{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_289","title":"Compliance court orders","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2002-01/2002-07"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","School administrators"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance court orders"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/289"],"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\nRECEIVED JUL - 8 2002 OFFICE OF IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ARKANSAS DESEGREGATION MONITORING EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION JUL 0 1 2002 JAMES 0y:^ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 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 Pending is Plaintiffs Motion for a Protective Order and for Emergency Hearing. For the time being. Plaintiffs request for a protective Order against Joshua, or anyone acting on their behalf, is GRANTED. The deadline for exchanging exhibits and witnesses was set on May 15,2002, for June 21, 2002. At the request of lawyers for LRSD and Joshua, the deadline was orally extended until 5:00 p.m. on Monday, June 24, 2002. It appears, from the documents attached to Plaintiffs Motion, that Joshuas FOI request was submitted on June 26, two days after the deadline for exchanging exhibits and the names of witnesses. Even assuming the FOI can be used in addition to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by a party to litigation, it appears quite certain that this request was not timely. It is my impression, from a quick review of the law, that the great weight of authority precludes a party from using the FOI as a supplement to the discovery rules of the Federal Rules AO 72A (Rev.8/82)of Civil Procedure\nbut, be that as it may, this particular request appears to be manifestly out of time. I note in passing that many, if not most, of the documents requested in the FOI request are not pertinent to the three remaining issues in this case. Accordingly, the LRSD is relieved of any duty to respond to the FOI request by Joshua. If Joshua wants a hearing on this issue, it should file a response to Plaintiffs Motion forthwith. and request a hearingif such a request is made, a hearing will be set as soon as practicable. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this J day of July, 2002. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITHERULE 58 AND/OR 79\u0026gt;) FRCP BY. -2- AO72A (Rev.8/82)AO 72A (Rev.8/82) oJIaOilNaW N01iV33H03S3a 30301330 zooz 8 - inr cisAiaoau EASTeflN district nsac IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL. RECEIVED MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. JUL 0 2 2002 JAMES w Ml By:. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS IX JUL -8 2002 INTERVENORS OmCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS ORDER On July 1, 2002, I entered an Order (docket no. 3611) granting LRSDs request for a protective order to the extent that LRSD was relieved of its duty to respond to Joshuas FOI requests, which appeared to be untimely under the May 15, 2002 Scheduling Order (docket no. 3600). However, I permitted Joshuas counsel the opportunity to file a written response to LRSDs Motion for Protective Order and for Emergency Hearing and to request a hearing if he deemed it necessary. This morning, I received Joshuas counsels July 1, 2002 letter, a copy of which is attached to this Order. In that letter, Joshuas counsel requests me to rescind my July 1 Order, allow him an opportunity to file a written response to LRSDs Motion, and then allow either party to request a hearing. This Order responds to the various points raised by Joshuas counsel in his July 1 letter. First, my July 1 Order admittedly was entered in haste because LRSDs motion papers declared an emergency and made it clear that July 1, 2002, was the deadline for it to produce 6 1 2documents pursuant to Joshuas FOI requests. Furthermore, in LRSDs Brief in Support of Motion for Protective Order and Emergency Hearing, its counsel pointed out that Ark. Code Arm.  25-19-104 provides a potential criminal penalty (of thirty days in jail) which could flow from the LRSDs failure to respond within three days [to Joshuas FOI requests]. This time of year, jails in Arkansas are particularly uncomfortable. Therefore, I hastened to enter my Order before 5:00 p.m. on July 1, lest I place someone in jeopardy of being hauled off in chains. I want to assure counsel for Joshua that, in entering that Order, I was not vexed with counsel-somewhat or otherwise. I appreciate counsel for Joshua clarifying that the FOI requests were filed in connection with his ongoing monitoring of LRSD under the 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (the Revised Plan). This important point apparently was not communicated to LRSD, which understandably construed the FOI requests as seeking documents that Joshua intended to use in connection with the upcoming evidentiary hearing which commences on July 22, 2002. In LRSD V. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371,1386 (8* Cir. 1990), Judge Arnold made it clear that, in approving the 1989 global settlement of this case, the Court placed a great deal of weight on the fact that the parties have all agreed to continued monitoring, which the Court found to be essential. Likewise, Exhibit B to the Revised Plan makes it clear that Joshuas counsel will continue his monitoring of the LRSDs implementation of its desegregation obligations. By clarifying that Joshua is seeking the documents described in its FOI requests in connection with Its continuing monitoring duties, and not for use in the July 22 hearing, I believe counsel should be able to work out a satisfactory schedule for the production of the requested documents. As an aside, I believe that counsel for both sides have more than enough to do in preparing for the -2- AO72A (Rev.8/82)upcoming five days of evidentiary hearings beginning on July 22, and should not to have to concern themselves with the collection and production of a large volume of documents related to Joshuas ongoing monitoring function. It appears to me the production of those documents can and should be delayed until after the completion of the evidentiary hearings that begin in less than three weeks. In conclusion, my July 1 Order will remain in effect until after the evidentiary hearing unless counsel for Joshua can convince me that there is a need for the production of the documents described in the FOI requests before the July 22 hearing. Counsel for Joshua is allowed until and including July 8, 2002, to file a response to LRSDs Motion for Protective Order and for Emergency Hearing. LRSD can submit a short reply by 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 11, 2002. Thereafter, if either party requests a hearing on that Motion, the Court will likely conduct one. IT IS SO ORDER^ DATED this day of July, 2002. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON docket sheet in compliance 58 and/or 79(a CP -3- AO72A (Rev.8/82)JUL. 1.2002 5:55PM JOHN M WALKER P A NO.521 P.2/3 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. .'Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway LriTLB Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WAT.KP.ft SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile - 604-5149 July 1, 2002 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENKY, DONNAJ.McHENRY 8210 HxndbebonRoad Lmu Eock, Abkansas 72210 PHONE\n(501) 372-3426  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email mehonrydSawbalLnat Honorable Judge William R, Wilson United States District Judge 600 West Capitol, Suite 423 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Case Ne. 4\n82CV0S66WRW/JTR LRSD V. PCSSD Dear Judge Wilson\nI received your order dated July 1, 2002 after 5:30 p.m. when I returned to the office from trial before the Honorable George Howard, Jr., USA v. Dennis Williams and Joe Bryant. I am a 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-ceunsel. I believe the Court would not be ygjtfid 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 fiom 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 A^eements 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 maimer 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 toJUL. 1.2002 5:55PM JOHN UI WALKER P A NO.521 P.3/3 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 of March 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. JWW\njs cc: All Counsel of Record Cleric of the Court Si irely, ihn W. Walker Deceived JUL -8 2002 OFFICE OF ESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION :^NSAS JUL - 5 2002 JAMES W, Mc( By.----------J .RMACK, IRK EAST^R^N 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 On July 3, 2002, LRSD filed a Motion in Limine and Supporting Memorandum Brief arguing that\n(1) because Joshuas witness list fails to comply with the Courts May 15, 2002 Order, Joshua should be required, on or before 5:30 p.m. on July 10,2002, to identify the date and time each of their witnesses will be called, to identify the issues on which each witness is expected to testify and to provide a detailed statement of the witnesses expected testimony on each issue\n(2) certain Joshua exhibits should be excluded because they have not been provided to LRSD as required by the Courts May 15 Order\n(3) Joshua should not be allowed to call Sadie Mitchell and Junious Babb, because, in earlier evidentiary hearings, Joshuas counsel has called and examined both of them on student achievement, guidance counseling, and advanced placement courses\n(4) various Joshua exhibits should be excluded because, on their face, they do not directly relate to the three remaining issues of advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, and extracurricular activities\n(5) any testimony from Jim Mosby and Jody Carter related to their recent removal as principals of Southwest Middle School and McClellan High AO 72A (Rev.8/82) 61 61 School should be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 401,402, and 403\n(6) Joshuas failure to identify any witnesses or exhibits for use in their thirty minutes of true rebuttal prevents them from presenting any rebuttal testimony at 8:30 a.m. on July 22,2002\nand (7) Joshua Exhibits 767- 776 and 791 should be excluded under Fed. R. Evid. 801-804, 401-403, and 901. The schedule for LRSD and Joshua submitting their exhibits and witness lists to the Court on July 9 and the commencement of evidentiary hearings on July 22 necessitates an expedited response from Joshua to LRSDs Motion in Limine. Therefore, Joshua must file their response to LRSDs Motion in Limine no later than 2:00 p.m. on Monday, July 8, 2002, and serve other counsel by fax at or before that time. Thereafter, the Court will promptly decide the merits of LRSDs Motion in Limine. Since time is of the essence, this Order will be faxed to counsel of record as soon as it is entered. