsel: Mr. Walker called my staff a while ago to say that he thought rebuttal exhibits had to be filed by 5:00 p.m. today. I treat this call as a motion to extend the deadline to 5:00 p.m. today, and it is granted. Mr. Hellers request in his letter is granted, and the deadline of 4:00 p.m. today referenced in that letter is extended until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow. Cordially, Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. cc: The Honorable J. Thomas Ray Original to the Clerk I 1d:u tAA 3U1 J/0 2147 FRIDAY ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 0002/002 Friday Eldredge \u0026amp;c. Clark HBHOfili. u. FUDaY WILLIAM H SVTTOM, \u0026gt;.A. BYRON M. BIS\u0026amp;UaN. JR.. PA. JOe 0. BELL. r-A. JaMU BUTTKY, yjL nRBosweae s. ubsery. p.a OSCAR E. OA*i$. JL. P R. JAMES C CLARK. JR.. P-A. THOMAS P. LBCCBTT. P.a. JOHN OevBY WATSON. P.A PAUL B DRWHxM in. P A Larrv w. noux P.A A WVetUFT NISBET. JA. P .A James eovajko uarjuS. p.a J. PMXLLJPMALCO.M. p.a. JAMBS M. SIMPSON. P.A JAMBS M. SAXTON. P.A J. SUBPHBRD BUSSELL OL F.A. DONALD K. OACaN. P.A. WlUTAM THQMAS BAXTER. P.A UCHARO D TAYLOA P.A JOSEPH!. HORST. JR. P.A QLIZAUTH tcOOBEN MCOUaY. P.A CKMBTOMTB* rkllbil f.a LaUBA rem^ley smith. P A. BOBERT X SHAPU. WnXlAM M. OBIPPIN UI. r.A. MICHAEL 3. M00R2. P A BiANE S. MAQUY. F-*- 'fALTisx H. BBfil in. P.A KBVtW A CRABS. F.A. attorneys at law A LIMJTCO LlAeiLlTYPARTNlUSKIP www.Frida^firm.eom 2Qt)0 REGIONS CENTER ACO WEST CAPITOt wruuM WAOOELL. JA. TA SCOTT 7 LAWCXrrBB. F A. ROBERT . SCACM. JK. F.A. I.LESSBOWH.F.A JAMBS C. BAIUUL JB.. P-A HARRY A. LtCtrf. T-A. SCOTT M, TUCEER. P.A OUT ALTON wade. P.A HUCX c. CaRBNEB. P.A TONTa P. jokes. P.A David d. wasow. p JEFTEfY R. MOORS. P.A David m. qrap. p.a Lirrkfi ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201*3^93 telephone 501.3702011 ^AA4Wl-37e-2lA7 M25 MOATH FuTAaU. DRIVE. SUITE 103 FAVETTCVILLE. ARKAMSAS 72703^811 TELERhORE ar\u0026gt;.M5-20n FaX476.MS.2147 CAELa OIAINELS SPAINHOUR. P.A 3OW C. 7INCLSY. JB.. JON AMI* BLtZABVTH COVTQUO. F.i A CMiaSTOPURK bARrsOK. P.A PmUt C inQCMAN. P.A BCTTY J. BBMOAY. P.a LYKOa M. lONKBON. Pj\\. James w. smitb. pa. CUPFOXO V. PLUNUTT. DANIEL 1. HBRIUMGTON. P.A. MARVIN L. dULAEBS R. COLBMAN WS*r*OOK. JX. ALUSOM J. CORlfWELL UU4NM. 0EM /jkMV 1. BENDEBH BROCS S. TIDWELL MICBaRLS. KASMEY KELLY MUEWY mCQUBEN jasxnt p. mckay ALSXAhORA A IPfAH JAY T. 7AYLOK martin a. Ka$TEN BAYA14 W. DUKE rasiPSG. HICHOU tOBERT T SMITH RYAN A TtMOTHY C BZnU. T. MlCaSLU ATOB KAUN 3. HaIMULT SABjsSU. COTTOTi MRUP B. wnncoMsKY KRMWi S.RXCCiMS ALAM C. BAT AN UNDSBT M\u0026gt;TOUM aLOaN ROAYTAM M. EDDQUU MKN F. FEUEJUCM OSCOVHSIL B.S.QJ\\*R VUAZAML. TgRBY V1U4AN L. rATTON. IB. H.T. LaMBSUBZ, f.A. lOKM C. eCBOLS, P_A. a.d. mcaluster u / / ZM NORTH Firm STRUT BLVTHEVrLUe. ARKANSAS 7331$ TELERHOH\u0026amp; a70.7fta.2SM FAxro.fft2-3etft CHfUSrOFNER HELLCR UTTUg RCK TEk FAX Srt234 July 16, 2002 Via Fax No. 604-5149 Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. United States District Court 423 U-S. Post Office and Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD V. PCSSD USDC 4:82CV366\"AT1W Dear Judge Wilson\nI have arranged a time to interview Ann Marshall and Gene Jones. It will not be necessary to schedule any depositions. Yours very truly, Christopher Heller CJH/bk cc via fax: All Counsel of RecordFriday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark KBXSCBELB- FUPAY (1923-(994) wiluam X. Simon, BYRON M. E1S2HAN. JK. F.A JOEO. BELL. FA. James a. buttry. f.a. FBEPEUCK k. UKEEKY. F.A. OSCAR S. OaVIS. n.. F.A. JAMES C- CLaBK. L. Fa. THOUaS F. LESfiSTT. FA. JOHN DEWEY *ATSON. F.A PAUL 9. BlMllAM (U. \u0026gt;.A. LABRYW. BURKS. F.A A WYOUJfP mSftST.F.A JAMBS BPWaRP KABBJS. F.A I. wnxip MALCOM. T.A Jambs M. SIMPSON. P.A IaMSS M- EAXTOU, .A J. SfBFHBRD RCUEU. OL P.A. DONALD R. Bacon. p.a WTUIAM THOMAS BAXTER. KA KJCHA1U3 P. TAYLOX F.A- JOEEFH E llUkST. JR . F. A EUZaBBTH IOBOEB MUEftAY. 7 A. CnST0\u0026gt;ai( 'HELLEB. rJk. LAUBA HCKSLCA smith, fa. BOBKB.T a. SUAFSA. F.A. vniXAK M. OWrFIN UI. F.A. MICBAEL . ttonu^ P A PUNO S. MACJUJY. F.A. WaLTBB M. EBEL lU. F.A. \u0026lt;4ViN WTLLtAM A. WaDPELU JR.. FJL SCOTT J. LANCA9TXIL r.A. BPSBBT 9. BEACH. JIL. KA i. Ua SBOWM. F4K- JAMP9 C. ttAKKX. JR., P A liAKBY UCW^.K*. SCOTT B. TUCKWL F-a. OUT AVtOV * . A- MtlCB C- 0 ARbNBA. TJt. TOWa ^. ioms. F-A. lUVlS O. W1L90N. FA. JITnSYK MOOU. f.A. OAVID M GRAf. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayftrm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARxaNEAS 7220l\u0026gt;34e3 TELEPHONE 501-S76-2011 FAX S0*..378.21Ar 9424 KORTH FUTRALL ORIVS, SUHE 1M PAYCTTEVILLe. ARKANSAS 72709^151 telephone 479.4-:0t t FAX A7O.\u0026amp;S\u0026gt;2147 CAltLAOWieU B7AINM0UB. T.K JOHN t- TBNftlST. J3L. F.A. lONAXN KLOABBrn COMICUO. F A 8L CiBSran{C\u0026amp;t.AWtdN. r.A. flAN C. HICKMAN. .A. 0rTV J. OKtiOAi. \"t.A- LYNOA m. jowuqk. fa. JaMRS W. SUtTB, F.A. CLinou) V. nmtKTx. f.a Daniel l. Koajuoiw. MARVOtU CUILPERS C. COLEMAN WSST^MOOK. JR- ALLISOH I. CCMtfVBLL CLUtN M. OVENS JaSON ft. MMOftm ORUCS ft. rmvcu. MTOun. 1. KAWMnr KELLY MURFITV MCQUEEN SOSKFM F. MCKAY aLCXANSIU iruui JAT T. TAYLOTL MARTIN A. tUOrBN SKY AN W. DUIU josfinic fmcwols KOuerrt SMTTB ftVAN A. BOWMAN 'nWQTWY c exell T. MICHELLE ATOR KAMN S. UALUET SAKAO M. nUUf B. MONTGOMUY laOSTEN 3- VOOTKS ALAN 0. BJtYAN UN1M\u0026amp;V kOlCUAM LOAN KHAYYAM K COOmOS JOHN F. PEUBUCti OrCMWCEL b.s.Claix WiUiAM U TERRY WIUIaM U FaTTOK. JR. H.T. IaBFJIFBF fa. JOHN C. EOHUJS. FA. AD. MCALUSTER 2 mOATN fifth STREET BkVrHSVtLLE. aAiCAMSAS 7291 TELEPHOHE a7d*7\u0026lt;2-34M FAX B7.T2..2et e CMai8TOFH MetUfiR urrru aock T6L PM MV2-394 nNr\u0026lt;f.t July 16,2002 Via Fax No. 604-5149 Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. United States District Court 423 U.S. Post Office and Couithouse 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD V. PCSSD USDC 4\n82CV866WRW Dear Judge Wilson: I told the Court last week that I would prefer to interview rebuttal witnesses Ann Marshal) and Gene Jones than to depose them. I am confident that interviews can be arranged but, in view of the fact that Ms. Marshalls husband ranains hospitalized follovTug surgery, I would prefer to wait to talk to her until such tune as she contacts her office rather than attempt to track her down al the hospital. I have hesitated to contact Ms. Marshall for two reasons. First, I wanted to be sure that Mr. Walker was aware of her situation and still intended to call her as a witness. I spoke with Mr. Walker yesterday and he was unwilling to say that he would not call her. Second, I wanted to see whether Mr. Walker would submit anyrebuttal exhibits bythe Courts deadline yesterday afternoon.lUvvj' wui\u0026gt; Hon. Wzlham R. Wilson July 16,2002 Page 2 I have left word with Ms. Marshalls office to have her contact me at her earliest convenience and I expect to hear from her today. I therefore request an extension of the time within which I may notify the Court of my intent to schedule a deposition rather than an interview until 4:00 p.m, today. Thank you for your consideration. Yours very truly Christopher Heller CJHyQ)k cc via fax: All Counsel of RecordO^/IO/ZOOZ ix: exboasiaa PAGE 02/02 BILL WILSON JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTEBN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 800 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 LiTTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-332S (501)804-5140 Facsimile (SOI) 604-5149 July 16, 2002 Mr. John Walker 1723 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 BY FAX Re\nLittle Rock School Distria v. Pulaski County Special School, et al. 4:82CV00866 Dear Mr. Walker: The clerk reports that you filed no exhibits by 4:00 p.m. yesterday  the deadline for presenting exhibits that would be offered next Monday morning during Joshua's rebuttal. I assume, therefore, that you will offer no rebuttal exhibits. Cordially, Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. cc: The Honorable J. Thomas Ray Counsel of Record Original to the Clerk FRIDAY Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 'MBBACREL H. PBXDat tlP22t*\u0026gt; VaUAM . fiVTTON. P JU SYBOM M BIUMAM. JA. PJU 9OS\u0026amp;BB1X.PJU MMSS BvrTAY. r.A FRSmiCK g. VUtY. OZCAA B. DAVIS. J*.. P.A. JAMBS C CLARK. JIm?. A TNOMaJ F. UCCETT. Fji. lOHNOEVEY VATSON. F.A PAUL B. BEKXaM nt P.A LAMY W. RUBES. P.A. A WYCXUPTHUBET. JI.. 9JL. KAJUnt.  A. J. FSILUF MALCOM. P.A JAMBF M. TmP5e\u0026gt;K. P-A- JAMBf K 9AXTON. P.A. J. 5M8PMUD KUISBLL m. P.a. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. VZUJAU THOMAS BAXTER, .'j RTCHARO D. TAYLOA P.A. jo37u\u0026gt;. mnEr. jk. pja tLOANETN IhOMCM MUiAV. *. causTonnt Biun. pju LAUtA MBNSIBY pcnK. lOSXlT L SKAfEI. r JU VtUlAM M. OUmM U. MiCHAfiL C. MOO9A. .A. OlANE 9. MACKEY. P.A. * alter M.BML nr. rrnw oau. p.a. VOUaM VAOOCIX. nu. P.A. scorr X lancastba pju ftOaSBT a. RRAOt A.. P.X J. UCE BBOVN. P.A. James C-N\u0026lt;era ia.p.x Harry A. LIO ST. P.X 9COTT H. Tvexn, P.X GUY AXTON VAOA PJU TTUCS C. G.MtDNCB. P.A. TOMA P. JONBS. 9AV D. \"TUOA r JU APPUY K MOORE. FX. DAV7D U. 3RAF. aTTOANCYS at UAW A LIMITEO UlABKITV PARTNSRSMIP ww.\nnaaynn.com 2000 ACGIOHS eSMTCR 400 WBST CAFITOL utrruc ROCK Arkansas 72201*3493 fAX 501-378-2447 9425 NORTH FUntAU. ORJVE. SUITE 103 FAYeTTeVit.LS. ARKANSAS 72700-4111 rtAfiPH0N6 47B.4B6.24n FAX 47B.44S-2147 CaBAA GUVKIL2 ttAlMMOUA P.A fOtOI C FOfOLEY. fJL wyak V, evst J0SETH0.WC80U AMAin* aiizA*T ooMOLMi unsxT T. mmi A ClUttfTOPHER LAW50W. PJU PlAN C. KKXMaM. g.A. Bem). MMOBY. rju LYMDa M. JOHNSON. PjU JAMES V. SMTrn. PJU CUFPDXD V. PIUNUTT. PJU DAMEL U iflEfUlINCTON. 7ju MaB YIN U CmLOEU K. COLEMAN VtSTBBOOIC. lA ALU6OMJ. COBNVBIX nxswALomm JASON A HBHDBEN MUCBAnpwHL UICBaEL A KaBNEV KEU.Y MDKRtY WCODEEN JOCEPtt P. MCKAY ALSCUtORAX :ritAtt JAY T. TAYLOB NA\u0026amp;TDf sAsnof AYAN MVMAM nMOTW C EZSU. T.MICKSUZArOA KAUN S. KAUUI iAAANM. COTTON NHUr 9. MONTGOMTAY aurnNKUMtNS KLAKa.BXYAN LINKBY MITCUAM 4U\u0026gt;AN KUATTAM K. SOMfCS JOHN r. WUUCK OrCWFCBA *4. CLARK VtLUAMUmRY VaUAM U PATTON. JA AT. LARZBLBRA r./L j\u0026lt;no^C.BCaOi4, r.x xB.HCALUmA TSLSPHOME f0l.97t4e^t 204 mOBTM fifth STHeET BLYTMeYKLe. ANKAHSAB ItM iT9-792-i9M PAX 97A.742-2A14 jQMtt C. FCNOACY. JM. Um,* ROCK tel 59t3TWa39 fn 591-344-SM1 July 17,2002 The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. United States District Court 600 W. Capitol, Room 423 Little Rock, AR 72201 VIA FAX: 604-5149 RE: LRSD V. PCSSD, No. 4:82CV00866 Dear Judge Wilson: This letter is in response to the Joshua Intervenors letter to the Court dated July 16,2002. At e July 12,2002 hearing, the Court noted that Joshua failed to identify exhibits which would be introduced through the rebuttal testimony of Ann Marshall or Gene Jones and ordered diat Joshua identify those exhibits by 4:00 p.m. Monday, July 15,2002. In their letter of July 16,2002, Joshua identified seven exhibits for this purpose. However, only one (CX 599) had been previously identified by Joshua as an exhibit. The remaining six are being identified as exhibits for the first time - almost a month after the Courts original June 21 deadline. For this reason, the LRSD asks that these exhibits be excluded. Joshua represented to the Court that Marshall and Jones testimony was to respond to testimony offered by Dr. Lesley concerning their involvement in the program evaluation process. The LRSD has reviewed Dr. Lesleys testimony and can find nothing to support JoshuasThe Honorable William R Wilson, Jr. July 17,2002 Page 2 representation to the Court. So that the LRSD and Court may be properly advised of the testimony to which they are the LRSD asks dial Joshua be directed to identify by page and line number the testimony of Dr. Lesley which readers this rebuttal testimony necessary. In its Motion in Limine, the LRSD objected to Joshuas reading into evidence all of the depositions of Board members because the entire depositions were not related to three issues for the July 22-26 hearing. The Court ordered Joshua to provide page and line designations to facilitate resolution of this issue. In their letter of July 16, Joshua for the first time asserts that the Board member depositions will be read into evidence for the purpose of rebuttal. With one exception (Dr. Katherine Mitchell, page 27, lines 13-23), the testimony designated by Joshua relates exclusively to the issues of achievement and program evaluation. The LRSD asks that Joshua be prohibitsd from using the depositions for rebuttal purposes. If the C ourt allows Joshua to read the depositions into evidence, this time, including the time reading the LRSDs counter-designations (see below), should be counted against Joshuas 30 minutes to present rebuttal evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 106 provides: When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require the introduction at that time of any other part or any other writing or recorded statement which ought in taimess to be considered contemporaneously wi it. As the LRSD understands Rule 106, it requires Joshua to read into evidence the LRSDs counterdesignations. Accordingly, all of the time required to read into evidence the depositions should be counted against Joshua. Should Joshua be permitted to introduce the Board member depositions as indicated in their letter of July 16, the LRSD hereby identifies the following pages and lines which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously therewith: Ms. Suc Stri(land  Page 1 i, lines 10-25  Page 12, lines 1-13  Page 13, lines 18-25  Page 14, lines 1-17  Page 16, lines 20-25  1*7,1*9  Page 20, lines 9-16  Page 24, 'lines 19-23  Page 26, lines 1-7The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. July 17, 2002 Page 3 Dr, Katherine Mitchell  Page 6, lines 22-25  Page 7, lines 1 -3  Page 8, lines 17-25  Page 10, lines 7-25  Page 11, iines i-6  Page 13, lines 7-17  Page 14, lines 10-23  Page 15, Unes 6-9  Page 16, lines 10-23 * Page 18, line 25  Page IS, line 1-5  Page 20, lines 7-11  Page 24, lines 1-3  Page 25, lines 22-25 (related to advanced placement)  Page 27, lines 2-12 (related to advanced placement) Tony Rose  Page 5, lines 18-25  Page 6, iines 1-4,11-19  Page 7, lines 3-9  Page 8, lines 18-25  Page 12. lines 9-14  Page 13, lines 3-7  Page 19, lines 1-23  Page 20, lines 20-25  Page 21, lines 1-23 Judy Magness  Page 19, lines 1-16  Page 21, lines 20-25 * page 26, lines 1-17  Page 27, lines 14-25  Page 28, lines 1-3,19-25  Page 29, line 1  Page 40, lines 19-23  Page 41, lines 11-22The Honorable WilKam R. WSson, Jr. July 17,2002 Page 4 Larry Berkley Page 7, lines 2-20 Pate 12, lines 23-25 Page 13 Page 14, lines 1-15 Page 27, lines 1-13 Page 30, lines 21-25 Page 31 Page 33, line 25 pages 34-35 Page 36, lines 1-15 Thank you fot youT time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, John C. Fendi \u0026gt;, Jr. cc\nOriginal by Mail to Clerk The Honorable J. Thomas Ray via fax All Counsel via fex07/18/2002 11:16 5016045149 PAGE 02 RECEIVED JUL 2 2 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL 1 8 2002 ARKANSAS JAMES W McCORMACK CLERK OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Mark Pryor Attorney General Attorney General Civil Department Direct dial: (501)682-2586 July 17, 2002 r / The Honorable William R. Wilson 1^/1^' United States District Court 600 West Capitol, Suite 423 Little Rock, AR 72201 ^JUL 11 2002 - 5- Wilson, Jr P, District Judge E.D. of Arkansas School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et oL Case No. 4:82CV0866WRW/JTR Dear Judge Wilson\nOn behalf of e Office of e Attorney Education in the above-referenced matter,GjJ^tfunylEqucst'thaT AvinAntiOtnr *U T Ar. .r. ___ ___ ____ counsel for the Arkansas pepartment of Ute aouvc-reierenceo matter,(4xesgecfl^y requestthat we be 5iS^from the final iSTCraiJfySuiSset (0 begin on presentation of evidence by Joshua and the Little Rock School em^ning issues ndoote sin nteont da ppear to require our attendance at the hearing and we do not mtend to examine witnesses or oerwisten pAavratmicmipAat etr.it^xar.^n ^a.1_______:_________iivu4XX^ OiAU WC UU Thank you for your consideration of the foregoing. Very truly yours, DENNIS R. HANSEN Deputy Attorney General DRH/km cc: The Honorable J. Thomas Ray Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. Samuel Jones, III Mr. Richard W. Roachell Mr. John Walker Ms. Ann Marshall Mr. Steve Jones Original to the Clerk of the Court 323 Center Street  Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 . FAX (501) 682-8084 Internet Website  http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ Q:\\Civil\\DennisH\\de5eg\\2002\\Correspondence\\jijdge)trt)7-17.iloc RECEIVED JUL 1 9 2002 . CmCEOF ^SIGfiEGAflON MONITORING STATE OF ARKANSAS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Mark Pryor Attorney General Dennis R. Hansen Deputy Attorney General Civil Department Direct dial: (501) 682-2586 E-mail: dennish@ag.state.ar.us The Hoi ^le William R. Wilson July 17, 2002 Unij^States District Court West Capitol, Suite 423 tittle Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. Case No. 4:82CV0866WRW/JTR Dear Judge Wilson: On behalf of the Office of the Attorney General, counsel for the Arkansas Department of Education in the above-referenced matter, I respectfully request that we be excused from the final evidentiary hearing on the Little Rock School Districts Motion for Unitary Status set to begin on Monday, July 22, 2002. The presentation of evidence by Joshua and the Little Rock School District on the remaining issues does not appear to require our attendance at the hearing and we do not intend to examine witnesses or otherwise participate. Thank you for your consideration of the foregoing. Very truly yours, , DENNIS R. HANSEN Deputy Attorney General DRH/km cc: The Honorable J. Thomas Ray Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. Samuel Jones, III Mr. Richard W. Roachell Mr. John Walker Ms. Ann Marshall Mr. Steve Jones Original to the Clerk of the Court 323 Center Street  Suite 200  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007  FAX (501) 682-8084 Internet Website  http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ Q:\\Civil\\DennisH\\deseg\\2002\\Correspondence\\judgeltr07-17.doc received JUL 1 8 2002 SNmoiiNow Noiivsauoasaa United States District Court EASTERN DISTRJC OmCEOF ITLE 61^MWSKSS?, iCT T TTTT i: onrv U.i ARKANSAS EION IRT eastern district ARKANSAS JUL 1 1 2002 LASKI COUNTY SRECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ec JAMES W McCORMACK, CLERK 1U . THO\u0026gt;LAS RAY '9, 2002 nu\u0026lt;r Christopher : I 'Ca^Tyn Eant .Isr, et '^P.CLERKj 2002 8 T Ifir caAlgQiH Case NUNIBbR\n4:82CV00S. iMva*k*rian^(r Sam Jones, r^ttfnoaa OtMTT ec al. I I Kat'nv Swanson ourt xhib s ^4^ 1 .'-'daTctC .OF7ZRSO \"bbk. -SCO-.-' re L^I - \"CoiiilZ. pyi- 0 0. -OI DESCKIFTTOK.OF EXHIBITS - y- 3 I o.. Tb oVn ~ \"Q-rYidGG, G/- I dA^- GV- i^\\ J I CI 94^ I I I ex qsT ex 9^1 ex -752 I ex iz\u0026gt; 1 \\ \\ _\\ i I (^-fKtZlZ- chzijL:^ U - lie -Oi? '1 - co - CC ,^rn, l!^ ZL5 Ji k h \u0026lt;i'3-o7-c?i \u0026gt; fb \" y - .1 . ,i i .-^ d , IJ z,- . - ~ /I C'l/TyoAiL C'^-\\i^-ol GJb\\^ Cpj-f^ 6 '/i (C'hijXijl , I J _ I, -- ___--.^ - 0-^ A^: 17b /I ex .'Y^ydj-L-^-, eA. Uy I'jGi /4 39 D U ) - /\" IUnited States District Court EASTERN 1 tt't\nDISTRICT OF n Bnrv ARKANSAS DIVISION lTtle rock school district EXHIBIT LIST ULASKI COTOTY special SCHOOL DISTRICT, ec al. Case NUMBER\n4:82cvooi M K.'SCK J. THOMAS RAY JULV 9, 2002 Court's . Exhibit .,-DA~:,- - - OFFERED - OOI 2 aCreaKT Christopher\nTTarolvn Fant red. eller, et al. 90V**n alfteMT Sam Jones, et al. raurrtMa ovwrr Karhv Swanson fa DHSCPJPTTOKOF'SXHISITS - /Li,' .Oc-co -o\\ _____________________AgT Cl/el Sb ) cLiiAlil G\u0026lt;e-Ac\u0026gt;~ol ~ - fv-CGc,'/-,^ /1A' \u0026lt;3-\u0026lt;J- Sz-Y^/^ C:li\u0026lt; 'c Ogi-1:5 'c (3-LI. I /t/ru..AXx iri fc:YfcO I j CX U (l\n3 I Ci TfcM j I CX 1. CX f LvI.7 i i i CX I \\ i / CX ( L'-nu.vL -12 -0 I CiXLTxMi.. S \u0026lt;3^L i\\-n-0G ^~YyL''L/i- l~bLLj^ ^Ajl- G^'':q-cc ctai-. 'f  Cl J Tc A' ttasAL- ry\\2,^2^L2JlSLl 2, TKEfcA^iiZ to- LC\u0026gt;\u0026lt;^United States District Court EASTERN ____DISTRICT OF T TTTT ARKANSAS _ DIVISION ETTLc. ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST ULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ec al. CASE NUMBER\n4:82CV00{ J. THOMAS RAY JUlv 9, 2002 I Christopher icpwT _ Carolyn Fat eller, et . Sam Jones, et al. raaiBMMOuvn Kat'nv Sw\nor. Court's . Exhibit o\n.-DAx RED - :-~'DESCRJPTTGIN:OTS\u0026lt;HI3ITS :\u0026gt;s-oo -fv lex i lex 1 pE 'Q'-tQ ! I ex I ex ex ex \u0026lt;3,0 \u0026lt;^0 I ex '15i :x L i i ( Jiati, /o - lo -cc 7\u0026gt; CJZXZZ, c\u0026lt;i-^l3-oc { Sec'}.. CPaj\u0026gt;^. O5~-p,^-o( o-Q -01-oc \u0026lt;(Z-Yy^'^C Z 1 . dJ / 1 \" I /C ~h) 'ii-~z^ :7 (OXCtlX-zc.! A 7United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT Or T TTTT r -pnrv ARKANSAS DIVISION ITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST ULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ec al. CASE NUMBER: 4:82cvooi HOMAS RAY Cn scooner eller, et al 3m ^rbd JUV 9, 2002 1 Carolyn Fane awmun^  rmjT Sam Jones, et al. rwn094 /VfT Kathv Swanson_____ Coure's . Exhibit ..-DATE-'-' -OFFERED ' obi. satx - 'r-lDESCRIPTtOKOF'SXAlHlib.  0 1 I -^ci -^cc (y-^jbrd- IhzM C ex I I OKI 1 1 I I ! -hl '-Dtrz^ te I -.m\" / A  I /2\u0026lt;, C 0 KKOA-Cjiy^ 1 (kzklt. \"^Ua-I \\ ' i jcx-'7i3g.| I kx I I p-i lAXZ, '1 I X i\u0026lt;zvLt^ /Uy' c'YYf \u0026lt;''j Kt I IT Taite,rtUnited States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT Or 1 tttt Tsnr ARKANSAS _ DIVISION .ITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST /. ULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. CASE NUMBER: 4:82cvoo J. THOMAS RAY I jurv 9, 2002 Court's . Exhibit 0931 C9^3h Christopher Helle Carolvn Fant e acro*xT\u0026gt;  n^MT San Jones, et rournoBiouw ^^^^^^anscn al ..-DAx:\n-'.- '  OFEERZD  -7, \u0026lt;7,03, OOI. sno-.. DESCRIPTKM.OF =:\u0026lt;Hi3rTS i ! 1 I I cxU'?! icK n :xT9% CX ,^0.1 Q' 'T^y^ Ki- Llty ~7^ (-yr z P/P- (i-rT\u0026gt; 3jOgc .^o( /^i rY\\i2.' T c -0( f I -h(~2:,^~aQ )________ Cp-pp- S10-? 1 ._6^.sLZdMUr^Un2W^United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF T TTTT g ARKANSAS DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST V. PULASKI COUNTT SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, eC al CASE NUMBER: 4:82cvoc \u0026gt;4\u0026gt;CXU J. THOMAS RAY a** teTllO JUIV 9, 2002 ACreuavr Christopher Heller, et al 1 ocallyn Fant Sam Jones, et al. ('Qtanaa. ew\u0026gt;^ Katb.v Swa mhI Court ' s Exhibit ..- DAin-'.-' --OFrH^\u0026lt;D OOI. san-. DESCRIPTION'.CF^CtIBITS  -J- \u0026amp; C/i ?ol a. ------------------------------------------------- ------------------ X. lex I 1 :j2Av\\ii^ -v^ hlCTf^^ Ho 4 1 I \\inLAjp (jy Tii k t Z' -ri) I ex ?0'? (2j! ex ^0^ I ex i 0 J r 1 \u0026gt; y-33-- C'Cc^TTL^^ I'-rn- tt. oH. ?L\u0026lt;_zH i(^- ! i I 'T\u0026gt; /- oi-i -Clr^^ tv ^?-0iyyiP. U '4United States District Court EASTERN T 7TTJ DISTRICT OF RO'^v ARKANSAS DIVISION lTTLE rock school district CLASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, eC al. M AAA J. THOMAS RAY Christophe Heller, aM*4*n\u0026lt; JUiV 9, 2002 Courts . Exhibit ..-DATE:-' - - OFFERED - 00'. 'saui l.rarpTyn Fant EXHIBIT LIST CASE NUMBER\nSam Jones, et al. rTea wvrr Katb.v Suanson DESCRIPnOKOF HXHBrrS 4:82CV00? a. -'--a.^j'Sx 0(0 o cx'2)M ~h\u0026gt; S\" 1 rt Q\u0026gt;)^ ^iic/yor^- P-12.^ I i ex 1 ?\u0026gt;ll^ 'TO'^\u0026lt;7\u0026gt;ve '~ic\u0026gt; PpA jTfyjticCz, !- ^-) f gl'? I ! Cl-Q pI - X-  U ^('S I I I 1 '7j u I : (PP r ex. ^0 '3-1 ex cr. sx D4 _- __-Z  ,.-Z U-.S . u.TJ nt' '  ' ' i I Q, /HoiX Tt '^ ') Lrilrtnsmsi J -6)1 f^: u.Pq^ U-PUP_ \u0026lt;9^ Cl | 4^ _______ - I EH BOiUnited States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF 1 TTTT u Qnrv ARK.ANSAS DIVISION ITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST ULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ec al. CASE NUMBER: 4\n82cvoo J . THOMAS RAY JUJ.V 9, 2002 Christopher I IrauirwmTu _ ..Carolyn Fant Heller, et al Sam Jones, et al. rvanoB. owwrr Ka^hv Swa son Court's . Exhibit ,75 ATE:'-' - .- Crr:z:\u0026lt;^ '' obf,'- 'SQOi. *  red. '^'DeSCRIPTTONIOFHXHIBTrS- ' ex i ''i I |CX 7 '-fl I 1 tx 1 1 CH I Z'^ ex I CFr-i\u0026gt;/Di (( -'^'?~^73xGo5'3 -j-i aJL^ 1 6-^S'-c2cd8:) ss Ulf / 0 3C-O1 c -ic ct: *63^ 1 Cl ex 137 I X 331 i C ) _______ _________ ________,, Z\u0026gt;PC /--:\u0026gt;? J' ri \u0026lt;^ /\\ n . -7  zz. ! /'^ . ' OKUnited States District Court eastern DISTRICT OF ^cry ARKANSAS DIVISION ^TTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST rt-ASKI COUNTY SRECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. CASE NUMBER: 4:82cvoo8 . THOMAS RAY JUIV 9, 2002 Christopher Heller, et al. i ^rolvn Eant Sam Jones, et al. I I Kathv Swanson Court's . Exhibit ,.-DA.TH:.-' -  Qrr\u0026lt;SD' oo. sua  * ''red.' V-TD5SCRJFn0K0F3G3SITS-' CX S39 a CiL - 0^0)/! CX ^40 -O! CX I ^41 /\u0026gt;ro\nio3Z/'7 CX p. S\u0026gt;4S I 1 \\ 1^ ^.y-T CX I -^CP i}~J- ' 'D'0^^2-r^v\u0026lt;\n~/S) \u0026lt;? ^D^i i. f 2i^oo-WI CtjL:, -3\u0026gt;l /2^ CX 'iUY ^^-\u0026gt;3-0! ryy^cCc'Xsi^ C\u0026gt; J CX ^4^ L'l.Liy i ?e7) \u0026lt;:\u0026lt; ( CX L / O-3-^--o -tT\u0026gt; SaiiZc? iP \u0026lt;zJL dLz^ ll-Oy-C)( , . SPjP I -O'^L/s 3\\ C  fHJ.United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF T TTTT T pnrv ARKANSAS DIVISION ITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST ULASKI COUNIT SPECL.A.L SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. Case number: 4 s 2CVOO$ 0. THOMAS RAT ArTMwrT '9, 2002 Christopher Heller, et al - llCa^Tyn Fant Sam Jones, et al. Kathv Court' s Exhibit ex ex r t ..-DA.TH'\u0026lt;.' - .OFFFRE3 ~ 001, PESCRiroON'.bF'Sg-IBTIS ' ' ^'O\u0026amp;O - -h J (  o\u0026gt; (2\u0026gt; I 2*-^ p i I / 7 7- iV- c DI 1 i CI I -TTi Z-O?'.- I ^Cbf - J ex ^5-^ 1 ex 8^ 1^0 I ex oAiO- 1 t :x C')- Tt u-x\u0026gt;-5vrJ A-^^-f^TU^/ H-\u0026gt;' oC.'^^dL -=a ? 3^-0 1 412:=UX^L=_^Tl22_A2Zt^^_______________ g-? t U f I f V  I  I . bO, (jy- /7/C \u0026lt; i ^CCC ('1'-^-is 7--6Wj fi 10United States District Coun EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARK.\\NSAS DIVISION lttle rock school district tXHIBI i LIS i ULASKI COUNTY SPECL4L SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. CA.seNUMBER: 4:82cvoos M.\u0026lt;CC ll ABk* J. THOMAS RAY JuXv\" 9, 2002 Christopher Keller, et al. l/Ca^lyn Fant Sam Jones, et 'BkSTMnagwvn Kachv Sva lA son al Court's . Exhibit ..-DA\" .-OrEE:  OOI. snu-. '' ^-^DHSCRIPTTONIOF SCTSrrS  ' ex I ex iex ex I ex I p 1 icx I i ex L ex cc I ex ex '^C^o  oi CJ7 ____________a.______________________________1________________ U. PAJL-}^r\u0026lt;:6h ' IBILL WILSON JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 600 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3325 (501)604-5140 Facsimile (501) 604-5146 July 19, 2002 BY FAX Mr. Dennis Hansen Deputy Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE\nLittle Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School, et al. 4:82CV00866WRW/JTR Dear Mr. Hansen: You may be excused from next weeks evidentiary hearing in this case at your discretion. Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. cc\nThe Honorable J. Thomas Ray All Counsel of Record Original to the Clerk 20/SG 39Wd 6tTSt09T0S 2t\u0026gt;:ST 2002/6T/Z0 RECEIVED John W. Walker, P.A. JUL 3 0 2002 OmCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Ro.w Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd^wbell.net Via Facsimile: 604-5149 July 19, 2002 Honorable William R. Wilson United States District Judge 600 W. Capitol Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wilson: One of the witnesses that we listed Ms. Ethel Dunbar, Principal of Franklin Elementary School has been subpoenaed for the 8:30, July 22, 2002 hearing as directed by the Court. She has called me to ask excuse from being present at 8:30 due to State Department of Education business at that time. She is scheduled to appear as a witness on Wednesday. I see no problem in having her appear on Wednesday other than your Order. The District, I am sure, will also want her excused if it is also possible. I am therefore writing to request that she be allowed to report on Wednesday morning, July 24, 2002, rather than July 22, 2002. Thank you for whatever consideration you may give regarding this request. /Jo W. Walker mcarelw^ JWW:lp cc: Honorable J. Thomas Ray Mr. Chris Heller Ms. Ethel Dunbar JUL.19.2002 1:06PM JOHN W UtfILKER P A NO.738 P.2 .JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CBODS John W. Walker, P.A. Aitohney At Law 1723 Broadway LmiB Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (601) 374-4187 Via Facsimile: 604-5149 OP COUNSEL ROBERT McKENRY. PA DCNNa J. McHENRY 8210 Hbowsw Road Lnru Hock, Aixaksas 72210 PEOM\n(501) 372-3425  Pax (SOI) 372-3428 EaUIL\nmdhBnrydatwbtll.ntt July 19.2002 Honorable William R. Wilson United States District Judge 600 W. Capitol Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wilson: One of the witnesses that we listed Ms. Ethel Dunbar, Principal of Frankl in Elementary School has been subpoenaed for the 8:30, July 22,2002 hearing as directed by the Court, She has called me to ask excuse from being present at 8:30 due to State Department of Education business at that time. She is scheduled to appear as a witness on Wednesday. I see no problem in having her appear on Wednesday other than your Order. The District, I am sure, will also want her excused if it is also possible. I am therefore writing to request that she be allowed to report on Wednesday morning. July 24,2002, rather than July 22,2002. Thank you for udiatever consideration you may give regarding this request. loJ W. Walker JWW\nlp cc: Honorable J, Thomas Ray Mr. Chris Heller Ms. Ethel Dunbar 07/19/2002 13: 54 5016045149 PAGE 02/0: cf JUU.19,2002 jOHT-i w wfaj\u0026lt;S p s NO.732 P.2 ^w.wm,P.A. ASKOiOa kill's 172S BeoADWAV (MW 3743 (6e J!aX (901) 3/4-4187 or sy riSSS: WST eioSBonBral^ tziwt AmtOM iSni)  . Fa(S01\u0026gt;S7S4428 Joauwjfw^ VU FKSiB\u0026gt;UT 604-5149 July 19,2002 b L. / Honorable WlHam R. Wflson LIniled Statea District 600 W, Capitol SuilB 149 Little Rock, AR 72201  Ji I .... iv/vvcvit- t/' Cf If Dear Judge Wilsooi Piujcaipneallo ofFt hTrSannkKlmnaE clrjahmueolary\n. , nup^, n ijjB'[)vputBaeato{'S^}3esl\u0026amp;osi. J_ Wedaesd^. iaeetFo*l District, I am sore, wfi also Oneofthe^dtnesa^^l^Hsted^-g^^^^ _ School has bean siibpocBaed has caUedmeto ask excuse ^cdSHsee - woiU Ttei you '-hew W. Walker JWW-.^ OC: HoootaWo J. Thomas Ray Mr. Chris Heilw Ms. Ethd Dunbar 10/10 39Vd \u0026amp;frXS\u0026gt;09T0S 8T\neT 2002/6T/Z0 07/30/2002 16:38 5016045149 PAGE 02 eiUL WILSON juase UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 600 W. CAPITOL. ROOM 423 LITTLE HOCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3325 (SOI) 604-5140 Facsimile (501) 804-5149 July 30, 2002 BY FAX Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Clay Fendley Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Steve Jones Mr. John Walker Mr. Richard Roacheii Mr. Dennis Hanson RE\nLittle Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School, et al. 4\n82CV00866 Dear Counsel: We recently received a letter regarding the above-referenced case from Ms. Cathy Cagle, a teacher at J.A. Fair High School. Judge Wilson has not read the letter, and he does not intend to read it unless it is brought to his attention in due course by one of the parties. I am forwarding a copy of the letter to all counsel. Sincerely, Christina Rose Conrad Law Clerk to Judge Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. cc\nThe Honorable J. Thomas Ray Anne Marshall Original to the Clerk* 07/30/2802 16:38 5016045149 PAGE 03 Cathy Cagle 7 Brookridge Cove Little Rock, AR 72205 501 228-9971 U. S. Federal Court 600 W. Capitol Suite 402 Dear Judge Wilson, I am writing you concerning the Little Rock School District case now in court. I was disturbed by comments of two star witnesses from J. A. Fair High School. I am a chemistry teacher at J. A. Fair High school and am very familiar with both students. From my perspective Chris Payne received no unfair treatment due to his race. He was the president of the Rotary Interact Chib that I sponsored last year at J. A Fair. I personally helped him get accepted into camp RYL A sponsored by Rotary, with a foil scholarship during the 00/01 school year. I iso wrote several letters of recommendation to assist him in gaining scholarships to college. To the best of my knowledge he received around fifty two thousand dollars in scholarship money. That was more than our valedictorian or salutatorian or any other student received to the best of my knowledge. He did receive a one thousand-dollar scholarship from the Rotary Club. Martha Rains, her husband, Tom Rains, Dr. Vic Anderson, former vice-superintendent, Greg Downs, West Little Rock Rotary Club President, and Dr. Jim Westbrook, a West Little Rock Rotary Club member were all involved at some point trying to help Chris Payne in some form or another in his leadership, scholarship and career goals of becoming an electrical engineer. Al! the above mentioned people are Caucasian, including myself. Ctwis appeared at my classroom door before graduation last year to thank me personally fi\u0026gt;r all that we had done to help open doors for him. As to any mention of the Quiz Bowl, it was my understanding when it was first kicked off Chris was not available to practice because of other school activities he was committed to at the time. Other students who were available were selected. I was one of the teachers who volunteered to give up a portion of my lunch to help the Quiz Bowl team practice. Melony Harder, Tom Ross, Mr. Wilder, all white, and Mf. Burton, black also gave up lunchtime. Judith Pickering, the club sponsor, gave up many hours preparing the students for competition. I hope that you will consider the contents of this letter when making your final decision. Sincerely, Cathy Cagle Chemistry TeacherOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Marshall, Federal Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 September 17, 2002 Dr. Ken James, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ken: All of us at ODM join in congratulating you and your colleagues in the Little Rock School District on attaining partial unitary status. The beaming faces in the newspaper said it all, and share in your sense of satisfaction. we Weve been pleased to work closely with the district over the years as weve shared our skills and perspectives, lent our support to work teams and committees, and celebrated the schools accomplishments. Under your leadership, the district has made significant progress that makes the community proud. We look forward to resuming our work with you through the coming months as the district continues to move ahead. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Marshall cc: Board of DirectorsLittle Rock School District '5?\nOFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT RECEIVED SEP 2 5 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING September 23, 2002 Mrs. Ann S. Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: Thank you for your recent letter. We are very pleased with the recent court decision granting the Little Rock School District partial unitary status. We are also working very hard to outline a plan of action to address the one remaining area. We look forward to working with you and your staff in the coming months. In the very near future, we will forward a copy of our proposed plan for your review and subsequent input. Sincerely, I T. Kenneth James, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools TKJ/bjg cc: Board of Directors Cabinet 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 447-1002RECEIVED John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 OCT -2 2002 OmCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS October 1, 2002 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock. Ark.ansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  F.ax (501) 372-3428 Email: mcheiiryd@swbell.net Honorable Judge William R. Wilson United States District Court 600 West Capitol, Suite 423 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School v. Pulaski County School Case No. 4:82CV00866 Dear Judge Wilson: On page 172 of your Order of September 13, 2002, you determine a compliance remedy with respect to the Joshua Intervenors, Section D. You also require the ODM to monitor LRSDs compliance with Section 2.7.1. May I bring to your attention that the remedy being imposed is not preceded by any court order determining and defining the parameter of Joshuas monitoring. Those issues were not before the Court. The Court now determines that Joshua must monitor and must immediately bring to the LRSDs attention all problems that are detected as the court has determined those problems to be. In doing so, the Court seems to impose a greater burden upon Joshua than it has imposed upon the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. I, therefore, would like to request that the Court define the nature of the monitoring that it expects of Joshua, i.e. access to information by Little Rock, cost of production of such information, access to staff responsible for fulfilling the obligations (must this be done in writing with communication directed to LRSD counsel), and so forth. I believe that it would be appropriate for the Court to spell out the obligations which it now imposes upon Joshua and the legal basis therefor in view of the fact that the remedy defined was not sought by LRSD or any party. I also note that LRSD is not required to inform Joshua of anything set forth on pages 170 through 172 except to provide a compliance report on or before March 15, 2004. I must also object to Courts imposing monitoring requirements upon Joshua that were contemplated to be the responsibility of the ODM. The Courts comments indicate that it does not forsee or require a continued responsibility for monitoring of the intensity which the Court of Appeals for the S* Circuit required. In this respect, we note that the Court created the ODM and expected the ODM to carefully monitor on a daily basis, full-time, the activities of the Little RockPage 2- Letter to Judge Wilson October 1, 2002 and other school districts. By placing the responsibility that you appear to place on Joshua, unless clarification otherwise provides, the Court is shifting the required monitoring from the ODM to Joshua. We do not believe that to be fair or reasonable. Before your final order is entered, and becomes appealable, I respectfully request a hearing on this matter so that an appropriate record on the issues of the role of ODM monitoring and Joshua monitoring may be fully developed. Sincerely, ?7L !iin W. Walker JWW:js cc: All Counsel of Record Ms. Ann MarshallJohn 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: 604-5149 October 9, 2002 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY. P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Hendeeson Road Little Rock, Aekansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 EilAlL\nmchenryd@swbell.net Honorable William R. Wilson United States District Judge 600 W. Capitol Suite 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 received OCI - 9 ^00^ DESEGREGffi\u0026amp;OHnOWHG Re: LRSD V. PCSSD Dear Judge Wilson: I have just received by mail a note that the LRSD filed a response to Joshuas Motion for Reconsideration and for a New Trial and that service reflects the date of October 7, 2002 therefor. The Response is clearly out of time and therefore, I ask that the Court sua sponte so hold. I have also received in the same mail a Response to the Joshua October 1, 2002 letter. .(John W. Walker Sincerely, / JWW:Ip cc: All Counsel of Record Ms. Ann Marshall Brown  I J JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Honorable William R. Wilson United States District Judge 600 W. Capitol Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re\nLRSD V. PCSSD John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile: 604-5149 October 9, 2002 received OCT - 9 2002 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\nrachenryd^swbeU.net OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Deal- Judge Wilson\nThis is a supplement to my letter motion of October 1,2002. I appreciate the Court treating it as a motion, although I did not so couch it, and I believe that the appropriate action taken by the Court in inviting the parties to react will be most useful. I believe that it is important for me to specify, however, what Joshua believes it would be appropriate for the Court to do with respect to clarifying the monitoring role of tire Office of Desegregation Monitoring. I am therefore asking that the Court conduct a hearing\n(a) to identify tlie instructions received by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (later referred as the ODM) regaiding monitoring and reporting in reference to the LRSDs Motion for Unitary Status\n(b) to consider whether the instructions received by the ODM were consistent with the earlier identification of ODMs role as set forth by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit\nand (c) to identify with greater particularity ODMs monitoring and reporting role regarding the three school districts. If the Court is inclined to have me formalize my October 1,2002 letter and todays letter in motion form, I will be happy to do so. I am also writing to obsei-ve that the Joshua Intervenors filed a Motion for Reconsideration within the time allowed by law and that there has no response filed by either party within the rule time to our motion. Local Rule 7.2(b) requires that any party opposing our motion shall file such motion within eleven days. By my count, any opposing party should have filed its opposition not later than October 4,2002. Today is obviously October 9,2002. I am not aware that the Court has a received a Motion to Extend the Time and I have not had a request from any counsel regarding an extension of such time.Page Two October 9,2002 Accordingly, we request that the Court rule on tire motion. /John W. Walker JWWdp cc: All Counsel of Record Ms. Ann Marshall Brown HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1922.IW4) WILUAM H. SUTTON. P.A. ^RON M. EISEMAN. JR. P.A. BELL, P.A. A BUTTRY. P.A. J'' ) ^^ICICKR .S... .U...R...S..E...R...Y.... .P...A. O^^^DAVIS. JR. P.A. XARK. JR.. P.A. . LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM UI. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR., P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARJUS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL lU. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. RICHARD D. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAPER P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN Ill. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY, P.A. WALTER M. EBEL lU. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER, P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR.. P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER JR. P.A. HARRY 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. JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GRAF. P.A. RECEIVED OCT 1 1 2002 OmCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ( By Hand Delivery) Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, #146 P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222 RE: Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR P.A. JOHN C, FENDLEY. JR.. P.A. BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO. P.A. ROBERT T. SMITH www.fndayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 VUEST 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 470-605-2011 FAX 470-605-2147 R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.A FRAN C. HICKMAN. P.A BETTY J. DEMORY. P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON, P.A. JAMES W. SMITH. P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT. P.A. DANIEL L. HERRINGTON. P.A. MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL MICHAEL E. KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN KASTEN RYAN BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON PHILIP B. MONTGOMERY KRISTEN S. RIGGINS ALAN C. BRYAN LINDSEY MITCHAM SLOAN KHAYYAM M. EDDINGS JOHN F. PEISERJCH AMANDA CAPPS ROSE BRANDON I. HARRISON 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2608 FAX 870-782-2018 October 11,2002 Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Steve Jones OF COUNIEL B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILUAM L. PATTON. JR H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. A.D. MCALLISTER JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-3323 PAX 501-244-5341 tandlcyQfec.nat Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ( By Hand Delivery) Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Compliance Remedy Mr. Dennis Hanson Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Counsel and Ms. Marshall: At a special meeting last night, the LRSD Board voted to approve the Proposed Comphance Plan provided to you by letter dated October 4,2002, with the exception of proposed regulation IL-R2. It was decided by the administration that IL-R2 was unnecessary and it was withdrawn. The admimstrations reasoning will be discussed below as a part of the Districts response to questions submitted by Ms. Marshall. Ms. Marshalls memorandum to Dr. James dated October 10, 2002, set forth 12 observations/questions related to the Proposed Compliance Plan. The Districts response to each observation/question is set forth below: i ( F:\\HOMEkFENDLEY\\LRSD 2001\\uni(ary-all-counseM0-l l-02.wpd I All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 11, 2002 Page 2 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Of the eight program evaluations the district proposes to have re-written by outside experts (page 12), will new data for continuing programs be added to those evaluations, or will the re-wntes be limited to the data that were used at the time the eight evaluations had been written? RESPONSE: The re-wntes will be limited to the data that were used at the time the eight evaluations were written. Page 7 of the Proposed Compliance Plan identifies Primary Reading/Language Arts as a program to be evaluated as part of the evaluation agenda, while the IcTraElementary Literacy is used on page 15. The first term connotes PK-3, while the second cormotes K-5. Do the different titles actually identify different programs? Which grades are to be included in the evaluation? RESPONSE: There is one program to be evaluated for PK-5, and the title of that evaluation will be Elementary Literacy, rather than Primary Reading/Language Arts. 99 Another evaluation agenda item is K-12 Mathematics and Science. The list of assessments on page 5 includes nothing for math and science in grades K-3. What data will be used in evaluating the primary grades, considering the lack of assessments in math and science at that level. RESPONSE: The data to be used for the K-12 Mathematics and Science evaluation will be the same as that previously used for the NSF Mathematics and Science evaluations with the exception of the ALTs which will no longer be administered. In the evaluation of primary literacy, what measures will the district institute to off-set potential bias or conflict-of-interest inherent in the process of teachers administering assessments to their own students? RESPONSE: The District attempts to off-set potential bias resulting from teachers admimstering student assessments through its training of teachers in administering the assessments and monitoring the results of assessments. hl the evaluation of primary literacy, IL-Rl, requires a clear description of each program that is to be evaluated. To what extent will those descriptions include not only the subject content that students are expected to learn, but also teaching methods, materials, time allotment, and so on? F:\\HOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD 200I\\unitvy-ali-couQsel-]0-] l*02.wpd II All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 11,2002 Page 3 RESPONSE: The program description will be prepared by the evaluation committee pursuant to IL-Rl. Teaching methods, materials and time allotment may be included in the program description to the extent the evaluation committee deems it relevant. It is important to note the evaluation will be of the overall program and not individual program components. 6. 7. 8. 9. The proposed regulation requires that all relevant student performance data will be used in the evaluations. Will other data, such as interviews with teachers and students, case studies, and classroom observations, supplement the performance data for the evaluation? RESPONSE: The data necessary to answer the research questions will be determined by the evaluation committee. The degree and quality of program implementation have received little attention in previous evaluations. What procedures will the LRSD develop to measure program implementation (such as its quality, uniformity, and completeness throughout the district) in order to assure that the student performance data reported in the evaluations are actually the result of the programs described. RESPONSE: The evaluation committee will determine the necessity of such data and the manner in which it will be gathered. The compliance plan section headed, Continue to administer student assessment through the first semester of 2003-04\" (page 4) details how the LRSD has recently altered its assessment plan. The 2002-03 assessment plan, board-approved on September 26, 2002, provides only for spring testing, as it eliminates all fall testing that is reported to and maintained by the LRSD and, of course, incorporates ADEs move of SAT-9 testing to the spring. Page 5 of this section reads that the final student assessment before March 15,2004 will be administered in the spring of2003. We note that the spring 2003 tests will not only be the final assessment, but also the only assessment reported to or maintained by the LRSD between now and March 15, 2004. Will the data from this one testing cycle be complemented by that of previous years. RESPONSE\nYes, for the three new, comprehensive evaluations. As stated above, no new data will be gathered for the evaluations to be completed pursuant to Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. We note that the new assessment plan includes administration of student assessments only in English language arts and mathematics. Also, the 3\"* grade has no assessments. F:\\HOMEkFENDLEY\\LRSD 2001\\unitary-all-counsel-10-11-02. wpd 1 i\u0026lt; All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 11,2002 Page 4 RESPONSE: The assessment plan outlined was only that for English language arts and mathematics. Even so, it is noted that the SAT9 will be administered and the total battery of that test includes a science and social studies component. It is correct that there will be no assessment of 3\"* graders this year or next. The State will be developing and administering a test after that to comply with the No Child Left Behind Act. 10. 11. 12. Given the assignments in the Action Plan Timeline, what is the role of the districts Plannings Research and Evaluation department under the new compliance plan? Under the envisioned Program Evaluation Agenda? RESPONSE: PRE staff may serve on the evaluation committees. Proposed regulation, IL-R2, Informal Program Evaluation, requires that a written record be prepared and maintained to support any decision to modify an academic program. The purpose of this regulation is unclear. Are the program evaluation standards relevant to information evaluations? Does the regulation mean that LRSD will informally evaluate all programs? Or, will suspect programs be targeted for informal evaluation? Or, is the regulation intended to protect programs from unfair criticism? RESPONSE: The administration withdrew IL-R2 before approval of the Proposed Compliance Plan by the Board. The administration decided that the regulation would be redimdant of information to be included in the new, comprehensive evaluations required by Paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. Rather than a separate written record, the program description in the new, comprehensive evaluations will include a description of program modifications made during each year of implementation satisfying the requirements of Paragraph B of the CompUance Remedy. How is the LRSD planning to alter its budget to purchase the services of outside evaluation experts? Which budget items will be reduced to accommodate the purchase of evaluation services? RESPONSE: This decision has not yet been made. The District will make this decision when it has a better idea of the total cost of these services. The Board has instructed the administration and counsel to work with the parties in an effort to achieve a consensus that the LRSDs Compliance Plan meets the requirements of the District Courts Compliance Remedy. The Board contemplates some give and take before a final consensus may be reached. So at this may be done in a timely manner, the LRSD asks all parties to F:\\HOME\\FENDLEy\\LRSD 2001\\unary-aU-counsel-10l l-02.wpd1 All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 11,2002 Page 5 specifically identify in writing any perceived deficiency in the Board-approved Compliance Plan on or before Monday, October 21,2002. Please let us know if this deadline presents areal problem for you or your client. We will be happy to answer any questions the parties may have before that date. We ask that the questions be submitted in writing, and the LRSD will respond in writing so that all parties will have the benefit of the question and response. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Sincerely, cc: Dr. Ken James John endley, Jr. F:\\HOMEVFENDLEY\\I-RSD 2001\\uniBry-aII\u0026lt;ouDsel*10-l l-02.wpdFriday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HSRSCHSL K, FRIDAY 0*42-1794) william H SUTTON. F A. BYRON M EiSMAN. JR, Fa JOB D. SELL. F a JAMBS A. BVTTRY. F A. FREDERICK 9. URSERr. p a. OSCARS DAVIS JR. P a JAMES C CLARK. JR . F.A Thomas f. teoGeTT. p a. JOHN 0BW6Y WaTSOn. F.a. FaUl . 86NHAM (((. P.A. larry W. BURKS. F.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. F.A. JAMES bdward Harris, f.a J FHJLLIF MALCOM. F.A. James m. simfson. f a. JAMBS M. Saxton, f.a. i. SHBPHERO RUSSELL HI. F A OOnaLO K. bacon, p a. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. F.A RICHARD 0 Taylor. F A JOSEPH B. HURST. JR. F a. ELIZaBSTK RO88BN MURRAY. F.A. christotmer heller. F.A. LAVRA MCNSLEY SMITH. F A ROfiERT s. Shaper, f.a. WILLIAM M. CRlFPlN IK. F A. MICHAELS. MOORE. F A DIANE S, MkCKty. F.A Walter M ebel hi. f a KEVIN A CRAW. F A WILLIAM A WaOOELL. JR . f.A. SCOTT J. LANCaSTSR, f,K, ROBERT B. beach. JR.. F A J- LEE BROWN. F.A. JaMBT C. BAKER, JR.. F.a. HARRY A LIGHT. F,A. SCOTT M. TUCKER. F a. GUY ALTON WaDC. F.a. FRIC6 C OaRONCR. F.A. TONIA F. JONES, F.A. OAVID 0, WILSON. F.A. JEFFREY H. MOORE. F A OAVlO M. fSRAF. F A. ATTORNEYS at LAW A LIMITED liability PARTNERSHIP www.fridaynrni.coin 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLI ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 telephone 501-378-2011 PAX 401-378-2147 3429 NORTH FUTRaU ORIV6. SUlTfi 103 FAY6TT6VIH.S. ARKANSAS 72703.4911 TELEPHONE *79.fiBS.20l1 FAX *78.8e5.2u7 CARLa OUNNBLS SPAINMOUR. F.A JOmHC FENOlBY, JR . F.A. JONANN BLiaABETHCONIOLIO. F.A. R. CKRISTOFHBR LawSOh. F A. FRAN C HICKMAN, F.A. BETTY J. OBMORY. F.A. LYNOA W. JOHNSON. F.A. JAMES W. SMITH. F.A. Clifford w flunkstt. f.a, Daniel l. herrinqton. f.a. Marvin l. chjloers K. COLBMAN WESTBROOK. JR ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M OWENS iaSOn b kkndrcn SRVCS B. TIDWELL MICNaBL b. karney KELLY MURFKY MCOUEEN JOSBFH J. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. Taylor MARTIN A Kasten Bryan w ouke JOSBFKO, N1CHOU BOeeUT T. SMITH BYaN a bowman TIMOTHY C S2BU T. MICHEU8 ATOA KaRtn 5. MaLOEKT SARaN M. cotton PHILIF a MONTGOMBSY KRISTEH $. RJGGINS ALAN O. anyAN IfNOSZY MITCHAM SLOAN KHAYYAM M. BOOtNCfi JOHN f PEISESUCR aMaNOa caffs KOBE 8BANOON I HA.HH1SOU 209 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLC. ARKANSAS 72319 telephone 870.792.ZBse FAX 9?0.r2.28lt or COUNJEV B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM U FATTON. JR H.T. LARZSL8RB. F A. JOHN C ECHOV9. F A A 0 MCALLISTBR October 14, 2002 JOHN C. FENOL0T. JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL J1-3T9.33J5 FAX a0l\u0026gt;24fiS4i iFABlay^raa.nct J Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. United States District Court 423 U.S. Post Office \u0026amp; Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3325 / RE: Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District et al. United States District Court, Eastern District, No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR Dear Judge Wilson: We note that Ms. Marshall provided you a copy of her October 10,2002, memorandum to Dr. James setting forth observations/questions related to the Little Rock School Districts Compliance Plan for complying with the Compliance Remedy set forth in the Courts Memorandum Opinion of September 13,2002. We submitted a response to Ms. Marshall on October 11,2002, but were uncertain whether we should provide a copy of that to the Court. While we would be happy to provide copies to the Court, it would be presumptuous on our part to presume that the Court wants to review all correspondence between counsel in this case. We respectfully request the Court advise the parties what it would like them to do in this regard. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, John C. Fendley, Jr. vHonorable William R. Wilson, Jr. October 14, 2002 Page 2 cc: Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Steve Jones Mr. Richard Roachell Ms. Ann Marshall Ms. Sanunye Taylor Mr. Ken James F:TOMBB8n.n\\rBBdlqUlS0MtMg'ijuJS wibwi h wpdO' latoHn JUHIN w WALKER P A W.*'9e3 Fl //n. ''P.2 JOHN W. WaLKEK SHAWN CHILDS John w. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1725 Broadway Little Bock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 October 23, 2002 or COUNSEL ROBEETMcHENKVP^ DONNA J, McHENEY 8210 Heotekson Eqad LITOZ EOCE, ARKANSAS 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-^8 tNuiL: nicheni7dwi)alln.et Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re\nLRSD V. PCSSD Dear Chris\n/ This letter sets forth additional Compliance Plan. We comments of the Joshua Intervenors concerning the LRSD  offered the data' OTdent assignment results, attention should be given to the quality of \"** on the RA and the Observation Survey in ways not their own students, the past use made of the data scores for was in conflict with the districts recognition in the newly enacted Regulation IL-Rl that Conflict of XoSeT 1. We are concerned about the fcr fhr J\nned about the manner in which the regulation describes the team process for prepari^ evaluations, again in the context of conflict of interest - ' to write aTc\no7a^  miX Ptogian, Evaluation Loedums In order to insure that guarantee that the external expert will have these roles, manner which we describe, there would be no .c LT with a differing interpretation of the evaluation resits do not Of course, if reports were prepared in the bar to LRSD staff preparing comments to the Board nI,nynA?' ^0 conceiDed about the global, general manner in which the content of nas adopted a policy and two regulations dealing with remediation for ______ IS be ow par. Studying the actual implementation of these dealing wth remediation for students whose performanc :e -- otuuymg me actufi). impiemenTation of these standards (in all or a renresentative sample of schools) is of vital mponanee to the Intervenor class because class members^ so much Tnorei\nt'P'ivTHe.T,/'TK...-e, J , cittss mcmoers are SO much Perfonnmce on the Benctaerlt end Stanford Acme ement Tests. A satisfactory descnpuon by the School Board of the evaluations which it : exhibit  10/24/2002 THU 09:03 [TX/R2 NO 8580] i2|002.:4.2002 8:07fiM JOHN W WALKER P fi NO.963 P.3 Page Two October 23, 2002 require sxaff to undertake should make clear that the actual implementation of remediation factor (see .Ajccuiacy Standards, para. 2). (h . * Of Affic:., American smdenxs for J uSiui. rue or to dL i^ SlSe necessary to satisfy the coun. We would like to receive tihned Befoinairtde sf uastusurer,a nncoet school board. Wewouldappreciale your providing thisletter to the Superintendent and the members ofthe . Walker SincereN, JWW:Ip cc: All Conngp.) Ms. Ann Marshall Judge Thomas Ray 10/24/2002 THU 09:03 [TX/RX NO 8580] [2)003 IIV. r John w. Walker, P.A. Attoeney Aff Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN w. waleee SHAWN CHILDS OP COUNSEL KOBEST McHENRY. PA DONNA J. McHENRY 82X0 Henderson Road LmLESOCE, AJUUNSaE 72210 Phone. (601) 372-3425  Ru(501) 372-3428 HmaCc mchaD^yd9b4Q.se[ Via Facsimile - 376-2147 October 24, 2002 Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED OCT 2 5 2002 Re: Little Rock School District v. PCSSD, et at Case No. 4:82CV00866 OWCEOF desegregation monitoring Dear Chris: We are in receipt of your letter dated October 25, 2002 regarding LRSDs compliance remedy. Instead of these exchanges of paper, it would be advantageous to all concerned for us to have some meetings in order to respond to these issues so that we can better understand each others position. Not everything is black letter and there should be room for discussion in mutual agreement. Sincerely, ^ohnW. Walker JWW\njs cc\nMs. Ann Marshall AU Counsel of Recordft 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 October 23, 2002 Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RECEIVED OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY. P.A DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone\n(501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd^wbell.net Re: LRSD V. PCSSD OCT 2 9 2002 OFHCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dear Chris: This letter sets forth additional comments of the Joshua Intervenors concerning the LRSD Compliance Plan. We are offering these comments, although we are unable to discern that the comments we offered earlier were given consideration. 1. In using historical student assignment results, attention should be given to the quality of the data. In the past, LRSD has used results on the RA and the Observation Survey in ways not consistent with the purposes of those instruments. In addition, because teachers provided scores for their own students, the past use made of the data was in conflict with the districts recognition in the newly enacted Regulation IL-Rl that Conflict of Interest must be avoided. 2. We are concerned about the manner in which the regulation describes the team process for preparing evaluations, again in the context of conflict of interest. In order to insure that conflict of interest is avoided, the external consultant needs to write the report and control the context of the analysis. Paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 of the Program Evaluation Procedures do not guarantee that the external expert will have these roles. Of course, if reports were prepared in the manner which we describe, there would be no bar to LRSD staff preparing comments to the Board with a differing interpretation of the evaluation results. 3. We continue to be concerned about the global, general manner in which the content of planned evaluations is described (page 7 of the document, first paragraph). For example, the Board has adopted a policy and two regulations dealing with remediation for students whose performance is below par. Studying the actual implementation of these standards (in all or a representative sample of schools) is of vital importance to the Intervenor class because class members are so much more likely than other students to exhibit unsatisfactory performance on the Benchmark and Stanford Achievement Tests. A satisfactory description by the School Board of the evaluations which it IPage Two October 23,2002 requires the staff to imdertake should make clear that the actual implementation of remediation activities in district schools is to receive careful consideration. This is surely an important contextual factor (see Accuracy Standards, para. 2). 4. We understand from the Plan that the LRSD plans evaluations of programs deemed to be particularly directed to achievement of African American students for the indefinite future, not .simply for the period necessary to satisfy the court. We would like to receive the Boards assurance that this is the case. We would appreciate your providing this letter to the Superintendent and the members of the school board. Sincere^, RifW. Walker JWW\nlp / cc: All Counsel Ms. Ann Marshall Judge Thomas RayOCT. 31.2802 3:19PN JOHN U WflLXER P A r).07E p.2 JOHNW. walker SH^ffN CHUDS Dr. T. Kenneth James Superintendait of Sc^s T.inla Rock School Kstnct 810 West Markham little Rock\nAR 72201 Dear Dr. James: JOHN W. Walker, PA- AttorneyAtLa^ 1723 Broadway Ltitle Kook, abka.*^ 7^06 Tp,i.rphonE (50U 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 OF COUNSEL robeet mStoney. WNKi.MeHENRY 6210 HSSDEBSOH H* Tbokk C50M n^ienryasswlxillaw October 31,2002 dated October 29,2002. If I I am renewing my request for the has not utili^ any understand your response correctly, it is literacy prejects and that there s\" are so your poatioo, it seems edstence wherdjy the District has contTmy to youT reports to the Court. If you arc not aware who has fins information. of such dtx^cms,please forwardwr^P^^tothe proper perw^ imcerely, Joy C. Springer JCS/ cc\nMs. Ann MarshallLittle Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT November 1,2002 Ms. Joy Springer Walker Law Firm 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Ms. Springer: In response to your most recent request, you did not understand our response. It is not our position that we have not utilized consultants. However, our response remains the same. We do not have a document or documents to provide in response to your FOIA request, and we are not required to compile informabon or create a record in response to a FOIA request. Sincerely, T. Kenneth James, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools TKJ/bjg cc: Chris Heller Clay Fendley Ann Marshall $10 West Markham Street  little Rock, Arkansas 72201 * (SOI) 447-1002 John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock\nArkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS November 1, 2002 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY. P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Ro.ad Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  F.ax (501) 372-3428 Email\nmchenryd^wbell.net The Honorable Judge William R. Wilson United States District Judge 600 West Capitol, Suite 423 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al. Case No. 4:82CV00866WRW Dear Judse Wilson: We are in receipt of your response dated November 1, 2002. You make reference to Mr. Pendleys October 14 query. Joshua has not been privileged to receive such. incerely, ohn W. Wallcer JWW:js cc: Ms. Ann Marshall All Counsel of R.ecord Judge Thomas Ray Cud/JOHN w. Walker SHAWNCHMS John w, Wilker, ea. ATtORNEVATLAW 1723 BrojOway Arkansas 72206 ^^3758 FAX (SOX) S74-4187 Via Facsimile November 1, 2002 aOBERTM^^^\nawiu mcheiuydgjwbelLaat Ms. Ann Brown Marshnli ODM  One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re\nLRSD V. PCSSD Dear Mrs. Marshall: LRSD, concerning S LRSDS)XS^S^S^ for the -ponseYso ur h.avie XreceiXved fr.om the 20C2,, - Mnmmcatiens dated October 10 and OteV2M2'31^  K,4,-------- -:..rcga,dingd,efoUogS\nc'i.',u*^'SX^^ containing the LRSDs 8.2.4 be carried out October 10 - numbers 1,2,3 (regardin' American achievement). g Oclobet24,2002-numbers 1,2, 3. programs significant with regard to African- ODM may have aMlioM poinis of coneem Thank you for your attention to this matter. W, Wailllkteerr JWW\nlp Cc: Chris HcUer/CIay Fendley Other Counsel NOV. 4.2002 3:57Pri jOHT-i w walker p n NO.136 p.2 o: JOHN W. WAUiER shawm CHILDS John W. Walker, RA. Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (601) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY. PA DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 HenuESSOX Road LmLE Rock, A*KAN5.xs 72210 Pbone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372^3428 email mchciiry(iSewbeU.net Via Facsimile - 447-1159 November 4,2002 I I I Dr. T. Kenneth James Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 I I I Dear Dr. James\nPlease let me know the names, addresses and telephone of all persons (from January 1, 1998 through October 31,2002) that the District has consulted with respect to literacy C^^Zd^d^vdopmcnt). Alsopleaseletmehavex\u0026gt;piesoftheircometsaBdthepay ipvo'cy= that they have submitted along ^th evidence of payment to them. Sincerely, JCS/ cc: Mr. John W. Walker Ms. Atm Marshall Mr. Clay Fendley Mr. Chris Heller I John W. Walker, P,a. AttornetAtLaw 1723 Broadwa? Dttle Rock, Arkansas 72206 Tslephoni (501) dTA-STSS FAX (501) 374-4187 ^^^'S.^ALKSR Via Facsimile - 604-5149 November 4,2002  OFCOUNSEL ROBERT MeHtaaiY. Pj^ DONNAJ.lMffiNHY 6210 Hjmbsbsom BOaD Uthji Root, AjuuiiaAB 7^10 PHOW\n(501) 37S.3t25  Fas (SOI) 372.3428 EumX: mcheBiydgsvb^.net J'XE? WjHiana Z Wilson United Sutcs District Court \u0026lt;500 West Capitol, Suite 423 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ke: Litde Rock School District v. PCSSD, et aL Case No. 4:CV82-866 Dear Judge WQson\nOn October 31,2002, we filed a motion to enlarge the time in which to respond to a notion filed by the Pulaski County Special School Distridt. On October 31,2002. Mr. Sam Jones wrote the Court regarding foe matter. On November 1,2002, foe Court wrote all counsel a note which stated:  PD soon reply to Mr. Findlys October 14 query.... On that date, I wrote foe \"cal and stated that I had not received the October 14* query. At 4:26 p.m., November 1, ?2. \u0026gt;r. Fendley faxed me a copy of the October 14,2002 query. I am writing to object to the ex-parte communication between foe Friday Firm and His Honor. I am also writing to request copies of all communication between the Friday Firm and His Honor to whidi we have not been privy including any oral communication as well. Thank you for your attention to this matter. f JWW:js cc\nMt. Clay Fendley AU Counsel of Record Ms. Ann Marshall Judge Thomas Ray Sincerely JOHNW.WALKES SyAWN CHILDS JOHN w. Walker, RA. ' ATTomr ArUw 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 3745758 PAX (501) 374-4187 OPCOUNSEL ROBERT McHENKY. P-A DONNAJ.MdimY SilO HlNDEIiaON Rmd tmu Rock. Afausij 72210 PBONK (500 372-3426 ' Fm (501) 372-3423 IMNU achenqniesvbcUjiet Via Facsimile - 4SO4-S149 November 4,2002 Honorable Judge 5Oiam R. W3soa United States District Judge 60C West Capitol, Suite 423 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Case No. 4:MCV0866WRW/JTR LRSDv, PCSSD Dear Judge Wilson\nI am in recdpt of your letter of a few minutes ago. For your information, I verified that I did not receive a copy ofXfr. Fcndl^s letter. Moreover, the copy that I received from Mr. .TerxDey on Friday evemng is attached hereto with a second page. Please note the date and time which appears at the top of the fex. The fex that I received is dated November 1,2002, the same day I raisied the issue with you. (See attached fax) I have checked with Mr. Richard Roachell and Mr. Sam Jones and they have indicated that they received the letter on October 15,2002 and October 16,2002 respectivdy. If I am in error, I apologize, but my knowledge is what I stated eariier. rohnW. Walker n- JWWijs cc: AH Counsel of Record Ma. Ann Marshall Judge Thomas Ray J-iC'. NOV. 5.2002 5:20Pri JOHN W WALKER P A NO.156 P.2Z2 JOHN W. Walker, P.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway LrtTLE Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (5O1) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 I JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile - 447-1159 November 5,2002 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHE.NHY. P.A. DONNAJ.MeHENRY 8210 HCNDExauu Road Lrmi Rock, Akkansas 72210 PHOWS: (501) 372-3425  P (601) 372-3428 Email mcheoryJ^wWlnct I I I Dr.T. Kenneth James Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 I Dear Dr. James\nan It is my understanding that Mr. Tommy Boley from the University of Engfish workshop for all secondary English teachers at Hall High School during tte 2^:^^ sdiool year. I have previously requested this information in my letters to you dated October 29 , November 1* and November 4*. Is it your position (including Dr. Lesleys) that no such workshop took place? Your attention to nqr previous requests is appreciated. (incerely, JoyC. Springer JCS/ cc\nMr. John W. Walker Ms. Ann Marshall Mr. Clay Fendley Mr. Chris HellerJOHN w. Walker, p.a. Attorney at Law 172S Broadway Little Rock, Ar\u0026amp;insas 72206 Telephone (501) 374.3758 PAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile - 376-2147 November 6, 2002 OP COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY. PA DONNAJ.McHENRY 8210 Henobbson Road Limo Rock, Ahkaksas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Eax (6OI) 372-3428 Email: mcKcsiyd^wbclLnct Mr. Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED NOV -6 2002 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dear Qay\nI am in receipt of your letter dated November 5, 2002. My request for information relates directly to the LRSDs proposed compliance plan, item 4\nPrepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Wan  2.1 It is my understanding tiiat literacy programs are being utilized to improve Aftican American academic achievement and that the District commits to evaluating these programs. I would like to have a better understanding of the literacy programs being implemented including who provided the training, amount paid by the District mid the substance of the training provided. I also intend to inquire regarding the other programs identified in  2.7 in the future. Thank you for your attention to this request. Joy C. Spring) JCS/ cc: Mr. John W. Walker Dr. Ken James Ms. AnnNbrshallBILL WILSON JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 600 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3325 (501) 804-5140 Facsimile (501) 804-5148 RECEIVED NOV -6 2002 November 6, 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mr. Clay Fendley 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72201 BY FAX Re\nLittle Rock School District v, Pulaski County Special School et al 4:82CV00866 Dear Mr. Fendley\nThank you for your lener of October 14 in which you ask direction with respect to what correspondence amongst counsel might be sent to me. It seems to me that it would be best if the lawyers follow the general procedure, i.e., do not provide me with routine correspondence among yourselves. As noted in the Memorandum Opinion of September 13 I encourage all counsel to work together to implement the remedy ~ and work with the office of ODM if problems arise. If something occurs which requires a motion, I would get involved at that point. If any of the lawyers involved in the case think this is not the best route, I would be happy to hear from you\notherwise, I think this is the way to go. Thank you very much for your inquiry. ) Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. cc\nThe Honorable J. Thomas Ray Other Counsel of Record Ms. Ann Marshall Mr. James W. McCormack 4^5 C/= JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Judge William R Wilson United States District Court 600 West Capitol, Suite 423 Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile - 604-5149 November 4, 2002 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Askans.as 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  F.ax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd^wbell.net received NOV - 6 2002 Re: Little Rock School District v. PCSSD, et al. Case No. 4:CV82-866 OFFICE OF desegregation MONITORING Dear Judge Wilson: On October 31, 2002, we filed a motion to enlarge the time in which to respond to a motion filed by the Pulaski County Special School District. On October 31, 2002, Mr. Sam Jones wrote the Court regarding the matter. On November 1, 2002, the Court wrote all counsel a note which stated:  Ill soon reply to Mr. Findlys October 14 query. .. On that date, I wrote the Court and stated that I had not received the October M* query. At 4:26 p.m., November 1, 2002, Mr. Fendley faxed me a copy of the October 14, 2002 query. I am writing to object to the ex-parte communication between the Friday Firm and His Honor. I am also writing to request copies of all communication between the Friday Firm and His Honor to which we have not been privy including any oral communication as well. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely John W. Walker JWW:js cc: Mr. Clay Fendley All Counsel of Record Ms. Ann Marshall Judge Thomas Ray John w. Walker, PA. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3768 FAX (601) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile - 604-5149 November 4,2002 OP COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, PA. donna J. McHENRY 8210 Hsmubbson Road Lrrru\nRock, akkansas 72210 Phone\n(501) 372-3426  Fax (SOI) 372-3428 Ewaiu tocheniydJjswbelLaot Judge William R Wilson United States District Court 600 West Capitol, Suite 423 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. PCSSD, et al. CaseNo.4:CVg2-866 i Dear Judge Wilson,' On Octobtf 31, 2002, we filed a motion to enlarge the time in which to respond to a motion filed by the Puladd County Special School District. On October 31,2002, Mr. Sam Jones wrote the Court regarding the matter. On November 1, 2002, the Court wrote all counsel a note which stated\n m soon reply to Mr, Findlys October 14 query.... On that date, I wrote the Court and stated that I had not received the October 14* query. At 4:26 p.m., Novenier 1, 2002, Mr. Fendley taxed me a copy of the October 14, 2002 query. I am writing to object to the ex-parte communication between the Friday Firm and IBs Honor. I am also writing to request copies of all communication between the Friday Firm and His Honor to which we have not been privy including any oral romTnunirafinn as well. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, ohn W. Walker JWW\njs cc: Mr. Clay Fendley AH Counsel of Record Ms. Ann Marshall Judge Thomas Ray 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 McHENRY, P.A DONNAJ.McHENRY'  8210 Hemjehson Ro.ad LiriLE Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  F.ax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd^wbell.net Via Facsimile - 604-5149 November 4, 2002 Honorable Judge William R. Wilson United States District Judge 600 West Capitol, Suite 423 Little Rock, AR 72201 received NOV -7 2002 Re: Case No. 4:82CV0866WRW/JTR LRSD V. PCSSD DESEGREgSn MONITORING Dear Judge Wilson\nI am in receipt of your letter of a few minutes ago. For your information, I verified that I did not receive a copy of Mr. Fendleys letter\nMoreover, the copy that I received from Mr. Fendley on Friday evening is attached hereto with a second page. Please note the date and time which appears at the top of the fax. The fax that I received is dated November 1, 2002, the same day I raised the issue with you. (See attached fax) I have checked with Mr. Richard Roachell and Mr. Sam Jones and they have indicated that they received the letter on October 15, 2002 and October 16, 2002 respectively. If I am in error, I apologize, but my knowledge is what I stated earlier. -yjohnW. Walker  i'' JWW:js cc: All Counsel of Record Ms. Ann Marshall Judge Thomas Ray ent 1.1/01/2002 a.t 16:27:08 from to 5013744187 p2/3 Friday Eldredge ,\u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEL n. FRIDAY (1922-1994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR. P.A JOE D. 3ELL. P.A. JAMES A aUTTRY. P..A FREDERICK S. URSERY, P.A. OSC.KR L DAVIS. JR. P.A. J.^UvfES C. :LARK. JR., F.X THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P .A. PAUL B. 3ENH.AM III. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P..A. A. 'WYCSLIFF NISBET. JR.. P..A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM, P..A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P..A. J.Af,\u0026lt;ES .M. SAXTON. P.A. J SHEPHERD RUSSELL Hl. P..A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS B.AXTER. P.A. RICKARD D. TAYLOR. P..^. JOSEKB. HURST. JR. P..A. ELIZABETH ROBBE14 MURRAY. .=.A. CHRISTOPHER HFtJ.FR. P..A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P.A ROBERT S. SH.AfER, P.A WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN Hi. P.A. M1CH.AEL S. MOORE, P.A DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A W.ALTER M. EBEL Hi. P..A KEVIN A CRASS. P.A WILLLAM A. WADDELL. JR. P..A SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A ROBERT 3. BEACH. JR. P..A. J. LEE 3R0WN, P.A. JA\u0026gt;XS C. BAKER JR. P.A HARRY A. LIGHT. PJL SCOTT H. rUCKER, P..A. GUY ALTON WADE. P..A. PRICE C. G.ARDNER. TONT.A ?. JONES. P..A. DAVID D. WILSON. P .A JEFFREY K. MOORE. P..A DAVID M. GRAF. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR, ?.A. JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR., P.A. JOHANN zISABETH CONICLiO. P.A. wwrw.fridayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-373-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE. SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72703-4811 TELEPHONE 479-595-2011 PAX 479-895-2147 R CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P..A FRAN C. HICXMAN. P.A BETTY J. DEMORY, P.A LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A JAMES W, SMirri. P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT. P.A. DANIEL L. HERRINGTON. ..A MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. C0LSMAi4 WESTBROOK. JR .ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE 3. TIDWELL MICHAEL E. K.4RNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCK.*.Y .ALEXANDRA A IFR.AH JAY T. TAYLOR . MARTIN A KASTEN BRYAN V. DUKE JOSEPH C. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN .A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL 7. MICHELLE .^TOR KAREN S. H.ALaZR7 SARAH M. COTTON PHILIP 3. .MONTGOMERY KRISTEN S. RIGGINS .ALAN G. BRYAN LINDSEY MITCHAM SLO.N XH.AYy.AM .M EDDINGS JOHN F. .3EISERICH .AMANDA CAPPS ROSE BRANDON J. HARRISON Honorable Wilham R. Wilson, Jr. United States District Court 423 U.S. Post Office \u0026amp; Courtiiouse 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3325 RE: 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72315 TELE.HONE 870-752-2890 FAX 870-7S2-2318 October 14, 2002 RECEIVED NOV -7 2002 OffICEQF DESEGBEGATION MONITORING OrCOUHSEL 3.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. P.'^TTON. JR K.T. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. A.D MCALLISTER JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR. UTTLS ROCK TEL SOI-370-3323 FAX 501-244-5341 fndieY(Sr6c.nt Little Rock School District vs^, Pulaski County Special School District et al. United States District Court, Eastern District, No. 4:82CV00866 WRW7JTR Dear Judge Wilson: We note that Ms. Marshall provided you a copy other October 10,2002, memorandum to Dr. James setting forth obserr^ations/questions related to the Little Rock School Districts Compliance Plan for complying with the Compliance Remedy set forth in the Courts Memorandum Opinion of September 13, 2002. We submitted a response to Ms. Marshall on October 11, 2002, but were uncertain whether we should provide a copy of that to the Court. While we would be happy to provide copies to the Court, it would be presumptuous on our part to presume that the Court wants to review all correspondence bet\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_325","title":"Compliance court filings","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":["2002/2006"],"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 administrators","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance court filings"],"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/325"],"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\nC. 1 F!^ 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 FILED U.S. DIS FRICT COURT EASTERN DISIRICI ARKANSAS SEP 2 4 2002 JAMES W. McCORfviAGK. CLERK By\n. September 23, 2002 i-OE-COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Hendesson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  F.ax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd@swbell.net Honorable Judge William R. Wilson United States District Court 600 West Capitol, Suite 423 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al. Case No. LR-C- 82-866 received SEP 2 4 2002 desegregation MOMnOBlMB Dear Judge Wilson: Today we filed a motion for reconsideration. We found several errors in it and wish to correct them. We are hand delivering a substituted Motion for Reconsideration to the Court. The substitute motion does not alter or modify the substance of the motion filed today. It has been hand delivered to Judge Ray, the Little Rock School District counsel, the ODM and other counsel. Sincerely, -\u0026lt;fohn W. Walker f JWW:js Enclosure- Motion for Reconsideration cc: United States District Court Clerk All Counsel of RecordRECEIVED SEP 2 4 2002 OmCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT y. NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.1,ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL filed eastern^', SEP 2 4 2002 JAMES w. McCormack, CLERK Dtp CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the Court to reconsider the following findings of fact and conclusions of law which it has reached. In making this request, Joshua has been time limited because of the exceeding length of the Courts Opinion and the fact that the Court has sought to address issues that were not the subject of the evidentiary presentation for which the Joshua Intervenors had the burden of proof. Joshua notes that the subject of the hearings, as determined by the Honorable Susan Webber Wright, then presiding Judge of this case, was for Joshua to present the areas of its greatest strength from among the various objections which Joshua had made to the Compliance Report of March 15, 2001. The Court did not indicate that she would allow Joshua to present evidence on matters other than those which were the subject of the hearing before the Court. We make this notation because the successor Court Judge, the Honorable William R. Wilson, has faulted Joshua for not presenting evidence beyond the issues on which evidence was taken. Joshua also notes that there was no issue that Joshua assumed the 1burden of proof upon with respect to Joshuas obligations and undertaking with respect to compliance. Joshua had no power to impose any particular compliance upon the school district. Furthermore, Judge Wright made it clear that the agreement between the State of Arkansas with respect to the loan forgiveness of the $20 million dollars which was loaned by the Arkansas Department of Education to the Little Rock School District was not to be the subject of these hearings. Her reasoning was that the matter was premature because all the parties to that agreement were not before the Court, Joshua had not signed off upon it and that it had nothing to do with whether or not Little Rock had substantially complied with meeting the requirements of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan which the parties agreed upon in January of 1998. The Court has also addressed the issue of the involvement of the ODM with respect to the issues which were litigated before Judge Wright and Judge Wilson. The competence of the ODM, quality of the ODM: reports, the budget of the ODM and the relationship between ODM and Judge Susan Webber Wright, were not before the Court in evidentiary form. Those matters had nothing to do with Joshuas burden of proof in demonstrating that the LRSD had not substantially complied with the obligation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Nor was the issue of overall counsel fees with respect to the duration of the litigation and the payments to lawyers, and the public perception of those fees a matter of evidence to be considered when Judge Wright formulated the issues. The issue of attorneys fees has no relevance to the issue of whether LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations. The Court, Judge Wilson, has recited history regarding his perception of the fee event and made assumptions regarding those matters. In due respect to the Court, the assumptions are not valid and represent a predisposition which could only have come from previous attitudes regarding the 21 role of lawyers in this long standing case. The Joshua Intervenors were not informed at the time that this matter was reassigned to the Honorable William R. Wilson of the Courts negative attitude toward lawyers who were involved with and associated with this case. While Judge Wright may have had such attitudes, they were not expressed and do not form the basis for any judicial ruling. The attitude of the late Honorable Judge Henry Woods was well known. He disapproved of certain payments to certain counsel, i.e., counsel for Joshua and the legion of predecessor and associate counsel who were involved in this case when it was first filed as Aaron V. Cooper in 1956. I The parties are entitled, we submit, to have facts found upon the record which means a record which is developed in open Court. The fee issue is particularly sensitive because the Court has proceeded to make assumptions regarding fees and costs. In doing so, the principal erroneous finding is that the Joshua counsel, including the Legal Defense Fund counsel, were paid more than $3,750,000 for their work between 1987 and the present time. Joshua requests that the Court either delete its references to payments to counsel or afford the issue to be revisited in a manner which establishes the fact and does not further cloud public perception, a point to which the Court appears most sensitive. The Court also seems to disregard the role of Joshua because the Court makes no reference to how Joshua became involved in this case in the first place and why it was necessary for the school district to seek an interdistrict remedy in the first place. Those matters were not before the Court and we submit should be excised from the Courts Opinion. It is important to note that the late Honorable Judge Henry Woods refused to allow the Joshua Intervenors to intervene in the first place. It was His ruling that the Black plaintiffs did not need their own advocate or representative because the Court would protect the interests of the Black J Lchildren. That position was overturned by the Court of Appeals and from that point on, Joshua has been the real plaintiff seeking to validate and protect the Constitutional rights of African American children which the LRSD set out to accomplish through counsel who have since been discharged.^ With those points in the foreground and in context, Joshua respectfully asks the Court to reconsider its lengthy Memorandum Opinion of September 13, 2002 with respect to issues which were not before the Court or for which the Court may have made mistakes. 1. On page 2, the Court indicates that the Settlement Agreements of 1989 were to be implemented under the supervision of. . . the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. We believe the terminology to be inappropriate because Judge Wright never entered an Order determining the ODM to be the supervisor of any district. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the ODM ever performed in that role. 2. As stated preliminarily. Judge Wright required Joshua to develop the facts surrounding what Joshua believed were their strongest grounds for challenging the school districts request for release from Court supervision. The Court did not afford LRSD the opportunity to establish its case because the burden of proof rested with the Joshua Intervenors. Accordingly, Joshua requests that any facts that were found beyond the submitted grounds identified as subject areas for evidentiary hearings should be excised. In this respect, there was no burden imposed upon Joshua to demonstrate its own actions or conduct and no party requested that Joshua make such a demonstration. Moreover, the Agreement did not call for such a demonstration. The record will reflect that the District hired Philip Kaplan, P.A. Hollingsworth, Janet Pulliam and their associates to pursue the interdistrict litigation which resulted in the 1989 Settlement Agreement but which Settlement Agreement was reached without those counsel. 43 The Court notes on page 7 the role of Judge Wright with respect to Her supervision of this overall case. The Court omits, however, reference to the fact that the LRSD filed a motion seeking to have Judge Wright recused from the case. Although she reflised to recuse, her withdrawal made the recusal issues moot for purposes of appeal. The Court appears to have adopted LRSDs reasoning set forth in its motion for recusal when it addresses the role of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. We believe that is inappropriate, with all deference to the Court, and we believe that it tends to denigrate the significance of Judge Wrights work in seeking to implement through use of the ODM the dictates of the 8\"' Circuit. 4. When the ground rules were set by Judge Wright, she indicated that the Joshua Intervenors should present nonciimulative evidence regarding the areas which Joshua most strongly regarded from the among the many areas to which it objected. Page 7, footnote 12. By ruling that cumulative evidence would be disallowed, the Court narrowed the hearing time and the presentation of evidence. The focus of the Court was upon brevity and substance. The successor Court agreed to follow the procedure set forth by Judge Wright. 5. In footnote 15, page 9, the Court notes that this action was filed on November 30, 1982, but it later gives the impression that Joshua counsel have been involved in this case since that time. Joshua requests that the Court, if it must address the history at all again, acknowledge that Joshua did not participate before the Honorable Henry Woods in the liability phase of the case as it is now styled and it only intervened at the remedy stage in 1987. Although this matter is not the subject of the evidentiary hearings, the Court may make this correction by reference to the docket entries and by reference to the Court of Appeals Decision which allowed Joshua to intervene for purposes of remedy. Joshua further notes that the 1989 Settlement Agreement 5effectively merged the captioned case with, inter alia, Clark v. The Board of Education of the Little Rock School District. Clark was the continuation of Aaron v. Cooper. Accordingly, this is a 46 year old case rather than a 20 year old case because the liability rulings of Clark remained and because, despite the beliefs of the late Judge Bill Overton, there was never a determination that the LRSD had achieved unitary status. 6. In footnote 30, page 16, the Court indicates that the claims for relief and remedies differed from those being sought in Oark. Joshua requests that the Court clarify those differences for as Joshua reads Judge Woods later Opinion, Judge Woods, himself, found the school districts to be faulted for both interdistrict and intradistrict violations of the rights of African American children and he determined that consolidation with a resulting desegregation plan for the consolidated district would be necessary. Judge Woods appointment of Special Master Aubrey McCutcheon is not mentioned. Mr, McCutcheon made findings during the remedial process that the districts were continuing to implement their policies by engaging in practices which tended to discriminate against African American school children. We believe that if history is to be written it cannot be fair unless the myriad hearings and other developments before Mr. McCutcheon are placed into perspective Mr. McCutcheon is a necessary connection to legacy of Judge Henry Woods who the Court acknowledges to be the Courts mentor. 7. In footnote 47, pages 26 and 27, the Court makes reference to the evolution of the ODM and its budget. That matter was not before the Court. While Judge Wrights approval of the ODM budget is a matter of public record, we believe the Court may wish to excise these figures because they are inaccurate. Joshua is aware that the ODM budget was never fully spent. Joshua submits that the Court may wish to readdress this issue also because Judge Wright 6approved the budgets and the manner in which Your Honor treats the budget seems to be at least an implicit criticism of Judge Wrights actions and of the Court of Appeals for requiring the creation of the office in the first place. We submit that the ODM and its budget are not fair issues for the instant proceedings and that the Courts attitude regarding the merits of plaintiff s objections may be clouded by the belief expressed that too much money has been spent on the professional group. In making the request tor the reconsideration on this point, we note that all of the governmental parties have resisted in one form or another the ODM activities. We also note that the Court may be signaling that it wants to end the role of the ODM as that role was established and created by the 8\" Circuit. There is no evidentiary basis for doing that or for allowing that inference to publicly flow. On many occasions, Judge Wright commended the ODM work as being useful, helpful and even important in helping the districts achieve desegregation goals. 8. On page 38, the Court notes that on December 27, 1996, Judge Wright held that LRSD would benefit from a temporary hiatus from monitoring. We have searched the record and do not find that she ever lifted that Order. Accordingly, LRSD has not been monitored as contemplated since 1997. Instead, it has been in advisory position to the LRSD. The Court has to also note with reference to the budget of ODM which it set forth on page 27 that monitoring for LRSD when done by the ODM, a 35% cost for LRSD, would have been approximately $250,000 per year. There surely cannot be an inference that Joshua was to take over the role of ODM with respect to monitoring at a rate of approximately $49,000 per year, a point the Court refers to at least five times. (Pages 39, 42, 43, 88 and 90). 9. On page 38, the Court heads a discussion the perplexing final resolution of Joshuas 7request for still more attorneys fees from LRSD Joshua requests the Court excise this section for several reasons. First, it indicates a bias or hostility toward Joshua counsel. Second, it implies\nests that the terms of the Settlement were not made collusion between the lawyers. Third, it suggi known to Judge Wright, a conclusion not supported by any evidence. Fourth, it complains unfairly that a matter on appeal should not be resolved by the parties. The Court criticizes an Agreement without evidence about, or without inquiring into, it. The implication that LRSD and Joshua entered into an attorney client relationship suggests professional misconduct on the part of the attorneys. Finally, there is nothing to indicate that for the monthly amount of $4,000+ Joshuas counsel agreed to undertake all the monitoring aspects, including the ODMs role, of LRSDs implementation of the plan. The Court takes issue with Joshua counsels approved 1997 hourly rate of $250. Nonetheless, counsel has been awarded even greater fees than that as was His Honor awarded greater fees while in private practice. Surely, the Court understood that Joshua did more than 16 hours per month in monitoring this case. There is no record to establish this fact, however, and if it is important for public perception or otherwise, Joshua is prepared to demonstrate the hundreds of meetings held with school district officials during the three year period\nnumerous meetings with the ODM\npublic confrontations during monitoring occasions where Joshua counsel were threatened with arrest and where because of the persistence and vigor of Joshuas monitoring, the district revised its policies. We, therefore, believe that it is important for the Court to address the issue by hearing, affording appropriate and reasonable time for developing the issues, or, that the matter be removed from the Courts Opinion because it is based only upon speculation and conjecture. Joshua notes here that the process requires lawyers. For instance, Steve Jones, representing the NLRSD and Sam Jones representing the PCSSD basically 8sat in Court throughout these proceedings and were paid fees and costs while Joshua counsel have not been paid a dime. But the process affords the districts the right of counsel and the districts have had no reluctance in paying their counsel on a contemporaneous basis and they are not held to public or Court contempt for being paid. .In page footnote 58, the Court guesses that all attorneys have been paid at least $8 million dollars. A guess is inappropriate for a Court, we submit, when the facts are more easily ascertainable and the facts establish that the payment for Joshua in 1990 represented payments for 34 years of work and costs during that time. There is no estimate for the amounts which the districts paid their counsel to forestall desegregation before 1990. On the other hand, this issue has already been addressed and we submit has no place in this Opinion because it does not contribute to the issues which the Court heard. Undersigned counsel Walker does not accept the Courts conclusion that he has directly benefitted from the perpetuation of this case. On the other hand, the three districts have received almost one billion dollars from the State of Arkansas since 1990 because of the various actions undertaken by counsel. Careful inquiry by the Court would disclose that the annual desegregation amounts from the State to the three school districts is in the range of $50 million or more per year. Were this a contingent fee case, plaintiffs counsel would have indeed benefitted. 10. The Court makes reference on page 46 to the achievement disparity goals approved by the Court of Appeals as being unreachable citing the testimony of Drs. Walburg and Armor which was given in 1996. That testimony came after the original Settlement Agreement in 1989 and then preceded the 1998 Settlement Agreement. Accordingly, whatever views Walburg, Armor and even Judge Wright had about the elimination of the achievement gap, the parties 9agreed to address it in the manner set forth in the Plan. The Courts comments regarding Walburg and Armor are inapposite to the hearing which the Court held and should play no part in the Courts ruling. 11. On pages 47 and 48, the Court refers to the failure of objection by the ODM and Joshua to the Interim Compliance Report. There is no record basis for this, i.e., no witness testified to this effect and there is no evidence that Joshua was silent at any time. The only evidence is that Joshua was continually involved and seeking to be involved in the devisation of policies and procedures and was continually meeting with district officials regarding compliance issues. See Court Exhibits 553 through 569. 12. On page 48, the Court chastises ODM for its report of disciplinary sanctions which was filed on June 14, 2000. The report was made to Judge Wright before she relinquished her jurisdiction and before the March 15 report seeking release from Court supervision was filed by LRSD. She was aware and there are many cites in the record to reflect that ODM presented its report in such a way as to inform the district of the facts it found and to make recommendations regarding those facts within the context of discussions which followed subsequent to the submissions of the reports. Had Judge Wright found criticism with the ODM reports, we believe the Court was obliged to share those criticisms with the parties prior to LRSD having filed its report seeking relief from Court supervision. See pages 48 through 50. On page 49, the Court acknowledges that the March 15 report of the school district failed to adequately address the disproportionality of African American student discipline. The report is not evidence, as Mr. Chris Heller acknowledged. This failure by itself demonstrates that the issue of discipline was not ripe for objection or release at the time the report was made. If the data 10 were not available and were not presented there would be no basis for an objection from Joshua regarding the matter. ODM should not be faulted, nor should Joshua, for failing to object to data which did not exist at the time. 13. On pages 52 through 54, the Court notes that Joshua did not present evidence or arguments that LRSD was not in substantial compliance with its obligations regarding faculty and staff, student assignment, special education and related programs, parental involvement, and school construction and closing. The Court had previously instructed Joshua not to present any of that evidence. The Court now states that Joshuas failure to present any of that evidence requires a finding that they have abandoned those arguments. Joshua finds it incongruent for them not to be allowed to present any evidence on certain matters and upon compliance with a no evidence presentation then receive a finding that they abandoned their position. Surely, the Court will not hold it against Joshua when it did not present evidence that the Court refused to let in in the first place. 14. On page 58, the Court appears to chastise Joshua counsel for never raising a compliance issue under Section 8.2 of the Plan. The Plan did not require Joshua to raise the specific compliance issue in order for them to oppose release from Court supervision. Furthermore, as pointed out above, there was no place in this hearing on the issues as formulated for this issue to be addressed. Furthermore, there is much evidence that Joshua regularly brought matters of compliance to the attention of the school district administrators. See Court Exhibits 553-569. 15. The Court interprets footnote 2 of the Revised Plan (Opinion page 60) as not being the intention of the parties to have the remediation goal fully achieved within three years. 11Joshuas evidence did not say that it did. For Joshuas evidence was that certain goals were to have been frilly met while others would be ongoing. Surely, the goal of remediation of achievement disparities would be ongoing but elimination of disparities in discipline need not be, for example. The Court makes an assumption regarding the reason for this footnote. There is no basis for the assumption from the record. 16. In footnote 67, page 60, the Court seems to be uncomfortable with the practicality of the goals in the 1990 Plan regarding achievement disparities. Judge Wright also had some discomfort with that goal as previously noted but the achievement goals were agreed to and. contrary to the opinion of the Court, they must be implemented. The question is not whether they should have been agreed to by the LRSD, for they were, but whether they must deliver on those goals or promises. There is a presumption that there is a correlation between student achievement and money expenditures by school districts. Twelve years after the money began to flow and between one half billion and a billion dollars more spent in this district than which otherwise would have been spent, the achievement disparities remain. The only conclusion to be drawn is that the substantial monies expended were not used for the purpose of remediating achievement disparities between African American and white students The beneficiaries of the monies have primarily been white students who have seen their achievement rise in ways to cause the gap to remain if not increase between and their still less fortunate brethren. 17. Beginning on page 63, the Court makes an analysis regarding the Green factors. We submit that the Green factors do not apply to this Settlement Agreement and that those factors should be excised. The Court takes the position that LRSD went beyond what it was required to do and voluntarily assumed desegregation obligations. We submit that these were 12 not voluntarily entered into, they were the result of negotiation brought about by the strength of the Joshua litigation position They constitute benefits to the class of minority children which were bargained for by their counsel. The district was not doing the children a favor\nrather, it was meeting an obligation which has been unaddressed during the 46 years of this litigation. 18. On page 72, the Court emphasizes that LRSD has never been adjudicated to be a constitutional violator. We ask that the Court reconsider that position if for no other reason than that the settlement did not address fault. The Court discusses Judge Overtons Opinion and makes reference to the appellates decision affirming Judge Overton at 705 F.2d 265. The Court of Appeals approved Judge Overtons Decision because the Plan before the Court represented the school boards attempt to temporarily reorganize attendance patterns while the school board pursued longer ranged plans to ensure an integrated school system citing this case. In other words, had this case not been filed, the Court of Appeals Decision arguably would have been otherwise. On page 74, the Court noted that LRSD operated under the 1990 Settlement Plan for 8 years,  a long time. The Court fails to note that during that long time Judge Wright found considerable disenchantment with the manner of operation and even required the school board members to come to Court to hear the evidence on many occasions. The Court even found the school district to be in contempt during this time. The Court disregards that history and seeks to demonstrate that LRSD has been a model of compliance during the Judge Wright years. That simply is not the case. This Court recognized as much on pages 30-32 of its own Opinion. The Court is requested to explain on the one hand the findings of Judge Wright and on the other hand its compliments of the district for these 8 years. 19. On pages 77 through 85, the Court appears to take issue with the concept that LRSD 13specifically agreed to narrow the achievement gap between African American and other students. This lead the Court to impose an obligation upon Joshua to demonstrate that minority student achievement was a vestige of de jure desegregation. The Court thus imposed a liability concept upon Joshua during the hearing without any notice and without any cause. The Settlement Agreement is a remedy and as such may address issues other than those for which there has been a specific violation. But when the Settlement Agreement is approved by the Court it becomes the law of the case and the parties do not have to readdress at each hearing the underlying basis for the remedy being provided. 