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this day of July, 2002. IITED STATES DISTRICT JUDG' UNITED DGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE BY. WITH RULE 58 AND/OR79(a) FRCP OU 11 OTx -2- AO72A (Rev.8/82)RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUL \"8 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE RELEVANCE GENERALLY The LRSD moves to exclude all evidence and testimony of noncompliance with the Revised Plan that was not brought to the attention of the entire LRSD Board of Directors pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402 and 403. The ultimate issue before this Court is whether noncompliance with the Revised Plan casts doubt on the Board's intent to comply with the Constitution in the future absent court supervision. See Cody v. Hillard, 139 F.3d 1197, 1199 (8* Cir. 1998). Noncompliance that the Board knew nothing about has no bearing on this issue and is irrelevant. See Fed. R. Evid. 401. Section 1983 Liability Standard The issue before this Court is analogous to the issue of whether a governmental entity may be held liable under 42 U.S.C.  1983 for the unconstitutional conduct of its employees. Respondeat superior is not a permissible theory for holding a governmental entity liable for the unconstitutional acts of its employees. Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). Instead, a governmental entity is liable under 1983 when \"a policy, statement, ordinance, regulation or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body's officers\" can be causally related to the allegedly unconstitutional conduct of itsemployees. Id. Liability may also be based on \"constitutional deprivations visited pursuant to governmental custom even though such a custom has not received formal approval through the body's official decision-making channels.\" Id. at 690- 91, 98 S.Ct. 2018. See Ryan v. Board of Police Commissioners of the City of St. Louis. 96 F.3d 1076, 1084 (8th Cir.1996). In Ware v. Jackson County. 150 F.3d 873 (8th Cir.1998), the Eighth Circuit explained that: Official policy involves 'a deliberate choice to follow a course of action * * * made from among various alternatives' by an official who [is determined by state law to have] the final authority to establish governmental policy.\" Jane Doe A. 901 F.2d at 645. Alternatively, \"custom or usage\" is demonstrated by: (1) The existence of a continuing, widespread, persistent pattern of unconstitutional misconduct by the governmental entity's employees\n(2) Deliberate indifference to or tacit authorization of such conduct by the governmental entity's policymaking officials after notice to the officials of that misconduct\nand (3) Th[e] plaintiff['s] injur[y] by acts pursuant to the governmental entity's custom, i.e., [proof] that the custom was the moving force behind the constitutional violation. Ware, 150 F.3d at 880 (citations omitted) (emphasis supplied). \"[I]naction or laxness can constitute government custom if it is permanent and well settled.\" Tilson v. Forrest City Police Dept.. 28 F.3d 802, 807 (8th Cir.1994) (citation omitted). \"Such a government custom of laxness or inaction must be the moving force behind the constitutional violation.\" Id. \"To establish a city's liability based on its failure to prevent misconduct by employees, the plaintiff must show that city officials had knowledge of prior incidents of police misconduct and deliberately failed to take remedial action. Fowler. 98 F.3d 1069, 1075 (Sth Cir.1996) (emphasis supplied). Andrews v. In the context of the present case, the Board is the \"final authority\" in making District policy. During the term of the Revised Plan, the Board adopted and/or re-adopted clear, unambiguous policies indicating its intent to comply with the Revised Plan, federal civil rights statutes and the Constitution. See CX 719. Thus, to cast doubt on the Board's intent to comply with the Constitution in the future, Joshua must establish a \"custom or practice\" of failing to remedy noncompliance with the Revised Plan. This requires that Joshua show \"that [the Board] had knowledge of prior incidents of [noncompliance] and deliberately failed to take remedial 2action.\" Andrews, 98 F.3d at 1075. Accordingly, incidents of noncompliance of which the Board did not have knowledge are irrelevant. See Fed. R. Evid. 401. Joshua may argue that the District failed to adequately train or supervise its employees who were violating the Revised Plan. It is true that a governmental body may also be held accountable under certain circumstances based on a failure to adequately train and supervise employees. City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 109 S.Ct. 1197, 103 L.Ed.2d 412 (1989). In Andrews, the Eighth Circuit summarized these circumstances related to a city police force. The court stated: A city also may be liable for deficient policies regarding hiring and training police officers where (1) the city's hiring and training practices are inadequate\n(2) the city was deliberately indifferent to the rights of others in adopting them, such that the failure to train reflects a deliberate or conscious choice by a municipality\nand (3) an alleged deficiency in the city's hiring or training procedures actually caused the plaintiffs injury. It is necessary to show \"that in light of the duties assigned to specific officers or employees the need for more or different training is so obvious, and the inadequacy so likely to result in the violation of constitutional rights, the policymakers of the city can reasonably be said to have been deliberately indifferent to the need.\" In other words, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the city \"had notice that its procedures were inadequate and likely to result in a violation of constitutional rights. Andrews, 98 F.3d at 1076 (citations omitted) (emphasis supplied). In the context of the present case, Joshua must establish that the Board \"had notice that its procedures were inadequate and likely to result in a violation of [the Revised Plan.].\" Id. It is simple common sense that the Board cannot be on \"notice that its procedures were inadequate\" if the Board was unaware of the noncompliance resulting from the alleged procedural inadequacy. Therefore, Joshua must at a minimum show that the Board had knowledge of noncompliance with the Revised Plan in order to cast doubt on the Board's intent to comply with the Constitution in the future absent court supervision. The Revised Plan Requiring Joshua to show, at a minimum, that the Board had knowledge of noncompliance about which they complain is consistent with the Revised Plan. As a part of the 3Revised Plan, Joshua and the LRSD agreed to a process for raising and resolving compliance issues. Revised Plan  8 outlined a three step process for resolving compliance issues. First, the issue would be brought to the attention of the District. If the parties were unable to reach an agreement, the issue would be submitted to ODM for facilitation. Finally, the issue would be presented to the Court for resolution. During the term of the Revised Plan, all compliance issues raised by Joshua were resolved without the need for facilitation by ODM or resolution by the Court. See Final Report, p. 166. Consistent with Revised Plan  8, the Board expected Joshua to bring to its attention any substantial compliance issues. To facilitate Joshua's monitoring of the District's compliance, the Board 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 to Plaintiffs Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status. Therefore, Joshua cannot be heard to complain that requiring it to show that the Board had knowledge of noncompliance is inconsistent with the Revised Plan. Conclusion The parties knew there would be compliance issues, and for that reason, agreed to Revised Plan  8. Thus, real question before this Court is not whether there was noncompliance, but how the Board responded to noncompliance. The Board had no opportunity to respond to noncompliance of which it was unaware. Thus, noncompliance that was not brought to the Board's attention is irrelevant and should be excluded pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402 and 403. 4t Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Regions Center, Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 / (501 S5011 Christopher Hell 81063) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by mail on July 2, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 (via hand-delivery) 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 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 NationsBank 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 Christopher Hellei 5RECEIVED -/o 4^y JUL 1 0 2002 OmCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT d^URT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION  By. He 08 2082 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ^OTF 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 JOSHUA INTERVENORS RESPONSE TO THE LRSD I. Joshua Intervenors Witness List The Joshua Intervenors maintain that their witness list generally parallels the list submitted by the LRSD, by identifying the topics of witness testimony. For example, the LRSD can maintain that the summary of the testimony of Dr. Leslie (for 6 hours) provide [s] a detailed statement of the witnesses expected testimony on each issue only on a tongue in cheek basis. The Joshua Intervenors face two problems in preparing a witness list, which the LRSD does not face. The LRSD has ready access to all of its witnesses, who are its employees. In contrast, none of Intervenors witnesses are employees.' Moreover, at least 11 of Intervenors witnesses are subject to the direction of the LRSD. These are witnesses number 1-3, 5, 7, 14-15, 18-19, 23, and 26 on the Intervenors list. Nevertheless, the Joshua Intervenors will submit a supplemental witness list by 5:00 p.m. on Doctors Roberts and Ross are experts designated by Intervenors. -1-July 10, 2002. 2. Asserted Failure to Provide Exhibits The LRSD complains about the failure to provide exhibits identified by the numbers 793, 794, 799, 800 and 801. Each exhibit is an LRSD document(s). Some are voluminous. By this objection, the LRSD is simply seeking to frustrate the Joshua Intervenors effort to present the position of the class in a reasonable manner. Exhibit 801, LRSD Quarterly Status Reports, was the subject of testimony during the earlier hearings. These reports contain information regarding enrollment in advanced courses, as well as the extent to which students succeed. 3. Testimony by Sadie Mitchell and Junious Babbs These associate superintendents served on the LRSD compliance committee during the implementation of the revised plan and have had responsibility for the areas of guidance counseling and extracurricular activities. LRSD plans to offer lengthy testimony by Ms. Mitchell (two hours). The Joshua Intervenors, in contrast, propose to question each administrator for approximately 10 minutes. In this light, it is appropriate to allow Joshua Intervenors to proceed with the testimony. with the LRSD having the right to object to a question as repetitive. 4. Various Exhibits Assertedly Not Relevant to Issues to be Heard The exhibits deal with the following issues: advance placement: 754, 801-802 guidance and counseling: 780, 786-789 extracurricular activities: 746 (lumped statistics), 771, 773, 775 rebuttal: 743, 747, 749, 750, 755, 757, 758, 759, 760, 762, 763, 764, 779, 785 will not be offered: 752, 756, 761, 777, 778, 779, 782, 783, 784 -2-5. Testimony from Jim Mosby and Jody Carter The Joshua Intervenors do not plan to question Messrs. Mosby and Carter regarding their recent removal as principals. 55 6. Rebuttal The Joshua Intervenors will present rebuttal testimony by ODM Monitors Ann Marshall and Gene Jones. They will address the LRSDs testimony at the earlier hearing, which asserted compliance with Section 2.7.1 of the revised plan. 7. Joshua Exhibits 767-776. 791 These letters written by Ms. Springer are offered to show notice to the district of various problems. Counsel for Joshua Intervenors intends to explore at the hearing what if any investigation and other responsive actions were undertaken by the LRSD, after receipt of the letters. The LRSD pledged to implement programs, policies and procedures to insure non-discriminatory access to extracurricular activities. Its administrators responses to the letters is therefore relevant. The Joshua Intervenors should have the opportunity to seek the authentication of pages 2 and 3 of Exhibit 791, dealing with guidance, by the testimony of Junious Babbs and Sadie Mitchell. 8. Relevance Generally The LRSDs efforts to exclude all evidence and testimony of noncompliance with the Revised Plan that was not brought to the attention of the entire LRSD Board of Directors . . . [Motion in Limine at 3] and to rely on Section 1983 entity liability standards [Memorandum Brief in Support of Plaintiff s Motion in Limine] is flawed. These gambits ignore the law of the case, and, more particularly, multiple promises, throughout the plan, to implement various activities without regard to whether or not non-compliance was called to the attention of the Board. See, e.g.. Revised -J-Plan Sections 2.5, 2.7, 2.7.1, 2.12.1, 6, and 11. As emphasized in Joshua Intervenors response of May 30, 2002, the Court of Appeals has held and reiterated that the terms of settlement agreements in this case provide the standards for measuring the performance of the school districts, here the LRSD. [Memorandum at 47] The Revised Plan does not identify Section 1983 entity liability principles as the standard for evaluating compliance with its terms. Rather, it calls, inter alia, for adoption of various programs, policies, and procedures, their implementation, and monitoring to identify problems and provide a basis for remedial actions. School Board members are not LRSD employees, their commitment is for less than full-time. Manifestly, the plan envisions implementation activities by administrators and other elements of the work force, without qualification in terms of notice to the school board. Joshua Intervenors proof will be consistent with this framework. There will likely be questioning on the adoption of programs, policies, and procedures (largely the domain of the school board). There will be questioning of implementation, or the lack thereof (largely the domain of fulltime employees). The effort to exclude evidence, wholesale, is without merit. Respectfully submitted. / Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 4, // Lu John Walker, AR Bar No64046 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) -4-CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has-been serit\\by fax and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to the following counsel of record, on this T\" day of ,2002: Mr. Clay Fendley FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Dennis !en 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. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol 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 1 Jo^ W. Walker -5-RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUL ~8 2002 OmCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V, LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Motion in Limine states: 1. May 15 Order: Joshua's Witness List. On May 15, 2002, the Court ordered the parties on or before June 21, 2002 to \"identify the name of each of their witnesses, the date and time each witness will be called, and the anticipated time it will take for direct examination of each witness. A detailed statement must be included of each witnesses anticipated testimony on each issue the witness will address.\" Order filed May 15, 2002, p. 2 (emphasis in original). Joshua's witness list is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. As can be seen, Joshua failed to comply with the Court's order in every respect. Upon information and belief, Joshua has not even contacted many of the individuals identified to discuss their appearing at the hearing and testifying, and Joshua has no intention of calling all of the witnesses identified. The LRSD moves in limine that Joshua be ordered on or before 5:00 p.m. on July 10, 2002 to identify the date and time on which each witness will be called, to identify the issue(s) on which each witness is expected to testify and to provide a detailed statement of the witnesses' expected testimony on each issue. The LRSD further requests that Joshua be precluded from calling any witness for which it fails to provide this information on or before 5:00 p.m. on July 10, 2002. Finally, the LRSD asks that Joshua be instructed to only identify witnesses that it has interviewed and confirmed their availability for the hearing.2. May 15 Order: Joshua's Exhibits. On May 15, 2002, the Court also ordered the parties to exchange pre-marked exhibits on or before June 21, 2002. The Court further stated that \"[a]ny exhibit not pre-marked and exchanged on or before June 21, 2002 will not be received into evidence during the July 22 hearing, absent highly imusual circumstances. A copy of Joshua's Exhibit list and the exhibits provided to the LRSD are attached hereto as Exhibit 2. Joshua failed to provide the LRSD with copies of Exhibits 793, 794, 799, 800 and 801 stating (t [rjequest is hereby made for those exhibits ..This request by Joshua is untimely. See Order filed July 1, 2002, p. 1. To the extent Joshua may be in possession of these documents, the LRSD moves in limine to exclude Joshua Exhibits 793, 794, 799, 800 and 801. 3. May 15 Order: Exhibit 803. The LRSD also moves to exclude any additional documents which Joshua may intend to introduce as Exhibit 803. Joshua identified as Exhibit 803, \"The exhibits filed by the Little Rock School District for this hearing.\" This fails to comply with the Court's May 15, 2002 order, as the LRSD understood it. 4. May 9 Order: Good Faith. The Court stated in its order of May 9, 2002 that Joshua would be permitted to present additional evidence on the issue of the LRSD's good faith tr but only to the extent that: (a) it relates directly to the issues of advanced placement courses. guidance counseling, extracurricular activities and student achievement\nand (b) it does not duplicate testimony already presented by Joshua on the issue of good faith.\" Order filed May 9, 2002, p. 14 (emphasis in original). Consistent with the Court's Order, the LRSD moves in limine as follows: a. Sadie Mitchell. Joshua called Mitchell to testify on August 1 and 2, 2001. S^ Tr. August 1, 2001, pp. 564-570 and August 2, 2001, pp. 848-896. Joshua specifically questioned Mitchell about student achievement (see. e,., Tr. August 1, 2001, p. 575) and advance placement courses (see, e^, Tr. August 1, 2001, p. 600), Additional testimony from Mitchell on these issues would be duplicative. Accordingly, the LRSD moves to prohibit Joshua from questioning Mitchell about student achievement and advanced placement courses. 2b. Junious Babbs. Joshua called Babbs to testify on July 5 and 6, 2001. See Tr. July 5, 2001 (all) and July 6, 2001, pp. 283-340. Joshua specifically questioned Babbs about advanced placement courses (s^, e^g., Tr. July 5, 2001, p. 219), guidance counseling (see, e^, Tr. July 5, 2001, p. 228), extracurricular activities (see, e.g.. Tr. July 5, 2001, p. 218) and student achievement (see, e^, Tr. July 5, 2001, p. 231). Accordingly, the LRSD moves to prohibit Joshua calling Babbs as a witness. c. Exhibits. The LRSD moves to exclude the following exhibits not directly related to the issues of advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, extracurricular activities and student achievement\n743, 746, 747, 749, 750, 752, 754, 755, 756, 757, 758, 759, 760, 761, 762, 763,764,771, 773,775, 777, 778, 779, 780, 782, 783, 784, 785, 786, 787, 788,789 801 and 802. 