20. On page 87, the Court makes a finding of fact (No. 3) that Joshua did not pursue the compliance issues by use of the correct procedures before objecting to the report as a whole. As stated before, Joshua was not obliged under the plan to do so. 21. In addressing the findings of fact pages 87 through 160, the Court appears to have adopted the LRSDs proposed findings. While the Court has great discretion, we make the following notations inter alia: a) on page 87, the Court speculates regarding resolution between Joshua and the school districts\nb) the Court speculates that Dr. Lacey would take appropriate action if she perceived any race based treatment despite the absence of any record of her past actions on this issue, page 93\nc) on page 94, the Court found that since 1989, LRSD had a good record of acting in good faith (see paragraph 18 supra)\nd) on page 96, the Court accepted the belief by Dr. Linda Watson that both Joshua 14e) f) g) h) i) J) k) and ODM were provided with copies of a compliance plan and did not require any evidence\non page 96, the Court without any record basis, concluded that Joshua counsel and staff have free access to LRSDs offices and schools and routinely received copies of any requested documents\non page 100, the Court excuses the districts failure in excluding Joshua from planning and other meetings that the district had regarding compliance\non pages 103 through 107, the Court does not address the elimination of disparities as being intended by the Plan\nrather, the Court addresses overall 1 reduction in suspensions where the racial disparities remain\non page 106, the advisory ODM Report is criticized by His Honor with respect to discipline but Judge Wright did not make the same criticism. Had she done so, a duty to address the issue would have been created\non page 109 a suspension index was created without any explanation (see finding 30), i.e. no witness explained it. The Court accepted the calculation by LRSD that there was no diminishing of disparity in discipline between 1997 and 2000\nthe Court on page 1 10 imposed upon Joshua a burden to prove that disproportionality in discipline was a result of racial discrimination. Joshua submits that that is the wrong legal standard to be applied under the law of this case. The issue is relief, not causation\non page 111, the Court disregarded the incidents of discrimination presented in 151) m) n) o) P) discipline. (See footnote 108) In doing so, the Court disregarded the admonition by Judge Wright not to present cumulative evidence regarding any matter and then held that the presented incidents were too isolated to allow judgment regarding the entire school system\non page 112, the Court may wish to reconsider the word probable in finding 38 in discussing the testimony of Dr. Watson. A review of her testimony establishes that environmental factors may be - not probably were the explanation for racial disproportionality\non page 113, the Court notes that Dr. Watson indicates that African American teachers suspended African American students more than white teachers. That appears to be a finding of racial treatment by African American teachers toward African American students. This establishes continuation of systematic discrimination toward African American students as well as perpetuation of disparities\non page 115, at footnotes 111-112, the Court seems to condone disparities in sports activities by noting on page 1 16 that students tend to gravitate toward sports that they have grown up playing. That in itself we submit is racial, i.e., whites-golf, tennis, soccer\nblacks - football, basketball and track\non pages 116-117, in addressing the testimony of Ray Gillespie, the Court does not address the inferences to be taken when white coaches publicly mistreat Black athletes nor the reasonable perceptions which are influenced by those actions\non page 118, the Court in finding 9, accepts a means test for participation in 16extra-curricular activities but this flies in face of the reality that most African American children in the LRSD - in contrast to its white students- cannot meet the means tests imposed\nq) with respect to advanced placement courses, the district has increased the enrollment of white students to a point to where the preexisting disparity has been extended. The programs undertaken by the district which are cited by the Court are minuscule. For example (SMART involved a summer number of 200 pupils and Teachers of Color could only involve six teachers per year in being prepared for AP. This program was started in January, 2001, less than two months before the Report herein), r) the Court disregarded the testimony of Jason Mercer who presented multiple incidents of unfair treatment at famed Little Rock Central High School and the Court entirely disregarded the testimony regarding of parent Romona Hortons travails regarding her precocious children who were also enrolled at Little Rock Central High School, s) the Court accepts a means test for participation in the University Studies Program despite the obvious conclusion that it will disqualify the great preponderance (90%) of African American students who attend Hall High School. The Court also concluded that in one instance, LRSD solicited a private donation to pay tuition for an African American student to take a course offered under the University Studies Program. The testimony does not identify that the race of that student. The Court is requested to correct this finding\n17t) with respect to counseling services, finding no. 24, page 133, the Court may wish to revisit this finding because it seems at odds with Ms. Watsons testimony\nu) with respect to academic achievement, the Court notes the obligation of the LRSD to be to approve the academic achievement of African American students. The issue is not simply to improve the achievement of African American students, rather, it is to bring their achievement levels to a range within reasonably proximity of the achievement levels of white and other students\nv) with respect to page 146, finding no. 16, there is no evidence of what Joshua counsel knew. Indeed, the 8\"' Circuit said that the parties should not retreat from the concept of eliminating the achievement gap\nand w) on page 114, finding 18, the Court again speculates regarding the loan provision forgiveness by the State of Arkansas toward LRSD. The Court then goes ahead and gives LRSD two more years in order to comply with the State agreement without there being joinder of, or a hearing upon the issue. The Court faults Joshua for not raising that issue but fails to acknowledge that when it was raised by Joshua, Judge Wright chose not to address it for the reasons set forth on pages 1 and 2, supra. This finding was not made upon any evidence regarding the Joshua objections to LRSDs Motion for Release from Court Supervision. CONCLUSION The Joshua Intervenors respectfully submit that there are compelling reasons for the Court to revisit the record in order to determine whether the Courts Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are supported by the evidence presented during the hearings before Judge Wright and His 18Honor. We also note that it is appropriate for the Court to again consider the context of the evidentiary presentations and withdraw its conclusions regarding those areas of compliance that the Court did not allow evidence to be developed regarding'g- Respectfully submitted, Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No Joh^V^Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 IN W. WALKER, P. A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501)374-4187(Fax) J Rickey Hicks, AR Bar No. 89235 Attorney at Law Evergreen Place 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 (501)663-9900 19 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent L prepaid to the following counsel of record, on this day of F ncfU.S 4,2c S. Mail, postage 2002: Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3472 Mr. Sam Jones ' WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL LAW FIRM 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 John^. Walker 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS OCT 0 1 2002 JAMES W CORMACK, ERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al.. Defendants, MRS. LOREN JOSHUA, et al.. Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al.. Intervenors, * * * A * *  it * ie ii k * 4:82CV00866 RECEIVED OCT - 3 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER Attached is a copy of a letter from Mr. Walker dated October 1, 2002. I presume it should be treated as a motion of some kind. Accordingly other counsel of record may respond within the time permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 1day of October, 2002. U ED S' ES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE AND'OR CoY.__ 6 8 0OCT. 1.2002 11:12AM JOHN M WALKER PA\" NO.667 p.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 October 1,2002 OP COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY.PJL DONNA J McHENRY 3210 Hendeoison Hoad Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone (5OI) 372-342B  Fax (5O1) 372-8428 Email: mcheniyd^wbelLnet Honorable Judge WSliam R. Wilson United States District Court 600 West Capitol, Suite 423 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School v. Pulaski County School Case No. 4:82CV00866 Dear Judge Wflson: On page 172 of your Order of September 13, 2002, you determine a compliance remedy with respect to the Joshua Intervenors, Section D. You also require the ODM to monitor LRSDs compliance with Section 2.7.1. May I bring to your attention that the remedy being inposed is not preceded by any court order determining and defining the parameter of Joshuas monitoring. Those issues were not before the Court. The Court now determines that Joshua must monitor and must immediately bring to the LRSDs attention all problems that are detected as the court has determined those problems to be. In doing so, the Court seems to impose a greater burden upon Joshua than it has imposed upon the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. I, therefore, would like to request that the Court define the nature of the monitoring that it expects of Joshua, i.e. access to information by Little Rock, cost of production of such information, access to staff responsible for fulfilling the obligations (must this be done in writing with communication directed to LRSD counsel), and so forth. I believe that it would be appropriate for the Court to spell out the obligations which it now imposes upon Joshua and the legal basis therefor in view of the feet that the remedy defined was not sought by LRSD or any party. I also note that LRSD is not required to inform Joshua of anything set forth on pages 170 through 172 except to provide a compliance report on or before March 15,2004. I must also object to Courts imposing monitoring requirements upon Joshua that were contemplated to be the responsibility of the ODM. The Courts comments indicate that it does not forsce or require a continued responsibility for monitoring of the intensity which the Court of Appeals for the 8* Circuit required. In this respect, we note that the Court created the ODM and expected the ODM to carefully monitor on a daily basis, fiill-time, the activities of the Little RockOCT. 1.2002 11:12AM JOHN W WALKER P A NO.667 p.3 Page 2- Letter to Judge Wilson October 1,2002 and other school districts. By placing the responsibility that you appear to place on Joshua, unless clarification otherwise provides, the Court is shifting the required monitoring from the ODM to Joshua. We do not believe that to be fair or reasonable. Before your final order is entered, and becomes appealable, I respectfully request a hearing on this matter so that an appropriate record on the issues of the role of ODM monitoring and Joshua monitoring may be fully developed. Sincerely, W. WalkCT JWW\njs cc: All Counsel of Record Ms. Ann MarshallIN 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 RECEIVED DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL OCT -8 2002 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO JOSHUA INTERVENORS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL Plaintiff Little Rock School District (hereinafter LRSD) for its Response to Joshua Intervenors (hereinafter Joshua) Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for New Trial states: The LRSD will respond to each numbered paragraph of Joshuas Motion for Reconsideration in turn. 1. The Courts use of the term supervision on page 2 its September 13, 2002, Memorandum Opinion (hereinafter Opinion) was appropriate. It is common for a school district implementing a court ordered desegregation decree to be referred to as being under court supervision. See Freeman v. Pitts. 503 U.S. 467, 471 (1992)(The DCSS has been subject to the supervision and jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia since 1969 . . . (emphasis supplied)). The Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) acted under the authority of the Court to supervise the LRSD. 2. Evidence related to Joshuas failure to raise compliance issues during the term of the LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (hereinafter Revised Plan) was relevant to the Boards good faith, to assist the Court in interpreting the Revised Plan, and to the Boards estoppel defense.3. The ODM works for the Court, and it is entirely appropriate for the Court to define its role and for the Court to take into account the LRSDs position with regard to ex parte contact between the Court and ODM. 4. Joshua cannot blame their failure to come forward with evidence on the Courts focus on brevity and substance. In any event, Joshua agreed to narrow the issues and the time limits imposed by the Court and cannot now be heard to complain. See Tr. Dec. 11, 2001, pp. 36-37. 5. The LRSD denies that footnote 15 on page 9 gives the impression that Joshua counsel have been involved in this case since 1982. The record is clear that Joshua intervened only after the LRSD prevailed in this case. While the 1989 Settlement Agreement did also resolve the Clark and Cooper cases, the Court is correct that this is a 20 year-old case. 6. The Court correctly noted that the claims for relief and remedies sought differ in the present case from Clark. Clark was simply a continuation of the Cooper case filed in 1956 asking that an injunction be issued against continued segregation of the races in the Little Rock public school system. Aaron v. Cooper. 243 F.2d 361, 362 (8* Cir. 1957). The LRSD filed this case in 1982 seeking consolidation of the three Pulaski County school districts based on interdistrict constitutional violations by the other districts and the State of Arkansas. Sec LRSD V. PCSSD. 584 F.Supp. 328 (E.D. Ark. 1984). The LRSD denies that either the late Honorable Henry Woods or Special Master Aubrey McCutcheon found that the LRSD continued to unlawfully discriminate against African-American students. 7. The LRSD denies that the information in footnote 47 on pages 26 and 27 is inaccurate. It is entirely appropriate for the Court to evaluate and comment on ODMs productivity. Nothing in the Courts opinion suggests that the Court has violated or intends to violate the Eighth Circuits mandate. 8. The LRSD denies that the ODM has been in an advisory position to the LRSD since December 27, 1996. The ODM returned to its monitoring role at the conclusion of the 2Revised Plans transition period. See Revised Plan,  10. Nothing in the Courts opinion suggests that counsel for Joshua was to take over the ODMs monitoring responsibilities. Counsel for Joshua was obligated to monitor the LRSD based their ethical duty to their clients and their implied contractual duty to the LRSD. 9. The LRSD denies that the Courts discussion of Joshuas 1996 request for attorneys fees indicates bias or hostility toward counsel for Joshua, implies collusion between the lawyers, suggests Judge Wright did not know the terms of the settlement, complains unfairly that a matter on appeal should not be resolved by the parties, suggests that Joshuas counsel agreed to assume the role of ODM, or holds counsel for Joshua to public contempt for being paid. As to counsel for Joshuas attempt to justify the monitoring fees paid by the LRSD, the LRSD denies that counsel for Joshua attended hundreds of meetings with school District officials, that counsel for Joshua was ever threatened with arrest, and that the LRSD revised its policies because of counsels persistence and vigor. The LRSD also denies the implication that counsel for Joshua was responsible for the additional funding the three Pulaski County districts receive from the State by virtue of litigation related to the 1989 Settlement Agreement. While the discussion of professional fees is not directly related to the issues before the Court, the Court was free to include this discussion in its opinion. 10. The LRSD denies that the testimony of Drs. Walberg and Armor was inapposite to the issues before this Court. Their testimony provides the context in which the LRSD and Joshua agreed to the Revised Plan and the basis on which the Court approved the Revised Plan, both of which are relevant to interpreting Revised Plan  2.7. 11. The LRSD denies that there is no evidentiary basis for the Courts finding that ODM and Joshua did not object to the LRSDs Interim Compliance Report. Dr. Bonnie Lesley testified to this fact (Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, p. 287), and it is stated in the introduction to the LRSDs Final Compliance Report (CX 870, p. iv.). 312. The LRSD denies that the Court was required to share with the parties any criticisms it had of ODMs June 14, 2000, discipline report. The LRSDs Interim Compliance Report was admitted into evidence as CX 869. The LRSD denies that the issue of discipline was not ripe for objection after the LRSD filed its Interim Compliance Report. Dr. Linda Watson testified that ODM and Joshua were regularly provided copies of the Districts Disciplinary Management Reports. See Tr. Nov. 19, 2001, p. 83. 13. The Court is correct that Joshua failed to present any evidence that the LRSD was not in substantial compliance with its obligations regarding faculty and staff, student assignment, special education and related programs, parental involvement and school construction and closing. Joshua did not present any evidence on these issues precisely because it abandoned those arguments. See Tr. Dec. 11, 2001, pp. 36-37. Joshua cannot now be heard to complain that the Court did not allow Joshua to present evidence on those issues. 14. The Court found that Revised Plan  8.2 did not expressly require Joshua to raise compliance issues pursuant to the process set forth therein. See Memorandum Opinion, p. 89. Even so, evidence of Joshuas failure to raise compliance issues was relevant to the Boards good faith, to assist the Court in interpreting the Revised Plan, and to the Boards estoppel defense. The LRSD denies that there was much evidence that Joshua regularly brought matters of compliance to the attention of the school district administrators. 15. Footnote 2 of the Revised Plan is unambiguous, and the Court correctly interpreted the plain language of the footnote. The LRSD denies that Joshua introduced evidence that certain goals were to have been fully met while others would be ongoing. 16. The LRSD denies that the Court must presume that there is a correlation between student achievement and money expenditures by school districts. The LRSD also denies that only conclusion to be drawn from any continuing racial disparity in achievement is that the beneficiaries of desegregation funding have been white students. Joshuas argument ignores the fact that the racial disparity in achievement exists when students arrive for their first day of 4school. As Drs. Walberg and Armor explained, it would be impossible for the LRSD to eliminate the racial disparity in achievement given the current racial disparity in socioeconomic status. 17. The LRSD denies that the Court improperly refened to the Green factors. The Revised Plan constituted an agreement voluntarily entered into by the LRSD. The LRSD entered into that agreement because it believed implementation of the Revised Plan was in the best interest of African-American students, and indeed, all students in the District. 18. The Court is correct that in this case the LRSD has never been adjudicated a constitutional violator. The LRSD denies that it was held in contempt during the implementation of the 1990 settlement plan. 19. The Court correctly interpreted Revised Plan  2.7 as not requiring the LRSD to eliminate or reduce the racial disparity in achievement. Joshua sought to use the racial disparity in achievement to establish the LRSDs noncompliance with Revised Plan  2.7, and the Court correctly placed the burden of proof on Joshua to establish a causal connection between the current racial disparity in achievement and the LRSDs alleged noncompliance. 20. The Court acknowledged that the Revised Plan did not expressly require Joshua to raise an issue pursuant to Revised Plan  8 before it could object to the LRSDs final report. Sc^c Memorandum Opinion, p. 89. 21. The LRSD will respond to each subparagraph of paragraph 21 in turn: (a) The Court drew a reasonable inference from the fact that Joshua failed to further pursue these issues and from Baker Kurruss testimony that he asked Dr. Camine to work with Joshua to resolve these issues. See Tr. July 24, 2002, p. 751. (b) Dr. Lacey so testified (Tr. July 24, 2002, p. 777), and no record of past actions is required for the Court to credit the testimony of a witness. (c) Joshua points to nothing in the record which would indicate that the Courts characterization is erroneous. 5(d) In fact, Junious Babbs testified that ODM and Joshua were provided copies of the Compliance Plan and Compliance Handbook.Court. See Tr. July 5, 2001, pp. 73, 77 and 78. Moreover, ODMs August 11, 1999 report establishes that ODM received both. See pp. 39 and 40. Counsels suggestion on cross-examination that Joshua did not receive them is not evidence. See Eight Circuit Model Jury Instructions (Civil) 1.02 (2001). Thus, the only evidence before the Court was testimony that ODM and Joshua did receive the Compliance Plan and Compliance Handbook. (e) The record in this case includes motions by the LRSD after Joshua filed its objections to stop counsel for Joshua from entering the offices of LRSD staff members unexpectedly and from using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to conduct discovery. Joshuas opposition to these motions provides ample support in the record for the Courts finding. (f) The Revised Plan did not prohibit the LRSD from holding meetings without Joshua being present. Thus, there was no failure for the Court to excuse. (g) The Court conectly found that Revised Plan  2.5 did not require the LRSD to eliminate or reduce the racial disparity in discipline. (h) The criticisms offered by the Court were readily apparent from the report itself, and Joshua cannot blame the Court for failing to put it on notice of these shortcomings. (0 The suspension index is a well-recognized statistic and has been explained in numerous desegregation cases. See, e^, Hoots v. Pennsylvania, 118 F.Supp.2d 577, 608 n.25 (W.D. Pa. 2000). The Court was free to accept the LRSDs calculations which were admitted into evidence without objection. Sec CX 743. (j) The Court correctly interpreted Revised Plan  2.5 as not requiring the LRSD to eliminate or reduce the racial disparity in discipline. Joshua sought to use the racial disparity in discipline to establish the LRSDs noncompliance with Revised Plan  62.5, and the Court correctly placed the burden of proof on Joshua to establish a causal connection between the current racial disparity in discipline and the LRSDs alleged noncompliance. (k) The Court correctly noted that not a single student testified that he or she had been discriminated against in the imposition of discipline. The LRSD fails to see how the Courts admonition not to present cumulative evidence prevented Joshua from calling any students to testify during the hearings on Revised Plan  2.5. (1) The Courts description of Dr. Watsons testimony is accurate given the context in which the statement was made. (m) The fact that African-American teachers suspended African-American students more than white teachers is not a finding of racial mistreatment by African- American teachers toward African-American students. (n) The Courts statement that students of all races tend to gravitate toward sports that they have grown up playing and that they enjoy does not condone racial disparities in activities. (o) The only inference to be drawn from testimony of Ray Gillespie is that the LRSD responded appropriately when confronted with allegations that white coaches mistreated African-American student athletes. (P) The Court did not accept a means test for participation in activities. The LRSD presented evidence of the steps it took to ensure that no student was denied participation in an activity due to a financial barrier, and Joshua came forward with no evidence that a single student was denied participation in an activity because of a financial barrier. (q) The Revised Plan did not require the LRSD to eliminate or reduce the racial disparity in the percentage of students taking AP courses. The LRSD has worked hard to increase the number of African-American students in AP courses, and it has done 7so. The LRSDs success cannot be diminished by Joshua characterizing the LRSDs efforts as minuscule. (r) The Court gave due weight to the testimony of Jason Mercer and Ramona Horton. (s) The Court did not accept a means test for participation in the University Studies Program at Hall High School. It is true that Dr. Lacey did not identify the race of the student for whom a private donation was sought so the student could participate in the University Studies Program. See Tr. July 24, 2002, p. 802. However, it was reasonable for the Court to infer that the student was African-American for two reasons. First, when counsel for Joshua began this series of questions, he limited the question to African- American students. See Tr. July 24, 2002, p. 801. Second, there was evidence that African-American students were more likely to be poor, and therefore, to be excluded by financial barriers to activities. See Tr. July 24, 2002, p. 602 and 624. (t) (u) The Court gave due weight to Ms. Watsons testimony. The Court correctly interpreted Revised Plan  2.7 as not requiring the LRSD to eliminate or reduce the racial disparity in achievement. (v) The Court may infer that counsel for Joshua read Revised Plan  2.7 before agreeing to it, and therefore, knew what it required. (w) The Court is correct that Joshua did not raise the issue of the LRSDs March 19, 2001, agreement with the State of Arkansas in its Opposition to the LRSDs Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status filed May 30, 2002. WHEREFORE, the LRSD prays that Joshuas Motion for Reconsideration\nthat Joshuas Motion for New Trial or in the Alternative Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order be denied\nthat the LRSD be awarded its costs and attorneys fees expended herein\nand that the LRSD be awarded all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. 8Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 37^=iOH------- Chrislopher Heller F:\\HOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD 200l\\unitary-rcsponse-mot-rcconsidCT wpd 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 October 7, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations 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. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 F:\\HOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD 2001\\iinilary-response-mot-reconsidCTwpd 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO.4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ET AL RECEIVED DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL OCT -8 2002 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO JOSHUA INTERVENORS OCTOBER 1. 2002 LETTER For its response to the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") October I, 2002 letter. Plaintiff Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. For more than decade, Joshua has reported to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and to the District Court that it was engaged in the process of monitoring LRSDs compliance with LRSDs various desegregation obligations. At one oral argument, counsel for Joshua introduced a number of Joshua monitors to the panel of the Court of Appeals. 2. The 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan formalized a process for resolving any desegregation compliance problems which were discovered during the course of Joshuas monitoring. The obvious purpose of that process, which is found beginning at  8.2 of the Revised Plan, was to allow the quick resolution of any compliance issues for the benefit of both the Joshua class members and the LRSD.3. There is nothing on page 172 of the Courts September 13,2002 Order which imposes upon the Joshua Intervenors any obligations which are not contained in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan or inherent in the class representatives and class counsels obligations to the class members. 4. The Courts September 13, 2002 Order followed weeks of litigation about issues which Joshua did not raise with the LRSD during the term of the Revised Plan. By requiring that Joshua and LRSD follow the \"process for raising compliance issues\" set forth in  8.2, s^. of the Revised Plan, the Court is simply requiring the parties to abide by the terms of their own agreement. 5. The LRSD can find in the Courts Order no basis for Joshuas argument that the Court has somehow imposed \"a greater burden upon Joshua than it has imposed upon the Office of Desegregation Monitoring.\" The LRSD does not read the Courts Order as \"imposing\" any burden upon either Joshua or the ODM which did not exist for years prior to the Courts Order. 6. The Court should decline Joshuas request \"for the Court to spell out the obligations which it now imposes upon Joshua.\" Nothing is required of Joshua that Joshua should not have been doing all along. The Court has simply let the parties know that in addition to  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, their agreement with respect to the resolution of compliance issues remains viable. The Courts Order continues a sensible and efficient system for resolving compliance issues and puts Joshua on notice that objections raised for the first time on April 15, 2004 which were not raised pursuant to the compliance process could be subject to an argument that those issues have been waived. 7. The Court should require that any future requests for relief submitted by Joshua should be placed in the form of a Motion and filed pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules of this Court.WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, Joshuas letter/motion of October 1,2002 should be denied. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501)376-2011 By:' Christopher HellerCERTIFICATE 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 October 7, 2002. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 P. O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 iristopher HelleiR CEIVED iCT 1 2 201)2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS URT KAN OCT 1 1 2002 \u0026gt;NS, \\S OFFICE OF LITTLE ROCK DIVISION DESEI iREGATION MONITORING JAMES W, By:.- - - - - - - - - ER LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4\n82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER On September 24,2002, Joshua Intervenors (Joshua) filed: (a) a Substituted Motion for Reconsideration (docket no. 3678),' which asks me to revisit many aspects of the September 13, 2002 Memorandum Opinion (docket no. 3675) (Memorandum Opinion) declaring the Little Rock School District (LRSD) to be unitary with regard to all aspects of its operations under the Revised Plan (CX 871), except for  2.7.1\nand (b) a Motion for New Trial or in the Alternative Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order (docket no. 3677). On October 7,2002, LRSD filed a Response to Joshua Intervenors Substituted Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for New 'On September 23,2002, Joshua filed their first Motion for Reconsideration (docket no. 3676), which contained numerous errors. The next day, September 24, 2002, Joshua filed a second Motion for Reconsideration, which corrected most of those errors. I will consider this second motion as a Substituted Motion for Reconsideration, although it was not so designated. As a matter of fact, a motion for reconsideration is not recognized in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They are, however, commonly filed and ruled upon in this jurisdiction-and I will hew to this custom. AO 72A (Rev.8/82) Trial (docket no. 3682).^ After an initial review of Joshuas Substituted Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for New Trial, 1 considered summarily denying both motions on the ground that each of the arguments in support of reconsideration or a new trial is without any apparent merit. I believe that my 17 4-page Memorandum Opinion fully and accurately sets forth the relevant history of this case and that my detailed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are amply supported by the record and controlling legal authority. In short, I have given this case my best shot, and, if counsel for Joshua believe I have erred, they should appeal my decision to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Thus, on the merits, Joshuas arguments raise nothing that warrants comment beyond my stating 1 find they are without any factual support or legal foundation. However, to the extent that a number of Joshuas arguments tend to torque the Memorandum Opinion out of shape, and are supported only by speculation and personal innuendo, 1 think it best to set the record straight. First, Joshua suggests that I improperly faulted Joshua for failing to present evidence ^Under Rule 7.2(b) of the Local Rules, LRSDs Response to Joshuas Substituted Motion for Reconsideration was due eleven days from September 24,2002, and its Response to Joshuas Motion for a New Trial was due eleven days from September 23, 2002. Because Joshuas Substituted Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for New Trial were served on counsel for LRSD pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(B) (mail) and (D) (electronic means), an additional three days must be added to LRSDs eleven days. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e). Thus, LRSD had fourteen days to respond to those motions, making its Response to Joshuas Motion for New Trial due on or before October 7 and its Response to Joshuas Substituted Motion for Reconsideration due on or before October 8. As indicated previously, LRSD filed its Response to both those Motions on October 7. In a letter dated October 9,2002, Joshuas counsel asked me to strike LRSDs Response to those two motions because it was not filed within eleven days. Because Joshuas counsel overlooked Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b) and 6(e), they miscalculated the deadline for the filing of LRSDs Response to be October 4. Therefore, their request to strike that Response is denied. -2- AO 72A (Rev.8/82) on the March 19, 2001 Agreement between LRSD and the Arkansas Department of Education (CX 548). Substituted Motion for Reconsideration at 2. To the contrary, the Findings of Fact explicitly state that: The March 19, 2001 Agreement between the ADE and LRSD is unrelated to the question of whether LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations under the Revised Plan. It is important, too, that Joshua did not raise that issue as part of its challenge to LRSDs request for an immediate declaration of unitary status. Memorandum Opinion at 149, ^117 (emphasis in original). Thus, although Joshua introduced CX 548 into evidence,^ 1 expressly did not consider it in deciding the unrelated question of whether LRSD had substantially complied with its obligations under the Revised Plan. Nowhere in my Memorandum Opinion do I fault Joshua for failing to produce evidence regarding the March 19, 2001 Agreement between LRSD and ADE--a subject that clearly was not before me in the hearings on unitary status. Second, Joshua contends that I should not have addressed the involvement of the ODM with respect to issues which were litigated before Judge Wright and Judge Wilson ... [because] the competence of the ODM, the quality of the ODM reports, [and] the budget of the ODM ... 114 were not before the Court in evidentiary form. Substituted Motion for Reconsideration at 2, 6-7, and 10. The ODM, an employee of the district court, has monitored LRSDs compliance 3 It strikes me as a little strange that Joshua introduced the March 19,2001 Agreement into evidence during the hearing on unitary status and now argues, in their Substituted Motion for Reconsideration, that the document is irrelevant to the question of whether LRSD substantially complied with its obligations under the Revised Plan. I agree that the document is irrelevant to the issue of substantial compliance, but this begs the question of why Joshua chose to introduce the document into evidence in the first place. 1 remain puzzled. 4' ODM. For the record, my Memorandum Opinion does not consider the competence of the -3- AO 72A (Rev.8/82)with its obligations under the 1990 Settlement Agreement, the 1992 Desegregation Plan, and the Revised Plan. Because the ODM works for the court, all of its budgets, as well as all of the reports it has prepared over the years, have been filed and are part of the record in this case. Historically, all of the parties and the court have used ODM reports, to the extent they were relevant, during the many hearings that have taken place since 1991. After being assigned this case in January of 2002,1 carefully reviewed the entire record. In doing so, I examined the ODMs annual budgets from 1990 to date. I was troubled by the large increases in the ODMs budget over that period of time. I was also troubled by the large sums of money that I discovered had been paid to the attorneys for both Joshua and the three school districts.^ While attorneys are unquestionably necessary in school desegregation cases, it is the school children who ultimately are disadvantaged by unnecessary or exorbitantly high litigation costs. Thus, I believe that it was entirely appropriate for me to express my views on the ODMs rapidly escalating budgets,^ which are part of the record in this case, and the total amount of money that has been paid to all of the attorneys in this case during the last ten to fifteen years. As footnote 58 makes clear, my concern is with the enormous amount of money that has been paid to the entire professional groupthe ODM, the attorneys for LRSD, PCSSD, NLRSD, and Joshua. As I thought my admonition made clear on page 44 of the Memorandum Opinion, I believe the issue of the money paid to the professional group is important because I understand the meaning of being careful with a dollar, and I expect the professional group to keep that ^In most long-running school desegregation cases that have been decided in the last ten years, courts have expressed dismay over the high cost of school litigation. I now know why. ^See Memorandum Opinion at 26-27. -4- AO 72A (Rev.8/82) important point fixed in their minds from here on out. Why Joshuas eounsel seriously contend that I should not have addressed a subject of such obvious importance is beyond me. In the same vein, Joshuas counsel argue that I should not have commented on the quality of the ODMs June 14, 2000 Report of Disciplinary Sanctions in LRSD (docket no. 3366). Joshuas counsel used that Report extensively in his examination of various LRSD employees who testified during the hearings on unitary status. Joshuas decision to use that Report, one of the Court's own documents, in his examination of witnesses on the issue of student discipline. required me to read and carefully analyze that document. In doing so, I discovered patent deficiencies which rendered the Report of little use to the court or the parties in trying to determine the cause for African-American students being over-represented in disciplinary proceedings. Thus, in my discussion of the history of this litigation (Memorandum Opinion at 47-50), I was obliged to point out the flaws in the ODMs Report of Disciplinary Sanctions. I note that Joshua does not deny those flaws-they simply object to my noting them. In my Findings of Fact on the issue of student discipline, I again commented on the ODMs Report of Disciplinary Sanctions, which was prepared for the express purpose of being used by the court in monitoring and evaluating LRSDs compliance with the Revised Plan. In light of that fact, I believe 1 would have been remiss if I had not closely scrutinized the ODMs Report in deciding whether LRSD had substantially complied with those sections of the Revised Plan dealing with student discipline. Otherwise, what is the role of the Judge? Finally, and perhaps most importantly on this point, none of my Findings of Fact on the issue of whether LRSD substantially complied with its obligations regarding student discipline were based on anything contained in the ODMs Report of Disciplinary Sanctions. Rather, my -5- AO72A (Rev.8/82) findings simply pointed out that, because the Report failed to develop a proper statistical model for evaluating the data on student discipline, its conclusions were based on pure speculationmaking the Report of no use to the court or the parties in evaluating the cause for African- American students in LRSD receiving a disproportionate number of suspensions. See Memorandum Opinion at 105-07, 24-26. Third, Joshuas counsel take general exception to my discussion of the attorneys fees that have been paid in this case during the last twenty years and particular exception to my allegedly erroneous finding that the Joshua counsel, including the Legal Defense Fund counsel, were paid more than $3,750,000 for their work between 1987 and the present time. Substituted Motion for Reconsideration at 3. The amount that Joshuas counsel have been paid, to date, in attorneys fees is a matter of public record. As pointed out in footnote 58 of my Memorandum Opinion, these attorneys fees are as follows: $3,150,000 paid to Joshuas counsel under the 1990 Settlement Agreement\n $700,000 paid by LRSD to Joshuas counsel for monitoring work performed after December 12, 1990, and before July 1, 1998 (see Exhibit 7 to docket no. 3581)\nand $124,861 paid by LRSD to Joshuas counsel for monitoring work performed under the Revised Plan between July 1, 1998, and January 2001 (see Exhibit 8 to docket no. 3581). Thus, based entirely on the evidence in the record, without any need for me to speculate or make assumptions, Joshuas counsel have been paid, to date, $3,974,861 in attorneys fees-this is more than $3,750,000. In footnote 58 of my Memorandum Opinion, I hazard what I admit to be a guess that. since 1990, the attorneys fees that LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD have paid to their own attorneys fRSDv. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371, 1390 (8'\" Cir. 1990). -6- AO 72A (Rev.8/82)totals at least $4,000,000. Joshuas counsel clearly lack standing to complain about my guess regarding the aggregate amount of attorneys fees paid to counsel for the three school districtsan estimate that LRSD has not challenged. In light of these undisputed facts, I seriously question how Joshuas counsel can make the statement that counsel Walker does not accept the courts conclusion that he has directly benefitted from the perpetuation of this case. Substituted Motion for Reconsideration at 9. With all due respect to Mr. Walker, I am having a hard time escaping the conclusion that he has been directly benefitted by receiving millions of dollars in attorneys fees in this case. Fourth, Joshuas counsel, without citing any supporting facts, accuse me of a predisposition which could only have come from previous attitudes regarding the role of lawyers in this long-standing case\n^ i 'negative attitudes toward lawyers who are involved with and associated with this case\n and a bias or hostility toward Joshuas counsel.' nlO Although this should go without saying, I want to remind Joshuas counsel that, while I ruled against them on five of the six arguments they advanced, this does not mean that I harbor any bias against or hostility toward them.'' For the record, I have no predispositions, negative attitudes, or bias or hostility toward Joshuas counsel. I did indeed express dismay over the attorneys fees that have been paid to all of the ^Motion for Reconsideration at 2. Motion for Reconsideration at 3. \"Motion for Reconsideration at 7. llu- The Judge must not like me is a refrain usually sung by lawyers who have just been called to the barwhen a lawsuit doesnt turn out exactly as they had wanted. Experienced lawyers generally resist the temptation to raise this claim. -7- AO 72A (Rev.8/82)attorneys in this caseI believe that was a subject that called for comment during my discussion of the long history of this case. Likewise, the concerns I expressed about LRSDs decision to pay Joshuas counsel $700,000 for performing monitoring work for which Judge Wright ruled Joshuas counsel had already been paid (docket no. 2821) and the $48,333.33 per year that LRSD agreed to pay Joshuas counsel for performing monitoring work under the Revised Plan are directly supported by detailed citations to the record'^not speculation or conjectureand also deserved to be mentioned in my review of the history of this case. As I stated in the Memorandum Opinion, counsel for both LRSD and Joshua should have done a better job of documenting the reasons for the payment of these attorneys fees and the precise role of Joshuas counsel in receiving monthly payments from LRSD to monitor its compliance with the Revised Plan. However, in reaching that conclusion, I was guided entirely by the plain facts contained in the record and not by any preconceived ideas or a bias or hostility toward Joshuas counsel. Fifth, Joshua argues that: (a) because I discuss the fact that the ODMs staff and budget have more than doubled since its creation, I am implicitly criticizing Judge Wrights actions and the Court of Appeals for requiring the creation of the office in the first place\n'^ (b) I may be signaling that [I] want to end the role of the ODM as that role was established and created by the Eighth Circuit\n''* and (c) 1 may be trying to infer that Joshua take over the role of ODM with respect to monitoring at a rate of approximately $49,000 per year.' ,\u0026gt;15 No one could fairly read the ^^See Memorandum Opinion at 33-35 and 38-44. '^Motion for Reconsideration at 6. 'Motion for Reconsideration at 7. '^Motion for Reconsideration at 7. -8- AO72A (Rev.8/82)Memorandum Opinion as stating anything within shouting distance of these three farfetched notions. As 1 repeatedly noted in my Memorandum Opinion, Judge Wright did an outstanding job of presiding over this case for eleven long years, during which time she faithfully and skillfully decided well over a thousand motions. Nowhere do I implicitly or explicitly direct any criticism toward her.'^ Likewise, my Memorandum Opinion makes it clear that I believe it was a good idea for the Eighth Circuit to create the ODM so that the district court and the Eighth Circuit could ensure that each of the three school districts complied with their many desegregation obligations. Obviously, it is important for the ODM to continue its monitoring work until each of the three school districts is declared to be unitary and released from further supervision by the court. At this point, my only concern is that the ODM operate as frugally and efficiently as possible in going forward with its monitoring of the now much less onerous single remaining compliance issue for LRSD and the desegregation obligations that remain in effect for NLRSD and PCSSD. Finally, Joshuas counsel are absolutely correct that, in my Memorandum Opinion, there surely cannot be an inference that Joshua was [to] take over the role of ODM with respect to monitoring at a rate of approximately $49,000 per year.... There is no such inference or implication. Sixth, Joshua argues that they should be allowed to present additional evidence of LRSDs alleged noncompliance with other sections of the Revised Plan. Substituted Motion for Reconsideration at 10-11. In support of this argument, Joshua alleges that the court previously '^I do not understand how counsel can possibly discern (or divine) any such criticism in the Memorandum. -9- AO72A (Rev.8/82) instructed Joshua not to present any of that evidence [on LRSDs alleged failure to substantially comply with its obligations regarding faculty and staff, student assignment, special education and related programs, parental involvement, and school construction and closing]. This is not true. It is an after-the-fact assertion. On May 9,2002,1 entered an Order (docket no. 3598) explaining in detail how 1 intended to proceed in conducting up to five days of hearings on the remaining issues Joshua had raised in their challenge to LRSDs request for unitary status. Four pages of that Order were devoted to discussing what transpired during the December 11,2001 hearing before Judge Wright, which was held to discuss the remaining grounds for Joshuas challenge to LRSDs substantial compliance with the Revised Plan. Id. at 9-12. The May 9 Order pointed out that, during the December 11 hearing, Joshuas counsel attempted to raise numerous new grounds for challenging LRSDs alleged noncompliance after they had rested their case on what they viewed as their three strongest groundslack of good faith, failure to comply with obligations related to African- American achievement, and student discipline. Judge Wright ruled that Joshua could present evidence on three remaining grounds for noncompliance: advanced placement courses\nguidance counseling\nand extracurricular activities. In addition, she ruled Joshua could present additional evidence of LRSDs alleged lack of good faith, but only to the extent that evidence was related to advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities. Judge Wright also made it clear that, after she had heard the evidence on these three remaining areas of alleged noncompliance, she would decide the question of unitary status. Joshuas counsel responded: Thats fine, Your Honor.\" (Docket no. 3597 at 36-37.) Consistent with Judge Wrights ruling during the December 11,2001 hearing, the May 9 -10- AO 72A (Rev.8/82)Order provided that I planned to conduct up to five days of additional hearings on unitary status, during which Joshua would be allowed to present evidence of LRSDs alleged noncompliance with its obligations related to advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities. In addition, I allowed Joshua to present noncumulative evidence related to: (a) LRSDs lack of good faith, but only to the extent that it was related to advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities\nand (b) how LRSDs alleged failure to comply with its obligations regarding advanced placement, guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities adversely affected the academic achievement of Afiican-American students (docket no. 3598 at 13-14). I hardly see how the May 9 Order could have been any clearer in setting forth the precise ground rules regarding Joshuas three remaining challenges to LRSDs substantial compliance with the Revised Plan. Joshuas counsel raised no objection to the May 9 Order, and, after completing three additional days of evidentiary hearings on July 22-24,2002, Joshuas counsel rested their case challenging whether LRSD should be declared unitary. Under these circumstances, there is no basis for Joshuas counsel to argue that the court instructed them not to present evidence of LRSDs alleged noncompliance with numerous other provisions of the Revised Plan. Joshuas counsel agreed, flat footedly, to the ground rules for conducting the hearings on unitary status, including the six specific areas of the Revised Plan under which they challenged LRSDs substantial compliance. It is far too late for Joshua to argue that they should be allowed to engage in piecemeal litigation by raising additional grounds for attacking LRSDs substantial compliance with the Revised Plan. Again-one last time-the grounds delineated by Judge Wright and me, and agreed to by all counsel, were fully litigated. -11- AO72A (Rev.8/82)I do not know how to put it any more plainly than that. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Joshuas Substituted Motion for Reconsideration be and it is hereby DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Joshuas Motion for a New Trial or in the Alternative Motion for Relief from Judgment or Order be and it is hereby DENIED. DATED this day / J of October, 2002. ITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE UNITED JU THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON docket SHEET IN COMPLIANCE 79(a) FRcV ON 10/Il jo -12- AO72A (Rev.8/82)llECElVEr OCT 1 2 2002 OFRCFGF IltSEGREGATON MOKiTCRiJ\u0026lt;G IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION EAST^fSilslfeB^l OCT 1 1 2002 JAMES W, Me By\n_______/  RR LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER In a letter dated and delivered to me on October 1,2002, counsel for Joshua requested that I modify or clarify: (a) various aspects of the compliance remedy contained in the September 13, 2002 Memorandum Opinion (the Memorandum Opinion) declaring LRSD to be partially unitary\nand (b) the role of Joshua and the ODM in performing future monitoring work in this case. Later that day, I entered an Order (docket no. 3680), stating that I intended to treat the letter as a motion of some kind. In a letter dated October 9, 2002, counsel for Joshua wrote me a supplement to their October 1, 2002 letter. Attached to this Order is a copy of the October 9 letter. On October 7,2002, LRSD filed its Response to Joshuas October 1,2002 letter (docket no. 3681). Because I see no reason to await LRSDs Response to the matters raised in Joshuas 'A copy of the October 1 letter is attached to my Order. AO72A (Rev.8/82) 3 6 8 5 ssOctober 9 letter, I will proceed to address the merits of the relief requested by Joshuas counsel in both of those letters. As a threshold matter, I want to clarity how I view these two letters. On September 24, 2002, Joshua filed a Substituted Motion for Reconsideration (docket no. 3678) requesting that 1 clarify or modify many aspects of the Memorandum Opinion. Because both of Joshuas letters are seeking reconsideration of still other aspects of the Memorandum Opinion, I will treat those letters as a Supplement to their Substituted Motion for Reconsideration and address in this Order only those arguments raised in that Supplement. In the future, I think it will be best if all counsel file motionsnot lettersraising any issues that they believe require my attention. I should not be copied on general correspondence amongst counsel. First, Joshuas counsel request that I clarify the monitoring obligations the Memorandum Opinion imposed on them with regard to LRSDs compliance with  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. I shall do so. In 1990, Joshuas counsel made the commitment to participate in a monitoring system to ensure that LRSD, NLRSD, and PCSSD complied with their desegregation obligations under the 1990 Settlement Agreement. See Memorandum Opinion at 34. Later, in approving that Settlement Agreement, the Eighth Circuit recognized that counsel for Joshua were the best defenders and guardians of the interests of their own clients. LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371, 1386 (8\" Cir. 1990). Between 1990 and 1998, Joshuas counsel participated in monitoring ^In a companion Order that I am entering contemporaneously with this Order, I have addressed and rejected the arguments raised by Joshua in their Substituted Motion for Reconsideration. -2- AO72A (Rev.8/82)LRSDs compliance with the 1990 Settlement Agreement and the 1992 Desegregation Plan.^ After Joshua and LRSD implemented the Revised Plan in 1998, Joshuas counsel entered into an agreement with LRSD to monitor its compliance with the Revised Plan, a task for which LRSD agreed to pay Joshuas counsel $48,333.33 per year.'