5. Relevance Generally. The LRSD moves to exclude all evidence and testimony of noncompliance with the Revised Plan that was not brought to the attention of the entire LRSD Board of Directors pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402 and 403. The LRSDs memorandum brief in support of this Motion is hereby incorporated by reference. The LRSD also incorporates by reference its Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status and its Reply Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status. 6. Jim Mosby and Jodie Carter. The LRSD also moves to exclude evidence and testimony related to the removal of Jim Mosby and Jodie Carter as the principals of Southwest Middle School and McClellan High School, respectively, pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 401,402 and 403. Both men are represented by counsel for Joshua, and filed Complaints against the LRSD on July 7, 2002 related to their removal which are now pending before this Court. The July 22 hearing on whether the LRSD should be declared unitary is not the appropriate forum to decide the merit of their Complaints, and this Court has a long-standing practice of not hearing individual claims as a part of this case. See, e.g.. Docket No. 1874, Order filed June 30, 1993. 37. Rebuttal Evidence. This Court's order of May 15, 2002 granted Joshua 30 minutes to present rebuttal evidence pertaining to the three issues tried virtually to conclusion during previous hearings before Judge Wright. Joshua failed to identify any witnesses or exhibits for this purpose. Moreover, none of the witnesses or exhibits would reasonably be construed as \"true\" rebuttal, as defined by Judge Wright. 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 submitted no evidence which could not have been anticipated by Joshua because it had all been previously outlined in the LRSD's Interim Report and/or Final Report. Therefore, the LRSD moves in limine that Joshua be prohibited from presenting any rebuttal evidence on July 22, 2002, at 8:30 a.m. 8. Letters from Joy Springer. Joy Springer is counsel for Joshua's paralegal, and she has not been identified as a witness. However, Joshua has identified as Exhibits 767- 776 a series of letters from her to District personnel related to individual student/parent complaints. The LRSD moves to exclude these letters for several reasons. First, the letters are hearsay reporting hearsay, and they fail to fall within any exception to the hearsay rule. See Fed. R. Evid. 801, 802 803 and 804. Second, the letters are irrelevant in that there is no evidence that these complaints were brought to the attention of the Board. See Fed. R. Evid. 401 and 402 and paragraph 5, supra. Third, any relevance is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice where no evidence will be presented that would allow this Court to assess the merit of the complaints made in the letters. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. 9. Joshua Exhibit 791. Joshua Exhibit 791 appears to be notes from a meeting with Ms. Jo Evelyn Elston, the LRSD's Director of Pupil Services. The LRSD assumes that the notes were prepared by Springer or another Joshua monitor. However, neither Springer nor any other Joshua monitor has been identified as a witness in this case. The LRSD moves to exclude Joshua Exhibit 791 for the same reasons set forth in paragraph 8 above. Joshua Exhibit 791 should also be excluded for an additional reason: the document, standing alone, cannot be 4authenticated, and Joshua has not identified any witness who will be able to authenticate the document. See Fed. R. Evid. 901. WHEREFORE, the LRSD prays that its Motion in Limine be granted\nthat it be awarded the relief sought herein\nand that it be awarded all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Christopher Heller (#81083) John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Regions Center, Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376^Crn BY: 'hristopher Heller (#( '83) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by U.S. mail on July 3, 2002: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 (VIA FAX and MAIL) Mr. Sam Jones 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 Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 NationsBank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown 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 Christopher Heller F:\\HOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD 2001\\dra-mot.limine-7.(l9-02 wpd 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANT MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS WITNESS LIST REGARDING JULY 22-26. 2002 HEARINGS The Joshua Intervenors plan to call the following persons during the July 22-26, 2002 hearings: 1. Ms. Sadie Mitchell - Associate Superintendent for School Services Will disQuss guidance counseling and her oversight or lack of it within the schools. She will be called on July 23, 2002, and her testimony will be expected to take approximately ten minutes. 2. Mr. Junious Babbs - Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services Will address extracurricular activities and his oversight of those activities as Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services. His testimony will be approximately ten minutes and will occur on July 23, 2002. 3. Dr. Marian Lacey - Asst. Superintendent of Secondary Schools EXHIBIT 1 Will discuss her oversight of the secondary schools with respect to guidance counseling i S I 1advanced placement courses, and extracurricular activities. Her direct testimony will take approximately fifteen minutes. 4. Mr. Jodie Carter - Principal McClellan High School Will discuss special problems with advanced placement courses, guidance counseling, extracurricular activities and the Districts good faith. His testimony will take approximately two hours and will be presented on July 22, 2002. He will also discuss the support and involvement of school board members or the lack of. 5. Ms. Dorothy McDonald - Teacher Will discuss the Districts counseling program and problems which affect Afiican American students which have not been effectively addressed by the District. Her testimony will take approximately fifteen minutes. 6. Dr. Michael Faucette - Teacher Central High School Will discuss in detail the problems with the administration of advanced placement courses, the racial effect of the placements, the manner in which the placements are made, how the placements tend to favor one group of children over another, the problems with scheduling and how those scheduling decisions interact with other decisions of placement and counseling, participation in extracurricular activities, the favor given to white students at Central High School\nthe disparate effect of advanced placement courses with respect to teaching, awards, and other opportunities, and he will discuss the Districts good faith compliance. He testimony will presented on July 22\"* and is expected to take approximately four hours on direct examination. 1. Ms. Pat Watson - Counselor at Hall High School 2Will address the Districts counseling program and how they are implemented. Her testimony will take approximately 15 minutes. 8. Mr. Kenneth Moore, Assistant Principal at Hall High School Will discuss extracurricular activities and good faith compliance. His testimony will take approximately ten minutes and will be presented July 23, 2002. 9. Ms. Pam Mercer - Parent of Former Student of Central High School Will discuss her efforts as a parent with respect to securing fair and equitable treatment for her children, Crystal and Justin, while they were at Central and how she was rebuffed along the way. She will also discuss the atmosphere at Central High School as it relates to privilege being extended to white children from middle class families. It will also cover counseling and extracurricular activities. Ms. Mercers testimony will take approximately twenty minutes on direct examination. 10. Mr. Justin Mercer - Former Student at Central High School Will address the problems he experienced of a racial nature while at Central High School and his efforts to obtain assistance and help from teachers, counselors and administrators. His testimony will take approximately ten minutes. 11. Crystal Mercer - Former Student at Central High School Will address the Districts counseling services from a African American students perspective. Her testimony will take approximately ten minutes. 12. Ms. Paulette Blevins - Former teacher at Central High School Will discuss how the grading system was manipulated so as to change grades and otherwise provide favor to white children at Central High School. Her testimony will take 3approximately fifteen minutes on direct examination. 13. Mr. Jimmy Mosby - Principal of Southwest Middle School Will discuss the efforts of the District to comply with the Plan with respect to good faith, guidance counseling and extracurricular activities while at Southwest Middle School and Hall High School. His testimony will take approximately twenty minutes on direct examination. 14. Ms. Sharon Brooks - Principal of Stephens Elementary School Will testify regarding good faith compliance and how she avoids it. The specific matter she will address will be unreported punishment without the involvement of a guidance counselor regarding the taking away of educational privileges for black boys for a period of two months while she was principal of Rightsell Elementary School. Her ' testimony will take ten minutes. 15. Ms. Susie Davis - LRSD Coordinator of English Will discuss the efforts of the Instruction Department to communicate Instruction Department standards to principals and teachers with respect English and Reading and other subjects which she supervises in her capacity as special assistant to Dr. Bonnie Lesley. Although this is not her title, she was regarded as the agent for Dr. Lesley within the schools. She will also discuss the extent of her and Dr. Lesleys association with respect to principals and counselors. Her testimony will take approximately ten minutes. 16. Ray Gillespie - Former Athletic Director Will discuss his role with respect to extracurricular activities and monitoring activities to ensure the absence of racial discrimination. His testimony will take approximately fifteen 4minutes. 