* Thus, for the last twelve years, Joshuas counsel have been involved with monitoring LRSDs compliance with its desegregation obligations. In Section VILA., B., and C. of the Memorandum Opinion, I outlined the Compliance Remedy LRSD must implement in order to comply with its remaining obligations under  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. Because I believe that Joshuas counsel have an ethical obligation and professional duty to monitor LRSDs compliance with its obligations under  2.7.1,1 provided a monitoring role for them in Section VII.D of the Memorandum Opinion. I intended for Joshuas counsel to continue to perform their monitoring role according to the same procedure they and LRSD have followed for many years in this case. One could read the October 1,2002 letter as suggesting that Joshuas counsel only intend to continue to monitor LRSDs compliance with  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan if they are ordered to do so by me. I do not believe I can force Joshuas counsel to perform monitoring duties-something that I may have mistakenly assumed they wanted to continue to do. I will leave it up to Joshuas counsel to decide if they have an ethical duty and professional obligation to ^Judge Wright ruled Joshuas counsel were not entitled to receive attorneys fees for any monitoring work performed after the Eighth Circuits approval of the 1990 Settlement Agreement (docket no. 2821). While that ruling was on appeal to the Eighth Circuit, LRSD voluntarily agreed to pay Joshuas counsel $700,000 for performing that monitoring work. See Memorandum Opinion at 33-35 and 38-44. '^See Memorandum Opinion at 42. -3- AO72A (Rev.8/82)continue monitoring LRSDs compliance with its sole remaining obligation under the Revised Plan. 1 hope Joshuas counsel resolve that question in favor of continuing their long-standing commitment to monitoring LRSDs compliance with its desegregation obligations. However, since they complain about my expressly directing them to continue monitoring LRSDs compliance with  2.7.1 of the Revised Plansomething I never expected to hearI believe I must now modify Section Vll.D. of the Memorandum Opinion to read as follows: Joshua way monitor LRSDs compliance with  2.7.1 and, //they choose to do so, they should bring to the attention of LRSD, on a timely basis, all problems that are detected in its compliance with its obligations under  2.7.1, as those obligations are spelled out in this Compliance Remedy. Thereafter, Joshua and LRSD must use the process for raising compliance issues set forth in  8.2, et seq., of the Revised Plan to attempt to resolve those compliance issues. If those efforts are unsuccessful, Joshua shall present the issues to me for resolution, as required by  8.2.5. Any such presentation must be timely. Regardless of whether Joshuas counsel continue to monitor LRSDs compliance with  2.7.1, the ODM staff most certainly will continue their close monitoring of LRSDs compliance with that section of the Revised Plan. 1 have every confidence that the staff of the ODM will carefully monitor LRSDs implementation of the Compliance Remedy I have ordered under  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. If Joshuas counsel decide to continue with their monitoring role, which is independent from the monitoring work performed by the ODM, the preceding paragraphs of this Order make it clear that I expect them to follow the same monitoring practices they have followed for years in this case. I expect counsel for Joshua and LRSD to cooperate and work together to ensure that things go smoothly with regard to monitoring LRSDs implementation of its obligations under  2.7.1. However, if actual disputes arise regarding monitoring, 1 will be available to resolve them. -4- AO72A (Rev.8/82)Second, Joshuas counsel makes an unsupportable and speculative statement that certain unspecified comments in the Memorandum Opinion indicated that [I] do not foresee or require a continued responsibility for monitoring of the intensity which the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit required. This assertion simply is not true. I will expect and require the ODM staff to work hard every day to ensure that all three school districts fully comply with all of their remaining desegregation obligations. Of course, for LRSD, these obligations are now far less onerous than they have been in the past. Likewise, NLRSD has already been declared unitary with regard to several of its original desegregation obligations. In other words, while I will expect and require the ODM staff to diligently and fully discharge their obligation to monitor the three school districts. the reality is they now have far fewer obligations. Finally, in Joshuas counsels October 9,2002 letter, they request that I conduct a hearing to clarify the role of the ODM. I find there is no need for any requested clarification of the role of the ODMmuch less for a hearing on that subject. I feature myself capable of directing the ODM staff in performing their ongoing duties as monitors. If I waiver in this belief, I may, at that time, call on counsel for suggestions. Of course, if Joshuas counsel determines that the ODM staff is not adequately discharging its monitoring duties, I would expect them to immediately file an appropriate motion. In closing, let me repeat the comment I made in my companion Order addressing the merits of the arguments made by Joshua in their Substituted Motion for Reconsideration: I have given this case my best shot, and, if counsel for Joshua or LRSD believe that I have erred, they should appeal my decision to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. No more paper should -5- AO 72A (Rev.8/82) be wasted in asking me to reconsider aspects of my September 13 Memorandum Opinion or to clarify roles or responsibilities associated with the Compliance Remedy. Thats my rulin. If any party perceives error, that party should get its best hold and go to the Eighth Circuit. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Joshuas Supplement to their Substituted Motion for Reconsideration be and it is hereby DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Section VI.D. of the Memorandum Opinion is modified to read as set forth, supra, at 4. DATED this day of October, 2002. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUl/gE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79^) FRCP ON 10 I II [CZ- by -6- AO72A (Rev.8/82)\u0026amp; RECEIVED FILES L C3irvi OOl OCT 2 9 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OCT 2 5 2Q02 JAMESW. W By----------- CLERK  EP CLEF^ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. LET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MOTION FOR HEARING REGARDING RELEVANCE OF 28 U.S.C. 455 TO THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move the Court to set a hearing for the purpose of determining whether 28 U.S.C. 455 has any relevance to the present proceedings. The Joshua Intervenors respectfully submit that 28 U.S.C. 455 states: (a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate [magistrate judge] of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questions. (b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: (1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding\n(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judg eor such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it\n(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or -1-expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy\n(d) For the purpose of this section the following words or phrases shallhave the meaning indicated: (1) proceeding includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of litigation\nIn reference to 28 U.S.C. 455(b)(2), the Court is required to disqualify itself \"where in private practice he served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy . . Undersigned counsel are informed that the Honorable District Court, while in private practice, appeared in 833 F.2dll3 (8\"' Cir. 1987) in re: Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District. No. 1.. Nos. 87-2150 and 87-2363, before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The cited Opinion addressed the issue of whether Judge Henry Woods should be disqualified. The disqualification issues had been raised by several of the parties including, notably, the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District. See attached Opinion, Exhibit A. The Court of Appeals determined that errors of procedure took place but we do not agree that it is reasonable to infer partiality or bias on the part the able and experienced district judge. The Court of Appeals apparently upheld the arguments of his honor which were made while His Honor was in private practice. The Court of Appeals did not explain its reasons in that Opinion but did so in 839 F.2d 1296, 1299. The disqualification issues, which were presented by His Honor while in private practice, were addressed in a lengthy Opinion on pages 1301, 1302 and 1303. The Court of Appeals, in that same Opinion, also addressed many of the issues which are raised or could have been raised in the present proceedings including compensatory programs in the LRSD, 839 F.2d 1306, magnet schools, 839 F.2d 1309, and teacher assignments in LRSD, 839 F.2d 1296. -2-The Court , in writing its Opinion dated September 13, 2002. included virtually all the citations from the Court of Appeals (see Exhibit B) hereto but did not refer to, mention or address these two important Opinions in which the Court, participated as a trial attorney in private practice. Plaintiffs counsel have sought to obtain the briefs which were filed with respect to Nos. 87-2150 and 87-2363 by His Honor, while in private practice, and any other briefs or activity which address that subject and have been unable to do so in a timely fashion. Their own records are incomplete regarding those filings. Request has been made of the Clerk of the Court of Appeals, however, to retrieve such briefs of all the parties regarding the two cited cases and are informed by the Clerk of that Court that he will retrieve the file. See Exhibit C. The Joshua Intervenors request that the Court convene an evidentiary hearing for the purpose of exploring the role the Court had, if any, while in private practice with respect to the subject case. In this respect, counsel having just learned this information, also notes that the Court has employed as a law clerk of the Courts staff one of the original lawyers who filed the instant case, Ms. Janet Pulliam. Counsel also note that at least one of Joshua counsel is a friend of Ms. Pulliam. Ms. Pulliam and her associates, however, are listed as counsel of record in at least these appellate citations\n775 F.2d 404, 407\nand959 F.2d 716. She was in association with Phil Kaplan and other counsel \\.yy833 F.2d 112 where Mr. Kaplans name appears before the Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. and she was in association with Mr. Kaplan in 839 F.2d 1296. This is confirmed by the fee application of counsel for the LRSD which went to the Court of Appeals in 1992. See Exhibit D. The Joshua Intervenors believe that 28 US.C. 455 issues are raised which should be developed at a hearing. Counsel are not moving for the Court to recuse at this time\nhowever they would like to have an opportunity to review the proceedings that are set forth above and any other -J- writings to which the Court was privy, while in private practice, between himself and his client, Judge Woods. In that way, the Coun and the parties would be in a better position to address the applicability of 28 U.S.C. 455. FURTHERMORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully further pray that at such hearing the Court 1) inform counsel whether the present assignment of this case to this Court considered His Honors earlier role in the case while in private practice, in the light of 28 U.S.C. 455(b)(2)\n2) the basis for the Courts conclusion that it did not have a duty to recuse pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 455 (b)(2)\nand 3) request that the Court, if possible, make available to counsel copies of all briefs which His Honor has filed in this case while in private practice. Respectfully submitted. A i / I !(\u0026gt;/ -7^ i- Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405^00 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 John W, Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 JOHN W. WALKER. P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501)374-4187 (Fax) \\ Rickey HicksAT^^BarNo. 89235 Attorney at Law Evergreen Place 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 (501) 663-9900 -4-CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing h^been sent-i prepaid to the following counsel of record, on this/S^day of ^'and U.S. Mail, postage 2002\nMr. 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 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock. Arkansas 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL LAW FIRM 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock. Arkansas 72222-7388 // / Jkn W. Walker -5- In re LI'ITLE HOCK SCHOOL DISTHKT, Petitioner. LITl'LE HOCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant, PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAI. SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, Appellee. Nos. 87-2160, 87-23G3. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted Nov. 3, 1987. Decided Nov. 6, 1987. Supplemental Opinion Filed Feb. 9. 1988. Litigation was brought involving election for school board jwsitions. The United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Arkansas, Henry Woods, J., directed elections for three school board positions and appeal was filed and petition for writ of mandate was filed asking for disqualification of district court judge. The Court of Appeals, Arnold, Circuit Judge, held that: (I) fact that lawyer with whom trial judge once practiced appeared at one time in another case consolidated with pending case did not require district court judges disqualification, and (2) errors of procedure in proceeding did not give rise to reasonable inference of partiality or bias so as to require disqualification of district court judge. Ordered accordingly. 1. Judges =46 Fact that lawyer with whom district court judge once practiced appeared at one time for amicus curiae in case consolidated with and later severed from pending case did not warrant disqualification of district court judge\nconsolidated case was closed case, or at most, dormant, when it was consolidated and such fleeting and tenuous connection did not require recusal. 28 U.S. C.A,  455(a). (b)(2). 1. The Hon. Henry WoikIs, United States District 833 FEUBKAL REPORTER, 2(1 SERIES 113 2. Judges *^=49(1) Procedural errors which occurred in litigation involving school board election did not give rise to reasonable inference of partiality or bias so as to require disqualification of district court judge. 28 U.S.C.A.  456(a). (b)(2). P.A. Hollingsworth, Little Rock, Ark., for appellant. William R. Wilson, Jr., Little Rock, Ark., for Judge Woods in mandamus. Phil Kaplan. Little Rock, Ark., for Little Hock School Dist. Sam Perroni, Little Rock, Ark., for Rayburn. Phillip Lyon, Chicago, III., for North Little Rock. Before HEANEY, ARNOLD, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges. ARNOLD, Circuit Judge. The two proceedings captioned above, together with a number of appeals raising related issues, were argued before us on November 3, 1987, in Little Rock, Arkansas. Two of the many important issues presented deserve immediate answers: (1) Shall the school-board election now scheduled for December 8, 1987, in the Little Rock School District (LRSD), be allowed to take place? (2) Who shall preside over the District Court? No. 87-2363 is an appeal by LRSD from the District Courts * order of October 1, 1987, directing that elections for three school-board positions be held on December 8, 1987. This order is affirmed. We find no error of law, abuse of discretion, or clearly erroneous finding of fact in the District Courts order. It is our understanding that LRSD is free now to pursue actively the search for a new superintendent, and that it will be free to hire someone right after the election. No. 87-2150 is a petition for writ of mandamus filed by LRSD, asking us to Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. APPLICATION OF WOOD Clle as 633 r.2d 113 (SlliCIr. 1987) declare that Judge Woods should have disqualified himself. In the alternative, it is suggested that we simply direct that anotli- er judge be assigned to this case. In addition to the petition for mandamus, various appeals also include suggestions for the disqualification of the trial judge. We are not satisfied that such drastic relief is appropriate. [1] Two main grounds for recusal are urged. First, a lawyer with whom Judge Woods once practiced appeared at one time for an amicxcs curiae in a case called Clark V. Board of Educ. of tke Little Rock School Dist., No. LR-C-64-16B. The Ds- trict Court first consolidated Clark witli the instant case, then later severed it and returned it to the docket of another judge. Disqualification is sought under 28 U.S.C,  456(b)(2), which requires disqualification where in private practice ... a lawyer with whom [the judge] previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter. We dis- agree with this argument. Clark was a closed case, or at most dormant, when it was consolidated with this one, and in any event it has now been severed. We do not think that such a fleeting and tenuous connection between the present case and the judges partner's activities while in practice years ago, was intended by Congress to require recusal. [2] In addition, the parties seeking disqualification assert that because of certain procedural improprieties the judges impartiality might reasonably be questioned. 28 U.S.C.  455(a). We agree that errors of procedure took place, but we du not agree that it is reasonable to infer partiality or bias on the part of the able and experienced District Judge. He has performed with diligence in circumstances that We decline to re- are anytJiing but easy. move him from the case. Another opinion will be filed in due course further explaining our reasons for the conclusions expressed today with re- spect to the election and disqualification matters, and addressing as well the other questions raised in these cases. The judgment in No. 87-2363 is affirmed The petition for writ of mandamus in No. 87-2160 is denied. We direct that our man dates in these two cases issue forthwith It is so ordered. w fo Bkoh1\u0026gt;HW$WH^ In re Application of I.niry A. WOOD to Appear Before the Grand Jury (Mise. 85-L-02). |J4 Appeal of UNITED STATES of America. No. 8C-1719. United Slates Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted March 10, 1987. Decided Nov. 12, 1987. Former conspiracy defendant, who wt acquitted, brought application to make inc vidual presentation to grand jury concer ing allegations of perjury by FBI agent. United States Attorney presented alleg tions to grand jury, which declined to tai action. Applicant then filed petition alle ing matter bad not been fairly present* and again requesting permission to appe before grand jury. The United States D trict Court, District of Nebraska. Warn K. Urbom, J., issued order to United Stal Attorney of District to make re-preseiv lion of matter, or applicants petition wot be granted. The United States appeah The Court of Appeals, Heaney, Circ Judge, held that: (1) District Courts orc was proper exercise of supervisory pow and (2) order did not violate separation powers. Affirmed. Fagg, Circuit Judge, dissented w opinion.921 F.2d 1371 (1990) 949F.2d253 (1991) 56 F.3d 904 (1995) 148 F.3d 956 (1998) 243 F.2d 361 (1957) .369 F.2d661 (1966) 426F.2d 1035 (1970) 449F.2d493 (1971) 465 F.2d 1044 (1972) 705 F.2d 265 (1983) 778 F.2d 404 (1985) 971 F.2d 160 (1992) 131 F.3d 1255 (1997) 83 F.3d 1013 (1996) 112 F.3d 953 (1997) 'I,ii d 1 John W. WAlker, RA. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (5011 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile - 314-244-2780 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY. PA-DONNA J. McHENRY 3210 Henderson Road Little Rock. Ask.ans.as 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 EM.AIL: mchen17d@swbeU.net October 22, 2002 Nir. Michael Gans United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Thomas F. Eagleton Court House Room 24.329 111 South 10 Street St. Louis, MO 63102 Re: Case No. 84-1543 Little Rock School District v. Joshua\nCase No. 84-1620 Little Rock School District\nCase Nos. 87-2150 and 87-2363 - Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School Dear Mr. Gans: Would you kindly search your files and advise whether you have in your archives the briefs of the Appellants and the Appellees regarding the above captioned cases. I am particularly interested in whether there were briefs filed on behalf of the District Court in the above captioned cases. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, /John W. Walker TWW:js ccki (L 959 PWEK^UJWPORTER, 2d SERIES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant, 6 F- LnTLB ROCK SCHOOL DIS-V. v. PUl.ASKI CVY. SCHOOL l\u0026gt;. Cllca9.59 r?.{l 716 (flIhClv. 1992) Hudsum Miltoll .Incksnn\nborene Josh- ua\nLcslie Joshua\nWayne Joshua\nSLacy Josliun\nKntlvevinc JUiight\n717 Sara MatthcHs: Bcclry McKinney\nnev- rick Miles\nJanice Miles\nJohn M. I Anne Mitchell\nBob Moore\nPat Gee\nPal Rayburn\nMary J. Gage\nNorth IJtIh Rock Classroom Teachers Associalion\nSora Malthev/s\nBecky McKinney: DerPulaski Association Teachers\nLittle Rock of Ciassioom Teachers Association\nClassroom Alexa Arm f' 3:\n- sV rick Miles\nJanice Miles\nJohn M. Miles\nNAACP\nJoyce Person\nBrian Taylor\nHilton Taylor\nPaishsi Taylor\nMiles\nNAACP\n.Foyce Person\nBrian Taylor\nHilton Taylor: Parsha Taylor\nRobert Willinghaiu\nham, Intervenors, Tonya Willing- Robert IVillingliaiu\nham. Intervenors, Tonya Willing- FUI..A8IU COUN'IY Sl'ECMl. SCHOOL strong\nKarlos Armstrong\nEtl Ballin,, ton\nKhayyam Do.vis\nJanice Deni\nJohn Harrison\nAlvin Hudson\nTali) hlSTUlCl* ff 1\nNorth LitUe Kock School District\nLeon Bornes\nSheryl Dituu\nMac Faulkner\nKtchnrd A. (lld- Hudson\nMilton Jackson\nLoieneJosh- dings\nman\nMarianne (Josser\nShirley bowcry: Doii Ilind- Boh Lyon\nua\nLeslie Wayne Joshua\nJoshua\nStacy Joshua: Katherine Knijlif\nSara Matthews\nBecky McKinney\nDer- rick Miles\nJanice Miles\nJohn M. Miles\nNAACP\nJoyce Person\nBrian Taylor\nHilton Taylor\nParsha Taylw: Robert Willingham\nTonya Willing, ham, Intervenors, PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT #1\nNorth Little Rod School District\nLeon Barnes\nSheryl Dunn\nMac Faulkner\nRichard A. Gid- dings\nMarianne Gosser\nDon Hind- man\nShirley Lowery\nBob Lyon: George A. McCrary\nBob Moore\nSteve Morley\nBuddy Raines\nDavid Sain: Bob SteniJer\nDale Ward\nJohn AVard\nhidy Wear\nGrainger Williams, Dcfen- \u0026lt;lants, I?' George A. McCini j\nBoh Moore\nSteve Morley\nBuddy Kaines\nDavid Sain\nPULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT #1\nNorth Little Rock School District\nLeon Barnes\nSheryl Dunn\nMac Faulkner\nRichard A. Giddings\nMarianne Gosser\nDon Hind- iiinn\nShirley i^ouery\nBob Lyon\nGeorge A. McCrary\nBob Moore\nSteve Morley: Buddy Raines\nDavid Sahi\nDob Slender\nDale Ward\nJohn Ward\nJudy Wear\nGrainger Williams, Dcfen- dsiils, Bob Slender\nDale Ward\nJohn Ward\nJudy Wear\nGrainger Williams, Delen- dnnte, Philip E. Kaptnu\nJanet Fiilliaiu\nJohn Bilhciiuer\nP.A. Iloiliugsworth. Appelicc.s. Nos. Dl-IG.30, iind 91-7,402. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted J.an. 7, 1992. Decided March 23, .1992. Philip E. Kaplan\n.Fanet Pulliam\nJohn Bilheimer\nP.A. Hollingsworth, Appellee.s. LOTLE RfJCK SCHOOL DISTRICT. Appellee, Anne Mitchell\nBob Moore: Pat G-e\nPjl Rayburn\nMary J. Gage\nMorth Lillli Roch Classroom Teachers Associalion: Pulaski Teachers\nAssociation of Little Rock Teachers Association\nr Classroom Classroom Alexa Arm- strong\nKarlos Armstrong\nEd Bullington\nKhayyam Davis\nJanice Beni: John Harrison\nAlvin Hudson\nTalia \u0026gt; I  !? Philip E. Kaplan\nJanet FuUiaiuj John Bilheiinev\nP.A. Holliug.swortli, Appellants. LITTLE ROCK StHIOOL DISTRICT. Appeliniit, Anne Mitchell\nBob Moore\nPat Gee\nPat Rayburn\nMary J. Gage\nNorth Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association\nIaw firm which represented school district in school desegregation case applied for attorney fees for services rendevod. The United States District Court for the. Eastern District of Arkansas, Susan Webber WiiRht, .1., foiijxl that disUict was a prevailijig party, that the parties had agreed that district would prosecute fee petitions at firm's pievailirig rates, that district would pay difference ijetwoeii their billed rates and proceetls of any attorneys fees award, and that the jiavties had modified their agreement U) provide that group and firm would split evenly any award made by theamrt. Difjlrlct appealed. The Court of Appeals held thak (1) amount of Pulnskt Teachers\nAssociation Little of Rock . Teachers Association\nClassi'ooiu Classroom Alexa Arm- strong\nKarlos Armstrong\nEtl Biilling- too\nKhayyam Davis\nJanice Dent\nJohn Harrison\nAlvin Hudson\nTalia Hudson\nMilton Jackson\nLorene Josh- ua\nWayne Leslie Joshua\nJoshua\nStacy Jofdnia\nKatherine Knight\naward was neilher clearly erroneous abuse of discrcUou\n(2) findiuK that nor con- h-acl existed between district\nainl firm and conlenU of the coutrncl\nwas suppoi l-ed by the evidence\nand (3) district was not es- topped to defend siRainst contention that superintendent had agreed to firm's proposal for 50/50 split in award of attorneys' fees. J Affirmed. izKlicbii CDRECEIVED OCT 3 1 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. 4:82CV00866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. 1. u.s: districtdourt EASTERN district ARKANSAS OCT 2 9 2002 JAMES VZ Plainluf Defendants Intervenors Intervenors ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR HEARING REGARDING RELEVANCE OF 28 U.S.C. 455 TO THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS On July 22 - July 24,2002, an evidentiary hearing was held in this case on the issues raised by Little Rock School Districts motion for unitary status. 2. On September 13, 2002, a memorandum opinion was entered which ruled upon the issue of unitary status. 3. Last Friday, October 25, 2002, Joshua Intervenors filed a Motion for Hearing Regarding Relevance of 28 U.S.C. 455 to the Present Proceedings, raising two issues: a. Whether I should disqualify because approximately fifteen years ago I represented The Honorable Henry Woods, the presiding judge in this case at that time. This representation was in connection with a mandamus petition by the LRSD and Joshua Intervenors (the latter represented by Mr. Walker, among others)\n6 9 5b. Ms. Janet Pulliam, former counsel of record for a party in this case, joined my staff on September 26, 2002, as a law clerk (she came aboard nearly two weeks after the September 13 Memorandum Opinion). 4. I will deal with the issue involving Ms. Pulliam first. From the outset, Ms. Pulliam has been kept completely separate from this case, and will be in the future. Attached as Exhibits A and B to this order are interoffice memos dealing with this issue. I believe they resolve this question. SERVING AS A LAWYER IN THE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY 5. I turn now to my representation of Judge Woods in the 1987 mandamus proceeding. LRSD and Joshua Intervenors filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, asking that the Eighth Circuit disqualify Judge Woods. LRSD v. PCSSD, 839F.2dl296, 1301 (S' Cir. 1988). I entered the case, at that time, for the limited purpose of representing Judge Woods before the Eighth Circuit in connection with the request that he be disqualified. Crucially important is the fact that the mandamus issues had nothing to do with the merits of the underlying case. The mandamus was argued orally before the Eighth Circuit (sitting in Little Rock) on November 3,1987, and, two days later, the Court handed down its decision, denying the request for mandamus. The November 5 opinion, LRSD v. PCSSD, 833 F.2d 112,113 (8* Cir. 1987), was very brief. and included this language: Another opinion will be filed in due course further explaining our reasons for the conclusions expressed today with respect to the election and disqualification matters, and addressing as well the other questions raised in these cases. I was shown as counsel of record for Judge Woods in mandamus in the November 5 decision. Thereafter, I had no further involvement. 26. The Eighth Circuit handed down a supplemental opinion on February 9,1988, LRSD V. PCSSD, 839 F.2d 1296 (8* Cir. 1988). In this opinion, the Court explained, in more detail, why the petition for mandamus had been denied in the November 5 opinion. I am not shown as counsel of record in the February 9 opinion. 7. Actually, the answer to Intervenors question appears in LRSD v. PCSSD, 833 F.2d 112. The court stated: [A] lawyer with whom Judge Woods once practiced appeared at one time for an amicus curiae in a case called Clarkv. BoardofEduc. ofthe Little Rock School Dist., No. LR-C-64-155. The District Court first consolidated Clark with the instant case, then later severed it and returned it to the docket of another judge. Disqualification is sought under 28 U.S.C.  455 (b)(2), which requires disqualification where in private practice...a lawyer with whom [the judge] previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter. We disagree with this argument. Clark was a closed case , or at most dormant, when it was consolidated with this one, and in any event it has now been severed. We do not think that such a fleeting and tenuous connection between the present case and the judges partners activities while in practice years ago, was intended by Congress to require recusal. Id. at 113. Likewise, my appearance fifteen years ago was brief (transitory). I represented none of the parties, and, as stated above, the narrow recusal issue that I addressed on behalf of Judge Woods had nothing to do with the merits of the underlying case. 8. In United States v. DeTemple, 162 F.3d 279 (4* Cir. 1998), the Court held that the recusal of a district judge was not required when the judge, as a lawyer, represented a creditor of the defendant (in a bankruptcy fraud case) because the creditors debt played no part in the defense or prosecution of the case. In other words, the key here is the phrase the matter in controversy. In United States v. Cleveland, 1997 WL 222533, *11 (E.D. La. May 5, 1997), the Court stated: In this Courts view, a former representation should trigger the matter in controversy requirement if the issues with which it dealt are put in issue in the 3subsequent case in the sense that they need to be resolved by the judge who is presiding over the subsequent case. If the judge need not resolve an issue that either she or her former partners were involved in, then there is no appearance of impartiality and the purpose of Section 455(b)(2) is satisfied. In reaching this conclusion, the district judge in Louisiana cited LRSD v. PCSSD, 839 F.2d 1296. WAIVER \u0026amp; ESTOPPEL 9. On top of the fact that my appearance in the case was brief and did not involve, in any way, any of the issues pending before me, a motion to disqualify me under section 455 would not be timely. On January 3,1984, the Joshua Intervenors, represented by Mr. John W. Walker and Mr. Wiley A. Branton, Jr., filed a Petition to Intervene (docket no. 452). On April 23, 1984, Judge Woods entered an Order (docket no. 470) denying Joshuas Petition to Intervene. On May 23,1984, the Eighth Circuit entered an Order (docket no. 565) directing Judge Woods to grant Joshua permission to intervene as parties in this case. Thus, Mr. Walker was counsel of record for Joshua before, during, and after the 1987 mandamus proceeding in which I appeared as counsel for Judge Woods. As the Ninth Circuit pointed out in E. \u0026amp; J. Gallo Winery v. Gallo Cattle Co., 967 F.2d 1280, 1295 (9* Cir. 1992): It is true that under section 455 a judge may have an obligation to recuse himself or herself without a motion from one of the parties\nit is self-enforcing on the part of the judge. However, it does not necessarily follow that a party having information that raises a possible ground for disqualification can wait until after an unfavorable judgment before bringing the information to the courts attention. It is well established in this circuit that a recusal motion must be made in a timely fashion. The absence of such a requirement would result in... a heightened risk that litigants would use recusal motions for strategic purposes.\" While there is no per se rule that recusal motions must be made at a fixed point in order to be timely,... such motions should be filed with reasonable promptness after the ground for such a motion is ascertained. (Emphasis added.) (Citations omitted.) 410. On January 3, 2002, this case was assigned to me by random selection (docket no. 3570). At that time, Mr. Walker knew full well that, thirteen years earlier, I had represented Judge Woods in the mandamus proceeding that Mr. Walker, himself, helped initiate in an attempt to have Judge Woods removed from this case. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 839 F.2d at 1301. Yet, it was only after my September 13,2002 Memorandum Opinion ruling against Joshua on 5 of the 6 asserted grounds for denying unitary status that Joshuas lawyers chose to file the motion for a section 455 hearing. If there ever was a case of waiver and estoppel, this is it. I hasten to point out again. however, that even if Joshua had not elected to take a wait and see approach to deciding whether to file their section 455 motion, there would be no reason for me to recuse since I have never served as lawyer in the matter in controversy.\" 11. In Joshuas section 455 motion, there appears this curious language: The Court, in writing its Opinion dated September 13, 2002, included virtually all the citations from the Court of Appeals. . .hereto but did not refer to, mention or address these two important Opinions in which the Court, participated as a trial attorney in private practice. Motion at 3. One reading the above quoted language with a jaundiced eye might take it to suggest that I attempted to hide my 1987 representation of Judge Woods in the mandamus proceeding. I described the language as curious since, as noted, Mr. Walker was counsel of record for Joshua at the time and one of the moving parties who filed the petition for writ of mandamus. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 839 F.2d at 1301. Thus, it is clear beyond peradventure that Mr. Walker knew of my being involved in this case on behalf of Judge Woods. For Joshuas benefit --1 will explain my reason for not citing these cases - a reason much less sinister than Joshua may be suggesting: they had no bearing on the unitary status issues that were decided in my September 13, 2002 Memorandum Opinion. 512. CONCLUSION Since this Order fully sets forth my involvement in, and my knowledge of, the matters raised in Joshuas section 455 motion, there is no reason for a hearing, i.e., there is nothing material I could add to the above. And, in my opinion, I have fully answered the concerns of Joshua. 13. If and when Joshuas counsel obtain copies of the briefs I filed in connection with the mandamus issue,' I will be willing to look at the issue again if, and only if, these briefs reveal that my participation in the case was significantly different from my clear recollection. At that time. however, Joshuas counsel would be required to convince me that raising the question at this late date, after losing, was not for strategic purposes. 14. Joshuas pleading raises the question of the relevance of 28 U.S.C. 455 to the present proceedings. Answer: none. SUGGESTION 15. It is obvious that Joshuas counsel feel aggrieved by my September 13, 2002 Memorandum Opinion. I again commend the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to them. That Court has had a world of experience in hearing disappointed suitors. In fact, this is its forte. IT IS SO ORDERED this day of October, 2002. UN: STATES DISTRICT JUDG THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITJ AND/OR 79(a) P ON 'My file has long since been destroyed. 6 BILL V L Wl 'ILSON JUDGE TO: DATE: RE: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 600 W. CAPITOL, ROOM 423 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3325 (501) 604-5140 Facsimile (501) 604-5149 MEMORANDUM All Hands at 423 U. S. Courthouse September 30, 2002 LRSD case Janet Pullium was, at one time, one of the attorneys for the Little Rock School District. So, she will not be involved in this case in any way whatsoever, directly or indirectly. EXHIBIT AKay Holt 09/25/2002 11:13AM To: Mary Johnson/ARED/08/USCOURTS@USCOURTS, Christa Newburg/ARED/08/USCOURTS@USCOURTS, Valerie Glover/ARED/08/USCOURTS@USCOURTS, Christina Conrad/ARED/08/USCOURTS@USCOURTS cc: Subject: LRSD case Per Judge. When Janet comes on board weve got to put a Chinese wall between her and the LRSD case. She was involved in it at some point. EXHIBIT B I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS\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_326","title":"Compliance court filings","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":["2002/2006"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","School administrators","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance court filings"],"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/326"],"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\nFILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION ' APR 19 2m JAM CC' lACK, CLERK DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. RECEiVED DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. 1 200^ INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER Please file a list of your expected witnesses and exhibits by noon, day after tomorrow, April 21, 2004. For each witness you expect to call, please set forth the amount of time you expect to spend on direct examination. If you want a conference call regarding the presentation of evidence at the hearing next week please call Ms. Mary Johnson at 501-604-5144 forthwith. IT IS SO ORDERED this / day of April, 2004. CT Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. JUDGE 8 5 8 RECEIVED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION APR 2 1 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I, et al. DEFENDANTS SUPPLEMENT TO RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER BY SEPARATE DEFENDANT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Comes now Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), by and through its attorneys, Attorney General Mike Beebe and Assistant Attorney Mark A. Hagemeier, and for its Response to the courts Order dated April 19, 2004, states: ADE does not plan to call any witnesses or offer any exhibits at the hearings currently scheduled before the court on April 27-28, 2004. Respectfully Submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General By\nMARK A. HAGEMEIHR, #94127 Assistant Attorney Genewl 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 (501) 682-3643 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, Assistant Attorney General, do hereby certify that I have served the foregoing by depositing a copy in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, this day of April 2004, addressed to:Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings LLP 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Arm Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3* Little Rock, AR 72201 2u vni 1 WMLKLPl NO.004 P.2 I I I 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT  eastern DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS----- WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 4:S2CV866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. l.ETAL. DEFENDANT MRS. LORENE JOSHUA ETaL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS WITNESS LTST The-Joshua Intervenors may call the following persons as witnesses during the hearin! 6 scheduled for April 26 and 27, 2004: 1. Gene Jones, Office of Desegregation Monitoring -1 hour 2. Walt Haney, Ed. D,, Expert -1 1/4 hours 3. Richard Hunter, Ed. D., Expert - 45 minutes 4. Margie Powell, Office of Desegregation Monitoring -1 hour 5. Dennis Glasgow, Little Rock School District - 20 minutes 6. Ann Marshall, Office of Desegregation Monitoring - 20 minutes 7. Willie Morris, Arkansas Department of Education - 20 minutes 8. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent, Little Rock School District - 1/4 hour 9. J unions Babbs, Associate Superintendent, Little Rock School District -15 minutes 10. Ethel Dunbar, Principal al Franklin Elementary School, LRSD -10 minutesII 1 pinu.rst.r-. NO.U04 P.3 11. David Smith, Principal at Southwest Middle School. LRSD -10 minutes 12. Cassandra Norman, Principal at McClellan High School, LRSD 13. Karl Brown, Assistant Superintendent PCSSD - 5 minutes -10 minutes 14. Bobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent, NLRSD - 5 minutes Joshua reserves the right to call witnesses listed by the Little Rock School District. Respectfully submitted, 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 Mass Bar 405900 W.*' Walker ^'Rickey Hicks John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 Ark. 64046 Elaine R, Jones .... President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Norman Chachkin Theodore Shaw NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street New York, NY 212-965-2200 10013-2897 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing has been served on all counsel of record on this 21^ by placing a copy of s prepaid. day of April, 2004 apie in the United .States mail postage I / /' nited .States IV J tJU-4 \u0026gt;/C7-COO/^ I I iv. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT^ Eastern district of Arkansas WESTERN division little rock school district PLAibmp? V, Case no. 4\n82CV866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1. ETAL. defendant MRS. LORENE JOSHUA DT AL. Katherine knight, et al. INTERVENORS INTERVENORS THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS EXHTRTT LTST The Joshua Intervenors may use the following exhibits during the hearing scheduled for April 26 and 27, 2004\n1) LRSD Policy IL (Evaluation of Instructional Programs), CX 575 2) LRSD Regulation IL-Rl (^Program Evaluation Agenda) 3) Text of Plan, Sections 2.7 and 2.7.1 4) Review of Year Two Evaluations, Steven M. Ross, Ph.D. CProvided to Iniervenors by Counsel for e LRSD, October 25,2002) Superintendent James to LRSD Board of Education fPrcnaredbv Assoicate Superintendent for Instruction Bonnie A. Lesley)\nVri - 2) Approval of the Charter School Program Evaluation, October 24, 2002 , b) Approval of rhe SEDLs Program Evaluation for the CoEaborative Project, November 21, 2002 Action Team Vo \" of Program Evaluation for Southwest Middle Schools Partnership with Souwest Education Development Lab (SEDL), November 21, 2002 'I-iU. H.5 VtH d) Campus Leadership Team Program Evaluation, February 13,2003 e) HIPPY Program Evaluation, February 13, 2002 ' I Vol. C- f) Onward to ExceUence Program Evaluation, February 13, 2003 g) Campus Leadership Teem Progrem Eveleetidn, Febmeiy 13, 2003 i \"d\" ) Vijt A'!: h) Vital Link program Evaluation, February 13, 2003 v/ i) Middle School Transition Program Evaluation, February: j) Lyceum Scholars Program Evaluation, February 27, 2003 n, 2003 k) Extended Year Education CEYE) Program Evaluation, February 27, 2003 V\n)l. 1) Elementary Summer School Program Evaluatioi ii, February 27, 2003 6) (^delines for Completing Eights Program Evaluations Ph.D. (Filed by LRSD March 14, 2003) in LRSD, Steven M. Ross, S T) from Chris Heller to Ann Marshall and John W. Walker, October 27, 2003 8) Letter from Chris Heller to John W. Walker, January 12, 2004 9) LRSD Literacy Program Evaluation  I District from 1998 to 2003 c \u0026lt;1   * ^Srams in the We Rct School 11) The LRSDs Implementation of the Courts Compliance Remedy, March 30, 2004 / \u0026gt; 1'9' 1 i2) Resume, Walter M. Haney, Ed.D, (Professor, Lynch School of Education. Research Associate. Center for the Study of Testing, Evaluation - tion. Senior College) and Educational Policy, Boston  2 13) Grade to Grade Progression Data for LRSD and Arkansas, By Race nOh of Educational .Administration and Head of the Educational Organization and Leadership Organization ini^uanon and Head and Leadership Department. Joshua reserves rhe right to utilize the exhibits as listed by the defendants. Respectfully submitted.JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. Attorney at Lav/ 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-375S Fax (501) 574-4187 ------------transmission cover .SRPKT Date: To: Fax: Re: Sender: rcZ7SHOULD RLCEIVE [ COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO (including cover sheet)] PAGE(S). INCLUDING THIS \"\u0026lt;(1(11) 374.S75S\u0026gt;\" only for the use of the individual Or entity named above. If die reader of this message is not the intended .. , -------------------------- ut uiib inesss recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient v that any dissemination, distribution received this communication in or :, you are hereby notified copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have IO error, please immediate notify us by telephone, and return the original message TT C Dz\\z-ta1 _T'l____1___  o US at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service, Thank you.ONiUOilNOW N0liV33HD3S3a 30331330 ^ooz c 2 ydv aaAiHoau tv, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICTCl EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 6ep LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 4:82CV866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1. ETAL. DEFENDANT MRS. LORENE lOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS EXHIBIT LIST The Joshua Intervenors may use the following exhibits during the hearing scheduled for April 26 and 27, 2004: 1) LRSD Policy IL (Evaluation of Instructional Programs), CX 575 2) LRSD Regulation IL-Rl (Program Evaluation Agenda) 3) Text of Plan, Sections 2.7 and 2.7.1 4) Review of Year Two Evaluations, Steven M. Ross, Ph.D. (Provided to Intervenors by Counsel for the LRSD, October 25, 2002) 5) Memoranda from Superintendent James to LRSD Board of Education (Prepared by Assoicate Superintendent for Instruction Bonnie A. Lesley): a) Approval of the Charter School Program Evaluation, October 24, 2002 b) Approval of the SEDLs Program Evaluation for the Collaborative Action Team Project, November 21, 2002 c) Approval of Program Evaluation for Southwest Middle Schools Partnership with Southwest Education Development Lab (SEDL), November 21, 2002d) Campus Leadership Team Program Evaluation, February 13, 2003 e) HIPPY Program Evaluation, February 13, 2002 f) Onward to Excellence Program Evaluation, February 13, 2003 g) Campus Leadership Team Program Evaluation, February 13, 2003 h) Vital Link program Evaluation, February 13, 2003 i) Middle School Transition Program Evaluation, February 27,2003 j) Lyceum Scholars Program Evaluation, February 27, 2003 k) Extended Year Education (EYE) Program Evaluation, February 27, 2003 1) Elementary Summer School Program Evaluation, February 27, 2003 6) Guidelines for Completing Eights Program Evaluations in LRSD, Steven M. Ross, PhD, (Filed by LRSD March 14, 2003) 7) Letter from Clrris Heller to Aim Marshall and Jolm W. Walker, October 27, 2003 8) Letter from Chris Heller to John W. Walker, January 12, 2004 9) LRSD Literacy Program Evaluation 10) An Evaluation of Mathematics and Science Programs in the Little Rock School District from 1998 to 2003 11) The LRSDs Implementation of the Courts Compliance Remedy, March 30, 2004 12) Resume, Walter M. Haney, Ed.D. (Professor, Lynch School of Education, Senior Research Associate, Center for the Study of Testing, Evaluation and Educational Policy, Boston College) 13) Grade to Grade Progression Data for LRSD and Arkansas, By Race 14) Vita, Richard C. Hunter, Ed. D. (Professor of Educational Administration and Head if the Educational Organization and Leadership Organization and Leadership Department. Joshua reserves the right to utilize the exhibits as listed by the defendants. Respectfully submitted.li Robert Pressman i ' Walker Hicks Walker, .''^.hh W V 22 Locust Avenue /-Rickey ] Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 Mass Bar 405900 {/ John W. P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 Ark. 64046 Elaine R. Jones President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Norman Chachkin Theodore Shaw NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, 99 Hudson Street Inc. New York, NY 212-965-2200 10013-2897 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing has been served on all counsel of record on this 21*^ day of April, 2004 by placing a copy of same in the United States mail postage prepaid. a W-b-A RECEIVED ARKANSAS APR 2 G 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 2 1200j clerk IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION EPCLE^ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 4:82CV866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1. ETAL. DEFENDANT MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS WITNESS LIST The Joshua Intervenors may call the following persons as witnesses during th kaon to rr scheduled for April 26 and 27, 2004: 1. Gene Jones, Office of Desegregation Monitoring - 1 hour 2. Walt Haney, Ed. D., Expert - 1 1/4 hours 3. Richard Hunter, Ed. D., Expert - 45 minutes 4. Margie Powell, Office of Desegregation Monitoring - 1 hour 5. Dennis Glasgow, Little Rock School District - 20 minutes 6. Ann Marshall, Office of Desegregation Monitoring - 20 minutes 7. Willie Morris, Arkansas Department of Education - 20 minutes 8. Morris Holmes, Interim Superintendent, Little Rock School District - 1/4 hour 9. Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent, Little Rock School District - 15 minutes 10. Ethel Dunbar, Principal at Franklin Elementary School, LRSD - 10 minutes11. David Smith, Principal at Southwest Middle School, LRSD - 10 minutes 12. Cassandra Norman, Principal at McClellan High School, LRSD - 10 minutes 13. Karl Brown, Assistant Superintendent, PCSSD - 5 minutes 14. Bobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent, NLRSD - 5 minutes Joshua reserves the right to call witnesses listed by the Little Rock School District. Respectfully submitted, P /I L F Robert Pressman\nsman Walker 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 Mass Bar 405900 A'Rickey Hicks John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 Ark. 64046 Elaine R. Jones President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Norman Chachkin Theodore Shaw NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street New York, NY 212-965-2200 10013-2897 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing has been served on all counsel of record on this 21 St day of April, 2004 by placing a copy of sapae prepaid. ' \\ 1 in the United States mail postage I / V mled IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT^j\n! . . X X , * ---------------- ---------- CT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Arkansas WESTERN DIVISION APR 2 1 2004 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JAMES W. MCCORMACK, CLERK -ELAINTIFF OtPCLfcRK V, LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL RECEIVED DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL APR 2, 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS INTERVENORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT WITNESS LIST AND EXHIBIT LIST The Little Rock School District expects to call the following witnesses and present the following exhibits at the hearing scheduled to being on April 26, 2004, except Dr. Lesley, whose testimony will be presented by deposition. WITNESS LIST 1. Dr. Steven M. Ross, Director, Center for Research in Education Policy, University of Memphis - expected direct examination time - 1 hour\n2. Dr. Bonnie Lesley, former LRSD Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction - expected direct examination time - 1 hour\n3. Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction - expected direct examination time - 1 hour\n4. Dr. Ed Williams, LRSD Research Specialist - expected direct examination time - 30 minutes\n5. Krista Underwood, Director of Early Childhood and Elementary Literacy - expected direct examination time - 30 minutes\nPage 1 of 46. Suzi Davis, Director of Secondary English - expected direct examination time - 30 minutes\n7. Vanessa Cleaver, Director of National Science Foundation Grant - expected direct examination time - 30 minutes. EXHIBIT LIST 1. Program Evaluations and Accompanying Memoranda submitted to the LRSD Board of Directors for approval on October 24, 2002, November 21, 2002, December 19, 2002, February 13, 2003 and February 27, 2003 (These were attached to our Notice of Filing on March 14, 2003 in Volumes I - IV)\n2. September 26, 2002 Program Evaluation Agenda, 2002-03\n3. October 4, 2002 letter from Clay Fendley transmitting Compliance Plan to counsel and Ms. Marshall\n4. October 10, 2002 memo to Dr. Ken James from Ann Marshall re LRSDs Compliance Plan 5. October 10, 2002 Memo to LRSD Board from Dr. Bonnie Lesley\n6. October 11, 2002 letter from Clay Fendley to Counsel and Ann Marshall regarding Compliance Remedy\n7. October 17,2002 Request for Qualifications of Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Program Evaluation Consultant\n8. October 25, 2002 letter from Clay Pendley to Counsel and Ann Marshall\n9. November 4, 2002 letter to John Walker and Ann Marshall from Bonnie Lesley\n10. Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in LRSD prepared by Dr. Ross\n11. December 3, 2002 letter to Ann Marshall from Bonnie Lesley\n12. December 3, 2002 letter to John Walker from Bonnie Lesley\n13. January 27, 2003 Memo to Dr. Ken James from Dr. Bonnie Lesley regarding contracted Services - Dr.Ross\n14. February 13, 2003 Memo to LRSD Board from Dr. Lesley regarding Information on Completion of Eight Program Evaluations for Submission to Federal Court Page 2 of 41 15. April 8, 2003 letter from John Walker to Clay Fendley\n16. Response to ODM and Joshua Objections, by Dr. Steven M. Ross\n17. Changes in Science Curriculum, by Dennis Glasgow\nRespectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-20JJ_______ BXC Christopher Heller Page 3 of 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 April 21,2004\nMr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3^\"^ Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher He^ Page 4 of 4RECEIVED MAY 1 r 2004 EASTERN RN DISTRICT ARK lUHT KANSAS OFFICE OF IN THE UNITED STATES DlSTRICTfpOURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS I MAY 1 2 2004 ESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK DIVISION jameS W. McCORMACK, CLERK By:. DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. RECEIVED DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. MAY 1' 2004 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS { . ORDER In preparing for the June 14 and 15 evidentiary hearing on LRSDs Compliance Report, it is apparent that a number of matters need to be brought to the attention of counsel for LRSD and Joshua: (1) (2) The LRSD Board, in approving the October 10, 2002 Compliance Plan, also adopted IL-Rl, which sets forth the written procedures for evaluating the  2.7 programs. While the October 10, 2002 Compliance Plan is attached as Exhibit A to LRSDs March 14, 2003 Notice Of Filing Program Evaluations Required By Paragraph C Of The Courts Compliance Remedy (docket entry #3745), IL- Rl \" is not attached to that document or otherwise included in the record. Counsel for LRSD must immediately provide me with a copy of IL-Rl. Exhibit A to LRSDs Compliance Report is an October 25, 2002 letter from Mr. John Fendley, one of LRSDs attorneys, to all parties, responding to certain written concerns raised by Joshuas counsel, Mr. John Walker, regarding AO 72A (Rev.8/82) 8 6 4LRSDs proposed Compliance Plan. In order for the Court to place Mr. Pendleys October 25,2002 letter in context, I need the following additional documents: (a) Mr. Walkers October 10 and 24, 2002 letters to Mr. Fendley raising his concerns about the Compliance Plan\nand (b) a copy of the document that Mr. Fendley repeatedly quotes Mr. Walker referring to in his October 10 and October 24,2002 letters as ''''your document''^ Counsel for LRSD must immediately provide me with copies of the foregoing documents. (3) In my September 13, 2002 Memorandum Opinion, I thought I made it clear that I am a big fan of plain English and have no desire to learn the acronym-filled lexicon of the professional educator. Therefore, I am now directing counsel to comply with the following rules in all oral and written communications with the Court in this case: (a) Do not use any educational acronyms unless they are first defined. The pleadings that I have reviewed to date in preparing for the June 14 and 15 hearing are littered with references to SAIPs,' DRAs, DIBELs, ELLA, CRT, SMART, THRIVE, ACTAAP, SREB, CREP, and SFA. Counsel for LRSD must immediately prepare a glossary which defines all acronyms used in all exhibits attached to LRSDs Compliance Report. A copy of this glossary is to be provided forthwith. 