17. Cassandra Norman - Principal at J. A. Fair High School Will discuss the Districts good faith compliance and her schools disparate treatment of black and white students. She will also discuss the support and involvement of school board members or the lack of. 18. Judith Pickering - Teacher - J.A. Fair High Schools Will discuss the racial atmosphere, advanced placement courses and extracurricular activities at J. A. Fair. Her testimony should take approximately fifteen minutes. 19. Foster Allen - Teacher at Central High Will discuss advance placement practices at Central High School and his relationship to those practices. His testimony will take five minutes. 20. Romona Horton and Bennie Horton - Parents of Former Central High Student Will discuss problems with AP placement of their child at Central High School. Their testimony will take five minutes a piece. 21. Alisha Allmon - Teacher Will discuss advanced placement practices at Central High School and his relationship to those practices. Her testimony will take five minutes. 22. Chris Payne- Former Student at J. A. High School Will discuss his efforts to participate in Quiz Bowl at J. A. Fair. His testimony will take ten minutes. 23. Ms. Sue Strickland, Dr. Katherine Mitchell, Dr. Michael Daugherty, Mr. Tony Rose Mr. Larry Berkley, Ms. Judy Magness and Mr. H. Baker Kurrus 5Will each give testimony regarding good faith compliance and their involvement in and knowledge of the development and implementation of guidance and counseling programs, advanced placement courses, regular courses, class sizes of regular courses, pupil teacher ratios between regular, advanced placement, honors and gifted and talented courses. Their testimony together is expected to take one hour on direct examination. 24. Jeanette Carter and Dr. Vertie Carter Will discuss problems which they experience with respect to the AP teachers and administrators and counselors regarding placement, retention and fair treatment in the AP program. Their testimony will take fifteen minutes. 25. Ms. Ethel Dunbar - Principal Franklin Elementary School Will discuss elementary good faith compliance, gifted and talented courses, guidance counseling and the assistance received with respect to these issues from the Division of Instruction. Her testimony will take approximately thirty minutes. 25. Mazie Phillips - Counselor at Fair High School Will address the Districts counseling program and how they are implemented. Her testimony will take approximately 15 minutes. 26. Leon Adams - Director of Federal programs Will discuss efforts to use Title I funds to promote the educational interests of all children rather than the children who were the intended beneficiaries of those funds\nthe correlation between counseling services, advanced placement courses and good faith compliance. His testimony will take approximately twenty minutes. 627. D.J. Thames and Avis Thames - Student and Parent - Fair High School Will discuss the Districts good faith compliance with respect to extracurricular activities. This testimony will take approximately ten minutes on direct examination. 28. Ann Marshall, Gene Jones, and Margie Powell - ODM Monitors Will discuss good faith compliance. Their testimony will take approximately thirty minutes. 29. Ray Simon Will discuss the Districts decision and the reason for it to retreat from the remediation requirement for loan forgiveness. His testimony will address the roles of Drs. Ross and Gamine with respect to discontinuing emphasis upon remediation of Black students relative achievement levels. It will take approximately twenty minutes. The exhibit which he will address is an agreement between the State of Arkansas and the Little Rock School District the description of about which I am not certain. 30. Dr. Terrence Roberts Will address the issue of good faith compliance, guidance counseling and relationship between regular and advanced courses. His testimony will take approximately twenty minutes and will be presented on July 23, 2002. 31. Dr. Stephen Ross Will testify about the Districts good faith compliance and advanced placement and honors courses. He will address the need for criteria for placement as will Dr. Roberts (see above). His testimony will take approximately thirty minutes. 7Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) John W. Walker - Bar No. 64046 I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby state that a copy of the foregoing witness list has been hand delivered to Counsel for the Little Rock School District on this 24* day of June, 2002. 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 4\n82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS EXHIBIT LIST REGARDING JULY 22-26. 2002 HEARINGS The Joshua Intervenors plan to use the following documents during the July 22-26, 2002 hearings: 743. E-mail dated July 2, 2001 from Virginia Johnson to Bonnie Lesley (page 182) 744. E-mail dated October 19, 2000 from Gary Smith to Bonnie Lesley (page 290) 745. E-mail dated June 29, 2001 from Sueellen Mann to Gail Hester and subsequent dated July 2, 2001 (page 167) 746. E-mail dated January 18, 2001 from Junious Babbs to Kathy Lease (page 12) 747. E-mail dated July 2, 2001 from Mona Briggs to Bonnie Lesley (page 191) 748. E-mail dated November 16, 2000 from Les Camine to Bonnie Lesley 749. E-mail dated November 21, 2000 from Ken Savage to Kathy Lease (page 38) 750. E-mail dated March 7, 2001 from Kathy Lease to T Rose and subsequent dated March 7, 2001 at 12:44 p.m. (page 7) 751. E-mail dated July 15, 2001 from Bonnie Lesley to Lionel Ward and subsequent 1 1 exhibit I I A.dated July 16, 2001 (page 88) 752. E-mail dated July 14, 2001, July 15, 2001 and July 16, 2001 from Bonnie Lesley to Ken James (page 96) 753. E-mail dated July 15, 2001 from Bonnie Lesley to Chris Heller (page 102) 754. E-mail dated April 18, 2001 from Bonnie Lesley to Kathy Lease and subsequent response (pages 708 and 709) 755. E-mails dated October 25, 2000 from Bonnie to Irma Truett and Kathy Lease re: Benchmark scores (pages 16 and 17) 756. E-mail dated June 28, 2001 8:00 p.m. from Mona Briggs to Bonnie Lesley (page 192 757. E-mail dated June 28, 2001 9:08 am. from Bonnie Lesley to members of her staff (Page 192 and 193) 758. E-mails dated September 29, 2000 between Bonnie Lesley and Kathy Lease re: Priorities 2000-01 (Page 51) 759. E-mail dated October 3, 2000 between Les Camine. Bonnie Lesley and Kathy Lease Re\nALT Check-in (Page 50) 760. E-mail dated June 20, 2001 from Bonnie Lesley to Beverly Griffin re: semester test Exemption (Page 351) 761. E-mail dated June 25, 2001 from Bonnie Lesley to Clay Fendley (page 297) 762. F-mails dated June 29, 2001 between Sadie Mitchell, Deanna Eggeston and Bonnie Lesley (pages 218-219) 763. E-mails dated February 12 and 13, 2001 Lesley, Ruffins, Lease and Camine (page 19) 764. Email dated February 13, 2001 from Kathy Lease to Les Camine (Pages 17 and 18) 765. Memo dated November 17, 2000 from Dr. Faucette to Mrs. Hargis re: exclusion of Regular English students fro Jennie Calder lecture 766. Email dated September 27, 2000 from Sadie Mitchell to Junious Babbs (Page 1) 27 767. Letter dated December 16, 1998 to Les Gamine from Joy Springer 768. Letter dated February 18, 1999 to Sadie Mitchell from Joy Springer 769. Letter dated March 17, 1999 to Rudolph Howard from Joy Springer 770. Letter dated October 14, 1999 to James Washington from Joy Springer 771. Letter dated February 28, 2000 to James Washington from Joy Springer 772. Letter dated February 28, 2000 to James Washington from Joy Springer re: Scouts 773. Letter dated August 28, 2000 to Ray Gillespie from Joy Springer 774. Letter dated September 12, 2000 to Les Gamine from Joy Springer 775. Letter dated October 10, 2000 to Les Gamine from Joy Springer 776. Letter dated September 13, 2000 to James Washington from Joy Springer 777. E-mail dated June 6, 2000 to Les Gamine from Don Stewart (Pages 100-0 1) 778. E-mail dated April 19, 2001 from Deanna Eggeston to Don Stewart (Page 37) 779. E-mail dated April 25, 2001 from Kathy Lease to Mark Millhollen 780. E-mail dated May 25, 2001 from Bonnie Lesley to Debbie Berry (Page 358) 781. E-mail dated June 7, 2000 from Glay Fendley to Bonnie Lesley 782. E-mail dated June 7, 2000 from Bonnie Lesley to Mary Paal (Page 136) 783. E-mail dated April 17-18, 2001 to Don Stewart from Bonnie Lesley 784. E-mail dated July 12, 2001 to Bonnie Lesley from Don Stewart (240) 785. E-mail dated February 28, 2001 to Bonnie Lesley from Don Stewart 786. Memo dated February 24, 1999 to Gayle Bradford from James Washington 787. Memo dated March 11, 1999 to Les Gamine from James Washington 788. Letter dated April 12, 1999 to Gayle Bradford from James Washington 3789. Letter dated March 22, 1999 to Gayle Bradford from James Washington 790. Letter dated April 26, 1999 to John Walker from Les Gamine 791. Memo dated May 3, 1999 regarding visit to Pupil Services \u0026amp; Administration buildings 792. Email dated 9/30/300 from Marian Lacey to Sadie Mitchell w/attachments 793. High School Master Schedule Audit, Little Rock School District 2001-2002 794. School Yearbooks for Central, Hall, McClellan, Fair, Hall and Parkview for school years 1998-99 through 2001-2002 795. Letter dated February 28, 2002 from Dr. Michael Faucette to Jane Welch regarding enrollment in Creative Writing course 796. Little Rock Central - Requests for Course - Creative Writing 797. Essay by Justin Mercer entitled: Black at Central: My 45 Years of Struggle 798. Memo dated August 4, 1999 from Bonnie Lesley to Ann Marshall 799. Academic awards reports for the period 1998 through 2002. 800. Rank Lists for Hall, Parkview, Central, McClellan and Fair for graduating senior classed for the period 1998 through 2002 801. LRSD Quarterly Status Reports - School Services - 1999 through 2002 802. Deposition of School Board Members - a. Sue Strickland b. Tony Rose c. Judy Magness d. Larry Berkley e. Katherine Mitchell 803. The exhibits filed by the Little Rock School District for this hearing Joshua notes that some of the foregoing exhibits are in the exclusive possession of the Plaintiff. Request is hereby made for those exhibits which include numbers 793, 794, 799, 800. 801. 4By: Respectfully submitted, JohnW. Walker,?. A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing exhibit list and exhibits have been hand carried to counsel for the Little Rock School District and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring on this day of June, 2002. 5 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Monday, July 02, 2001 2:24 PM 'heller^fec.nef Latest Fax 743' 1 had Anita fax over to you the latest-a bunch of stuff on our literacy plan. 1. He already has a copy of the PreK-3 Literacy Plan. Other information is in the Interim and Final Compliance Reports. 2. He also has the test results for SAT9, Grade 4 Benchmark, and DRA-so those are the results. 3. I don't know what he means by monitoring reports. 4. The assessment program is outlined in several pages in the Compliance Report. 5. I can copy those policies and regs for him. Want me to go ahead and send? Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Monday, July 02, 2001 1:44 PM JOHNSON, VIRGINIA RE: Needed Information-Important! Do you have dates for those three times? From: Sent: To: Subject: iriginal Message JOHNSON, VIRGINIA Monday, July 02, 2001 1:15 PM LESLEY, BONNIE RE: Needed Information-Important! Three times I sat in on sessions with Steve Ross along with other PRE staff. At no time did we review any NSF documents. The sessions focused on document review of the ESL and Pre-K Literacy reports. I have never \"consulted\" with him. I have never consulted with Dr. Roberts either. Original Message----- From: Sent: To: LESLEY, BONNIE Monday, July 02, 2001 12:07 PM ADAMS, LEON\nARNOLD, LAURA BETH\nAUSTIN, LINDA\nBRANDON, BARBARA\nBRIGGS, MONA R.\nBROADNAX, KAREN\nBUSBEA, PAT\nCARR, MARCELLINE\nCARSON, RENE\nCLEAVER, VANESSA\nCLIFFORD, ELIZABETH\nCRAWFORD, PAMELA: DAVIS, SUZI\nDEBBIE MILAM\nDILLINGHAM, YVETTE: DONALDSON, MABLE: FINNEY. ANTONETTE\nFLETCHER. DANNY\nFREEMAN. ANN\nGILLIAM. ANITA\nGLASGOW, DENNIS\nHARDING, CASSANDRA: HUFFMAN, KRIS\nJACKSON, MARION\nJOHNSON, VIRGINIA\nJONES, DOCIA\nJONES, STEPHANIE\nKIILSGAARD, SHARON\nKILLINGSWORTH, PATRICIA\nKOVACH, RENEE\nLAJUANA RAINEY: LOYA, STELLA,: MARION BALDWIN: MARTIN, PAULETTE: McCOY, EDDIE\nMcNEAL, MARIE\nMILAM, JUDY\nNEAL, LUCY\nPAAL, MARY M.\nPAUL, ANNITA\nPERRITT, YORIKO U.\nPRICE, PATRICIA: RYNDERS, PAULA: SMITH, GARY\nSMITH, PAULA\nTEETER, JUDY\nWALLS, COLLEEN\nWARD, LIONEL\nWILLIAMS, BARBARA\nWILLIAMS, ED\nWILSON, LEVANNA\nWOODS, MARION Subject: Needed Information-Important! 182snimitci@lrsdadm.lrsd.kl2.ar.us Original Message----- From: Sent To: Cc: Subject: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Thursday, October 19, 2000 1:59 PM MITCHELL, SADIE NEAL, LUCY\nLESLEY, BONNIE\nLEASE, KATHY R.\nSMITH, GARY RE: Will we have the software available by 2nd Semester? What system(s) are being looked at? Original Message From: Sent To: Subject: MITCHELL, SADIE Thursday, October 19. 2000 10:33 AM CARNINE, LESLIE V. FW: Sadie Mitchell smmitch@lrsdadm.lrsd.kl2.ar.us Original Message From: Sent To: Cc: Subject 7^^ SMITH, GARY Thursday, October 19, 2000 10\n25 AM LESLEY. BONNIE WARD. LIONEL\nGADBERRY. BRADY L.\nNEAL. LUCY\nMITCHELL. SADIE\nCAWTHON. FRANCES H.\nLACEY. MARIAN G.\nADAMS. LEON\nAUSTIN. LINDA\nBRADFORD. GAYLE: BRIGGS. MONA\nBROADNAX. KAREN\nCLEAVER. VANESSA: COLFORD. SUSAN\nDAVIS. SUZI\nDONALDSON. MABLE\nEddie McCov\nELSTON, JO\nFULLERTON, JAMES\nGLASGOW, DENNIS: HAWKS, EVERETT\nKEOWN, ADA\nMARION BALDWIN\nNORMAN, CASSANDRA R.\nPRICE, PATRICIA\nTATUM, KATHY: WYATT-ROSS, JANICE Dr. Lesley, The consensus recommendation of the SAIP committee is for a SAIP be created for students at all grade levels who are not proficient based state mandated benchmark tests and/or District mandated Achievement Level Tests (ALT) - Our specific recommendations to implement this are\nobtain/create the software necessary to identify students not proficient on state benchmarks/district assessment that will also generate/print the adopted SAIP form with student information and test scores printed on the SAIP form  obtain/create the software that will generate/print specific strategies (along with and printed checklists for those who wish not to use computer) developed by a committee made up of teachers and curriculum specialists as a resource available for teachers to use (especially secondary teachers) - this can be attached to the SAIP form as needed develop an \"instructional\" sheet for the SAIP form that will explain in more detail the information to documented and procedures to follow  provide training on the use of SAIP form directly to teachers (the exact training may have to be determined at a future date based on the development of software noted above) - delivery of training would need to be coordinated with staff development for most effective and comprehensive presentation to all teachers to ail of you in Cyber Land - is there anything else I forgot? - thanks Gary 290LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: BABBS, JUNIOUS Monday, July 02, 2001 8:08 AM ELSTON, JO NEWBURN, LINDA\nLESLEY, BONNIE RE\nCounseling Program Kit 745- Message Flag: Due By\nFlag Status\nFollow up Monday, July 09, 2001 5:00 PM Flagged It is positive to see that things are moving forward on this \"01 - 02 priority. Prior to coming to closure, I ask that your look to set up a time to fill me in on the \"buy in\" of players called upon (committee members) to develop districtwide literature to be distributed. The connection to Curriculum and Instruction is a biggee that should be run through Dr. Lesley. I will look to give you a call a bit later regarding B/W high school scholarship information and the 3 - 4 year comparisons. To date, this information has not been provided. Junious C. Babbs, Jr jcDabbs@stuasn.lrsd.kl2.ar,us Little Rock Schoo! District -----Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: VANN, SUELLEN Friday, June 29, 2001 11:08 AM HESTER, GAIL ELSTON, JO\nBABBS, JUNIOUS Counseling Program Kit Jo Evelyn Elston is in my office, and we're working on a counseling program kit with insert sheets. Mr. Babbs will pay for this out of his budget. I'm going to talk with Kristy Black about the design of the kit and sheets, but I figured we'd better give you the info for the quote since it looks like a pretty good-sized job. The kit will be one-pocket on right side with a business card slot\nthe kit will print front and back with one pocket. There won't be a separate \"wing\" like the recruitment kit had. Quantity: 25,000 Jo Evelyn likes the paper we used for the recruitment kit and insert sheets, so we could just go with those. The insert sheets: 1. JOBBS sheet - print front only\nquantity 30,000 2. Early college planning sheet - print front only\nquantity 20,000 3. PCEP sheet - print front only\nquantity 20,000 4. What Does Counselor Do? sheet - print front only\nquantity 30,000 5. Counseling program sheet - print front and back\nquantity 30,000 6. Couseling fact sheet - print front only\nquantity 30,000 The kit and insert sheets would print 4-color. Have I forgotten anything? No bleeds. THANKS! (Mr. Babbs, you might want to set up a lemonade stand on Sherman to pay for this!!!!!) Suelle.n S. Vann,- APR Director of Communications Little Rock School District (501)324-2020 167LESLEY, BONNIE 7^6 From: Sent\nTo: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Thursday, January 18, 2001 6:06 PM BABBS, JUNIOUS RE\nSection 2 Thanks for the input! We have been with the program evaluation consultant all cay, so I just finished editing the report to send to Bonnie. I will incorporate your changes and suggestions, and send it to her again. Do you want the Power Point as an Appendix or the outline for it incorporated into the body of the report? I'm so sorry I am just getting around to my email, but I'll take the heat for sending another correction. Not enough hours in the day!! Kathy PS--Thanks for the encouragement! Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: BABBS, JUNIOUS Thursday, January 18, 2001 10:53 AM LEASE, KATHY R. GADBERRY, BRADY L. FW/: Section 2 Good information. Working with timelines and specific report information submissions for this division, I have not been able to dissect in great detail but my original thinking touches upon 2 - 3 items that may warrant some review. You will note that Brady is also being forwarded who can provide his thinking as well. Future compliance sessions will toss this about for further revision. 1. Inclusion of the power point presentation. 2. When touching upon Dr. Ross - It may be advantageous to refer to \"looks to build or acknowledges\" specific district efforts as opposed to \"praising\". 3. It would be appropriate to list current data that is available. Be reminded that when writing materials for our report submission, we will include \"districtwide\" numbers We may not be thprp yet but this will help to serve as an indicator of established basSTihe Fnformation from which we will jump off of. Keep your chin up. . ---------------------------  Junious C. Babbs, Jr jcbabbs@stuasn.lrsd.kl2.ar.us Little Rock School District Original Message----- From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Wednesday, January 17, 2001 6:14 PM LESLEY, BONNIE BABBS. JUNIOUS\nDILLINGHAM, YVETTE\nHUFFMAN, MAC\nJOHNSON, VIRGINIA\nMcCOY, EDDIE\nSUMMERVILLE, ROSALYN P.\nTRUETT, IRMA\nWILLIAMS, ED Section 2  File\nDeseg Report (2.7.1).doc  Bonnie, Here is the first draft of Section 2.7.1. Please let me know what additions or revisions you want made. Thanks, Kathy PS-PRE folks-Look to see what I left out, what typos 1 have, and what needs to be edited. Thanks 12747 Chris, I am in LR this week-end and you can reach me at 868-4289, I can come to your office to help, or I can work from my office. Call if you need me. Are we having fun yet? Dr, Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Monday, July 02, 2001 8:16 AM BRIGGS, MONA R, RE\nThank you, my friend, I \"vegged\" all week-end, seriously \"vegged,\" I know this will be a HARD week. Yes, I hear Kathy is on his witness list. It'll be interesting. -----Original Message----- From: Sent: To\nSubject: BRIGGS, MONA R. Monday, July 02, 2001 6:53 AM LESLEY, BONNIE RE: I have been thinking a lot about you. You can't let this bring on a stroke or something. You don't need this kind of pressure all by your self!! It is not worth it-no job is worth it. And you can't take on the woes of a district that has been screwing up for a decade or more. I hope Kathy does get called to testify. She needs to have to answer to John Walker and if it bodes ill for the district so be it! She and Camine just waltzes out of here and leaves everyone else holding the rope. You make time for sleep and food!! Mona R, Briggs Middle Level Specialist Little Rock School District 501-324-2412 \" Seek First to Understand\nthen to be understood\" (Covey) Original Message From: Sent: To: LESLEY. BONNIE Friday, June 29, 2001 7:55 AM BRICSS, MONA R, 191STEWART, DONALD M. From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Thursday, November 16, 2000 12:23 PM LESLEY, BONNIE BABBS, JUNIOUS\nMitchell, Sadie\nGADBERRY, BRADY L.