'I speculate that your document is probably LRSDs Compliance Plan, which I already have. If my speculation is correct, LRSDs counsel should so advise me and need not provide the Court with a copy of that document. -2- AO72A (Rev.8/82)(b) During the hearing on June 14 and 15, please instruct your witnesses to testify using plain English - not professional educatorese. Based upon the parties previous written submissions and testimony taken in earlier hearings, I fear this may pose a significant challenge for some of the witnesses (and me). If so, I encourage these witnesses to begin now to practice speaking in plain English, so that they will be ready to testify by the June 14 and 15 hearing. (4) On or before June 7,2004, counsel for Joshua and LRSD must submit proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on the issue of whether LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations under Section VII of the Courts September 13, 2002 Memorandum Opinion and  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. (5) On April 22, 2004, we had a telephone conference during which LRSDs Compliance Hearing was rescheduled from April 26 and 27,2004, to June 14 and 15, 2004. During that telephone conference, I stated that I would make every effort to render my decision on LRSDs Compliance Report by June 30, 2004. Based upon my current work load, I now believe the earliest I will be able to enter my decision is thirty to sixty days after the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing in this matter. IT IS SO ORDERED., DATED this J day of May, 2004. AO72A (Rev.e/82) Thi-j uuouivicLi-. I .!\u0026lt; 11_,\\L-i. Oil  JCKST SHEET h- COMEuSmNC,' y_BY Oft c- FRC -3- UNITED STATES DISTRICT T c received IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION MAY 1 4 2004 OFRCEOF desegregation monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO.4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF FILING DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THE COURTS ORDER FILED MAY 12. 2004 Plaintiff Little Rock School District (LRSD) for its Notice of Filing states: 1. Attached are the following documents requested by the Court in its Order filed May 12,2004: A. Little Rock School District Proposed Compliance Plan Revised Plan  2.7.1 (Appendix 1 of which is EL-Rl\")\nB. Letter from John W. Walker to Chris Heller dated October 10, 2002\nand, C. Letter from John W. Walker to Chris Heller dated October 23, 2002 (received by fax on October 24, 2002). 2. As to Mr. Walkers references to your document, the Court is correct that Mr. Walker is referring to the Proposed Compliance Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A. Page 1 of 33. As to the educational acronyms, Counsel has requested that the authors of the comprehensive evaluations immediately prepare a glossary of acronyms used in their respective evaluations. These will be consolidated into a single glossary for all exhibits and provided to the Court as soon as possible. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501)376-2011 Christopher Heller Page 2 of 3CERTIFICATE 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 May 13, 2004: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations 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 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Tim Gauger Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 3 of 3 Christopher HellerLittle Rock School District Compliance Committee Proposed Compliance Plan Revised Plan  2.7.1 1^ EXHIBITThe District Courts Compliance Remedy On September 13, 2002, the District Court issued its Memorandum Opinion (hereinafter Opinion) finding that the Little Rock School District (LRSD) had substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan), with the exception Revised Plan  2.7.1. Section 2.7.1 provided: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7' after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving Afiican-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve Afiican-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. The District Courts Opinion set forth a detailed Compliance Remedy to be implemented by the LRSD. The Opinion first stated: Because LRSD failed to substantially comply with the crucially important obligations contained in 2.7.1, it must remain under court supervision with regard to that section of the Revised Plan until it: (a) demonstrates that a program assessment procedure is in place that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented imder 2.7 in improving the academic achievement of Afiican-American students\nand (b) prepares the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report and uses those evaluations as part of the program assessment procedure contemplated by  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. The Opinion then outlined the details of the Compliance Remedy as follows: A. For the entire 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year, through December 31, 2003, LRSD must continue to assess each of the programs implemented under  2.7 to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. LRSD now has over three years of testing data and other information available to use in gauging the effectiveness of those programs. I expect LRSD to use all of that available data and information in assessing the effectiveness of those prograrhs and in deciding whether any of those programs should be modified or eliminated. 'Revised Plan  2.7 provided, LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of Afiican-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan. 1B. C. F. LRSD must maintain written records regarding its assessment of each of those programs. These written records must reflect the following information: (a) the written criteria used to assess each program during the 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year\n(b) the results of the annual assessments of each program, including whether the assessments resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs\nand (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the assessment of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the assessment process (e.g., all fourth grade math teachers\nall eighth grade English teachers, etc.). LRSD must use Dr. Nunnerly^ or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations on each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. I will accept all program evaluations that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnerly or someone with similar qualifications and approved by the Board. All program evaluations that have not yet been completed on the remaining programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report must be prepared and approved by the Board as soon as practicable, but, in no event, later than March 15, 2003. In addition, as these program evaluations are prepared, LRSD shall use them, as part of the program assessment process, to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving African-American achievement and whether, based on the evaluations, any changes or modifications should be made in those programs. In addition, LRSD must use those program evaluations, to the extent they may be relevant, in assessing the effectiveness of other related programs. * * * On or before March 15, 2004, LRSD must file a Compliance Report which documents its compliance with its obligations under  2.7.1. Any party, including Joshua, who wishes to challenge LRSDs substantial compliance with  2.7.1, as specified above, may file objections with the court on or before April 15, 2004. Thereafter, I will decide whether the LRSD has substantially complied with  2.7.1, as specified in the Compliance Remedy, and should be released from all ftxrther supervision and monitoring. ^The Court is clearly referring to Dr. John Nunnery. 2Proposed Compliance Plan As the Compliance Committee understands the District Courts Opinion, the Compliance Remedy requires the LRSD to: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04\nDevelop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African- American students\nMaintain written records of (a) the criteria used to evaluate each program\n(b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs\nand (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process\nPrepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2.7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of Afiican-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program\nand Submit for Board approval the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSDs Final Compliance Report that have been completed, and complete, with the assistance of an outside expert, the remaining evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSDs Final Compliance Report. What follows is an explanation of how the Compliance Committee derived these five requirements from the District Courts Opinion, and what the Compliance Committee proposes to do to comply with each requirement. Assessment and Evaluation When first read, the District Courts Compliance Remedy seemed simple and straightforward, but as the Compliance Committee attempted to develop this Proposed Compliance Plan, numerous questions arose. The most fundamental question related to the District Courts use of the term assessment in Paragraphs A and B of the Compliance Remedy. The ambiguity of this term was the subject of testimony at the hearing. The District Court included in its Opinion Dr. Lesleys testimony on the difference between assessment and evaluation, see Opinion, p. 152, but it is unclear whether the Court accepted this testimony. 3It is clear that the District Court understood the distinction between testing data, which are derived from student assessments, and program evaluations, which are used to determine the effectiveness of programs. See Opinion, p. 152 (LRSD acknowledged in the Interim Compliance Report that it was required: (a) to use both the testing data and the program evaluations to determine the effectiveness of the key academic programs implemented pursuant to  2.7 ... (emphasis in original)). Even so, the District Court appears to have used the term assessment in some instances to refer to only student assessments and in other instances to refer to both student assessments and evaluations. This required the Compliance Committee to determine the District Courts intended meaning. In making this determination, the Compliance Committee considered the context in which the term was used, the District Courts findings of fact as set forth in the Opinion, what would be in the best interest of African- American students, and hopefully, common sense. An explanation of each requirement of the Compliance Remedy is provided below. To avoid any ambiguity, Compliance Committee hereinafter uses the term assessment to refer to student assessments and the term evaluation to refer to the program evaluations, whether formal or informal. 1. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04. This requirement derives from Paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. Given Paragraph As reference to testing data, it seems clear that Paragraph A concerns, in part, student assessments. The Compliance Committee proposes to comply with this part of Paragraph A by implementing the 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan. The 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan incorporates four changes that have been made since the LRSDs Final Compliance Report. First, the Board eliminated the fall administrations of the Achievement Level Tests (ALTs) in 2001-02. The administration recommended this for three reasons: (1) the loss of instructional time resulting from testing and test preparation\n(2) fall results did not provide significantly different information from the previous springs results\nand (3) the cost of administering and scoring the tests. Second, the fall administration of the Observation Surveys and Developmental Reading Assessment will only be used by the teacher for diagnostic purposes. The scores will not be reported to or maintained by the LRSD. This change saves considerable time in test administration and allows more time for instruction. It was approved by the Board on September 26,2002. Third, the LRSD will no longer administer the ALTs. The administration recommended the complete elimination of the ALTs for the following reasons: (1) the lack of alignment with the content and format of the State Benchmarks\n(2) the loss of instructional time resulting from 4testing and test administration\n(3) the new federal accountability requirements in the No Child Left Behind Act require annual testing by the State in grades 3-8, making the LRSDs administration of the ALTs redundant\nand (4) the costs of administering and scoring the tests. The Board approved this change on September 26, 2002. Finally, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) has moved the administration of the SAT9 from the fall to the spring, effective 2002-03. The 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan calls for the administration of the following student assessments in English language arts and mathematics: Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 7-10 Grades 9-11 Grade 10 Grade 11 Observation Surveys (5) Developmental Reading Assessment Observation Surveys (5) Development Reading Assessment Observation Surveys (3) Development Reading Assessment Norm-referenced test to be identified for gifted/talented screening Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination SAT9 Total Battery Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination SAT9 Total Battery Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination End-of Course Algebra I examination End-of Course Geometry examination SAT9 Total Battery End-of-Level Literacy examination All of these assessments are administered in the spring. Consequently, the final student assessment before March 15, 2004, will be administered in the spring of 2003. 2. Develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to  2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. This requirement derives from the opening paragraph of the Compliance Remedy. To comply with this requirement, two proposed regulations have been drafted, IL-Rl for formal evaluations and IL-R2 for informal evaluations, attached as Appendixes 1 and 2, respectively. 5Proposed regulation IL-Rl combines generally accepted principles of program evaluation with practices that have been in place in the LRSD for the past two years. See, e.g., Robby Champion, Map Out Evaluation Goals, Journal for Staff Development, Fall 2002, attached as Appendix 3. This regulation will be submitted to the Board, Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and the Joshua Intervenors (Joshua) for review and comment before being finalized. Proposed regulation IL-R2 specifically addresses the next requirement and is discussed therewith. 3. Maintain written records of (a) the criteria used to evaluate each program\n0)) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modiflcations or the elimination of any programs\nand (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process. This requirement derives from Paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. Paragraph B apparently came about as a result of the District Courts concern about the LRSD making program modifications based on informal evaluations of student assessment data. See Opinion, p. 155 (I have grave reservations about anyone this side of Solomon being wise enough to use two or three semesters worth of erratic composite test scores to make reliable decisions about which remediation programs for LRSDs African-American students were actually working.). Proposed regulations IL-R2 was drafted to specifically address this requirement. It prohibits substantial program modifications from being made without a written record as required by Paragraph B. This regulation will also be submitted to ODM and Joshua for review and comment before being finalized. Proposed regulation IL-Rl also complies with this requirement. It mandates that the criteria used to formally evaluate a program be identified as the research questions to be answered, the first of which will be, Has this curriculum/instruction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students?. See Appendix 1, IL-Rl, p. 5. Recommended program modifications and the members of the evaluation team are routinely included in formal evaluations. As to the results of annual student assessments, the LRSD will continue to maintain a computer database with the results of armual students assessments administered pursuant to the Board-approved assessment plan. 64. Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to  2.7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. This requirement derives from Paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. To comply with this requirement, the Compliance Committee proposes to prepare the following new, comprehensive evaluations: (a) Primary Reading/Language Arts, (b) Middle and High School Literacy and (c) K-12 Mathematics and Science. Each evaluation will be prepared in accordance with proposed Regulation IL-Rl and will incorporate all available student assessment data relevant to the program being evaluated. Based on Paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy, the LRSD understands these evaluations must be submitted to the Court on or before March 15, 2004. new, Some may argue that Paragraph A and Paragraph C together require the LRSD to prepare comprehensive evaluations of all the programs identified on page 148 of the LRSDs Final Compliance Report. The Compliance Committee considered and rejected this argument for three reasons. First, Paragraph As description of the programs to be evaluated differs from that of Paragraph C. Paragraph A states that the LRSD must continue to assess each of the programs implemented under  2.7 ... The Compliance Committee understands this to mean that the LRSD should continue to prepare evaluations of some of the key programs, as identified in the Interim Compliance Report. See Opinion, p. 151 (In addition to the Assessment Plan,  2.7.1 of the Interim Compliance Report noted that the LRSD was preparing 'evaluations of some of the key programs designed to improve Afiican-American achievement in order to provide a more in-depth look at the effectiveness of those programs. (emphasis in original)). In contrast to Paragraph A, Paragraph C requires the LRSD to prepare evaluations of each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. The Compliance Committee understands this to mean that the LRSD should complete all of the evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report and submit those to the Court. See Opinion, p. 156 ([A]s of March 15, 2001, the date the Final Compliance Report was filed with the Court\n(1) PRE had prepared only draft evaluations of some of the programs in question\n(2) none of those evaluations had been approved by the Board .... (emphasis in original)). The District Courts statement in Paragraph C that it will accept evaluations already completed and approved by the Board further indicates that Paragraph C does not require new, comprehensive evaluations. Second, recognizing this distinction between Paragraph A and Paragraph C resolves a potential conflict between Paragraph C and Paragraph F. Paragraph C provides, All program evaluations that have not yet been completed on the remaining programs identified on page 148 7of the Final Compliance Report must be prepared and approved by the Board as soon as practicable, but, in no event, later than March 15, 2003. However, Paragraph F does not require the LRSD to file a compliance report on its compliance with Revised Plan  2.7.1 until March 15,2004. The Compliance Committee concludes that March 15, 2004, is the deadline for submitting the new, comprehensive evaluations of the programs implemented pursuant to  2.7. See Paragraph A of Compliance Remedy. This is consistent with Paragraph As requirement that the LRSD include assessment data through December 31, 2003. Obviously, such data could not be included in an evaluation filed on or before March 15, 2003. Finally, it makes the most sense for the LRSD to expend the greatest time and resources preparing evaluations of the programs designed to improve African-American achievement. While the requirement for new, comprehensive evaluations derives from Paragraph A, some may argue that Paragraph Cs requirement that the LRSD use an outside expert to prepare evaluations of each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report applies to the new, comprehensive evaluations. The Compliance Committee hopes the District Court and the parties agree that the team approach to program evaluation set forth in proposed regulation IL-Rl renders this argument moot. Proposed Regulation IL-Rl states that the program evaluation team must include [a]n external consultant with expertise in program evaluation, the program area being evaluated, statistical analysis, and/or technical writing ... . Appendix 1, p. 4. The exact role of the external consultant may vary, depending upon the expertise required for the production of the program evaluation. Id. The Compliance Committee believes that the LRSDs practice over the last two years of using the team approach to program evaluation has produced credible evaluations. Moreover, participation of the LRSD staff on the evaluation team provides them an excellent learning experience that they do not typically receive when an evaluation is prepared entirely by an outside expert. The evaluations prepared over the last two years using the team approach are as follows\n1. 2. Dr. Steve Ross was the external consultant in the production of the Early Literacy program evaluation for 1999-2000 and 2000-01. He was asked to read a nearfinal draft and to provide feedback, which he did. His suggestions were then incorporated into the final report before it was published and disseminated. Other team members included Bonnie Lesley (associate superintendent), Patricia Price (program director), Pat Busbea (program specialist), Ed Williams (statistician), and Ken Savage (computer programmer). Dr. Julio Lopez-Ferraro is the National Science Foundation (NSF) program officer who over-sees the LRSDs implementation of the grant-funded 8Comprehensive Partnership for Mathematics and Science Achievement (CPMSA). NSF trained a team of LRSD staff to produce the mandated annual program evaluations for this initiative and then assembled an external team of practitioners and researchers who came to the LRSD each year to validate our findings and provide written feedback. The LRSD team members who participated in writing of the annual progress reports included Vanessa Cleaver (project director), Dennis Glasgow (director of mathematics and science), Bonnie Lesley (associate superintendent and co-project investigator), Virginia Johnson (CPMSA program evaluator), Ed Williams (statistician), and Ken Savage (computer programmer). 3. 4. Mr. Mark Vasquez, an attorney and former employee of the Office for Civil Rights in Dallas, has been retained by the LRSD for the past three years to provide guidance in the design and production of the English as a Second Language (ESL) program evaluation. Other team members have been Bonnie Lesley (associate superintendent), Karen Broadnax (program supervisor), Ed Williams (statistician), Ken Savage (computer programmer), and Eddie McCoy (program evaluator). Dr. Larry McNeal, a professor at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock in education administration and a private consultant in program evaluation, was retained by the LRSD to lead the team that produced the program evaluation for the Charter School. Other members of that team included Linda Watson (assistant superintendent), Krista Young (program director), and Ed Williams (statistician). Dr. McNeal wrote this report. The team approach, supported by an external expert, ensures that all areas of expertise (program, implementation, technical and evaluative) are included. No one person would have all the knowledge and skills that a team would have. As these examples show, the external expert does not always perform the same role in every project. Rather, the role changes, depending on the expertise that is required for a credible report. 5. Submit for Board approval the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSDs Final Compliance Report that have been completed, and complete, with the assistance of an outside expert, the remaining program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSDs Final Compliance Report. The following program evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report have been completed\n1. Early Literacy. A comprehensive report for 1999-2000 and 2000-01 was prepared, completed, and presented to the Board in fall 2001. An update to this report for 2001-02 was presented to the Board in June 2002, with an emphasis on 9the improved achievement of African-American students and closing the achievement gap. 2. 3. 4. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Mathematics and Science. Three years (1998-99, 1999-2000, and 2000-01) of program evaluations as required by the NSF were prepared, presented to the Board, and submitted to NSF, and NSF has responded to each evaluation. Extended Year Schools. The LRSD staff prepared, completed, and presented to the Board in the spring of 2002 an evaluation of the Extended Year Schools. Elementary Summer School. The LRSD staff prepared, completed, and provided to the School Services Division an evaluation of elementary summer school programs for 2000-01. 5 HIPPY. The HIPPY program was evaluated by the LRSD staff in July 1999. The report was prepared, completed, and submitted to the program director and the Cabinet. Charter School. This program evaluation was prepared, completed, and presented to the Board in June 2001. ESL. The Office for Civil Rights has required the LRSD to prepare a program evaluation in this area for each of the past three years: 1999-2000, 2000-01, and 2001-02. The first two of these reports have been prepared, completed, submitted to the Board, and submitted to OCR. (A third program evaluation will be completed in October when state scores arrive and will be ready by the March 15, 2003 deadline). Lyceum Scholars Program. Two separate evaluations of this alternative education school program were prepared by the LRSD staff. South-west Middle School's SEDL Program. Southwest Middle School was the recipient of a two-year technical assistance grant from the Southwest Educational Development Lab (SEDL) to build professional community. SEDL prepared a comprehensive program evaluation that included Southwest among other grant recipients outside the LRSD. The LRSD staff provided SEDL data for this evaluation. Onward to Excellence (Watson Elementary). A grant from ADE funded a partnership between Watson Elementary and the Northwest Educational Development Lab to implement a school improvement initiative. The LRSD staff provided data to Watsons principal for preparation of program evaluations. The principal submitted two annual program evaluations to ADE. 1011. 12. Collaborative Action Team (\"CAT\"). This one-year partnership with SEDL provided in 2000-01 for establishing and training a Collaborative Action Team of parent and community volunteers supported by LRSD staff to improve parent involvement. SEDL wrote a 249-page evaluation of their three-year grant-funded program, of which LRSD was included only the last year. The LRSD staff provided SEDL data for this evaluation. Vital Link. The LRSD staff prepared a program evaluation, and it was provided to the project director. A question arises as to which of these evaluations are acceptable to the Court without additional work. The first sentence of Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy provides, LRSD must use Dr. Nunnerly (sic) or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations of each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. The second sentence of Paragraph C states that the District Court will accept all program evaluations that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnerly (sic) or someone with similar qualifications. It is unclear whether an expert from outside the LRSD must have prepared the completed evaluations for them to be accepted by the District Court, or whether it is sufficient that they were prepared by someone within LRSD with similar qualifications. The District Courts findings of fact suggest that the District Court will accept only program evaluations already completed by an outside expert. The District Court noted that Dr. Lesley testified that, by the end of November 2000, it was her opinion that no one in PRE had the expertise to prepare program evaluations. Opinion, p. 153. Thus, the District Court likely concluded that the only acceptable program evaluations would be those prepared by persons outside the LRSD. Applying this standard, the Compliance Committee believes that the following evaluations are acceptable to the Court, following Board approval, without additional work: Early Literacy, Mathematics and Science, Charter School, ESL, Southwest Middle Schools SEDL Program and CAT. The remaining program evaluations identified on the bottom of page 148 of the Final Compliance Report must be completed by an outside expert. They are: Extended Year Schools, Middle School Implementation, Elementary Summer School, HIPPY, Campus Leadership Teams (CLTs), Lyceum Scholars Program, Onward to Excellence and Vital Link. The Compliance Committees proposal for completing each of these evaluations will be discussed below. In deciding how to go about completing these evaluations, the Compliance Committee focused on what makes sense to do at this time considering the goal of improving Afiican-American achievement and the limitations inherent in asking an expert to complete an evaluation. 11Extended Year Schools. This evaluation was completed by the LRSD staff. The Compliance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Middle School Implementation. A draft of this evaluation was presented to the Board in July and August 2000, but it was never completed. The Compliance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to rewrite the report and, if possible, prepare an evaluation based on the existing data. Elementary Summer School. This evaluation was completed by the LRSD staff. The Compliance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. HIPPY. This evaluation was completed by the LRSD staff. The Compliance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. CLTs. The LRSD staff conducted a survey of CLTs during 2000-01. A summary of the survey findings was presented during a CLT training session, but no formal report was ever prepared. The Compliance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to review the survey data and, if possible, prepare an evaluation based on the existing survey data. Lyceum Scholars Program. This evaluation was completed by the LRSD staff. The Compliance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Onward to Excellence. This evaluation was completed by the LRSD staff. The Compliance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Vital Link. This evaluation was completed by LRSD staff. The Compliance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. 12Action Plan Timeline The Compliance Committee proposes implementation of this Compliance Plan in accordance with the following timeline. 1. Provide copies of this proposed Compliance Plan to ODM and Joshua for their reactions. 2. Incorporate, as possible, suggested revisions from ODM and Joshua. 3. Place Compliance Plan on the agenda for Board review and approval. 4. Place 2002-03 Program Evaluation Agenda on the Boards agenda for review and approval. 5. Place on Board agenda for approval two previously presented program evaluations (early literacy, and charter school). 6. Place on Board agenda for approval the evaluations of Southwest Middle Schools SEDL program and the Collaborative Action Team (also conducted by SEDL). 7. Place on Board agenda for approval the previously presented ESL program evaluations for 1999-2000 and 2000-01, plus the new evaluation for 2001-02. Week of September 30, 2002 Week of October 7, 2002 October 10, 2002 October 24, 2002 October 24, 2002 November 2002 November 2002 13 Clay Fendley Ken James Attorneys Ken James Compliance Team Ken James Attorneys Ken James Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Linda Watson Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Karen Broadnax8. Place on Board agenda for approval the three previously presented program evaluations for the NSF-funded CPMSA program, plus the new Year 4 report for 2001-2002. 9. Issue Request for Proposals (RFPs) from available external experts to review and complete the eight remaining program evaluations listed on page 148._____________________ 10. Form a screening team to determine recommendations to the Superintendent for designating external experts to review and complete the eight remaining program evaluations listed on page 148._____________________ 11. Select and negotiate consulting contracts with designated external experts. 12. Assign appropriate staff to each external expert to provide needed information, data, access to program staff, etc. 13. Monitor the work to ensure timely completion. 14. As each paper is completed and ready for circulation, send copies to ODM and Joshua for their review and comments. December 2002 Mid-October 2002 Late October 2002 Mid-November 2002 Mid-November 2002 Mid-November 2002February 2003 December 2002February 2003 14 Bonnie Lesley Vanessa Cleaver Dennis Glasgow Bonnie Lesley Darral Paradis Ken James Compliance Team Bonnie Lesley Ken James Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley15. As each paper is completed, place on the Boards agenda the item to be reviewed and approved. 16. Write Interim Compliance Report relating to programs on page 148 to be completed. 17. Establish staff teams for each of the three programs on the Boards Program Evaluation Agenda to be completed for 2002-2003 (Elementary Literacy, Secondary Literacy, and K- 12 Mathematics/ Science). 18. Publish RFPs to identify external experts to serve on each of the two staff teams for the Boards Program Evaluation Agenda (K-12 mathematics/science external experts are provided by NSF). 19. Establish consulting contracts with the two external experts required for the Elementary Literacy and Secondary Literacy program evaluations. 20. Train each program evaluation team, including the external expert, on the requirements of the approved Compliance Plan and IL-R. December 2002February 2003 March 15, 2003 March 1, 2003 March 1,2003 Late March 2003 May 2003 15 Ken James Bonnie Lesley Attorneys Compliance Committee Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Darral Paradis Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley21. Monitor the completion of the work on all three program evaluations required in the Boards Program Evaluation Agenda. 22. Send copies of the completed Elementary Literacy program evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information. 23. Complete the evaluation of the Elementary Literacy program and place on the Boards agenda for approval. 24. Send copies of the Secondary Literacy program evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information. 25. Complete the evaluation of the Secondary Literacy program and place on the Boards agenda for approval. 26. Send copies of the completed CPMSA program evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information. 27. Complete the five-year evaluation of the CPMSA project (science and mathematics) and place on the Boards agenda for approval. 28. Write Section 2.7.1 Final Compliance Report for federal court and file with Court. MayOctober 2003 With October 2003 Board agenda packet October board meeting, 2003 With November 2003 Board agenda packets November board meeting, 2003 With December 2003 Board agenda packet December board meeting, 2003 March 15, 2004 16 Bonnie Lesley Ken James Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Pat Price Ken James Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Pat Price Ken Janies Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Vanessa Cleaver Dennis Glasgow Ken James Attorneys Compliance TeamAppendix 1 Proposed IL-RlLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IL-R1 PROGRAM EVALUATION AGENDA Purpose The purpose of these regulations is to provide guidance to the staff involved in the evaluation of programs required in the Boards Program Evaluation Agenda. They do not necessarily apply to grant-funded programs if the funding source requires other procedures and provides funding for a required evaluation. Criteria for Program Evaluations Policy IL specifies that the evaluations of programs approved in its Board- approved Program Evaluation Agenda shall be conducted according to the standards developed by the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (See Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, James R. Sanders, Chair (1994). The Program Evaluation Standards, Edition: How to Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.) They are as follows: Utility Standards The utility standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will serve the information needs of intended users. These standards are as follows\nStakeholder identification. People involved in or affected by the evaluation should be identified so that their needs can be addressed. Evaluator credibility. The people conducting the evaluation should be both trustworthy and competent to perform the evaluation so that the evaluation findings achieve maximum credibility and acceptance. Information scope and sequence. Information collected should be broadly selected to address pertinent questions about the program and should be responsive to the needs and interests of clients and other specified stakeholders. Values identification. The perspectives, procedures, and rationale used to interpret the findings should be described carefully so that the bases for value judgements are clear. Report clarity. Evaluation reports should describe clearly the program being evaluated, including its context and the purposes, procedures, and findings of the evaluation, so that essential information is provided and understood easily. 1Report timeliness and dissemination. Significant interim findings and evaluation reports should be disseminated to intended users so that they can be used in a timely fashion. Evaluation impact. Evaluations should be planned, conducted, and reported in ways that encourage follow-through by stakeholders, so that the likelihood that the evaluation will be used is increased. Feasibility Standards Feasibility standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will be realistic, prudent, diplomatic, and frugal. Practical procedures. Evaluation procedures should be practical so that the disruption is kept to a minimum while needed information is obtained. Political viability. The evaluation should be planned and conducted with anticipation of the different positions of various interest groups so that their cooperation may be obtained, and so that possible attempts by any of these groups to curtail evaluation operations or to vias or misapply the results can be averted or counteracted. Cost-effectiveness. The evaluation should be efficient and produce information of sufficient value so that the resources expended can be justified. Propriety Standards The propriety standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will be conducted legally, ethically, and with due regard for the welfare of those involved in the evaluation, as well as those affected by its results. Service orientation. Evaluations should be designed to assist organizations to address and effectively serve the needs of the full range of targeted participants. Formal agreements. Obligations of the formal parties to an evaluation (what is to be done, how, by whom, and when) should be agreed to in writing so that these parties are obligated to adhere to all conditions of the agreement or to formally renegotiate it. Rights of human subjects. Evaluations should respect human dignity and worth in their interactions with other people associated with an evaluation so that participants are not threatened or harmed. Complete and fair assessments. The evaluation should be complete and fair in its examination and recording of strengths and weaknesses of the program being evaluated so that strengths can be built upon and problem areas addressed. Disclosure of findings. The formal parties to an evaluation should ensure that the full set of evaluation findings, along with pertinent limitations, are made accessible to the people affected by the 2evaluation, as well as any others with expressed legal rights to receive the results. Conflict of interest. Conflict of interest should be dealt with openly and honestly so that it does not compromise the evaluation processes and results. Fiscal responsibility. The evaluators allocation and expenditure of resources should reflect sound accountability procedures and be prudent and ethically responsible so that expenditures are accounted for and appropriate. Accuracy Standards Accuracy standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will reveal and convey technically adequate information about the features that determine the worth of merit of the program being evaluated. Program documentation. The program being evaluated should be described and documented clearly and accurately so that it programs is identified clearly. Context analysis. The context in which the program exists should be examined in enough detail so that its likely influences on the program can be identified. Described purposes and procedures. The purposes and procedure of the evaluation should be monitored and described in enough detail so that they can be identified and assessed. Defensible information sources. The sources of information used in a program evaluation should be described in enough detail so that the adequacy of the information can be assessed. Valid information. The information-gathering procedures should be chosen or developed and then implemented in a manner that will ensure that the interpretation arrived at is valid for the intended use. Reliable information. The information-gathering procedures should be chosen or developed and then implemented in a manner that will ensure that the information obtained is sufficiently reliable for the intended use. Systematic information. The information collected, processed, and reported in an evaluation should be review systematically so that the evaluation questions are answered effectively. Analysis of quantitative information. Quantitative information in an evaluation should be analyzed appropriately and systematically so that the evaluation questions are answered effectively. Analysis of qualitative information. Qualitative information in an evaluation should be analyzed appropriately and systematically so that the evaluation questions are answered effectively. Justified conclusions. The conclusions reached in an evaluation should be justified explicitly so that stakeholders can assess them. 3Impartial reporting. Reporting procedures should guard against distortion caused by personal feelings and biases of any party so the evaluation reports reflect the evaluation findings fairly. Metaevaiuation. The evaluation itself should be evaluated formatively and summartively against these and other pertinent standards so that its conduct is appropriately guided, and on completion, stakeholders can closely examine its strengths and weaknesses. Program Evaluation Procedures The following procedures are established for the evaluation of programs approved by the Board of Education in its annual Program Evaluation Agenda: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The Division of Instruction shall recommend to the Superintendent annually, before the budget for the coming year is proposed, the curriculum/instruction programs for comprehensive program evaluation. The recommendation shall include a proposed budget, a description of other required resources, and an action plan for the completion of the reports. Criteria for the proposed agenda are as follows: A. Can the results of the evaluation influence decisions about the program? B. Can the evaluation be done in time to be useful? C. Is the program significant enough to merit evaluation? (See Joseph S. Wholey, Harry P. Hatry, and Kathryn Newcomer (1994). Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass Publishers. 5-7.) The Superintendent shall recommend to the Board of Education for approval the proposed Program Evaluation Agenda^with anticipated costs and an action plan for completion. For each curriculum/instruction program to be evaluated as per the Program Evaluation Agena, the Associate Superintendent for Instruction shall establish a staff team with a designated leader to assume responsibility for thp production of the report according to the timelines established in the action plan approved by the Board of Education. Each team shall include, at a minimum, one or more specialists in the curriculum/instruction program to be evaluated, a statistician, a programmer to assist in data retrieval and disaggregation, and a technical writer. If additional expertise is required, then other staff may be added as necessary. An external consultant with expertise in program evaluation, the program area being evaluated, statistical analysis, and/or technical writing shall be retained 4as a member of the team. The role of the external consultant may vary, depending upon the expertise required for the production of the program evaluation. 6. The team leader shall establish a calendar of regularly scheduled meetings for the production of the program evaluation. The first meetings will be devoted to the following tasks: A. B. C. D. E. F. G. Provide any necessary training on program evaluation that may be required for novice members of the team, including a review of the Boards policy IL and all of the required criteria and procedures in these regulations, IL-R. Assess the expertise of each team member and make recommendations to the Associate Superintendent for Instruction related to any additional assistance that may be required. Write a clear description of the curriculum/instruction program that is to be evaluated, with information about the schedule of its implementation. Agree on any necessary research questions that need to be established in addition to the question, Has this curriculum/instruction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students? (See Policy IL, 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, and Judge Wilsons Compliance Remedy.) Generate a list of the data required to answer each research question, and assign responsibility for its collection and production. All available and relevant student performance data must be included. (See Judge Wilsons Compliance Remedy.) Decide who will be the chief writer of the program evaluation. Plan ways to provide regular progress reports (e.g., dissemination of meeting minutes, written progress reports, oral reports to the Superintendents Cabinet and/or Compliance Team) to stakeholders, including the Associate Superintendent for Instruction, the Superintendent of Schools, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (until Unitary Status is achieved), and the Joshua Intervenors (until Unitary Status is achieved). (See Joellen Killion (2002). Assessing Impact: Evaluating Staff Development. Oxford, OH. National Staff Development Council (NSDC)\nRobby Champion (Fall 2002). Map Out Evaluation Goals. Journal of Staff Development. 78-79\n5Thomas R. Guskey (2000). Evaluating Professional Development. Thousand Oaks. CA: Convin Press\nBlaine R. Worthen, James R. Sanders, and Jody L. Fitzpatrick (1997). Participant-Oriented Evaluated Approaches. Program Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines\n153-169\nBeverly A. Parsons (2002). Evaluative Inquiry: Using Evaluation to Promote Student Success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press\nand Joseph S. Wholey, Harry P. Hatry, and Kathryn E. Newcomer (1994). Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.) 7. 8. 9. Subsequent meetings of the program evaluation team are required for the following tasks: to monitor the completion of assignments\nto collaborate in the interpretation and analysis of data\nto pose any necessary new questions to be answered\nto review drafts and provide feedback to the writer\nto formulate recommendations, as required, for program improvement, especially to decide if a recommendation is required to modify or abandon the program if the findings reveal that the program is not being successful for the improvement of African- American achievement\nto assist in final proofreading\nand to write a brief executive summary, highlighting the program evaluation findings and recommendations. A near-final copy of the program evaluation must be submitted to the Associate Superintendent for Instruction at least one month before the deadline for placing the report on the Boards agenda for review and approval. This time is required for final approval by staff, for final editing to ensure accuracy, and for submission to the Superintendent. When the program evaluation is approved for submission to the Board of Education for review and approval, copies of the Executive Summary and complete report must be made for them, for members of the Cabinet, for ODM (until Unitary Status is achieved), and for the Joshua Intervenors (until Unitary Status is achieved). 10. The program evaluation team shall plan its presentation to the Board of Education on the findings and recommendations. 611 .The Associate Superintendent for Instruction shall prepare the cover memorandum to the Board of Education, including all the required background information (see Judge Wilsons Compliance Remedy): A. If program modifications are suggested, the steps that the staff members have taken or will take to implement those modifications. If abandonment of the program is recommended, the steps that will be taken to replace the program with another with more potential for the improvement and remediation of African-American students. (See Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and Judge Wilsons Compliance Remedy.) B. Names of the administrators who were involved in the program evaluation. C. Name and qualifications of the external expert who served on the evaluation team. D. Grade-level descriptions of the teachers who were involved in the assessment process (e.g., all fourth-grade math teachers, all eighth grade English teachers, etc.). 10. When the program evaluation is approved by the Board of Education, the team must arrange to have the Executive Summary and the full report copied and design a plan for communicating the program evaluation findings and recommendations to other stakeholders. This plan must then be submitted to the Associate Superintendent for approval. 11. Each program evaluation team shall meet with the Associate Superintendent for Instruction after the completion of its work to evaluate the processes and product and to make recommendations for future program evaluations. (See u Joellen Killion (2002). Evaluate the Evaluation. Assessing Impact: Evaluating Staff Development. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council. 46, 123-124.) 7Appendix 2 Proposed IL-R2LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IL-R2 INFORMAL PROGRAM EVALUATION Introduction The purpose of this regulation is to ensure that a written record exists explaining a decision to significantly modify an academic program. It is not the intent of this regulation to require a formal program evaluation before every significant program modification. Definitions Academic Program means one of the core curriculum programs of English/Language Arts, Mathematics, Science or Social Studies. Significantly modify means a material change in the content or delivery of an academic program implemented throughout the entire District. Written Record A written record must be prepared and maintained explaining a decision to significantly modify an academic program. The written record required by this regulation must include the following information: (a) the written criteria used to evaluate the program\n(b) a summary of the student assessment data or other data on which the decision was based\nand (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process (e.g., all fourth grade math teachers\nall eighth grade English teachers, etc.). 1Appendix 3 Robby Champion, Map Out Evaluation Goals, Journal for Staff Development, Fall 2002'l a k i n g ROBBY CHAMPION Map out evaluation goals A master plan can guide you down the rocky path of evaluation when you launch a major professional development evaluation, regardless of the projects scope, you may quickly find yourself on a with twists and unexpected turns. slippery, often rocky road. Before venturing too far and becoming disillusioned about program evaluation, create a master plan. While it requires an upfront investment of time and may delay starting, it quickly becomes an invaluable road map that helps you avoid delays and detours along the way. Developing an evaluation master plan is most useful when you are launching a major, summative program evaluation. A summative evaluation is done at major junctures in a programs life cycle and emphasizes documenting impact. Information from summative evaluations is used to make important decisions about the initiative, such as whether to continue, alter, expand, downsize, or eliminate it. A formative evaluation, on the other hand, means monitoring and collecting data, often informally and spontaneously, throughout program implementation. Formative evaluation helps show implementers where to make adjustments so a program can eventually achieve significant results. A thoughtfully prepared master plan for a major evaluation effort would:  Focus the evaluation effort and help implementers avoid being sidetracked by leadership changes and new opinions\n Create a realistic timeline and work plan that  Robby Champion is president of Champion Training \u0026amp; Consulting. You can contact her at Champion Ranch at Trumbell Canyon, Mora, NM 87732, (505) 387-2016, fax (505) 387-5581, e-mail\nRobbychampion@aol.com. 78 provides needed momentum for the work\n Be a key informational document to provide an overview and answer specific questions throughout the process\n Help recruit people to assist with the project on the myriad evaluation tasks\n Give the message that the evaluation will be open and not secretive. Whether your evaluation must be completed within a few months or wiU extend for several years, think through four phases of work before starting. PHASE I: ORGANIZE THE PROCESS 1. Form a steering committee, including any needed outside expertise. 2. Learn more about program evaluation together. 3. Write a clear description of each program to be evaluated. 