\nSTEWART, DONALD M. Upper Division Classes and African Americans 74^ Were you able to pull together the numbers-last year and this year's enrollment? John Walker also has called and is questioning his non involvement in the policy development(IKF). I told him I thought the evidence was so strong for Black kids and that I would send him the information. When was the first time he would have received the policy for comment? He is raising much the same issue-impact on black kids as Katherine...IKF\\ \\ Cc: Subject LESLEY. BONNIE: CARNINE. LESLIE V. RE: Chart Revisions Ken, _ Thanks so much for this explanation of what happened, i he important thing about making a mistake is finding a way not to make it again. I think you have done this, and we will all profit from it. I know you feel really badly about this, but the most important thing is to correct the process. We all make mistakes. We are committed to quality in PRE and that includes continuous improvement and continuous learning. This experience has provided us with both. What a bonus!! Thanks for helping with the corrections. I will take care of getting them to the appropriate Cabinet people and getting them redistributed to the Board. -----Original Message----- From: Sent: To: Subject: Dr Lease, SAVAGE. KEN Tuesday. November 21, 2000 10:31 AM LEASE. KATHY R. Chart Revisions I have reviewed the charts that I created from the benchmark data. When I created the charts originally I had encountered a problem similar to the one described by Dr. Lesley, but I specifically remember correcting the error prior to sending the charts to you. Needless to say, I was more than a little alanned that the charts you received contained errors because the charts I have appear to coincide with the data I have. I went on further to investigate by looking at the email I sent you. And there, big as day, the error had reappeared. So the charts I had sent you were incorrect because they were never updated in the manner that I expected. Here is what I believe happened based on what I remember and what I learned this morning:  I created the charts in an Excel document that contained the data.  1 copied the charts only out into another document, creating what is called a linked object.  I printed and reviewed the charts and this is when I found the error.  I corrected the error and reopened the \"linked charts. They appear to have accepted the corrections.  I emailed the file with the linked charts to you rather than the file containing the charts and data. Heres where the problem arose and information that I have just become aware of this morning.  First, when using linked objects, each time you open the file you are given a choice to update the information. Unfortunately, 1 only sent you the charts and not the data that drives them. So regardless, you could not have updated the charts.  Second, and more importantly, even though a chart has been updated previously, it will always revert back to the original chart that was corrected no matter how many times the data has been updated.  Third, if the file with the original data is already open, when the linked item is opened it automatically updates without intervention. I believe that the second option above is what occurred. The charts were created, an error was encountered and corrected, the link was updated but the chart reverted back to its original when the file was closed. What 1 propose to do to prevent this kind of fiasco in the future is: 1. Only send charts embedded in files which contain the data--no linking. 2. Only create the linked charts after ALL data has been proofed and corrected. The erroneous data was only last year's data for black students in the comparison between this year and last'year for both Math and Literacy. I am printing and will send ten revised copies of the charts. Ken. 38 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Wednesday, March 07, 2001 12:44 PM BABBS, JUNIOUS- RE: Research Committee Meeting 7JO Bonnie said that the evaluations weren't part of the court submission. Is that still correct? If so, then it looks like we should slow down a bit and do it rignt. are you in agreement? - '  KL -----------------------------  -------------- Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: BASES, JUNIOUS Wednesday, March 07, 2001 12:36 PM LEASE, KATHY R. RE\nResearch Committee Meeting Orioinai thinking was to get another date scheduled prior to the March 15th court submission but with information you have noted, consideration of a later date is necessary. I don't see major conflict. Junious C Babbs, Jr )Cbabbs@stuasn.lrsd.kl2.ar.us Little Rock School District -Original Message----- From\nSent: To: Subject: Importance: High LEASE, KATHY R. Wednesday. March 07, 2001 12:27 PM 'trrose@ualr.edu'\nBABBS, JUNIOUS Research Committee Meeting We have had another committee member who will not be able to come to the meeting on the 13th. We now have agenda meeting at 5:00, and Steve can only be with us by phone. What do you all think about postponing the meeting until after spring break? That would give John plenty of time to make revisions, and we can schedule a meeting when Steve can be w'ith us. I hope to have the template/program evaluation guidelines completed by then as well. Let me know what you think! Kathy Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 7LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject\nLESLEY, BONNIE Monday, July 16, 2001 z\n24 PM MITCHELL, SADIE RE\nDocuments yes, thanks. I need asap. -----Original Message----- From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: MITCHELL, SADIE Monday, July 16, 2001 5:51 PM LESLEY, BONNIE WASHINGTON, CHARLOTTE Documents We got the list of documents on file done but I forgot to remind Charlotte to send it to you. She is gone for the day and it is on her computer. You will have it first thing in the morning. Sadie Sadie Mitchell smmitch@lrsdadm.lrsd.kl2.ar.us LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Monday, July 16, 2001 7:24 PM WARD, LIONEL RE\nSAIP He requested info from me. I told him I had given him all I had but that you are the administrator on this issue. I was following up to see if he had contacted you. -----Original Message----- From: Sent To: Subject: WARD, LIONEL Monday, July 16, 2001 4:29 PM LESLEY, BONNIE RE: SAIP Are you trying to tell me something? I have not received any such request from Mr. Walker. If he talks with me, I will talk to you about a proper response first. One basic problem with implementation is in the thought some might harbor which explains why their efforts started late in the game. I am sure some folks faced more struggles than others. Clearly, schools must satisfy the requirements v/ith wise, careful and timely deliberations this year. Original Message From: Sent: To: LESLEY, BONNIE Sunday, July 15, 2001 3:49 PM WARD, LIONEL Subject: SAIP Lionel, has Mr. Walker requested anything from you about the implementation of SAIPs? If so, what did you send to him? Thanks. Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 88501/324-0567 (fax) LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE. Monday, July 16, 2001 8\n16 AM JAMES, KENNETH RE: Work in Progress Absolutely! Original Message From: Sent To\nSubject: JAMES, KENNETH Monday, July 16, 2001 7:54 AM LESLEY, BONNIE RE\nWork in Progress Bonnie: I agree. The work and time that you have invested in this will indeed pay off. as the testimony unfolds. It will be interesting to see how the judge handles all of this information and to observe her thought process. Ken Original Message From: Sent: To: LESLEY, BONNIE Sunday, July IS, 2001 9:42 PM JAMES, KENNETH Subject: RE\nWork in Progress When I left today, I left a lot still un-done, but I left feeling more and more certain that we have strong evidence that we did the plan. This is going to be helpful to me in remembering all the effortseven if Chris decides not to use some of it as evidence. I think it will particularly be strong when we combine what Sadie has with ours in this Division. -----Original Message----- From\nSent\nTo: LESLEY, BONNIE JAMES, KENNETH Sunday, July 15, 2001 9:34 PM Subject: RE: Work in Progress Bonnie\nI have reviewed both documents and they are excellent at showing what has been accomplished in the areas of evaluation and assessment Great job! We will touch base tomorrow. Ken Original Message----- From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Saturday, July 14, 2001 6:24 PM 'helle.r@fec.net\nJAMES, KENNETH\nMITCHELL, SADIE Work in Progress I've worked today on getting the ideas laid out about assessment/program evaluation. That includes collecting and organizing stacks of paper that document our work and processes. In addition, please see the attached documents to determine if this is where we want to go. I welcome your feedback.  File: 1 Program cvaluation.doc   File: 1 Assessment Grid.doc  96Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject\nLESLEY, BONNIE Sunday, July 15, 2001 3:41 PM 'heller@fec.net' JAMES, KENNETH SAIPs Mr. Walker requested on June 20 the follow: \"Please advise whether you have information regarding the District's implementation of STudent Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) as required by the State. If so, please share with this this office.\" 1 replied: \"You will find that information in the March 2001 Compliance Report in Section 2.7. I do not have any information beyond what you will rind there since the implementation is done at the school level. Leonel Ward is in charge of implementation.