4. Agree on the primary purpose of the evaluation. .5. Plan how you will keep everyone informed along the way. Steering committees, charged specifically . with program evaluation, are important to focus attention and maintain the energy and momentum needed for the evaluation. They also help build a spirit of collaboration and open inquiry. And they keep the evaluation on track when other priorities ntight push the effort aside. Provide steering committee members with the tools to succeed. Members need not be evalu- National Staff Development Council JSD Fall 2002 t a k I J, g m e a 5 JI re ! i i i I I ! i ation experts, but they do need information, support, and guidance to make informed decisions. They need background material to leam about program evaluation and examples of good evaluation studies. Finally, they need access to experts on professional development, measurement, and the content areas of the training programs. Before launching any evaluation effort, have a written description of each program to be evaluated. You would be amazed at the number of people who do not have a clear idea of what you mean by the New TeacherJhduction Program or the Early Literacy Initiative since so many different initiatives are being undertaken simultaneously around the school or district PHASE II: DESIGN THE EVALUATION 1. Generate questions to guide the evaluation. 2. Generate potential data sources/ instruments to address the questions. 3. Using a matrix to provide a birds-eye view, agree on the most important questions and the best data sources. 4. Decide if collecting data from a sample group is warranted to make the evaluation manageable. 5. Determine the evaluation approach that makes sense\nquantitative vs. qualitative/naturalistic. 6. Gather or create the instruments for data collection. 7. Determine a realistic schedule for collecting data. 8. Create a system for collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data. Decisions made in Phase n are critical. They determine the technical quality of your evaluation. In the questions you select, you determine what to examine and what to ignore. When you finish with the design phase, your program evaluation win be shaped to use a quantitative or a , qualitative model  or a mixmre of the two. In the design phase, you make other major decisions, such as whether to use a sample group. You also decide whether to do an in-depth case study, whether to ON THE WEB. See an example of a matrix to help guide evaluations at: www.nsdc.org/library/jsd/ chainpion234.html. survey the whole population, whether to use examples of smdent work instead of official documents such as student grades or standardized test scores, or whether to judge adult learners understanding of the training content with performance tasks during training or by exit tests, classroom observations, or smdent feedback. If the programs to be evaluated already have stated indicators of longterm impact, generating appropriate evaluation questions is much simpler than when programs have only vague, lofty goals. The steering committee may drift into the realm of program planning as you encounter hurdles like fuzzy program outcomes. To avoid making misinformed evaluation design decisions, involve program leaders in your discussions. Developing or gathering instruments and then collecting the data are the most expensive steps in any evaluation. Think strategically about which data to collect, from whom to collect it or where to find it, and the best time to collect it. Your organization may already be collecting data for another purpose that now can be used for program evaluation. Some public records, such as smdent attendance, may be valuable if, for example, 20% increase in smdent attendance at aU grade levels is one of your programs indicators of impact. PHASE 111: PREPARE TO REPORT 1. Determine which audiences will want to know the results. 2. Consider several forums and formats to disseminate the results. 3. Plan reports, presentations, photo displays, graphs, charts, etc. Remember that your job is to make the evaluation results useful to your organization, so consider a range of ways to provide information to various groups. Consider briefs in the school or district newsletter, a handout updating staff about the schedule for data collection, five- minute progress updates in faculty meetings, bulleted statements on your web site, a digital picture album of the programs results in classrooms with photos of students, and hallway displays of student work. If your final report is a formal document complete with examples of your data collection instruments, consider writing an executive summary of five pages or less to help,readers get the essential information. PHASE IV: CREATE THE WORK PLAN 1. List all tasks to be completed for the whole evaluation., 2. Create a realistic timeline. 3. Assign work. 4. Distribute the master plan. You will have to be creative to accomphsh all the evaluation tasks. In education, we rarely have the luxury of contracting outsiders for the entire project Enlist steering committee members, partners, graduate students from the local university, and other talented critical friends to get the work done. One caution: For formal or summa- tive evaluations to be credible, avoid using insiders such as the program designers or implementers (coaches, mentors, trainers, or facilitators) to perform critical evaluation tasks that call for objectivity and distance. And be sure to get ongoing, high-quality techmeal expertise for the critical technical analysis. A CATALYST FOR REFLECTION Completing a major program evaluation usually serves as the catalyst for serious reflection on the current designs, poheies, and practices of your professional development programs  their goals, content, processes, and contexts. In fact, revelations are often so powerful that they bring about the realization that major changes are needed if significant results are really expected from professional development. People frequently conclude that designing the evaluation should be the first step in the program planning process, rather than an afterthought during implementation. E JSD Fall 2002 National Staff Development Council 79I 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 - 376-2147 October 10, 2002 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^wbeU.net Mr, Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District v. PCSSD, et al. Case No. 4:82CV00866 Dear Chris: Plan. This refers to your letter of October 4, 2002, providing LRSDs proposed Compliance The courts remedy and the general subject matter are too complex for us to provide all comments and objections we may ultimately have before todays Board meeting. We do note the following: 1. More consideration is needed of the programs to be identified as implementation pursuant to Section 2.7 ..., which are to be subjected to a comprehensive program evaluation. .. Your document at page 7 identifies three areas. We note the absence of specific reference and detail regarding interventions / scaffolding ~ areas of vital importance given the achievement patterns of Afiican American students. We note also that the LRSD compliance report cited many more programs as designed to fulfill Section 2.7. 2. In a discussion prior to his testimony in the hearing Judge Wilson, we understood Dr. Ross to indicate that the existing evaluation of the Pre-K - 2 literary program was not adequate. The notation at page 4 of your document of the changed use of the Observation Survey and the DRA relates to part of the concerns he expressed. This undermines the LRSD argument (page 11) that the existing evaluation, upon Board approval, will satisfy a part of the courts remedy. 3. The LRSD discussion about satisfying the courts order regarding the evaluations mentioned at page 148 of the compliance report does not seem to take account of the material provided, which describes an adequate evaluation. 4. We question the period for implementation of a remedy which the court has identified and, therefore, the LRSD schedule. Once again, these comments should not be taken to be the full range of concerns, which Joshua may ultimately have about the courts remedy and the Compliance Plan. Nor do we intend to waive our concerns about the court setting forth a remedy, without first hearing from the parties and the ODM with regard to the courts views on an appropriate remedy. irtcerely, ohn W. Walker JWW:js cc: Ms. Ann Marshall All Counsel of RecordOCT.24.2002 8:06fiM JOHN W WALKER P A NO.963 P.2 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS John W. Volker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (601) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 October 23, 2002 or COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, PjL EONNAJ.McKE.NEY 8210 HbNDEKSON SQaD Litoe Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone\n(501) 372-3425  Pax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchemyd^awbollnet Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 W, Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re\nLRSD V, PCSSD Dear Chris: This letter sets forth additional comments of the Joshua Intervenors concerning the LRSD Compliance Plan. We are offering these comments, although we are unable to discern that the comments we offered earlier were given consideration. 1. In using historical student assignment results, attention should be given to the quality of the data. In the past, LRSD has used results on the RA and the Observation Survey in ways not consistent with the purposes of those instruments. In addition, because teachers provided scores for their own students, the past use made of the data was in conflict with the districts recognition in the newly enacted Regulation IL-Rl that Conflict of Interest must be avoided. 2. We are concerned about the manner in which the regulation describes the team process for preparing evaluations, again in the context of conflict of interest. In order to insure that conflict of interest is avoided, the external consultant needs to write the report and control the context of the analysis. Paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 of the Program Evaluation Procedures do not guarantee that the external expert will have these roles. Of course, if reports were prepared in the manner which we describe, there would be no bar to LRSD staff preparing comments to the Board with a differing interpretation of the evaluation results. 3. We continue to be concerned about the global, general manner in which the content of planned evaluations is described (page 7 of the document, first paragraph). For example, the Board has adopted a policy and two regulations dealing with remediation for students whose performanof: is below par. Studying the actual implementation of these standards (in all or a representative sample of schools) is of vital importance to the Intervenor class because class members are so much more likely than other students to exhibit unsatisfactory performance on the Benchmark and Stanford Achievement Tests. A satisfactory description by the School Board of the evaluations which it : EXHIBIT 10/24/2002 THU 09:03 [TX/RX NO 8580] 002' OCT. 24.2002 8:07AM JOHN W WALKER P A NO.963 P.3 Page Two October 23, 2002 requires the staff to undertake should make clear that the actual implementation of remediation activities in district schools is to receive careful consideration. This is surely an important contextual factor (see Accuracy Standards, para. 2). 4. We understand from the Plan that the LRSD plans evaluations of programs deemed to be particularly directed to achievement of Afiican American students for the indefinite future, not simply for the period necessary to satisfy the court. We would like to receive the Boards assurance that this is the case. We would appreciate your providing this letter to the Superintendent and the members of the school board. . Walker Sincere^, JWW:Ip All Counsel Ms. Ann Marshall Judge Thomas Ray 10/24/2002 THU 09:03 [TX/RX NO 8580] @003 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVED PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. LET AL MAY 2 c 2004 DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF FILING DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THE COURTS ORDER FILED MAY 12. 2004 Plaintiff Little Rock School District (LRSD) for its Notice of Filing states: 1. In response to the Courts Order filed May 12, 2004, attached is a Glossary of Acronyms and Educational Terms. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376\n^CL14---------- BYk Christopher Hell Page 1 of 2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on May 24, 2004: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark T. Burnette Attorney at Law 1010 W. 3^ Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02173 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 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. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 istopher Heller Page 2 of 2 IGLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND EDUCATIONAL TERMS Below are identifications and/or definitions of acronyms and other educational terms that appear in exhibits. While most of the acronyms and terms are generically defined and equally applicable to most school districts in Arkansas, many are defined specifically in relation to the Little Rock School District. ACSIP (Arkansas Comprehensive School Reform Improvement Plan)  Plan required by State which specifically sets steps for school improvement AFRAMER (African-American) ALP (Alternative Language Program) - Another name for ESL ALT (Achievement Level Tests) - Tests the LRSD developed, with the assistance of a commercial testing firm, for the purpose of measuring student achievement growth within a school year. The test items were selected from a menu in the test firm's item bank, so all the questions had been used numerous times in schools across the country. Students in grades 3-11 took these tests in the fall and spring of each year. The LRSD discontinued the ALTs in September 2002, ANCOVA (Analysis of Covariance) ANOVA (Analysis of variance) - Statistical test with one outcome AP (Advanced Placement) - High-level courses with curriculum developed by College Board which allows students to test for earned college-level credit while in high school. AR (Accelerated Reader) - A program based on the premise that students become more motivated to read if they are tested on the content of the books they have read and are rewarded for correct answers. Students read books at predetermined levels of difficulty, individually take a test on a computer, and receive some form of reward when they score well. AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) - Amount of improvement in proficiency required each year to reach total proficiency under NCLB (2013). Benchmark Examination - One of the criterion-referenced examinations implemented by the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) for all Arkansas public schools in the 4th, 6th, Sth, and 11th grades and in selected high school courses. The tests are based on the state's curriculum as outlined in the curriculum frameworks. Test results are categorized as Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. BL (Balanced Literacy) - An approach to literacy instruction that focuses on providing instruction that addresses students individual strengths and needs through whole group and flexible grouping to enhance student development in all of the language arts areasreading, writing, spelling, listening, and speaking.CAP (Concepts about Print)  One of the assessments included in the Observation Survey Assessment which assesses childrens knowledge of book concepts. CAT (Collaborative Action Team)  A process designed to increase stakeholders involvement in schools. CBL (Calculator-based Laboratories)  Probes used to collect data for classrooms. CLT (Campus Leadership Teams)  A term used to refer to school-based leadership committees CMP (Connected Mathematics Project) - Mathematics curriculum resource used in Grades 6- 8 in Little Rock School District CREP (Center for Research in Educational Policy) - This is an organization based at the University of Memphis that conducts program evaluations for educational organizations. Dr. Steve Ross and Dr. John Nunnery are two researchers for CREP. CRT (Criterion Referenced Tests) - Tests that LRSD curriculum specialists, teachers, and other staff developed using the state's curriculum frameworks and the district's curriculum to guide item development. CSR (Comprehensive School Reform) - A whole school reform model DI (Direct Instruction) - A reading program that uses very explicit instructional language and follows a highly prescriptive program of instruction that is implemented according to a predetermined scope and sequence of skills DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills) - This is a system utilizing a variety of assessments to monitor a childs progress in developing specific literacy skills which have predictive value for future reading achievement. The assessments include, but are not limited to, letter identification, phoneme segmentation, and oral reading fluency. DRA (Developmental Reading Assessment) - The second of two assessments given to LRSD students in grades K-2. This assessment consists of stories that increase in difficulty as the child's reading ability increases. Students are evaluated on a variety of reading skills, including comprehension. DSA (Developmental Spelling Assessment) - An assessment to monitor student progress along a spelling developmental continuum ELLA (Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas)  A statewide three-year staff development process designed to assist teachers in grades K-2 in implementing instructional techniques that support emergent learners. ELLA helps enhance teachers' understanding of how students learn to read and encourages them to use a balanced literacy approach in the classroom. EOC (End-of-course exam) - State-developed criterion-referenced tests implemented in Arkansas schools as part of the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program (AT AAP). Currently, end-of-course exams are administered only in Algebra I and geometry. EXPLORE - An American College Testing (ACT) program designed to help Sth and 9th graders examine a broad range of options for their future. EXPLORE helps prepare students for their high school course work as well as their post-high school choices. ESL (English as a Second Language) - Refers to students for whom English is not their native language EYE (Extended Year Education) - Applies to schools with atypical school calendars without a long summer break. EEPE (Fluent English Proficient Exited) - students who are released from ESL program due to proficiency in English GT (Gifted and Talented) HBE (Home-based Educators) - employees of the Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) Program HIPPY (Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters) - A parent-involvement readiness program for young children The program, which has been operating in the United States since 1984, offers home-based early childhood education for three-year-old children, working with their parent(s) as their first teacher. The HIPPY program provides parents with carefully developed materials, curriculum, and books designed to strengthen their children's early literacy skills and their social, emotional, and physical development. HLM (Hierarchical Linear Model) HSCP (Home, School, and Community Partnership) - A precursor to the Collaborative Action Team (CAT) HSTW (High Schools That Work) - A school-wide reform model for high schools that is based on the key practices of successful high schools IRC (Instructional Resource Center) - Offices of curriculum staff for LRSD. ITBS (Iowa Test of Basic Skills) - Norm-referenced assessment currently used by LRSD replacing Stanford Achievement TestJR TEAMS (Joint Recruiting and Teaching for Effecting Aspiring Minorities in Science) - A two week multidisciplinary pre-college science and engineering program offered through a partnership with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock aimed at increasing the number of minority students pursuing degrees in science and engineerinj LEP (Limited English Proficient) - Identifies students not proficient in English LPAC (Language Proficiency Assessment Committee) LPTQ - Literacy Program Teacher Questionnaire MANOVA (Multiple Analysis of Variance) - Statistical tests with multiple outcomes MSS - (Middle School Survey) - A survey completed by teachers and students on the implementation of the middle school model. NALMS (Not Assessed Language Minority Students) NCE (Normal Curve Equivalent) - A type of standard score, NCE scores are normalized standard scores on an equal interval scale from 1 to 99, with a mean of 50. The NCE was developed by RMC Research Corporation in 1976 to measure the effectiveness of the Title I Program across the United States. An NCE gain of 0 means that the Title I Program produced only an average gain or the expected gain if there was no Title I Program. (Students must answer more items correctly on the posttest than on the pretest in order to maintain the same NCE.) All NCE gains greater than 0 are considered positive. NCLB (No Child Left Behind) - Federal legislature requiring vast assessment and increased standards for American public schools NCTM (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics)  An organization of math teachers and specialists that has provided the standards for K-12 mathematics NPR (National Percentile Rank) - National percentile ranks indicate the relative standing of a student in comparison with other students in the same grade in the norm (reference) groups (in this case, the nation) who took the test at a comparable time. Percentile ranks range from a low of 1 to a high of 99, with 50 denoting average performance for the grade. The percentile rank corresponding to a given score indicates the percentage of students in the same grade in the norm group obtaining scores equal to or less than that score. For example, a student earning a percentile rank of 62 achieved a score that was equal to or better than the scores earned by 62% of the students in the national sample. NSES (National Science Education Standards) - The standards established for K-12 science educationNSF (National Science Foundation) - A government entity created in 1950 to promote excellence in science and to fund research. The LRSD received funds from NSF through a multiyear grant to improve mathematics and science instruction and achievement, naming the program Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement (CPMSA). Grant funding ended August 31,2003.' NWEA (Northwest Evaluation Association) - A company that developed the Achievement Level Tests OTE (Onward to Excellence)  A whole school restructuring model PD (Professional Development) - Term used to describe the training provided to teachers to enhance their instructional or classroom management skills. PHLOTE (Primary Home Language other than English) PLAN - An American College Testing (ACT) guidance resource for 10th graders. PLAN helps students measure their current academic development, explore career or training options, and make plans for the remaining years of high school and post-graduation years. As a pre-ACT test, PLAN is a good predictor of success on the ACT. Typically, PLAN is administered in the fall of the sophomore year. PRE (Planning, Research, and Evaluation) - A department of the Little Rock School District Pre-AP (Pre-Advanced Placement) - Courses designed for middle school and high school to prepare students for success in Advanced Placement level courses. Pre-K-3 (Pre-kindergarten through 3^^ Grade) RIT (Rausch Unit) - a type of scaled score. RR (Reading Recovery) - An intensive early-intervention literacy program developed in New Zealand and used in this country for many years. The program is based on helping children with poor reading readiness skills develop the skills common to proficient readers. SAIP (Student Academic Improvement Plan) - A personalized plan required by State for lower-achieving students on ACTAAP Benchmark tests Includes both areas of deficiencies and plans for remediation. SAT 9 (Stanford Achievement Test, 9tb Edition) - A general education test used widely across the United States. It compares a student's performance on the test to a representative national norm group of students. For many years, the publisher of SAT-9 has had a contract with the ADE to provide tests to all students in the state's public schools in grades five, seven, and ten. The results are widely reported for every school district in the state, and each district receives data in varying formats to allow analysis of student performance by school, class, gender, race, or wealth.(Beginning in the 2003-04 school year, the state will require a similar nationally-normed test, the Iowa Tests, rather than the SAT.) SEDL (Southwest Educational Development Laboratory) - A private, not-for-profit education research and development corporation based in Austin, Texas. SEDL works with educators, parents, community members, and policymakers in the southwestern states to develop and implement effective strategies to address pressing educational problems. SEM (Science, Engineering, and Mathematics) SFA (Success for All) - A school-based achievement-oriented program for disadvantaged students in pre-K through grade five. The program is designed to prevent or intervene in the development of learning problems in the early years by effectively organizing instructional and family support resources within the regular classroom. Specifically, the goal of Success for All is to ensure that virtually every student in a high-poverty school will finish the 3rd grade with grade-level reading skills. SLET (Secondary Literacy Evaluation Team) SMART (Summer Mathematics Advanced Readiness Training) - This is a two-week halfday summer program for rising 8* and 9* grade students who will be enrolled in Algebra I during the upcoming school year. SMART provides opportunity for students to gain the knowledge, skills, and confidence needed to succeed in Algebra I. SpEd - Special Education SREB (Southern Regional Educational Board) - A private, not-for-profit education research and development corporation based in Atlanta, GA SREB works with schools, educators and policymakers in the southern states to develop and implement effective strategies to address pressing educational problems. One school-wide reform model, developed and sustained by SREB, is High School That Work (HSTW). SS (Scaled Score) - A type of standard score. Scaled score is calculated based on the difficulty of the questions and the number of correct responses. Scaled scores are useful for comparing student performance over time and across grades. All norm referenced scores are derived from the Scaled Score. Standard Score - Standard scores are a universally understood score system. Standard scores are used to place raw scores in context. For example, a raw score on a test doesnt mean much because it isn't compared to anyone or not compared to any scale. Standard scores offer two advantages to the student over conventional II. raw scores. It  standard scores take into account the relative difficulties of various exams and assignments  standard scores make it possible to measure improvementTAP (Teacher Advancement Program) - A strategy to attract, retain, motivate, and develop talented people to the teaching profession by rewarding good teachers with higher salaries. THRIVE - (Project THRIVE, a follow-up component to SMART) - This is a Saturday academy for students who are enrolled in Algebra I. Students participate in ten (10) Saturday sessions during the school year. Two primary goals of Project THRIVE are 1) to strengthen mathematical skills required to be successful in Algebra I, and 2) to prepare students for the State End-of-Course examination in Algebra I. URM (Underrepresented Minority Populations) - Includes American Indian/Alaskan Native, Black or African-American, and Hispanic or Latino. VOC - (Writing vocabulary) - One of the assessments included in the Observation Survey Assessment which WRAT (Wide Range Achievement Test) Z-scores - A test score that is converted to a common scale wherein scores from sets of data with different units can be compared.IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 7Z//V LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. RECZiVED DEFENDANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. Jl/N - 9 200^ INTERVENORS OFFICE OF INTERVENORS 07 The Joshua Intervenors' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Concerning the LRSD's Implementation of the Section 2.7.1 Compliance Remedy On September 13, 2002, this court held that the LRSD had failed to substantially comply with Section 2.7.1 of the agreed upon desegregation and education plan. [Mem. Opin. at 150-60] Accordingly, the court set forth a Compliance Remedy. II [Id. at n 170-72] This court's September 2002 opinion identified the purpose of Section 2.7.1, the importance of substantial compliance with its terms. and the capacity which the LRSD must demonstrate as one element of its burden to justify the termination of the court's supervision. This court wrote: . . . . I find that the purpose of Sec. 2.7.1 was to make sure that the programs under Sec. 2.7 actually worked to improve the academic achievement of Af rican-american students. further find that LRSD's 2.7.1 was crucial to its commitment substantial compliance with Sec. to improve the academic I 1achievement of African-American students\nfor, without performing a rigorous annual assessment of each of the many dozens of programs implemented under Sec. 2.7, it would be impossible to determine which programs were working and should be continued and which programs were not working and should be discontinued, modified, emphasis in original] replaced with new programs [at 150\nsupervision and monitoring conclude that the court should continue of LRSD's compliance with this crucially important section of the Revised Plan in order to ensure that LRSD has in place an effective assessment program that will allow it to identify and improve those programs that are most effective in remediating the academic achievement of African American students, [at 168] I These elements of the court's opinion help to frame the issues presented by the Joshua Intervenor's opposition to the LRSD effort to be released from court supervision, heard by the court on June 14-15, 2004. Based upon the record, the court enters the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. 1 I. Findings of Fact A. The Lack of Capacity of the LRSD to Perform the Requisite Assessments and Evaluations (1.) Based upon the facts set forth in paragraphs 2 through 26, the court finds that the LRSD has failed to TI [demonstrate] that a program assessment procedure is in place that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented under Section 2.7 in improving the academic achievement of African-American students\n. J! [\"Compliance Remedy, TI Mem. Opin. at 170\nsee also id. at 168] [Haney, Hunter, Jones, Marshall testimony] 1 LRSD and Joshua Intervenors' exhibits are cited LRX at and JX at names. --, respectively. Witnesses are cited by their last 2The Lack of Adequate Staff (2.) In its ruling of September 13, 2002, this court cited the recognition of the school board and upper echelon administrators that the LRSD had been without the capacity to prepare what the court termed in-depth and analytic program evaluations.  [Mem. Opin. at 15 6\nsee id. at 153 (Dr. Lesley)\nat 156-57 (school board)\nat 157 (Superintendent Carnine)]\nat 159 (Dr. Lesley). (3.) The LRSD Compliance Plan was heavily dependent on actions by former Associate Superintendent Bonnie Lesley. n [LRX 3 (\"Action Plan Timeline at 15-16)] Doctor Lesley left the district for employment out-of-state on March 14, 2003. [JX 11 at 5] The slow pace of filling her position played substantial part in continuing the lack of adequate staffing for the assessment \\ evaluation task. [Id. (ODM notes filling of position on an interim basis on June 26, 2003)] [Jones and Marshall testimony] (4.) Overall, the evidence establishes that subsequent to the court's entry of the Compliance Remedy, the LRSD has continued to have an inadequately staffed evaluation\\assessment capacity. [JX 11 at 2 (third paragraph), 5, 6, 16 (second paragraph) (ODM report. March 30, 2004)\nJones and Marshall testimony] The ODM report states in part: ri In the summer of 2001, the associate superintendent who led PRE had resigned and that position had remained empty. As a result, the top positions in both PRE and the instructional division were vacant at the critical time for preparing program evaluations. omitted] IT [JX 11 at 16] PRE II [footnote Planning, Research and Evaluation. refers to the Department of a 2 2 3The Failure to Identify the Programs Subject to the Compliance Remedy____________________________ (5.) In the opinion of September 13, 2002, this court found that the LRSD had identified many dozens of programs [as] implemented under Section 2.7 [of the agreed upon Plan] . . n [Mem. Opin. at 150] The court's Compliance Remedy provides in part as follows: A. For the entire 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year, through December 31, 2003, LRSD must continue to assess each of the programs implemented under Section 2.7 to improve the academic achievement of African- TXmerican students. . . [Mem. Opin. at 170\nemphasis added] Nevertheless, despite inquiries from ODM, the LRSD never identified, with clarity, the programs which it deems to be subject to this mandate. [JX 11 at 23 (ODM report, March 30, 2004)\nJones testimony] Standards for Conducting Evaluations (6.) In the light of the court's opinion [Mem. Opin. at 151- 52\n153\n156-58], the LRSD properly concluded [LRX 3 at 7 (LRSD Compliance Plan)] that it must each year complete some comprehensive evaluations of key parts of the curriculum fl designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African- 7\\merican students . If [Plan Section 2.7] (7.) In 2000, Dr. Ross met with the LRSD Compliance Committee. A part of the discussion is described in the ODM report, March 30, 2004, as follows: . . [Dr. Ross] also described the program evaluation process, which included classroom observation plan developed at the University of Memphis. The observations were to ensure that programs were being consistently implemented in the classrooms throughout the district a 4[JX 11 at 3\nJones testimony] (8.) Dr. Ross prepared for the LRSD a document, dated December n 3, 2002, regarding the completion of of the 14 page 148 8 evaluations (that is evaluations listed on page 148 of the March 2002 interim compliance report). It IS titled Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in Little Rock School District. I! [JX 6] The document articulates. among others. the following premise [JX 6 at 1]\n(9.) Program evaluations that focus predominately on student achievement outcomes while sufficient lacking implementation data have reduced value due to inability to determine the nature of the 'treatment.' The study will also fail to inform policymakers about the practicality of the program, how it was used and reacted to by stakeholders, or whether and\\or how it needs to be improved to impact at-risk learners. On October 10, 2002, the LRSD school board adopted Regulation IL-Rl titled \"Program Evaluation Agenda. The Regulation sets forth standards and procedures for the content of program evaluations in the LRSD. [JX 2] (a) LRSD Regulation IL-Rl [JX 2 at 3] identifies the need for the evaluation process to satisfy \"accuracy standards. including one concerning tl program documentation. 11 n H Program Documentation. The program being evaluated should be described and documented clearly and accurately so that it is identified clearly........ (b) LRSD Regulation IL-Rl also contains the following The LRSD concluded that 6 of the 14 IT page 148 evaluations \"without additional work could be approved by the school board . [LRX 3 at 5] Dr. Ross' Guidelines addressed the completion of the other 8 \"page 148 evaluations.\" [JX 6 at 12] evaluations. TT 3 5provision: \"Program Evaluation Procedures [JX 2 at 4-5] 6.C. Write a clear description of the curriculum\\instruction program that is to be evaluated, schedule of its implementation. with information about the (c) Regulation IL-Rl provides in part (JX 2 at 5) that the first meetings [of the evaluation team] will be devoted to the following tasks . . D. Agree on any necessary research questions that need to be established in addition to the question, this curriculum\\instruction program been ineffective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students?' (See Policy IL, 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, and Judge Wilson's Compliance Remedy.) Thus, LRSD policy recognized that the court's Compliance remedy required a focus on individual programs (\". . . program (10.) LRSD Policy IL (\"Evaluation of Instructional Programs\") [JX 1] provides that all program evaluations will follow standards established by the National Joint Committee on Standards for Education Evaluation. TI Policy IL-Rl further identifies these n ' Has . this . standards as The Program Evaluation Standards, 2nd Edition: How to Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications). [JX 2 at 1] These standards include the following content in the section on \"accuracy standards TI [at 125, 127-28]: STANDARD The program being evaluated should be described and documented clearly and accurately. so that the program is clearly defined. Overview It IS necessary for the evaluator to gain solid understanding of the program being evaluated, including both the way it was intended to be and the way it actually was a 6implemented, and to convey this description to others. Failure to gain such understanding will lead to an evaluation that, when completed, is likely to be of questionable use. A valid characterization of a program as it actually was implemented will describe its unique features and component parts in order to facilitate comparisons of the program with similar programs. A good description of the program will also facilitate attempts to associate components of the program with its effects. * GUIDELINES A. Ask the client and the other stakeholders to describe orally, and, if possible, in writing  the intended and the actual program with reference to such characteristics as personnel, cost, procedures. location, facilities, setting, activities, objectives, nature of participation, and potential side effects .... C. Engage independent observers to'describe the program if time and budget permit. D. Set aside time at the beginning of the evaluation to observe the program and the staff and participants who are involved .... The Literacy Evaluation (filed by LRSD on March 12, 2004) (11.) The LRSD offers as one comprehensive evaluation the \"Little Rock School District Literacy Program Evaluation.\" The LRSD provided or approved a list of research questions for this study not includincf the question quoted in para. 9(c), identified by the LRSD as a necessary element of any evaluation to be a part of the effort to satisfy the court's Compliance Remedy. 4 Where the focus was to be the impact of individual programs on African American achievement and the possible need for program changes. this omission led to an evaluation with an insufficient focus on 4 See Literacy Evaluation at 1\nat 4 (indicating that question most relevant to the Compliance Remedy was given lesser emphasis). 7particular programs and their impact on the intervenor class. (12.) The Literacy Evaluation contains insufficient description of the program(s) being evaluated to satisfy LRSD or professional standards. See Literacy Evaluation at 10-11\nparagraphs 9-10, supra\nHaney, Hunter, Jones testimony. This IS particularly the case at the middle school and high school levels. [Literacy Evaluation at 11] Interviews of middle and high school teachers revealed a lack of knowledge of any literacy plan at those levels. [Literacy Evaluation at 7, 13, 43] (13.) The Literacy Evaluation does not provide senior administrators or the school board information on particular programs adequate to determine whether any particular program should be eliminated, modified, or better implemented. [Hunter and Jones testimony] There are evaluation models allowing a focus on individual programs. [Haney and Hunter testimony\nLRX 16 at 6] (14.) The Literacy Evaluation provides scant information on the extent of implementation of any particular program. As Sec. 2.7.1 refers to \"modifying how the program is implemented,\" this deficiency is highly significant. [Haney, Hunter testimony] (15.) The Literacy Evaluation is in the main an evaluation of student test scores. rather than an evaluation of the impact of particular education programs. [Literacy Evaluation at 44-47\nHaney and Hunter testimony] The Literacy Evaluation is marked by several technical problems (absence of data on use of teacher questionnaires\nlack of demographic information on teachers in focus groups\ninadequate data on student whose files were excluded 8from analyses). [Hunter testimony] (16.) There are at least two problems in the analyses of the trends in African American students' scores on successive version of Arkansas benchmark tests. [Literacy Evaluation at 44-45] There IS no discussion of \"equating successive versions (that IS , considering whether later versions are of comparable rigor). There is no consideration of whether the pattern reported at upper grades is attributable to the dropping out, disproportionately, of black students with weaker achievement levels. [Haney and Marshall testimony\nJX 13] (17.) To satisfy professional standards for evaluations. a report that addresses progress on standardized tests should include other data bearing on the presence or absence of academic progress. such as grade to grade progression data (that is, whether students are being promoted or retained) and drop out data. [Haney and Marshall testimony] (18.) The Literacy Evaluation is deficient when measured against the standards earlier articulated by Dr. Ross . See paragraphs 7-8. The text of the Literacy Evaluation shows that it n focus[es] predominately on student achievement outcomes while lacking sufficient implementation data . . n The description of programs is exceedingly terse and, at grade levels 10-12, almost non-existent. [Literacy Evaluation at 10-11] It reflects no observation of classrooms by outside observers to assess actual program implementation. The latter problem is a consequence of the schedule for the evaluation adopted by the LRSD, as well as the 9inadequacy of funding (not sufficient to pay for classroom observation). This study can not help to answer the question n whether and\\or how [the literacy program] needs to be improved to n impact at-risk learners. LRSD Regulation IL-Rl [JX 2] includes as one criterion for identifying evaluation topics the following question [at 4] :  Can the results of the evaluation influence decisions about the program? II See also LRX 16 at 6 (memorandum by Dr. Ross dated April, 2004 recognizing the parameters of the Literacy Evaluation). The Math-Science Evaluation (filed by LRSD on March 12, 2004) (19. ) The LRSD offers as one comprehensive evaluation \"An Evaluation of Mathematics and Science programs in the Little Rock School District from 1998 to 2003. The Math-Science Evaluation contains insufficient description of the program(s) being evaluated to satisfy LRSD or professional standards. See Math-Science Evaluation at 5-10\nparagraphs 9-10, supra\nHaney, Hunter, Jones testimony] (20.) The Math-Science Evaluation does not provide senior administrators or the school board information on particular programs adequate to determine whether any individual program should be eliminated, modified, or better implemented. [Hunter and Jones testimony] (21. ) The Math-Science Evaluation identifies methods for determining the extent of implementation of educational programs. but does not provide results for the math-science program. [Math- Science-Evaluation at 11] As Sec. 2.7.1 refers to \"modifying how 10the program is implemented, IT this deficiency is highly significant. [Haney, Hunter testimony] (22.) The Math-Science Evaluation is in the main an evaluation of student test s\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_330","title":"Compliance court filings","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":["2002/2006"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","School administrators","Education--Evaluation"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance court filings"],"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/330"],"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\n6: da vvu \u0026gt; 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 December 22, 2002 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY. PA. DONNA J. McHENRY  8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  F.ax (501) 372-3428 Emul: mcheni'yd@swbell.net Michael E. Gans, Clerk U.S. Court of Appeals 111 South 10th Street St. Louis, MO 63102 Room 24.329 RECEIVED DEC 2 6 2002 Re: 02-3867 Little Rock School District V . Joshua Intervenors OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dear Mr. Gans, This letter addresses several issues in connection with this appeal. Transcripts All transcripts needed for this appeal earlier for counsel's use in the District Court. had been prepared Method of Preparation of Appendix The parties will submit separate appendices. Designation of Record (Appellant) Joshua Intervenors' designation is attached to this letter. Statement of Issues (Appellant) Joshua Intervenors' statement of issues letter. is attached to this cc Chris Keller (LRSD) other counsel of record in the District Court Appeal No. Q2-3867 Little Rock School Dist. V . Joshua Intervenors date Joshua Intervenors' Designation of the Record (1.) docket entries for the period from January 1, 1998 to (2.) Exhibits 543 to 872 (end of list} (all exhibits are marked court exhibits) (3. ) Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement, March, 1989 (As Revised September 18, 1989) (4.) Joshua Opposition to Little Rock Compliance Report, 6-25- 01 (5. ) Order, 8-20-01 (6. ) Order 10-3-01 (7. ) Response by LRSD, 10-5-01 (8.) Order, 10-17-01 (item 3521) (9. ) Order, 11-13-01 (10.) Order, 11-13-Oi (11.) Order, 12-12-01 (12.) LRSD, Motion, Memorandum, and Statement of Facts Not in Dispute, 3-15-02 (13.) Order, 5-7-02 (14.) Order, 5-9-02 (15.) Order, 5-15-02 (16.) Joshua Intervenors' Opposition, 5-30-02 (17.) Order, 9-12-02 (18.) Order, 10-11-02 (19.) Order, 11-12-02(20.) Jotice of Appeal, 11-12-02 (21.) transcripts Substantive Hearings 7-5-01 7-6-01 8-1-01 8-2-01 11-19-01 11-20-01 7-22-02 7-23-02 7-24-02 Hearings on Procedural Matters 6-29-01 7-9-01 8-17-01 11-13-01 12-11-01 (22.) The Memorandum Opinion and Judgment, 9-13-02 and Order 10-11-02Appeal No. 02-3867 Little Rock School Dist. Joshua Intervenors V . Joshua Intervenors' Designation of Issues (1.) whether some of the District Court's findings of substantial compliance with the Revised Plan were induced by legal error in construing the Plan? (2. ) whether the district court made clearly erroneous findings of fact regarding student discipline, steps to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African American students, participation in extracurricular activities and advanced and enriched courses, guidance and counseling services, and plan compliance at Central High School? (3.) whether the Revised Plan required that the LRSD show progress in eliminating the racial achievement gap in order to establish substantial compliance with the Plan? (4.) whether in the course of assessing the LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan the District Court failed to employ monitoring by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) in the manner required by this Court in 1990? (5.) whether the District Court erred in holding the Joshua Intervenors to the requirement that they exhaust the Plan compliance remedies before they could contend that the LRSD did not substantially comply with a requirement of the Plan? (6.) whether the District Court erred in imposing anevidentiary burden on the Joshua Intervenors regarding the Joshua monitoring activities prior to March 15, 2001? Ir\"' received JAN 1 0 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JAN 0 7 2003 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION By:. DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. LET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS NOTICE OF APPEAL The Joshua Intervenors give notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 3(a) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure with respect to Honorable William R. Wilson Jr.s order and the corresponding judgment, both entered herein on December 20, 2002. Respectfully submitted. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 ^n W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 Rickey H. Hicks Attorney At Law 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rock, AR 72207 501-663-9900 John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 received JAN 29 20D3 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS January 28, 2003 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENBY. P.A. DONNA J. McHenry 8210 Henderson Ro.w Little Rock, Ark.ws.^ 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  F. (501) 372-3428 Email\nmcheiiiyd@swbell.net Michael E. Gans, Clerk U.S. Court of Appeals 111 South IO* Street - Room 24.329 St. Louis, MO 63102 Re: 03-1147 Little Rock School District v. Joshua Intervenors Dear Mr. Gans: This letter addresses several issues in connection with this appeal. Transcripts All transcripts needed for this appeal were prepared earlier for counsels use in the District Court. Method of Preparation of Appendix The parties will submit separate appendices. Designation of Record (Appellant) Joshua Intervenors designation is attached to this letter. Statement of Issues f Appellant) Joshua Intervenors statement of issues is attached to this letter ,, --Sincerely I John W. Walker JWW:js cc\nChris Heller Other Counsel of Record Appeal No. 03-1147 Little Rock School District v. Joshua Intervenors Joshua Intervenors Designation of the Record (1) LRSD Petition for Writ of Mandamus, 8-22-87 (2) LRSD Brief In Support of Petition for Writ of Mandamus, 8-24-87 (3) Letter from William R. Wilson, Jr. to Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals, 9-8-87 (4) Response of the Honorable Henry Woods, United Sates District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to Petition for Writ of Mandamus (5) Motion for Hearing Regarding Relevance of 28 U.S.C. 455 to the Present Proceedings, 10-29-02 (6) Order Denying Motion for Hearing Regarding Relevance of 28 U.S.C. 455 to the Present Proceedings, 10-29-02 (7) Order, 11-12-02 (8) Motion for Recusal of District Judge and for Vacating of Orders, Ruling and Judgments, 11-25-02 (9) Memorandum from Hon. William R. Wilson, Jr. to Counsel, 11-26-02 (10) [LRSDs] Plaintiff s Response to Joshua Intervenors Motion for Vacating of Orders and Recusal, 11 -26-02 (11) Order, 12-20-02Appeal No. 03-1147 Little Rock School District v. Joshua Intervenors Joshua Intervenors Designation of Issues (I) Whether the District Court erred by holding that 28 U.S.C. Sec. 455(b)(2) did not require its recusal, in the light of his honor earlier appearance in the case as counsel while in private practice? (2) Whether the District Court erred by holding that it was not required to vacate the orders, opinions and judgments entered subsequent to its receiving this reassignment?United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Nos. 02-3867EA, 03-1147EA Little Rock School District, Appellee, V. Alexa Armstrong\nKarlos Armstrong\nKhayyam Davis\nAlvin Hudson, Tatia Hudson, Lorene Joshua\nLeslie Joshua\nStacy Joshua\nWayne Joshua\nSarah Facen\nDerrick Miles\nJanice Miles\nJohn M. Miles\nNAACP\nJoyce Person\nBrian Taylor\nHilton Taylor\nParsha Taylor\nRobert Willingham\nand Tonya Willingham, Appellants. ' * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * RECEIVED -3 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 7 Submitted: September 11, 2003 Filed: March 2, 2004 Before WOLLMAN, HEANEY, and RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judge. !This case consolidates two appeals, both arising from the Little Rock School District's request for unitary status. First, the Joshua Intervenors' appeal from the District Court's^ denial of their Motion for Recusal of District Judge and Vacating of Orders, Rulings, and Judgments. We review a district court's denial of recusal for abuse of discretion. See In IS Hale, 980 F.2d 1176, 1178 (8th Cir. 1992)\nUnited States y. Walker, 920 F.2d 513, 516 (Sth Cir. 1990). We conclude that Judge Wilsons representation of Judge Henry Woods at a much earlier stage of the case. and on far different issues, did not involve the same \"matter in controversy\" for purposes of 28 U.S.C.  455(b)(2)\nthus, we affirm the denial of the Joshua Intervenors' Motion for Recusal. The Joshua Intervenors also appeal from the District Court's judgment granting the Little Rock School District (LRSD) partial unitary status. The Joshua Intervenors assert\n(1) that the District Court erred by not requiring and considering additional reports from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM)\nand (2) that the District Court's finding of substantial compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan was erroneous. We hold that the District Court did not err by failing to require new written reports from the ODM, and that the District Court's findings of fact are not clearly erroneous\nthus, we affirm the grant of partial unitary status. Because the facts relevant to each issue on appeal are different, we address them separately. In Part I, we address the issue of disqualification. In Part II. ., we address whether the District Court should have required new written reports from the 'This group of school children and parents are, as a practical matter, the plaintiffs in the case at its present juncture. The Little Rock School District, which actually initiated the case in appeal. 1982, is effectively the defendant for purposes of this The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the m n, A -.1_________  Eastern District of Arkansas. -2-March 9, 2004 LETTER-ORDER Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. Clay Fendley 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard W. Floachell 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road Little Rock, AR 72222 Mr. Samuel Jones, III 200 West Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John Walker 1723 South Broadway LittIWIock, AR 72206 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr^S^hnis Hansen 1^1 Ce^r Street, Suite 1200 Llle Rock, AR 72201 Re\nLittle Rock School Districi 4:82CV00866 . Pul jTounty Special School, et al. Dear Counsel: As you know the September 11, lemorandum Order requires that the LRSD file a Compliance Report which documents its compliance with the obligations under 2.7.1 on or 15 fien, Joshua, or any other party, has thirty days (until April 15, 2004) within which to file objections to LRSD report. This missive is simply to notify all counsel that a request for any extension will likely be denied. If there are objections, they will be heard on April 26 and 27, 2004. Cordially, Wm, R, Wilson, Jr. cc: Original: The Honorable Thomas Ray Ms. Ann Marshall, ODM Mr. James W. McCormack, Clerk March 5, 2004IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. NOS. 02-3867 03-1147 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO FILE BRIEF AND RELATED MATERIALS CiA cuIuIl. received MAR -7 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING APPELLEE DEFENDANTS APPELLANTS INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move for an order extending the time for the filing of their consolidated brief, addendum and appendix for 14 days (with corresponding adjustments to the other element's of the schedule). The basis for this motion is as follows: Joshua Intervenors lead counsel John W. Walker began a trial, as defense counsel in Case No. CR 00:40, United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, before the Honorable George Howard, Jr. on March 3, 2003. It appears that this trial will not conclude until March 14, 2003. Preparation for this trial and the trial have prevented lead counsel from working with co-counsel Robert Pressman, as well as Norman Chachkin, to complete the consolidated brief. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully pray that the Court grant the requested extension.Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 Respectfully submitted, Jmxn W~Walker, ARBar No. 64046 /OHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) Rickey Hicks, AR Bar No. 89235 Attorney at Law Evergreen Place 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 (501)663-9900 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE prepaid to the following counsel of record, on this I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent bv fax and U.S. Mail, postage GdayofJIW^,2003: Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Ai'kansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3472 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL LAW FIRM 415 North McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas hhn W.^Walker(2^-- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION received MAR 1\n2004 desegregation monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. l.ETAL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMPLIANCE REPORT Plaintiff Little Rock School District (LRSD) for its Compliance Report states: 1. On September 13,2002, the District Court issued its Order finding that the LRSD had I substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan), with the exception of Revised Plan  2.7.1. The Courts Order set forth a detailed Compliance Remedy as to Revised Plan  2.7.1. 2. On October 10, 2002, the LRSDs Board of Directors (Board) adopted a Compliance Plan designed to meet the requirements of the Courts Compliance Remedy. The LRSD filed the Compliance Plan with the Court on March 14, 2003, as Exhibit A to Plaintiffs Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Required By Paragraph C of the Courts Compliance Remedy. 3. Joshua initially raised concerns about the Board-approved Compliance Plan. The LRSD addressed these concerns in an October 25,2002 letter to counsel for Joshua, attached hereto Page 1 of 6as Exhibit A. Joshua invoked the Process for Raising Compliance Issues set for in Revised Plan  8.2, and the Joshua and the LRSD met with Ms. Ann Marshall to facilitate an agreement. The last meeting was February 28, 2003. At that meeting, the LRSD agreed to provide Joshua several documents. The last of these was mailed to Joshua on March 6, 2003. The parties never reached any agreement related to Joshuas concerns about the Board-approved Compliance Plan. Joshua waived any objections to the Board-approved Compliance Plan by failing to present them to the Court as required by Paragraph D of the Compliance Remedy. 4. The Board-approved Compliance Plan interpreted Paragraphs A and B of the Compliance Remedy as requiring the LRSD to: (1) continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04\n(2) develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of Afiican-American students\n(3) maintain written records of (a) the criteria used to evaluate each program, (b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs, and (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process\nand (4) prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2.7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of Afiican-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. See Compliance Plan, p. 3. 5. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003- 04. Page 2 of 6To meet this requirement, the LRSD implemented the 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan. 6. Develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to  2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. The Board adopted regulation IL-Rl when it approved the Compliance Plan. Regulation IL- R1 set forth the written procedures for evaluating the  2.7 programs. 7. Maintain written records of (a) the criteria used to evaluate each program\n(b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs\nand (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process. Regulation IL-Rl outlined the criteria to be used to evaluate each program. As to the results of annual student assessments, the LRSD continues to maintain a computer database with the results of annual students assessments administered pursuant to the Board-approved assessment plan. Exhibit B attached hereto identified the members of each team. Exhibits C, D and E document informal modifications of the mathematics, elementary literacy and secondary literacy programs, respectively. 8. Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to  2,7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. The LRSD contracted with Dr. Steve Ross, an expert approved by Joshua, to prepare comprehensive evaluations of the Districts elementary and secondary literacy programs. These evaluations, combined in a single report, were completed and approved by the Board in November of 2003 and are attached hereto as Exhibit F. Dr. Don Wold, a program evaluator funded through I i Page 3 of 6a National Science Foundation (NSF) grant\nDenrus Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction\nand Vanessa Cleaver, Director of the NSF Grant, authored the comprehensive mathematics and science evaluation. The comprehensive mathematics and science evaluation was completed and approved by the Board in December 2003 and is attached hereto as Exhibit G. 9. The LRSD substantially complied with the Revised Plan and the Courts Compliance Remedy by implementation of the Board-approved Compliance Plan. 10. By letter dated January 12, 2004, copies of the comprehensive evaluations were provided to counsel for the Joshua Intervenors, and counsel was asked to advise the District of any questions or concerns about these evaluations. In a fax dated March 8, 2004, counsel for the Joshua Intervenors wrote: I have reviewed your evaluations and find that they are grossly inadequate and incomplete. In addition to that I am still awaiting the evaluations of the other remaining programs which were contemplated by our agreement. Because we have already invoked the process required by the court, I am putting ODM on notice of our position. The LRSD denies that it agreed to prepare evaluations other than those described in the Board- approved Compliance Plan. WHEREFORE, the LRSD submits the program evaluations as required by paragraphs A and B of the Courts Compliance Remedy. The LRSD prays that the Court find that the LRSD has substantially complied with Revised Plan  2.7.1, as specified in the Compliance Remedy\nthat the LRSD is unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations\nand that it be released from all further supervision and monitoring of its desegregation efforts. I Respectfully Submitted, Page 4 of 6LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2OM---------- BYT Christopher Heller Page 5 of 6CERTIFICATE 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 March 12, 2004\nMr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Tim Gauger Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 I Christodner Heller I Page 6 of 6 Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (im-IPM) WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR. P.A JOE D. BELL P.A JAMES A 8UTTRY. P.A 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 IIL P.A LARRY W. BURKS. P.A A WYCKUFF NISBET. JR. P.A IAMBS EDWARD HARJUS. P.A I. PKILUP MALCOM. P.A 'AMES M. SIMPSON. P.A AMES U. SAXTON. P.A . SHEPHERD RUSSELL IIL P A. XJNALD H. BACON. P.A VILUAM THOMAS BAXTER P.A LICHARD D. 1A.YLOK. P.A OSBPH B. HURST, JR. P.A ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.^ CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. P.A MICHAELS. MOORE. P,A DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A WALTER M. EBEL 111. P.A. KEVIN CRASS. P.A WILLIAM A. WADDELL JR. P.A SCOTT J. LANCASTER P.A ROBERT B. BEACH. JR. P.A J. LEE BROWN. P.A JAMES C BAJCER JJL. P.A HARRY LIOHT. Pu SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A  UY 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. ORAF. P.A ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.frldayfinn.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 342S MORTH FUTRALL DRIVE. SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72703*4811 TELEPHONE 470-895-2011 FAX 470-895-2147 CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P.A JOHN C. FINDLEY. JR. P.A JONANN EUZABETH CONICUO. P.A R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.A FRAN C. HICKMAN. P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY. P.A LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W. SMITH. P.A CLIFFORD PLUNKETT. P.A. DANIEL L HERRINGTON. P.A. MARVIN L CHILDERS K COLEMAN WESTBROOK JR ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL MICHAEL . KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH r. MCKA'f ALEXANDRA A JAY T. TAYLOR IFRAH MARTIN A. KASTEN 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-782-2898 FAX 870-782-2918 BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH C. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR Karen s. halbert SARAH M. COTTON PfflUP B. MONTGOMERY KRISTEN S. RIGGINS ALAN G. BRYAN LINDSEY MnCHAM SLOAN KHAYYAM M. EDDINGS JOHN P. PEISEJUCH AMANDA CAPPS ROSE BRANDON J. HARRISON OP COUNKL B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L TERRY WILLIAM L PATTON. JR H.T. f JOHN C ECHOLS. P.A. AD. MCALLISTER October 25,2002 JOHN C. FENOLEY. JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL SOI*370-3323 FAX 981.244-334*1 landlayQfac.ntt ( By Hand Delivery ) Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Bank of America Bldg. 200 West Cqjitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 ( By Hand Delivery ) Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Dennis Hanson Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE\nCompliance Remedy Dear Counsel and Ms. Marshall: In our letter dated October 11,2002, we asked the parties to specifically identify in writing myperceived deficiency m the Board-approved Compliance Plan on or before Monday, October 21 9? October^ 1 n onno ^^^sed that Joshua would rely on the comments contained in Mr. Walkers October In ^2?? October 24, 2002, additional comments were received from Mr. Walker All of Mr. Walkers comments will be addressed in turn. - EXHIBIT AAll Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25,2002 Page 2 October 10, 2002 Facsimile 1. More consideration is needed of the programs to be identified as implementatfed] pursuant to Section 2.7 ..., which are to be subjected to comprehensive program evaluation. . Your document at page 7 identifies three areas. We note the absence of specific reference and detail regarding interventions/ scaffolding - areas of vital importance given the achievement patterns of African-American students. We note also that the LRSD compliance report cited many more programs as designed to fulfill Section 2.7. Mr. Pressman clarified this concern during our October 21, 2002 telephone conversation. Mr. Pressman explained that Joshua was concerned that interventions designed to assist low achieving students, for example SAIPs, were not being fully implemented and wanted------ some assurance that the comprehensive evaluations would assess implementation of these programs. program LI^D RESPONSfr On October 24,2002, the Board approved the Division ofinstructions Plan P^gSchools,acopy ofwhichis enclosed for your review. Under that plan, the LRSD will conduct cumculum, instruction and classroom management audits at lowperfor^g schools. Data gathered through these audits and other monitoring under the plan may be proi^am evaluation team to identify possible causes of poor performance, includine used by a implementation of interventions such n * Tr. - - ---------------------- as SAIPs. The LRSD lacks the resources to implement this lx,-. --------ivDUluvcb LU uiipicnieni uus plm at every^hool Approximately 10 schools will receive the full compliment of services outlined in the plan. Those 10 schools will be identified based on the priority system set forth in the plan. 2. to a iscussion pnor to his testimony in the hearing [before] Judge Wilson, we understood Dr. Ross to mdicate that the existing evaluation of the PreK-2 literacy program was not ^equate. The notation on page 4 of your document of the changed use of the Observation S^ey and the DRA relates to part of the concerns he expressed. This undermines the f evaluation, upon Board approval, will satisfy a part of the Courts remedy. LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this statement, Joshua objects to the LRSD considermg toe PreK-2 literacy evaluation to have been completed pursuant to Paragraph C of the omphmce Remedy. Attached are toe comments received by toe LRSD from Dr. Ross related that evaluation. As can be seen. Dr. Ross did not advise toe LRSD that toe evaluation , sense for toe LRSD to expend resources to have this evaluation completed by an outside expert while it also prepares to was of the same program with the assistance of an outside expert. anew, comprehensive evaluation iAll Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25,2002 Page 3 3. ^eLRSDdiscussionaboutsatisIyingthecourtsorderregardingtheevaluationsmentioned h comphance report does not seem to take account of e material provided wninh OT\u0026gt; -.-.I__J.'___  which describes an adequate evaluation. LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this completing the evaluations identified on statement, Joshua objects to the LRSD not page 148 of the Final Compliance Report in a manngr District Court simply wants the LRSD to do what understands Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy^ the it said it did and complete the evaluations program evaluations as most prudent use of its limited true that those evaluations, even after being completed, may not be model envisioned by IL-Rl. The LRSD decided, however, that the iXTvrAfri^ to focus on the new, comprehensive evaluations' of programs desi^edto improve Afiican-Amencan achievement. 4. We question the period of implementation of a remedy which the therefore, the LRSD schedule. court has identified and, S'\" between the LRSD Joshua related to implementation of the Compliance Remedy will the District Courts September 13,2002, Memorandum Opinion and not prejudice Joshuas appeal of October 24. 2002 Facsimile I I 1 I 1. In using historical student assignment results, attention should be data. In the past, LRSD has used results on given to the quality of e the [D]RA and the Observation Survey in ways ^-twithtepurposesofthoseinsmunen^^ ^res fothen- oto students, the past use made of the data was in conflict withthe dislticfs ^oS  R=8ulation IL-Rl that Conflict of Interest\" must be use all available data in its evaluations. . . . .. ^^^^^^P^gP^^^^ComplianceRemedyrequirestheLRSDtoiva:\nava\niauic m Its It will be the responsibility of the evaluation team to weigh the reliabilitv and ahdity of the available data. The Arkansas Department of Education ZZis .O dcennme whete smdenm are learning dre essential T curriculum. As to the integrity of the data from those LRSD monitored student scores assessments, the to show improvement. Moreover, the ultimate year-to-year to discourage teachers from inflating scores in an effort success of the LRSDs early literacy program willAll Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25,2002 Page 4 be judged by performance on the States Benchmark examinations, rather than the DRA Observation Surveys. 2. and We are concerned about the manner in which the regulation describes the team process for prep^g evaluations, again in the context of conflict of interest. In order to insure that conflict of mterest is avoided, the external consultant needs to write the report and control the -context of the analysis. Paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 of the Procedures do not guarantee that the external expert wiU have these roles. Of course if reports were prepared in the manner which we describe, there would be no bar to LRSD staff preparing comments to the Board with a differing interpretation of the evaluation results. LRSD RESPONSE: The LRSD rejects the implication that LRSD Program Evaluation personnel cannot be trusted to wnte an honest program evaluation. The LRSDs commitment to improving student achievement IS second to none. To fulfiU that commitment, it is in the LRSDs best interest to effectively evaluate ite progr^s.. The success of the programs and program evaluations will ultimately be measured by the State s Benchmark evaluations. All evaluation team members wiU be actively mvolved in the evaluation process and are expected to provide a check against the self-interest of any one teammember. The evaluation team WiU decide who writes the report basedon the expertise team members will be actively of te^ members. The outside expert will be asked to take to the Superintendent any concerns about the evaluation not bemg addressed by the evaluation team. The outside expert will also be asked to be present when the evaluation is presented to the Board so that the Board can be advised of any concerns the outside expert may have about the final evaluation. 3. We continue to be concerned about the global, general manner in which the content of planned evaluations is described (page 7 of the document, first paragraph). For example ^d has adopted a policy and two regulations dealing with remediation for students whose performance IS below par. Studying the actual implementation of these standards (in all or of schools) is of vital importance to the Intervenor class because . :so much more likely than other students to exhibit unsatisfactory class members are performance on the Benchmark and Stanford Achievement Tests. the whose A satisfactory description by e School Board of the evaluations which i, requires tire sufflo uud^e shortir^rZ mrplementation o(rentediatiort activities in district schools is to receive This is surely an important contextual factor (see Accuracy careful consideration. Standards, para. 2). LRSD RESPONSE\nAs the LRSD understands this comment, it is a restatement of the first number ?eZS ftere^ ** incorporates itsAll Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25,2002 Page 5 4. We understand from the Plan that the LRSD plans evaluations of programs deemed partcularly directed to achievement of African-American students for the indefinite not simply for the penod necessary to satisfy the court. We would like to receive the Boards assurance that this is the case. LRSD RESPONSE: The Boards approval of IL-Rl was to be term, not limited to the term of the Compliance LL aner tne term nt the ' IL after the of Compliance Remedy, Conclusion The LRSD hopes that it has been able to address all of Joshua: o address aU of Joshuas concerns. If any party has y questions a^ut Ae LRSDs responses to Joshuas comments, we ask that those be submitted m wntmg, and the LRSD will nmmntlv _________ j\u0026gt;uuuuiiea writing, promptly provide a written response. LRSDs Compliance Plan, Joshua should noncompliance in accordance with Revised Plan  8- to Revised Plan  8.2.4, Joshua has 15 days of receipt of this letter to submit the issue to ODM for facilitation of an agreement. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, ohn C. Fendley, Jr. John 'endley, cc\nDr. Ken James (via hand-delivery)Elementary Literacy PROGRAM EVALUATION TEAMS Underwood, Director of Early Childhood and Elementary LiteracyTeam Leader Pat Busbea, Literacy Specialist Judy Teeter, Literacy Specialist Judy Milam,, Literacy Specialist Mehnda Crone, Literacy Specialist Ann Freeman, Literacy Specialist Dr. Ed Wilhams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator Secondary Literacy Suzi DavisDirector of Secondary English, Team Leader Sarah Schutte, Middle School Literacy Speciahst Dr. Karen Broadnax, Supervisor of ESL Eumce Smith, Supervisor, Special Education Dr. Mona Briggs, Safe Schools Grant Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator Mathematics and Science Vanessa CleayerTeam Leader Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction I Marcelhne Carr Beth Clifford Annita Paul Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Don Wold, NSF Program Evaluator Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator EXHIBITProgram Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Elementary Mathematics 2001-02  An item analysis of 4* Grade Benchmark Data for 2000-01 -----------1 reveals that students geometry strand. (Note-Tne State Math Framework and NCTM National Standards for Mathematics contain 5 strands: number sense. geon^try, probability and statistics, algebra, and measurement.) The analysis of data from the Benchmark Exam consisted of identifying the strand of each item rankmg the items from highest to lowest, and looking for trends in the data. w^^^ O! the low performance on geometry items \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Train teachers to do item analyses for their own schools. Work with teachers to discern reasons why students struggled with the \u0026gt; specific geometry items (the released items were O- available for review). Develop strategies for mcreasing the focus on geometry in the elementary TTlnPm2)tlPC cnmnnbfTM mathematics curriculum. School by school analysis of 4 Grade Benchmark Data for 2000-01 (and prior years) revealed different levels of achievement by schools that demographic^ly similar. Classroom observations in these schools by elementary math/science lead teachers confirmed that the level of implementation of the cumculum was different from school to school. Schools with a mgner level of implementation were having higher student achievement man schools who were not imnlementino- tbp ('iirrienhim ot t i__i were implementing the curriculum at that high level. A program modification made based on uneven achievement at similar schools was to have principals identify a lead person in their schools to and sustained training to serve as receive intensive Support Personnel for LRSD). a coach for other teachers (See list of Math  Sara Hogg, UALR Mathematics Specialist, was utilized to provide monthly coaches training so that additional implementation support would be available at each school. A variety of types of training has been provided by Ms. Hogg much of It directed at greater knowledge of strategies for implementing elementary mathematics curriculum. our Another program modification made as a result of uneven achievement schools was to begin a -------among process ofchanging the way professional development for ....  o J p* wxwwoiwxxttl Ul/ V VlUUlilCIll IO_ teachers is stmctured. In the past most professional development for elementary ma\u0026amp;ematics has-been district-led (e.g., all third grade teachers go to a district-led trai^gon theS grade mathematics curriculum). The modification has been shift more focus on site-based professional development. The Lesson Study and Study Group approach was begun with elementary mathematics teachers allow them more responsibility and accountability for their own training needs to to - exhibit2002-03  pie same item analysis was completed for 2001-02 4* grade Benchmark Data. Tu analysis showed that students had gained in the area of geometry Tn6 InUZAcf ___________V-VJV..______J The lowest strands were probability and statistics, XXXV, XU,.,,, audiius were proDaoility and statistics, measurement, and algebra. Staff and teachers reviewed the LRSD elementary mathematics curriculum to determine if there was a correlation between extend to strand coverage in the curriculum and student performance on ose strands on the Benchmark Exam, ^e cumculum analysis revealed that there were some gaps in the curriculum that likely resulted m low performance on certain items on the exam. Staff and teachers worked over the summer of 2003 use the Benchmark data to determme the big ideas or concepts students need to have a deen nnHrfitanHiT,n . - concepts students need to have a deep understanding about m ^ades K-5. Using several years worth of data, grade level teams of teachers in grades 1-4 (see list of teachers who worked on curriculum revision) revised the mathematics standards and benchmarks according to the five strands State Framework. Kindergarten and fifth grade ^11 do siimlar work during the summer of2004. Curriculum resources in grades were aligned to those standards assessed most frequently on the exam. Supplemental curriculum resources were identified from several sources for use to broaden the scope of the cumculum at certain grade levels. Maril^ Bums and Associates materials, and other materials compiled into a notebook for use by teachers. Internet resources, were identified and Benchmark results show that district students generally perform less well open-response test items compared to the multiple choice items. * Program modifications based on this data were\n\u0026gt; Developed packets of open-response items for teachers students. \u0026gt; Trained teachers to on the to use with score open-response items using a rubric. i --------------CLXLlL/llV. \u0026gt; Developed and administered District-developed end-of-quarter semester exams that included open-response items. or end-of- 4 grade Literacy and Mathematics Benchmark Results over a period of three ye^s caused some schools to be given School Improvement status by the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). Schools in which the total population or one or more sub-populations (white, Afidcan-American, Hispanic, Limited English Proficient, Low Socioeconomic Status, and Special Education) did not meet Adequate Yearly Progress as defined by ADE were sanctioned with Year 1 not Year 2, or Year 3 School Improvement Status. * i detailed School Support Audit was done for schools in Year 2 or Year 3 School Improvement. (An attachment explains the school audit process) Ihe schools that were audited were Fair Park. Baseline.  Park, Baseline, Mabelvale Elementary^ Wakefield, and Southwest Middle School).  A variety of program modifications were made in schools on School Improvement as a result of the audit findings. One major common finding from the audits was that effective questions strategies were not being routinely used in the audited schools. The modification made las to brmg in an expert on questioning strategies (Dr. Lee Hannelauthor of HighlyEffective Questioning: Developing the Seven Steps of Critical Thinking) to lead a workshop for all LRSD principals. 2003-04  All grade level teachers were trained in the use of these new curriculum resources that were developed by the math staff and teachers during the August, 2003, school conference. pre-  Item analyses of the 4* Grade Benchmark Exam showed that the statistics and probability strand was the lowest area for students. s  A program modification made was to strengthen concept development in probabihty by added a replacement unit on probability fi-om Marilyn Bumss materials. Twenty-six primary teachers and coaches and twenty-five intermediate teachers and coaches participated in full-day training on the Marilyn Bums materials.  Three elementary schools on School Improvement Status collaborate to bring in Dr. Hannel to provide training for all teachers in the schools. * Hannel provided full day training for all elementary principals.  21 of 24 principals responded that they were interested in having the questioning strategies training for all faculty in their schools.  Additional schools received School Support AuditsChicot, Bale, Mitchell.  Program Modifications made by selected schools were to hire math coaches to assist with professional development and training related to implementation of the elementary mathematics curriculum.  Uneven achievement among schools was evident in the results of the 2002-03 4 Grade Benchmark Exam.  A Program Modification strategy used was to hire Dr. Linda Griffith to check the alignment of the mathematics curriculum, grades K-8, to the State Framework. The results of this alignment will include recommendations for improving the alignment in the curriculum.Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Secondary Mathematics 2001-02  Item analyses of 6*, 8*, Algebra I, and Geometry Benchmark Data for 2001 . end-of-quarter tests for Algebra I - Pre-Calculus Uistnct-wide end-of-module tests for grades 6-8 calculator training provided for aU secondary math teachers * \u0026amp;r stazdards-based inabucdon/materiala in nndh teachers -02  District leveraged support of professional development for all math ux piuicbsionai aeveiopment for aU math teachers bv ^vrdmg funds to pay substitute teachers and stipends for teachers rec^ trainings  ^ad teach^ continued to provide technical assistance inside and outside the assroom by conductmg professional development workshops observations\nand classroom devd^n Umversity of Arkansas ac Litdc Rock develop and offer graduate courses based on the needs of the District The followmg course was developed and offered during the 2001 o Stratcsies for Tftflr.hino- at Little Rock (UALR) to Strategies Teaching Geometry -02 SY: distributed pacing guides for secondary mathematics and to address the issue of student mobility within the District  High school mathem Atics (---------'  courses courses (Algebra I - Precalculus) were revised to reflect a closer ahgnment with the national and state standards  The SMART (Summer Mathematii and fiameworks\nICS Sl^T, IS a Saturday academy for students currently enroUed in Algebra I These progr^ sr. ahgned wi the State Goals for Algebra I. ^Xl EQC \"ho participate in these programs are companaJ with if overall District results o SMART /Project THRIVE served more than 200 students in Algebra Calculus) are developed around the results of the benchmark concentrate on areas of weakness for students and work exams. Teachers on modifications in sturhed to measure the impact of instructional practices in the classroom SS? in all high odlUOlS o are 2002-03 Changed format of pre-school conference meeting to involve more teachers doinv presentations on standards-based activities  JST\" \u0026lt; high 1 Provided training from College Board Pacesetter for Algebra I - Pre-calculus teachers - over 80% of secondary math teachers were train eH  Continued District-wide end-of-quarter test for 6 grade - Calculus\n Continued to provide professional development for aU secondary mkth teachers on topics mcluding: o o Riverdeep Interactive Software TI-83 plus calculators o UALR Graduate Courses  Strategies for Teaching Algebra  Integrating the Graphing Calculator Revised and enacted procedures for ensuring that students who are Limited English Proficient (LEP) achieve the curriculum content standards and benchmarks established by the State of Arkansas and LRSD\n Continued to implement high-quality standards-based instruction for grades 6-12 mathematics\nContinued to hold monthly vertical team meetings for secondary math teachers Held horizontal team meetings (one per semester) for each secondary math course\n2003-04 Classroom sets of graphing calculators provided for all Algebra I - Calculus teachers\n Offered UALR graduate course on Using Handheld Technology to Enhance the Mathematics Classroom  used the TI-Navigator system\n Continued vertical and horizontal team meetings including 6 Wo^hop by Dr. Linda Griffith for calculus teachers on integrating calculator to teach calculus\nth -8  Continued end-of-quarter tests\n, th ' f X to reflect a closer alignment with the national and state standards and frameworks\nMarcelline Carr and Vanessa CleaverFY 2002-03 Actions of the LRSD Elementary Literacy Department related to Literacy Program Evaluation Elementary Literacy Department continued n-wvidv p. literacy, Reading Recovery) to all LRSD schools LRSD Pre-K-3 Literacy Plan. to provide professional development (ELLA, to support implementation of the Ihnnk examined the Spring 2002 CRT Literacy data to identify the schools most m need of assistance m the area of literacv with nartiniUr ____ of ^simnce in the area of literacy with particular attention to the academic achievement of Aft can Amencan students and their needs. The data indicated that the writinn program was the weak component of the literacy instructional ~ Department provided staff development related to writing instruction. program. The Elementary Literacy - and the writing programs in schools were modified to include best practices. Ihe Spring 2003 CRT L^'a schools reflected the schools efforts to improve their students academic achievement in writing The District used the assessment data to also provide the low performing schools with the oppo^mty to participate in the LRSD Reading First Project. The project, which is federally funded funding to schools to implement research-based instructional strategies Twelw cJhon ?? n  Project to begin in the fall of2003. The project requi^s the schools to follow an assessment schedule related to program improvement.^Because of lack of movement m smdent ^j-vem^t ,ools on school improvement decided to move 1 program to the research-based instruction recommended in Reading First. with the an from the Success for All FY 2003-04 August - December 2003 Response to the Literacy Program Evaluation Department reviewed the literacy program evaluation report developed by folln^ina developed a plan to continue program evaluation in the future which included the following\ngroups for each of the professional development ^LLA EflFeimve Literacy, Reading Recovery, Literacy Coaches, Success programs develop a table of the most and least effective elements. for All) and The information fi-om the XU A M, , . ------------------------------------ wawxxxwxxLQ. A lie lluul uiauon iToin rne focus groups will then be used to modify the Districts professional development plan Compare student data from the CRT and District asscssr/.v.\n. h. .aJ ' African-American students with others as related to the instru^onal program and provide specific professional development based Identified needs of the students. assessments in each school to compare on the EXHIBIT JX_T^e staff also reviewed the section of the report related to the most effective and least effective elements of each staff development offered by the District. The following actions were taken to address the weaknesses of the professional development\n Provided additional guided reading materials to all schools to support small groun instruction to ensure equitable instruction for all students. Provided a diverse collection of books to low performing schools to ensure that a variety of texts is available for independent reading.  Modified the testing schedule (except in Reading Excellence and Reading First schools) to accommodate the need for a more streamlined assessment plan. Literacy Achievement Data Review Dr. Ed Willies met with the Elementary Literacy Department regarding the 2003 Primary Literacy Rftnnnmflrir hyqtti o++an+i/\u0026gt;n j___i____v _ . Benchmark Exam with attention to the academic achievement of African American , , ---------- - J students \u0026amp;s compared to other students. Schools most in need were identified and assigned to specific Literacy Specialists who had the task of reviewing the testing data more closely with the assigned schools. ^e Elernentaiy Literacy Department employed the services of a consultant to discuss with the Literacy Specialists the most effective approach to use with the schools in examining their data and using It to make program modifications or changes. After the consultants visit, the staff developed a plan for working with the schools. Assistance provided to the schools was varied based on the needs of the school but included inservice on the Primary Benchmark Exam and data analysis. In some schools, the pnncipal and staff had already examined the data and outside assistance was not requested. on the Results of the data review confirmed that the professional development provided by the Elementary Llteracv DenartmAnt chmilrl in^lnzlA kAntp*. ____ Literacy Department should include heavy emphasis on addition to the professional development being offered content area reading and writing. In on an ongoing basis to teachers grades 2-4, T?! T  -------------- uaois LU Lcduiicis Hraaes z-h the Elementary Literacy Department and the Social Studies Department began working collaboratively to provide the training, resources, and materials for 5\"* grade teachers to integrate readmg and social studies mstruction. Three training sessions were held in January 2004 to model for teachers how to integrate the two areas. LRSD Reading First Project Schools Project Schools have been visited several times during the year (2003-04) bv the LSRD Readmg First Coor^ator, District Literacy Specialists, and the ADE Reading First Technical Assistant. J^e purpose of the visits is to provide assistance and to monitor the instructional program of the schools. Momtoring was done using a structured observation protocol and assistance was provided to schools in various ways such as the following:  Classroom demonstrations  Classroom observations with post observation conference  Colleague visits to exemplary classrooms  Sessions for problem-solving various aspects of the instructional program3 The Reading First Literacy Coaches and classroom teachers administered assessments in addition to those required by the district. In the fall of 2003 kindergarten students were given the DIBELS letter identification\nfirst grade students were given the letter identification and phoneme segmentation tests\nand the second and third grade students were given the oral reading fluency test. The coaches and classroom teachers used this information to determine students in need of intervention, .and intervention plans were developed for each school. Progress monitoring was conducted on those students considered at risk or some risk in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions and to make needed changes. In January 2004 kindergarten students were given the DIBELS letter identification and phoneme segmentation, first grade students were given the DIBELS phoneme segmentation and oral reading fluency test\nand second and third grade students-------- ' -------  were given the DIBELS oral reading fluency test. The Developmental Spelling test was also administered to K-3 students in Tannary 2004. The Literacy Coaches entered all of the LSRD Reading First schools data and intervention plans into the Arkansas Reading First Data Bank. Pat Busbea and Renee Dawson, Reading First Technical Assistants monitored the data input and the development and implementation of the intervention plans. Because the Reading First Schools are predominantly Afncan Amencan, particular attention is being given to how the students are responding to the intervention and technical assistance is provided to schools when the data indicates it is needed. Professional Development Specialized Training Based on examination of CRT, DRA and Observation Survey data, as well as teacher observation, it w determined that support and services were needed in the following areas of literacy in the low- performing schools\nphonemic awareness/phonics, spelling, oral language and reading comprehension. Both local and nationally recognized experts in these areas of literacy were contracted to provide nmtAccinntjl *____1_______wnwv professional development to teachers of PreK through Grade 5. Ongoing Professional Development Ongoing professional development in literacy instruction is made available to all PreK - Grade 5 teachers. This professional development, a component of the State Smart Start Initiative, includes: Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) for grades K-2 Effective Literacy for grades 2-4 The LRSD Effective Literacy 5 for grade 5 Pre Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (PreELLA) Pre-Kindergarten. Benchmark Preparation to response to requests from principals of the identified schools, District literacy specialists provided State Benchmark Exam preparation training to the teachers of grades 3-5 focused on the areas of Writing On Demand and Constructed Response \u0026gt;9I f. 4 Technical Assistance Literacy was provided to classroom teachers at the Elementary Schools id^ified for School Improvement. The focus and the intensity of the assistance were based on the instruction during the 2 /a hour Literacy Block - Reading Workshop, Writing Workshop and Word Study.  Reading Specialists visited each classroom in need of assistance to meet with the teacher The specialist and teacher identified the specific needs fi-om the following Physical Setting/Context for Instruction Explicit Phonics/Spelling/Word Study Literature Circles/Literature Discussion Groups Guided Reading Instruction Shared Reading Shared Writing areas\nStrategy-Based Mini Lessons Literacy Comers Teacher Read Aloud Writing Workshop Reading Workshop Independent Reading Benchmark Prep The specialists then addressed the areas identified, including: setting up Literacy Comers organrring and categorizing reading materials, teaching students in both  group modehng instmcUonal approaches, demonstrating the use of materials ^^ssing students and developmg mstmctional plans. Professional books, independent reading are als^^^^^ organizational materials and center supplies use of materials, employed literacy coaches to help support and accelerate change in literacy instruction to improve the achievement of all students in the area of literacy. iProgram Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Secondary Literacy 2001-2002 1. 2. English faculty of each school 3. All building assistant principals at middle school program in order to provide for more------  were inserviced by director in literacv XXX tu proviae lor more consistent supervision and coordination hv including all administrators in literacy program. coordination by 4. Monthly collaboration sessions were held at all miHriix. i * i  with n 1 ,  ' -----------utcu Liaiu Dee Bench, consultant fi-om Denver Coalition of Business to lead staff development during s..n,n, Education was employed md instiuction^ Four weeks of training took place with tochers' an four core subjects m attendance. This summer of02 for teachers to modify reading strategies (approximately 75) fi-om 2002-2003 . Evaluation of current practice and able to consistently dXw quSty pro^^^^eTX\"^ for writing in order to be focus on optimum results were goals Spring - Summer 02 N w ^nd Committee of teachers for curriculum development\nBrenda Bankston, Mabelvale Middle School Barbara Brandon, Southwest Middle School Lisa Lewis, Pulaski Heights Middle School Sarah Schutte, Cloverdale Middle School Alison Hargis, Central High School Dr. Rhonda Fowler, Central High School Emily Lewis, Parkview High School Carol Carter, Hall High School Peggy Thompson, Fair High School Sandra Nichols, McClellan High School Karen Shofiier, McClellan High School morning sessions to introduce 2. Director met with building principals during early morning sessions tn introH,, b^sX for purposes of effectively evaluating classroom instruction and to SoX basis for collaborative program evaluation. Fall 02. of data from all tests and sessions with individual schools to modify areas of emphasis according to areas of need. It was discovered that our students do well on theA 4. 5. 6. mechanics and usage areas while the writing in content areas is weaker Strategies developed to practice and teach these skills. English office and distributed to ever, mid   noMcation of literacy program in tenns of test preparat  nexTstfJ^ \"7'^ comprehension for older riders next steps and current status of lowest achieving students. Summer literacy coaches m high school was determined and, a .co ' ' three lowest performing high schools , based on ACTAAP ) Teachers met during summer 2003 to evaluate and modify umculum producing an to all English teachers pnor to meeting and results discussed and useful for changes made. Committee Wes Zeigler, Southwest Middle School were to every middle school to evaluate 02-03. (Need for as a result, three are now in place to revise English Curriculum: Lisa Lewis, Pulaski Heights Middle School Billie Wallace, Parkview High School Beverly Maddox, Henderson Middle School Peggy Thompson, Fair High School Louisa Rook, Cloverdale Middle School Carol Carter, Hall High School Joan Bender, ALC Jennifer Moore, Forest Heights Middle School Alison Hargis, Central High School Cherry Robinson, McClellan High School 7. ESL Supervisor and director met to discuss and evaluate materials as they relate to program s effectiveness for ESL and low-level learners, these students as a result. Summer 03. 8. Consultant from Denver Coalition returned for instruction strategies for secondary students. Materials were purchased for one week of further training in reading 2003-2004 1. Based on being placed on School Improvement list. Associate Superintendent director met to discuss literacy program at low perfonning middle school and plan for improvement following detailed audit. 2. Director has met with middle school principals and high! ' ' discuss progress and evaluate future steps for increasing effectiveness nf ^eater achievement of lower-achieving students.. September03 and to write school principals separately to at 3. Personnel involved with audit of middle school met with building principal and vice princpal ,0 evaluate literacy progratp and dtscuss focus achievemf*nt thrnimk IfaroA,,_______  j\u0026gt;tLiucni achievement through literacy program. 4. Bi-Monthly meetings to evaluate programs and problems and collaborate -- t--------iUlU COIJ improvement held with director and high school literacy coaches. on strategies for August-October03. Five meetings held, 5. Session was held for disaggregating data - school by school recent performances on SAT 9 and ACTAAP and teacher by teacher - for to evaluate successes and areas and students and teachers needing improvement for high schools03.6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Meeting with department chairs and director to disaggregate data for midHU cnho i ev^te successes and denote areas needing imptovS''X\"S SREB consultant meetmg with literacy coaches to evaluate effectiveness of test preparation strategies and plan for improvements. Sept. 03. In response to data, sessions have been held open-ended responses. Teachers have made to at most schools with some or all of faculty in many modifications to classroom instruction xi_ . . , . ------*Ax**xxj ixivuiiiuiiuuns co Classroom mstmrtn on the expenential sessions involving reading, writing, and scoring with a rubric * thr^S intervention for lowest performing ninth andlighth graders at high schools and two middle schools began. One middle school intervention for sixth and seventh as well. uses same tafoimafion and evaluation session held February 04 for all building principals and kev admimsfrators on reading intervention with proposals for c ' 11. All middle schools have committed expansion of program in 04-05 to a day long mservice for their English teachers to review workshop structure for literacy program. April - May 04. On-going 1. 2. 3. Director and Middle School Specialist meet often to discuss and evaluate problems, and to set trainings, meetings, and interventions to correct and further progress Attention to bo\u0026amp; lowest achievers and highest achievers is focus of discussions Calendars are ahgned and coordinated at these meetings. Director and Middle School Specialist of literacy program strategies and progress, meet after school visits to evaluate implementation  ,, . , - content and to determine plans for improvement especially as it relates to lower-achieving students. Weekly at least --------------------O -viwixvo. rr tCM y ai icaSt. Director commumcates often and as requested to address individual problems in buildmgs with principals and teachers. prooiems in 4. Middle School Specialist works intensely with of curriculum and literacy program. 5. Continue to provide training in new teachers to improve implementation preparing teachers in ACTAAP open-ended 6. Middle School Specialist working closely with social studies dep'anment  1 PartSn?tr^ practice framing to assist in reading in social studies content. /. Participation in faculty meetings by director and implementation across curriculum. responses. department in providing specialist to modify program 8. tacrease efforts to provide literacy coaches in all secondary schools 9. Create, distribute and compile data from a survey evaluating the effectiveness of the literacy coaches. (In May 04 set date for survey June Ml   SpriSoM\" \"S\" EtSlisIt teachers 11. Department Chairs meet monthly to discuss hurdles, ioou commumcate openly about the literacy programs. These middle school and high school. These meetings ----- cumculum iteiK, special evenu, new developments, and reminders teachers from the distnct office as well as collaboration----------------------- issues, celebrations, and to meetings are separate for serve as a means of communicatingSecondary Literacy Evaluation Team January 16, 2004 Suzi Davis, Chair Program Modifications as a Result of Analysis of the CREP Report  Continue to provide training to whole faculties in ACTAAP open-ended responses and T_ _____________T7_1.___ r M rubric scoring. January, February, March, 2004  Continue cross-curricular unit development and training in workshops . Communicate with principals on the need for intense support for the literacy program January, 2004 j f   Increase efforts to provide literacy coaches for all secondary schools  Create, distribute and compile data from a survey evaluating the effectiveness of the literacy coaches. A date will be set in May for a June meeting to discuss the results of this survey.  All eight middle schools have committed to a day long inservice for their English teachers to review the ReadAVrite Workshop structure. During this inservice, plans will be made for collaborations among schools for next year. April, 2004  Develop an action plan for providing specific inservices for high school English teachers Spring 2004IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. LET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL RECEIVED MAR 1 4 2003 DEFENDANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF FILING PROGRAM EVALUATIONS REQUIRED BY PARAGRAPH C OF THE COURTS COMPLIANCE REMEDY Plaintiff Little Rock School District (LRSD) for its Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Required by the Courts Order of September 13, 2002 states: 1. On September 13, 2002, the District Court issued its Order finding that the LRSD had substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan), with the exception Revised Plan  2.7.1. The Courts Order set forth a detailed Compliance Remedy as to Revised Plan  2.7.1. Paragraph C. of the Compliance Remedy stated\nLRSD must use Dr. Nunnerly or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations on each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. I will accept all pro^am evaluations that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnerly or someone with similar qualifications and approved by the Board. All program evaluations that have not yet been completed on the remaining programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report must be prepared and approved by the Board as soon as practicable, but, in no event, later than March 15, 2003. In addition, as these program evaluations are prepared, LRSD shall use them, as part of the program assessment process, to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving African-American achievement and whether, based on the evaluations, any changes or modifications should be made in those programs. In addition, LRSD must use those program evaluations, to the extent they may be relevant, in assessing the effectiveness of other related programs.1. On October 10, 2002, the LRSD Board of Directors adopted a Compliance Plan designed to meet the requirements of the Courts Compliance Remedy. A copy of the Compliance Plan is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. As to Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy, the LRSD concluded that the following evaluations had already been completed as required by Paragraph C and only needed to be submitted to the Board for approval: Early Literacy, Mathematics and Science, Charter School, English-as-a-Second Language, Southwest Middle Schools SEDL Program and Collaborative Action Team. The Charter School and Early Literacy evaluations were approved by the Board on October 24, 2002. The Southwest Middle Schools SEDL Program, 2000 and 2001 ESL and Collaborative Action Team evaluations were approved by the Board on November 21, 2002. The Math and Science and the 2002 ESL evaluations were approved by the Board December 19, 2002. These evaluations are bound together in volumes I and II attached. on 4. The LRSD concluded that the following evaluations needed to be completed by an outside expert before being submitted to the Board for approval\nExtended Year Schools, Middle School Implementation, Elementary Summer School, HIPPY, Campus Leadership Teams (CLT), Lyceum Scholars Program, Onward to Excellence and Vital Link. The LRSD sought guidance from Dr. Steven Ross, a desegregation and education expert approved by Joshua. Dr. Ross prepared, Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in the Little Rock School District, attached hereto as Exhibit B. The LRSD subsequently contracted with experts, including Dr. Ross, to complete the evaluations in accordance with Dr. Ross guidelines. The Onward to Excellence, CLT, Vital Link and HIPPY evaluations were approved by the Board on February 13, 2003. The Lyceum Scholars Program, Elementary Summer School, Extended Year Education were approved by the Board on February 27, 2003. These evaluations are bound together in volumes III and IV attached. 2WHEREFORE, the LRSD submits to the Court program evaluations on each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report as required by Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501)376-2011 BY: Christopher 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 March 14, 2003: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Nations 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 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Collette D. Honorable Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock, AR 72201 e. istopher F:\\HOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD 2001Vdes-unitary-Marchl 5-2003.wpd 3 Little Rock School District Compliance Plan Revised Plan  2.7.1 Approved by the Board on October 10, 2002 : exhibit I 5 I AB. C. F. LRSD must maintain written records regarding its assessment of each of those programs. These written records must reflect the following information: (a) the written criteria used to assess each program during the 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year\n(b) the results of the aimual assessments of each program, including whether the assessments resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs\nand (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the assessment of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the assessment process {e.g., all fourth grade math teachers\nall eighth grade English teachers, etc.). LRSD must use Dr. Nunnerly^ or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations on each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. I will accept all program evaluations that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnerly or someone with similar qualifications and approved by the Board. All program evaluations that have not yet been completed on the remaining programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report must be prepared and approved by the Board as soon as practicable, but, in no event, later than March 15, 2003. In addition, as these program evaluations are prepared, LRSD shall use them, as part of the program assessment process, to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving African-American achievement and whether, based on the evaluations, any changes or modifications should be made in those programs. In addition, LRSD must use those program evaluations, to the extent they may be relevant, in assessing the effectiveness of other related programs. * * * On or before March 15, 2004, LRSD must file a Compliance Report which documents its compliance with its obligations under  2.7.1. Any party, including Joshua, who wishes to challenge LRSDs substantial compliance with  2.7.1, as specified above, may file objections with the court on or before April 15, 2004. Thereafter, I will decide whether the LRSD has substantially complied with  2.7.1, as specified in the Compliance Remedy, and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. ^The Court is clearly referring to Dr. John Nunnery. 2Board-Approved Compliance Plan On October 10, 2002, the Board adopted this Compliance Plan to meet the requirements of the District Courts Compliance Remedy. Pursuant to this Compliance Plan, the LRSD will: 1. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04\n2. Develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students\n3. Maintain written records of (a) the criteria used to evaluate each program\n(b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs\nand (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process\n4. Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2.7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of Afiican-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program\nand 5. Submit for Board approval the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSDs Final Compliance Report that have been completed, and complete, with the assistance of an outside expert, the remaining evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSDs Final Compliance Report. Each element of the Compliance Plan is discussed in more detail below. 1. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04. The LRSD will implement the 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan. The 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan calls for the administration of the following student assessments in English language arts and mathematics: Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Observation Surveys (5) Developmental Reading Assessment Observation Surveys (5) Development Reading Assessment Observation Surveys (3) 3Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 7-10 Grades 9-11 Grade 10 Grade 11 Development Reading Assessment Norm-referenced test to be identified for gifted/talented screening Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination SAT9 Total Battery Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination SAT9 Total Battery Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination End-of Course Algebra I examination End-of Course Geometry examination SAT9 Total Battery End-of-Level Literacy examination All of these assessments are administered in the spring. Consequently, the final student assessment before March 15, 2004, will be administered in the spring of 2003. 2. Develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to  2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. The Board approved IL-Rl in conjunction with approving this Compliance Plan. IL-Rl sets forth the written procedures for evaluating the  2.7 programs. 3. Maintain written records of (a) the criteria used to evaluate each program\n(b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs\nand (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process. IL-Rl mandates that the criteria used to formally evaluate a program be identified as the research questions to be answered, the first of which will be, Has this curriculum/instruction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of Afncan- American students?. Recommended program modifications and the members of the evaluation team are routinely included in formal evaluations. The Compliance Committee originally proposed IL-R2 to cover informal evaluations not 4The District Courts Compliance Remedy On September 13, 2002, the District Court issued its Memorandum Opinion (hereinafter Opinion) finding that the Little Rock School District (LRSD) had substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan), with the exception Revised Plan  2.7.1. Section 2.7.1 provided: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7* after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve Afncan-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. The District Courts Opinion set forth a detailed Compliance Remedy to be implemented by the LRSD. The Opinion first stated: Because LRSD failed to substantially comply with the crucially important obligations contained in 2.7.1, it must remain under court supervision with regard to that section of the Revised Plan until it: (a) demonstrates that a program assessment procedure is in place that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented under 2.7 in improving the academic achievement of Afncan-American students\nand (b) prepares the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report and uses those evaluations as part of the program assessment procedure contemplated by  2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. The Opinion then outlined the details of the Compliance Remedy as follows: A. For the entire 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year, through December 31, 2003, LRSD must continue to assess each of the programs implemented under  2.7 to improve the academic achievement of Afncan-American students. LRSD now has over three years of testing data and other information available to use in gauging the effectiveness of those programs. I expect LRSD to use all of that available data and information in assessing the effectiveness of those programs and in deciding whether any of those programs should be modified or eliminated. 'Revised Plan  2.7 provided, LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan. 1covered by IL-R2, However, the administration decided that IL-R2 was unnecessary and would be redundant of information to be included in the evaluations prepared pursuant to IL-Rl. Rather than a separate written record, the program description in evaluations prepared pursuant to IL-Rl will include a description of program modifications made during each year of implementation satisfying the requirements of Paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. As to the results of annual student assessments, the LRSD will continue to maintain a computer database with the results of annual students assessments administered pursuant to the Board-approved assessment plan. 4, Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to  2.7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. The District will prepare the following new, comprehensive evaluations: (a) Elementary Literacy, (b) Middle and High School Literacy and (c) K-12 Mathematics and Science. Each evaluation will be prepared in accordance with proposed Regulation IL-Rl and will incorporate all available student assessment data relevant to the program being evaluated. These evaluations will be submitted to the District Court on or before March 15, 2004. 5. Submit for Board approval the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSDs Final Compliance Report that have been completed, and complete, with the assistance of an outside expert, the remaining program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSDs Final Compliance Report. The following evaluations will be submitted for Board approval without additional work: Early Literacy, Mathematics and Science, Charter School, ESL, Southwest Middle Schools SEDL Program and CAT. If approved by the Board, they will be submitted to the District Court on or before March 14, 2003. The following evaluations will be completed by an outside expert and then be submitted for Board approval: Extended Year Schools, Middle School Implementation, Elementary Summer School, HIPPY, Campus Leadership Teams (CLTs), Lyceum Scholars Program, Onward to Excellence and Vital Link. These evaluations will be completed as follows\nExtended Year Schools. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Middle School Implementation. An outside expert will be retained to rewrite the report 5and, if possible, prepare an evaluation based on the existing data. Elementary Summer School. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. HIPPY. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. CLTs. An outside expert will be retained to review the CLT survey data and, if possible, prepare an evaluation based on the existing survey data. Lyceum Scholars Program. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Onward to Excellence. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Vital Link. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. 6Action Plan Timeline The Compliance Plan will be implemented in accordance with the following timeline. B it 1, Place 2002-03 Program Evaluation Agenda on the Boards agenda for review and approval. 2. Place on Board agenda for approval two previously presented program evaluations (early literacy, and charter school). 3. Place on Board agenda for approval the evaluations of Southwest Middle Schools SEDL program and the Collaborative Action Team (also conducted by SEDL). 4. Place on Board agenda for approval the previously presented ESL program evaluations for 1999-2000 and 2000-01, plus the new evaluation for 2001-02. 5. Place on Board agenda for approval the three previously presented program evaluations for the NSF-funded CPMSA program, plus the new Year 4 report for 2001-2002. 6. Issue Request for Proposals (RFPs) from available external experts to review and complete the eight remaining program evaluations listed on page 148. October 24, 2002 October 24, 2002 November 2002 November 2002 December 2002 Mid-October 2002 Ken James Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Linda Watson Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Karen Broadnax Bonnie Lesley Vanessa Cleaver Dennis Glasgow Bonnie Lesley Darral Paradis 7\"UtetiSBiK\" 7. Form a screening team to determine recommendations to the Superintendent for designating external experts to review and complete the eight remaining program evaluations listed on page 148._____________________ 8. Select and negotiate consulting contracts with designated external experts. 9. Assign appropriate staff to each external expert to provide needed information, data, access to program staff, etc. 10. Monitor the work to ensure timely completion. 11. As each paper is completed and ready for circulation, send copies to ODM and Joshua for their review and comments. 12. As each paper is completed, place on the Boards agenda the item to be reviewed and approved. 13. Write Interim Compliance Report relating to programs on page 148 to be completed. 14. Establish staff teams for each of the three programs on the Boards Program Evaluation Agenda to be completed for 2002-2003 (Elementary Literacy, Secondary Literacy, and K- 12 Mathematics/ Science). J, Late October 2002 Mid-November 2002 Mid-November 2002 Mid-November 2002February 2003 December 2002February 2003 December 2002February 2003 March 15, 2003 March 1, 2003 Ken James Compliance Team Bonnie Lesley Ken James Bormie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Ken James Boimie Lesley Attorneys Compliance Committee Bonnie Lesley 81^. TrLviitiiYTT* ir ...... 15. Publish RFPs to identify external experts to serve on each of the two staff teams for the Boards Program Evaluation Agenda (K-12 mathematics/science external experts are provided by NSF). 16. Establish consulting contracts with the two external experts required for the Elementary Literacy and Secondary Literacy program evaluations. 17. Train each program evaluation team, including the external expert, on the requirements of the approved Compliance Plan and IL-R. 18. Monitor the completion of the work on all three program evaluations required in the Boards Program Evaluation Agenda. 19. Send copies of the completed Elementary Literacy program evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information. 20. Complete the evaluation of the Elementary Literacy program and place on the Boards agenda for approval. March 1, 2003 Late March 2003 May 2003 MayOctober 2003 With October 2003 Board agenda packet October board meeting, 2003 Bonnie Lesley Darral Paradis Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Ken James Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Pat Price 9'! ISnicalirc-    I W3J\nj I fOTjstihTPf.i \u0026amp;' I 21. Send copies of the Secondary Literacy program evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information. 22. Complete the evaluation of the Secondary Literacy program and place on the Boards agenda for approval. 23. Send copies of the completed CPMSA program evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information. 24. Complete the five-year evaluation of the CPMSA project (science and mathematics) and place on the Boards agenda for approval. 25. Write Section 2.7.1 Final Compliance Report for federal court and file with Court. With November 2003 Board agenda packets November board meeting, 2003 With December 2003 Board agenda packet December board meeting, 2003 March 15,2004 10 Ken James Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Pat Price Ken James Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Vanessa Cleaver Dennis Glasgow Ken James Attorneys Compliance Team1 Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in Little Rock School District Prepared by Steven M. Ross, Ph.D. The present guidelines are based on my review of the Revised Compliance Plan, the LRSD standards for program evaluation, and evaluation report drafts and associated materials related to the eight programs identified as requiring final evaluation reports. My analysis of this material, combined with my experiences as an educational researcher and familiarity with the Joshua case as it affected LRSD, was influenced by the following assumptions:  Invalid or questionable evaluation results can be much more detrimental than helpful to efforts to improve educational practices, and should not be disseminated without strong cautions and qualifications. Accordingly, studies that lack proper controls against bias or contamination from extraneous factors (e.g., differential sampling, history, diffusion of treatments) have limited value for guiding policies.  Program evaluations that focus predominately on student achievement outcomes while lacking sufficient implementation data have reduced value due to inability to determine the nature of the treatment. The study will also fail to inform policymakers about the practicality of the program, how it was used and reacted to by stakeholders, or whether and/or how it needs to be improved to impact at- risk learners.  Evaluations of programs that have been discontinued in the district are of much less interest relative to ones that are presently being implemented or informing ongoing practices.  To raise the achievement of African American students in LRSD, attempting to resuscitate existing studies that have insufficient data available, limited relevance to current practices, or require substantial time and resources with little promise of yielding useful information for policy decisions would be less productive than employing the lessons learned from the prior evaluation work to support high quality and informative future studies. One such lesson is that the LRSD research department (formerly PRE) was understaffed to perform evaluations of the quality and quantity needed. Based on the above assumptions, I will recommend below a basic strategy for the third-party evaluators to use in preparing the eight identified evaluations for approval by the school board. Four of the evaluations concern programs that are no longer in use by LRSD and have limited or no relevance to programmatic decisions (Lyceum Scholars, Elementary Level Summer Schools, Vital Link, and Onward to Excellence). Of the remaining four evaluations, two have limited available data (Middle School Transition and Campus Leadership Teams) that, even with supplementary analyses, would not permit confident (valid) decisions to be made about program effectiveness : exhibit 32 in general or about African American student achievement resulting from program participation. A seventh evaluation (Extended Year Education) could possibly yield informative evidence about an ongoing program, but to be sufficiently refined would require time and resources extending significantly beyond the current conditions for project completion. An eighth evaluation (HIPPY) also deals with an ongoing program, but unlike the others could possibly provide useful evidence through revisions completed within the available time frame. Accordingly, the HIPPY report is currently being rewritten by Dr. Ed Williams from LRSD. The suggested plan for the third-party evaluators is presented below followed by a brief review of each evaluation. A. B. C. D. Submit the current evaluation report as an attachment to a supplemental document as described in B-D. The supplement should begin with an expanded description of the program, its goals, and its history in LRSD. It should then describe the evaluation methodology and summarize and interpret the key findings. Most importantly, the supplement should discuss the limitations (and any strengths where indicated) of the evaluation with regard to: (a) informing current practices in LRSD\n(b) using appropriate methodology\nand (c) addressing student achievement effects, especially in reference to African American students. Finally, the supplement should present suggestions for conducting stronger studies of similar programs in future evaluation studies. 1. Middle School Transition (Moore) This evaluation is in near-completed form and needs mostly editing and expansion. Because the middle school program is current and continuing, this evaluation study can be useful (mostly for guiding professional development and implementation improvement) for informing district strategies. The achievement results are fairly minimal and uninformative, but at the time of the evaluation (1999-2000), only baseline data existed. Thus, aside from providing additional description of the results (the tables and the narrative are sparse) and a more meaningful interpretation of trends (especially with regard to Afiican American vs. Caucasian students), there is probably little more that needs to be done for this essentially baseline time period. The survey data appear to be reasonably analyzed and reported, but the interpretation and discussion should be extended to provide more meaningful conclusions and recommendations. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section.3 2. Lyceum Scholars (McNeal) The Lyceum Scholars High School Program, which was evaluated in 1998-99 and 1999- 2000, is no longer being implemented in LRSD. The latter consideration, coupled with the obvious limitations of the evaluation design with regard to rigor, depth, and meaningfulness of the data, substantially reduce the value of the study and the need for devoting more than minimal resources to it, beyond perhaps a supplemental summary and explanation. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 3. Elementary Level Summer School (McNeal) Similar to the Lyceum Scholars High School Program (#2 above), the Elementary Level Summer School program is no longer being implemented in LRSD. In addition, the evaluation study conducted in the summer of 2001 is limited in its design and methodology. Among the major concerns are the lack of: (a) implementation data to describe the program strategies and the degree to which they were actually used by teachers, (b) an adequate control group or norms to which the achievement scores of summer school students could be compared, and (c) qualitative data to describe the experiences of students and teachers in the program. Due to differential sampling the multiple tables provided are neither overly meaningful nor informative regarding the progress of summer school students in general and African American summer school students in particular. Seemingly, there is little useful information to be gained for informing future policies by investing substantive resources in revamping the study. While more suitable control samples might be established using archival data, the absence of implementation assessments would still make the treatment essentially unknown. Therefore, suggestions similar to those made for the Lyceum Scholars program are also offered here. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 4. Vital Link (Ross) The Vital Link program, designed to provide students with on-the-job experiences, was offered to 394 middle school students in the summer of 1999. Because the program was of very limited duration (only one week) and is not focused on either academic curriculum or learning strategies, it is highly xmlikely to have affected students academic achievement. Although such a program would still potentially serve a useful purpose for fostering student motivation to achieve and complete school, it is no longer being implemented in LRSD. Further, the evaluation study conducted was so limited (a brief post-test only, closed-ended survey) that the policy implications of the results are minimal and even potentially misleading if derived. Therefore, suggestions similar to 4 those made for the Lyceum Scholars Program and the Elementary Level Summer School Program (#s 2 and 3 above) are again offered here. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 5. Onward to Excellence CSRD Program (Ross) The OTE model was implemented at Watson Elementary School for several years, starting in 1999. It has since been discontinued and was never formally evaluated, except for achievement data reports sent by the principal to ADE. Thus, in essence, there is no longer any program in LRSD to evaluate and no evaluation report to revise, expand, or redraft. It would seem wasteful of resources to reexamine historical data from this program, especially since implementation data are lacking. That is, if positive or negative results were found, it would be impossible to determine whether OTE or numerous others factors were the main cause. Suggestions, therefore, are similar to those for #s 2-4 above. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 6. HIPPY (Ross) Because HIPPY is a continuing program, this evaluation can be potentially useful to LRSD by providing initial program results on student achievement and benefits to African American children. A limitation of the study, which unfortunately cannot be remedied retroactively, is the lack of implementation data to describe the fidelity with which HIPPY program components were actually used. The quantitative achievement results must therefore be viewed cautiously, but should still be at least suggestive regarding program influences. Substantive expansion and revision, however, are needed to increase the readability and meaningfulness of the report. For example, there is inadequate description of the program, context, methodology, and analysis design. Tables and findings need to be presented in a more readable (user-friendly) manner. Suggestions: A. Reorganize and expand the introduction and methodology to be in line with district evaluation standards (i.e., more context, more detailed methodology, clearer questions and organization). B. Ed Williams needs to run the revised analysis and write up results by January 31, 2003. A program description needs to be provided. Results need to be disaggregated, if possible, for African American and Caucasian students. Expand the Results sections to provide more informative reporting of outcomes, clearer tabular presentations, etc.5 C. Expand the Conclusions section to: (a) directly address whether there are implications for the achievement of African American and other disadvantaged groups (there probably are not at this stage), (b) more fully discuss implications and recommendations associated with the findings, and (c) propose further evaluation research that will validly determine both implementation quality and influences of HIPPY on student achievement. D. The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy in expanding this report. 7. Extended Year Education (EYE) Report (Moore) The EYE program is relevant to LRSDs current interests in improving academic achievement of its students. Unfortunately, the present evaluation design does not seem sufficiently sensitive to detect effects that might be attributable to EYE. Specifically, usage of whole-school data compared descriptively to district norms gives only a very surface examination of the schools progress, with susceptibility to contamination by student mobility, differences in SES, etc. A more precise analysis would match students at the three schools to similar students at comparable schools not using EYE, and then examine progress using a multivariate-type (regression or MANOVA) analysis. It is questionable, however, that such analyses could be completed in the time remaining for the required submission of the final report. Also, the findings would be limited by having only two years of post-program data. Aside fi-om the design limitations, the organization of the report is difficult to follow due to the many tables and brief but not very informative narrative descriptions. The survey data might be interpretable, but also need a much clearer and better organized presentation. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 8. Campus Leadership Teams (Ross) This initiative seems highly relevant to current and future goals of LRSD. However, the evaluation data collected to date consist of only results from two district-wide surveys that assessed team members reactions to various activities. No information exists to verify the representativeness of the samples, the validity of the data collection in general, or the implementation of the CLTs at the various schools. The aggregate survey results on the 24 combined items (14 in the team member survey\n10 in the certified/non- certified staff member survey) do not appear overly interesting or meaningful with regard to informing practice. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 12/3/021 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 Overnight Delivery OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  F.AX (501) 372-3428 Email\nmchenryd@swbell.net March 20^ 2003 Mr. Michael E. Gans, Clerk United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse Ills. lO'h St., Room 24.329 St. Louis, MO 63102 Re: received MAR 2 0 J003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MOMITORING Little Rock School District, Appellee v. Pulaski County Special School District No.l, Defendants, Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al.. Appellants, Katherine Knight, et al.. Intervenors\nAppeal Nos. 02-3867, 03-1147 Dear Mr. Gans: Enclosed you will find ten copies of Brief of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al. and Addendum and three copies of the Appendix of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al. for filing in the above matter. Also enclosed you will find a diskette as required by the rales. Sincerely, W. Walker JWW:lp cc: All Counsel of RecordB IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT I APPEAL NOS. 02-3867, 03-1147 fl fl LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE V. received 20 2003 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., APPELLANTS I KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas I Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. I BRIEF OF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. a a a Elaine R. Jones President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Theodore Shaw Norman Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013-2897 212-965-2200 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Ark. 72206 501-374-3758 Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Mass. 02421 781-862-1955 Rickey H. Hicks 1100 North University Suite 240 Little Rock, Ark. 72207 501-663-9900 aN IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APPEAL NOS. 02-3867, 03-1147 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE V. received M PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., APPELLANTS MAR 20 2003 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING fl KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. BRIEF OF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. Elaine R. Jones President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Theodore Shaw Norman Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013-2897 212-965-2200 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Ark. 72206 501-374-3758 Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Mass. 02421 781-862-1955 Rickey H. Hicks 1100 North University Suite 240 Little Rock, Ark. 72207 501-663-9900I I IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APPEAL NOS. 02-3867, 03-1147 I I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE V. RECEIVED I PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL., DEFENDANTS MAR 2 0 2003 I OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., APPELLANTS I KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS I I Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas I Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. ADDENDUM OF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. I I I Elaine R. Jones President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Theodore Shaw Norman Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013-2897 212-965-2200 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Ark. 72206 501-374-3758 Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Mass. 02421 781-862-1955 I R Rickey H. Hicks 1100 North University Suite 240 Little Rock, Ark. 72207 RI IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT I APPEAL NOS. 02-3867, 03-1147 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE V. RECEIVED I I PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL., DEFENDANTS MAR 2 0 2003 n OFFICE OF I MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., APPELLANTS DESEGREGATION MONITORING KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS I Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. I APPENDIX OF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. I I Elaine R. Jones President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Theodore Shaw Norman Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013-2897 212-965-2200 I I John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Ark. 72206 501-374-3758 Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Mass. 02421 781-862-1955 Rickey H. Hicks 1100 North University Suite 240 Little Rock, Ark. 72207 501-663-9900nrr,, :? ^OHi1 JUMI '1 W WHLKt-K H H NO.097 P.2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT iiwS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS' WESTERN DIVISION APR Ma LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JAMES W, MeCORMACK, GLERK Byx_________ PLAINTffiP]P-?RX 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 The Joshua Intervenors' Comments on the Submission of Paoe lae \"Evaluations\" The Joshua Intervenors comment as follows on the *[LRSD] Notice of Filing Rrogran Evaluations Required by Paragraph C o the Court's Compliance Remedy and the accompanying \"evaluations. This court held that the LRSD did not substantially comply with Sec. 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, addressing \"Program Assessment/Prograrn Evaluation [at ISO].\" [At 168] The court noted the importance of this commitment. I find that the purpose of Sec. 2.7.1 was to make sure that the programs promised under Sec. 7   ' improve the academic achievement of African-American students. 2.7 actually worked to I further find that LRSD's substantial compliance with Sec. 2.7.1 was crucial to its commitment to improve the academic achievement of African-American students\ntor. without performing a rigorous annual assessment of each of the many dozens of programs implemented under Sec. 2.7, it would be impossible to determine which programs were working and should be continued and which programs were not working and should be discontinued, modified, or replaced with new programs. [At ISO] The court's \"Compliance Remedy\" for the Sec. 2.7.1 violation 1 1 JUHII JUHM W WHLKLH P a HO.097 P.3 addxe\u0026amp;Bed in part program evaluations identified in page 148 of on each of the programs 171] The court discuseed the the Final Compliance Report.\" [At 17O, completion of these evaluations and their submission to the court and the parties, by March 15, after their approval by the LRSD school board. 2003, [At 171-72] The court also required, in effect, additional evaluations of \"each of the programs ia^lemented under Section 2.7 to improve the academic achievement of African-American students.\" are to be submitted on or before March 15, [^t 170] These materials 2004. [At 172] This court also discussed the criteria to exiting court supervision. govern the LRSD's substantially comply with the C^cxally important obligations contained i,, ==.... vr with regard to th^ in Sec. 2.7.1, it section of the Revised Plan Gntil it\" fa BTooram asBeeftmonf- .flJ- tnat a ^flgram aesessment nrocedure is in oTaoe program implemented under wSCt 417 inIraprovino_achievemn* .i.7 in improving the academic American students\n\" ntfAPan Hrt^. lo. i::k3t3^ n The LRSD \"Notice of Piling\" describes the LRSD's plan to prepare \"comprehensive program evaluationfs]\" as follows\n. District will prepare the followinq nen Elementary Literacy, (b) Middle and (C] K-12 Mathematics and Science, ach evaluation will be prepared in accordance with proposed Regulation IL-Ri and will incorporate all available st^ent assessment data relevant to the program being evaluated. These evaluations will be submitted to the District before March 15. 2004. [Exhibit A at S] student Court on or Joshua Interveners have raised an issue about the scope of this plan pursuant to Section 8 of the Revised Plan. The page 148 \"evaluations\" were, as noted, submitted on March 14, 2003. A review of these materials and other relevant documents 2NO.097 p.4 Show that if LRSD is to \"[demonstrate] that a program assessment procedure is in place that can of each program implemented accurately meaaure the effectiveness under Sec. in improving the I H 2.1 academic achievement of African-American students\"  it will have to be by a future submission, were either not evaluations, In general, the documents submitted or very deficient evaluations. Joshua Intervenors offer the following examples of deficiencies identified in the page 154 \"evaluations.\" Early Literacy [vol. 1-2]' Dr. Ross described the report as \"one of the best written reports from LRSD i^ve read. [At 2] He also discussed \"a number of weaknesses . . - [Id-] Dr. Ross* critique includes the following content: \"Of greatest concern overall is the writer's obvious efforts to 'prove' gap reduction even where the data support is weak or spurious.\" [At 3] \"Statistically, a very serious weakness is the lack of validity of the 'Percent Improvement' (Pl) index. [At 3 ] \"Another major statistical weakness is emphasizing the comparison of growth ratios (GR) between B and KB students. . . The reason is the obvious ceiling effects on most of the measures.\" [At 4] \"Not surprisingly, on the two literacy tests that do ngx have low ceilings  Writing Vocabulary and DRA  Ratios are much less supportive of gap reduction [e.g.. the Growth see p. 54, bullet 4), and could even be used by critics as showing extensions of the gap in a number of places.\" [At 5] \"The present data are , This segment is based upon a critique by Dr. Ross, titled Review of Year 2 Evaluations.\" It was submitted to counsel a^d Mrs. Marshall of QDM, by counsel for the LRSD, on October 25, 2002. 3. C.VJCJO r?* ozwi i. jut-in w wHL_r.t.K r h NO.097 p.5 suggestive of definite xU. students' literacy performance. early progress made by lrsd in improving e^e also indicators some progress in gap reduction in certain skills. of However, given that we are dealing with teacher-administered tests having very ceiling levels, the overall evidence low conveys. There is is weaker than this report no reason to reduce the findings by presenting them credibility of the [At 7] \"Conduct more studies that with such an obvious positive bias. and impacts on the school and Charter schog-[ [Vol. 1-2} \"Performance data for examine implementation quality the classroom.\" [At 8] the program evaluation were disaggregated by African American. not race. The student body, however, was 87 percent N [Vol. 1-2 at 1\nDr. Lesley] Southwest Middle school's smni. Program [Vol. The \"evaluation\" documents produced by 1-2] the Southwest Educational Development Lab contain of the program implemented at Southwest Middle achievement data. [Vol. 1-2 at 243-63] neither a detailed description School, nor student C\u0026lt;? 1 labor at ive Action Plan [Vol, 1-2] \"Although the 249-page study produced by SEDL that evaluated the project included student achievement data, those data were not disaggregated by race, and LRSD's short-term [one year) in the project would not predict that the involvement this relatively small of parents and community vo)ynte^rs would result in improved student performance. Dr, Lesley] N [Vol. 1-2 at 528\n4 I. C-WtJO 3  COMI'I JUMU W whlklh h h HO.097 P.6 Bctended Year Schools [Vol. Vol. 4] \"Unfortunately, the present evaluation sufficiently sensitive to detect effects that design does not seem might be attributable . to BYE. Specifically, usage of whole^school data compared descriptively to district examination of the schools' norms gives only progress. a very surface with susceptibility to contamination by student mobility, differences in SES, etc.\" [Exh, B at 5\nDr. Ross] \"The external evaluator's conclusion was that 'Unfortunately, the limited nature of the original design and existing data do not afford us an opportunity to answer in a rigorous manner the key evaluation question of the extent of impact of the initiative on black student performance.'\" [Vol. 4 at 1732\nDr. Lesley\nsee also Vol. 4 at 1813 (Youth Policy Research Group, Inc.] Middle School Imnlementatien [Vol. 4] \"The study conducted by the external evaluator did not attempt to draw any conclusions related to this research question [impact on African-American achievement] since the student performance data available for the study were 'baseline'. and there are serious questions about the appropriateness of the achievement measures and about the validity of some of the other performance outcome measures.\" [Vol. 4 at 1870\nDr. Lesley] \"The data presented in the original report does not support the interpretation of program effects on student performance. It provides a baseline for examining future effects, but needs to be extended and verified.\" [Vol. 4 at 1911\nYouth Policy Research 5 MtiHi'i JUI-iri W WHLK.t.K h' H NO.097 ' P.7 Group\u0026lt; Inc.] Elementary Summar SehonT [Vol. 3] There is a lack of implementation data to describe the i program strategies and the degree to which they were actually used by teachers.\" There is not \"an adequate control group or norms to which the achievement scores of the summer school students could be compared.\" [Eh. B at 3\nDr. Ross] \"unfortunately, there are no additional details in the evaluation that describe the precise treatment afforded the students in the program. Missing is any indication of precisely how much of the curriculum was delivered. how and when it was delivered. and neither by whom, nor its relationship to the previously identified objectives.\" [Vol. at \"] \"No adequate control group or norms . . [Vol. at -J (By Quality Education and Management Associates, Inc.] Hippy [Vol. 3] \"A limitation of the study, which unfortunately cannot be remedied retroactively. is the lack of implementation data to describe the fidelity with which Hippy program components were actually used. [Eh. B at 4\nOr. Ross] M \"Conclusions are difficult due to limitations of the study.\" [Vol. 3. at 1554\nDr. Lesley] \"A third weakness is the gap between the HIPPY experience and the achievement scores analyzed. ... By that time, several years had elapsed subsequent to the HIPPY interventions.\" [vol. 3 at 1567\nDr. Ross] 6 -ttJMI I J s-'ni W H NO.097 p.8 gamPUS T.\u0026lt;adez-Rh\u0026lt;o T)ms [Vol. 3] consist of only . However, the 'evaluation data' collected to date results from two district-wide assessed team nenbers surveys that reactions to various information exists to activities. No the validity of verify the representatives of the samples t the data collection in implementation of the CLTs Dr. Ross] general, or the at the various schools.\" [Eh. B at S\n\"These surveys were not intended although they to he a program evaluation., Vere mistaKenly characterized as District's Compliance such in the report to the court. data were collected, and, therefore, No student performance no conclusions could be drawn as to whether the improved academic achievement African American students. campus Leadership Teams' work has resulted in for any students, nor specifically H [Vol. 3 at 1256\nwas no formal evaluation Dr. Lesley] of CLT by the LRSD.\" [vol. at 1259\nDr. Ross] Lyceum scholars Program [Vol. 3 4] \"Approximately one-half of the students small participating in this program (8 to 10 students total) were African American. Because the numbers were so small, neither performance data nor survey data were disaggregated by race. Neither the staff study nor that of the external evaluator could determine whether this had any positive benefit on the academic performance program of African American students.\" [Vol.4 at 1607\n(inadequate description of treatment Dr. Lesley\nsee also at 1635 provided students in program\n7\u0026lt;1 jurrn w WHUKt-K k h NO.097 P.9 Dr. Ross)] Qnwara to Exceiieneg fvoi. 3] The program \"was never formally evaluated. achievement data except for reports sent by the principal to ADE.\" As \"i iaplejnentation data are lacking, It n if positive or negative results were found, it would be impossible to determine whether OTE or numerous other factors were the main cause. [Eh. B at 4\n\"In view of these factors, Dr, Ross] is no basis for evaluating the 'study,' since none existed.\" [Vol. 3 at 1217\nDr. Ross] Vital Link [Vol. 3] ^Drthar, the evaluation study conducted was so limited (a h brief post-test only, closed-ended survey) that the policy implications of the results are minimal and even potentially misleading if derived.\" [Eh- B at 3\nDr. Ross] There is [iInsufficient description of the program and its N implementation.* There is a \"[l]ack of pre-program (pretest).data for judging change following program completion.\" \"Mo examination of results for different subgroups (e.g., by ethnicity).\" [Vol.3 at 1542\nDr. Ross] 8 1 i_?  CJMl I J 1 w wHL-\\c.r\u0026lt; H NO.097 P.10 sonciueion The need for high quality evaluations, court supervision, is clear. if XJISD IS to exit Respectfully submitted. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862'-1S55 Mass. 405900 'J in W. Iker John w. Walker, p.a. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 Ark. 64046 Ricky Micks Attorney at Law 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rock, AR 72207 501-663-9900 9 jvmi w wHLrLr r H NO.097 P. 11 CERTmCATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleadi pre-paid, to all the counsel of record this day of has been mailed, postage ohn W, Walker IMrr,, 1^. iiukUO cJtJHI'i JUm W WHLKLK H W \" NO. 097------P. 1 JOHN IV WALKIR, P.A. 7 Date: Attorney at Law 1723 Broadwey Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET To: Fax: Re: Sender: YOU SHOULD RECEIVE [JJ(mduixni sheet)] PACE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL \"\u0026lt;(501) 374-3758\u0026gt;\" The information contained in this facsimile message is attorney privileged and confidential i^onnation intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of tlus 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 immec^w not^ us by telephone, and return the original message to us at the above address via atcomey privileged and confidential the U.S. Postal Service. Tliank yoi lU-BN district AW\" EAST^NOist^' IBAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS.ygsW. WESTERN DIVISION _____ APR 15 2W MCCORMACK. CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. RECEIVED DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. APR 1 9 2004 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors' Opposition to the Motion of the LRSD to Be Released from Further Supervision and Monitoring of Its Desegregation Efforts The \"LRSD has [not] substantially complied with [Plan] Section 2.7.1, as specified in [the court's] Compliance Remedy.\" [Mem. Opin. , September 13, 2002, at 172] Therefore, the LRSD must continue to be subject to further supervision and monitoring of its implementation of the court-ordered remedy, until it demonstrates substantial compliance with that remedy. The LRSD motion should be denied and supervision and monitoring should continue for a minimum of two additional years. 1 The Intervenors' Opposition is based upon record in the case. the accompanying memorandum. and evidence (including expert ^This two year period of time will afford the^LRSD the minimum time it needs to achieve compliance with t'he remedy/ and, as well, give the Joshua Intervenors and the ODM the time to determine whether compliance is not merely transitory. 1testimony) and arguments to be submitted at the hearing scheduled by the court. (esmectfu y suj^itted, Robert Pressman Ro: 'W. Walker 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 Mass, 405900 fe^key Hicks YJohn W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 o Elaine R. Jones President \u0026amp; Director-Counsel Norman Chachkin Theodore Shaw N7\\ACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street New York, NY 212-965-2200 10013-2897 2 JCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE day of April, 2004 by placing on I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing has been served all counsel of record on this IS*^ a copy of same in the United States mail postage prepaid. 3s filed district court eastern district ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ADD 1 5 gflfli EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ' WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By:_____________________________ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DEP CLERK PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. received DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. APR 1 9 2004 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors' Memorandum in Support of Their Opposition to the Motion of the LRSD to Be Released from Further Supervision and Monitoring of Its Desegregation Efforts The LRSD has [not] substantially complied with [Plan] Section 2.7.1, as specified in [the court's] Compliance Remedy [Memorandum Opinion, September 13,2002,at 172, para. F]. Therefore, the LRSD   must continue to be subject to further supervision and monitoring of its implementation of the court-ordered remedy, until it demonstrates substantial compliance with that remedy. The retention of jurisdiction should be for a new period of two school years . This court's September, 2002 opinion identified the purpose of Section 2.7.1, the importance of substantial compliance with its terms, and the capacity which the LRSD must demonstrate as one element of its burden to justify the termination of the court's 1supervision. This court wrote: . I find that the purpose of 2.7.1 was to make that the programs under 2.7 actually worked to improve sure the academic achievement of African-American students. I further find that LRSD's substantial compliance with 2.7.1 was crucial to its commitment to improve the academic achievement of African American students\nfor, without performing a rigorous annual assessment of each of the many dozens of programs implemented under 2.7, it would be impossible to determine which programs were working and should be continued and which programs were not working and should be discontinued, modified, or replaced with new programs [at 150\nemphasis in original] . . . . I conclude that the court should continue supervision and monitoring of LRSD's compliance with this crucially important section of the Revised Plan in order to ensure that LRSD has in place an effective assessment program that will allow it identify and improve those programs that are most effective to in remediating the academic achievement of African American students, [at 168] These elements of the court's opinion help to frame the issues presented by the Joshua Intervenors' opposition to the LRSD motion. A. The Lack of the Capacity of the LRSD to Perform the Reouisite Assessments and Evaluations (1. ) For the reasons set forth in paragraphs 2 through 14, the LRSD has failed to \"[demonstrate] that a program assessment procedure is in place that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented under Section 2.7 in improving the academic achievement of African-American students: . . [\"Compliance Remedy,\" Mem. Opin., at 170\nsee also id. at 168] (2.) In its ruling of September 13, 2002, the court cited the recognition of the school board and upper echelon administrators that the LRSD had been without the capacity to prepare what the court termed \"in-depth and analytic program evaluations. T1 [Mem. 2Opin. at 156\nsee id. at 153 (Dr. Lesley)\nat 156-57 (school board)\nat\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":38,"next_page":39,"prev_page":37,"total_pages":155,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":444,"total_count":1850,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":1843},{"value":"Sound","hits":4},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":3}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","hits":289},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":220},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":179},{"value":"Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","hits":69},{"value":"United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit","hits":30},{"value":"North Little Rock School District","hits":12},{"value":"Bushman Court Reporting","hits":11},{"value":"Walker, John W.","hits":6},{"value":"Joshua Intervenors","hits":5},{"value":"Arkanasas State University. Office of Educational Research and Services","hits":4},{"value":"Arkansas Association of Educational Administrators","hits":4}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":1745},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":1244},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","hits":1207},{"value":"Education--Evaluation","hits":886},{"value":"Educational law and legislation","hits":721},{"value":"Educational planning","hits":690},{"value":"School integration","hits":604},{"value":"School management and organization","hits":601},{"value":"Educational statistics","hits":560},{"value":"Education--Finance","hits":474},{"value":"School improvement programs","hits":417}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Springer, Joy C.","hits":6},{"value":"Walker, John W.","hits":3},{"value":"Heller, Christopher","hits":2},{"value":"Wright, Susan Webber, 1948-","hits":2},{"value":"Armor, David","hits":1},{"value":"Eddington, Ramsey","hits":1},{"value":"Intervenors, Joshua","hits":1},{"value":"Intervenors, Knight","hits":1},{"value":"Jones, Sam","hits":1},{"value":"Jones, Stephen W.","hits":1},{"value":"Joshua, Lorene","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":6},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":1849},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":1836},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":1799},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":1539},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, North Little Rock, 34.76954, -92.26709","hits":10},{"value":"United States, Missouri, 38.25031, -92.50046","hits":5},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Maumelle, 34.86676, -92.40432","hits":4},{"value":"United States, Missouri, Saint Louis City County, Saint Louis, 38.65588, -90.30928","hits":3},{"value":"United States, Kansas, 38.50029, -98.50063","hits":2},{"value":"United States, New York, 43.00035, -75.4999","hits":2},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Chicot County, 33.26725, -91.29397","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Arkansas","hits":1836},{"value":"Missouri","hits":5},{"value":"Kansas","hits":2},{"value":"Massachusetts","hits":2},{"value":"New York","hits":2},{"value":"Connecticut","hits":1},{"value":"Illinois","hits":1},{"value":"Maryland","hits":1},{"value":"Michigan","hits":1},{"value":"Ohio","hits":1},{"value":"Oklahoma","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1994","hits":385},{"value":"1995","hits":376},{"value":"1996","hits":334},{"value":"1993","hits":312},{"value":"1992","hits":292},{"value":"1999","hits":273},{"value":"1997","hits":268},{"value":"1991","hits":255},{"value":"2001","hits":252},{"value":"2000","hits":251},{"value":"1998","hits":245},{"value":"2002","hits":182},{"value":"1990","hits":173},{"value":"2003","hits":164},{"value":"2004","hits":148},{"value":"1989","hits":134},{"value":"2005","hits":119},{"value":"2006","hits":86},{"value":"2011","hits":62},{"value":"2010","hits":60},{"value":"2007","hits":57},{"value":"1988","hits":51},{"value":"2008","hits":47},{"value":"2009","hits":47},{"value":"1987","hits":35},{"value":"1986","hits":30},{"value":"2012","hits":30},{"value":"1984","hits":27},{"value":"1985","hits":23},{"value":"2013","hits":19},{"value":"1983","hits":16},{"value":"1982","hits":15},{"value":"1980","hits":13},{"value":"1981","hits":13},{"value":"1974","hits":12},{"value":"1975","hits":12},{"value":"1976","hits":12},{"value":"1977","hits":12},{"value":"1978","hits":12},{"value":"1979","hits":12},{"value":"1973","hits":11},{"value":"2014","hits":11},{"value":"1967","hits":9},{"value":"1968","hits":9},{"value":"1969","hits":9},{"value":"1970","hits":9},{"value":"1971","hits":9},{"value":"1972","hits":9},{"value":"1954","hits":8},{"value":"1966","hits":8},{"value":"1950","hits":7},{"value":"1951","hits":7},{"value":"1952","hits":7},{"value":"1953","hits":7},{"value":"1955","hits":7},{"value":"1956","hits":7},{"value":"1957","hits":7},{"value":"1958","hits":7},{"value":"1959","hits":7},{"value":"1960","hits":7},{"value":"1961","hits":7},{"value":"1962","hits":7},{"value":"1963","hits":7},{"value":"1964","hits":7},{"value":"1965","hits":7},{"value":"2017","hits":6},{"value":"2015","hits":5},{"value":"2016","hits":5},{"value":"2018","hits":5},{"value":"2019","hits":5},{"value":"2020","hits":5},{"value":"2021","hits":5},{"value":"2022","hits":5},{"value":"2023","hits":5},{"value":"2024","hits":5}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1950","max":"2024","count":5114,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":904},{"value":"reports","hits":255},{"value":"judicial records","hits":232},{"value":"legal documents","hits":207},{"value":"exhibition (associated concept)","hits":67},{"value":"project management","hits":62},{"value":"budgets","hits":38},{"value":"correspondence","hits":23},{"value":"handbooks","hits":20},{"value":"agendas (administrative records)","hits":17},{"value":"handbills","hits":16}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":1850}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":1850}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":1850}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":1850}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":1850}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}