\" When I searched everything for the documents I needed from you, I found several memos in Learning Links that I had forgotten about-about the philosophy in implementing SAIP, sample SAIPs done by Price, Glasgow, and Davis, the memo establishing the committee to develop the program, the memo to the board, etc. Should I forward those to Mr, Walker as well?. Dr, Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) LESLEY, BONNIE From\nSent\nTo: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Saturday, July 14, 2001 6:24 PM 'heller@fec.net'\nJAMES, KENNETH\nMITCHELL, SADIE Work in Progress I've worked today on getting the ideas laid out about assessment/program evaluation. That includes collecting and organizing stacks of paper that document our work and processes. In addition, please see the attached documents to determine if this is where we want to go. I welcome your feedback. s 1 Program Evaluation.Qoc 1 Assessment Grid.doc Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Supe.hntendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) 102LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Don Crary [dcrary@newfuturesforyouth.org] Wednesday, April 18, 2001 1:33 PM LESLEY, BONNIE mopierce@newfuturesforyouth.org Re: Computer with Access Great. We can pay for it. I'm sure it will be cheaper if it is purchased through the district contract. The district can invoice us and we will reimburse them for the cost. Don -----Original Message From: LESLEY, BONNIE \u0026lt;BALESLE@IRC.LRSD.K12.AR.US\u0026gt; \u0026gt; To: 'dcrary@newfuturesforyouth.org' \u0026lt;dcrary@newfuturesforyouth.org Cc: BRIGGS, MONA R. \u0026lt;MRBRIGG@ANNEX.LRSD.K12.AR.US\u0026gt;\nPAAL, MARY M. \u0026lt;MrVIPAAL@ANNEX.LRSD.K12.AR.US\u0026gt; Date: 04/18/2001 12:50 PM Subject: Computer with Access \u0026gt;l talked with Mona about your need for a dedicated computer somewhere in the \u0026gt;district so that your evaluator can come work on direct access to the data \u0026gt;base. She is arranging for an additional computer drop in the office that \u0026gt;Mary Paal will have at Garland. Can you all purchase the computer out of \u0026gt;your budget? \u0026gt; \u0026gt;Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction \u0026gt;Little Rock School District \u0026gt;3001 S. Pulaski \u0026gt;Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 \u0026gt;501/324-2131 \u0026gt;501/324-0567 (fax) LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Wednesday, April 18, 2001 12:32 PM LESLEY, BONNIE MITCHELL, SADIE\nCAWTHON, FRANCES H.\nLACEY, MARIAN G. RE: ALT Results Bonnie, did you meet with yesterday? Do I need to contact them? I explained to all of them when we What group of principals ot tnem wnen did the testing calendar that we could get results back to everyone before school was out, if they followed the schedule. If there are some that we need to follow up with, please let me know who they are. We are returning ALT results as quickly as schools get them in. The whole purpose of setting up the schedule like it is centers around being able to get the results back to everyone before school is out. District results can't be calculated until all schools are in. That is why it is imperative that everyone stay on schedule. Both teachers and parents will get their results unless someone doesn't follow the schedule. Second grade results have all been returned to the schools, along with two copies of the parent report. High school preliminary results have been returned to Parkview and Fair. McClellan's results are here and are being scored. Central and Hall have not turned in their answer sheets yet. All make-ups were to have been completed by this past Monday. Retests for high schools are due back on Friday. The first page of the parent report can be printed, but we can't print the longitudinal report for parents unless all high schools are in. 70875^ Our elementary schools did a great job during 2nd grade testing\nso if they keep that up, we will sail right through their scoring and printino. They have all of their results. We're still missina two of the middle schools' Algebra I / geometry results as of this morning. We are having a scoring problem with the high school science tests, but NWEA is working on it. The subject specific math and science tests require no retests, so that shouldn't hold things up. . . . Also, we have provided data on request any school who wants to know last fall's ALT scores for their rising grade students. If you have any other questions, please let me know. Kathy Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Wednesday, April 18, 2001 10:37 AM LEASE, KATHY R. ALT Results I met with a group of principals yesterday who suggested to me that if they can't receive their ALT results before school is out that there is no use in sending them at all. Kids and parents need them quickly, and the school needs them quickly in order to plan for next school year. What our your chances of being able to do that? Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: Paulette Mabry [pmabry(gnewfuturesforyouth.org] Wednesday, April 18, 2001 10:59 AM Bonnie Lesley\nBrady Gadberry\nJunious Babbs\nLinda Austin\nMarian G. Lacey\nSadie Mitchell Words to encourage us Rosedoc Thought you might enjoy this today as a way to jumpstart the afternoon when things seem impossible. Paulette LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: BRIGGS. MONA R. Wednesday, April 18, 2001 10:10 AM LESLEY, BONNIE Cost of Tools for Learning (Fred Jones)\nParent Component Importance: High The discounted costs of books is: 500 books @ $18.00 (regularly priced at 29.95) 300-499 @ $18.50 200-299 @ $18.95 100-199 @ $19.95 Shipping for 500 is S546.75\nit may be slightly less for fewer numbers but not significantly. RE\nParent involvement with training 709GADBERRY, BRADY L. 735 From: Sent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Tuesday, November 28, 2000 4:31 PM BABBS, JUNIOUS: FRANCES CAWTHON\nGadberry, Brady L\nHurley, Richard: LESLEY, BONNIE: Leslie Camine: LINDA WATSON: MARIAN LACEY: Milhollen, Mark: Sadie Mitchell: STEWART, DONALD M.: Vann, Suellen Steve Ross-Program Evaluation.ppt Steve Ross-Program Evaluation__ KL FYI--Here is a copy of Steve's presentation to the Board. GADBERRY, BRADY L. From: Sent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Thursday, November 16, 2000 8:32 AM GADBERRY, BRADY L. RE\nPRE List Requested I shared with Babbs that I thought we could provide some assistance in PRE to make the surveying process a little easier We've got the equipment and the software! I just talked with Gene Jones to confirm his schedule, and he said that he was invited to the compliance meeting tomorrow morning. I told him, \"Great! See you then!\" KL Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: GADBERRY, BRADY L. Thursday, November 16, 2000 8:17 AM BABBS, JUNIOUS LEASE, KATHY R. RE: PRE List Requested We were told early in the year by Dr. Camine that all surveys would be done through PRE. -----Original Message----- From: BABBS, JUNIOUS Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 7:15 PM To: GADBERRY, BRADY L. Cc: LEASE, KATHY R. Subject: FW\nPRE List Requested To my knowledge Vic and I both allowed department \"Quality of Service Surveys\" that went to appropriate building staff to be returned and worked through our own division shops. What is your thinking to continue with this format or consideration through PRE ? Junious C. Babbs, Jr jcbabbs@stuasn.lrsd.kl2.ar.us Little Rock School District Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Friday, November 10, 2000 12:18 AM Clay Fendley\"\nLESLEY, BONNIE\nBABBS, JUNIOUS\nMITCHELL, SADIE\nGADBERRY, BRADY L.\nSTEWART, DONALD M. CARNINE, LESLIE V. List Requested Dear Folks, Attached is the list of programs or strategies that have either received some evaluation services or have requested evaluation services. If you need additional information, please let me know. 15 Thanks, Kathy File\nAdditional Programs and Strategies Requesting Evaluation.doc GADBERRY, BRADY L. From\nSent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Friday, October 27, 2000 2:52 PM MITCHELL, SADIE\nLESLEY, BONNIE\nBABBS, JUNIOUS\nGADBERRY, BRADY L\nSTEWART, DONALD M. Memo to Gene Jones 0 logo memo.doc know ASAP. KL Here is what I am having Irma send on Monday. If you see anything that needs to be changed, let her GADBERRY, BRADY L. From: Sent: To\nSubject\nLEASE, KATHY R. Wednesday, October 25, 2000 8:37 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V.\nMITCHELL, SADIE\nBABBS, JUNIOUS\nGADBERRY, BRADY L. FW\nBenchmark Scores Dear Folks. If Bonnie wants to continually harass me that is one thing, but I would appreciate it if she didn't pick on my assistant. Please read the exchanges below. She also left Irma a voice message that was very curt. Irma has been working like a dog in room 16 to finish up the answer documents for the CRTs, so she wasn't immediately available to read email or answer the telephone. No one came down here looking for her, so she didn't know that there was an urgent message. I emailed a reply message to Bonnie and sent you all a blind copy\nso I'm sure I'll be in trouble again. However, there has to be an end to this. We are working as hard as we can to produce these test reports, implement the assessment program, and produce program evaluations. I don't know how much more I can stand. She also continues to work behind my back through Eddie McCoy. This is ridiculous!! Who could be successful in such an environment? I'm sorry for ranting, but I am exhausted mentally, physically, and emotionally. Kathy Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: TRUETT, IRMA Wednesday, October 25, 2000 8:21 PM LEASE, KATHY R. FW: Benchmark Scores Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Wednesday, October 25, 2000 5:05 PM TRUETT, IRMA RE: Benchmark Scores I'm sorry, Irma, but I can't accept that response. -----Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: TRUETT, IRMA Wednesday. October 25. 2000 2:08 PM LESLEY, BONNIE RE: Benchmark Scores Sorry, I'm just now getting your e-mail, but Ive been working in room 16. I don't have this information and from what I understand Dr. Lease has it with her to give to the principals this afternoon. Sorry! Original Message 16 From: Sent: To: LESLEY. BONNIE Wednesday. October 25. 2000 9:44 AM TRUETT. IRMA 7^3 Subject: Benchmark Scores I need copies of the state test results by school in my office asap. Board members and others are calling for information. Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) GADBERRY, BRADY L. From: Sent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Wednesday, October 25, 2000 8:17 PM LESLEY, BONNIE Benchmark Scores ?rma forwarded your messages to her about the test scores. As I told you when we met with Suellen, I would have your curriculum copies ready by Friday. They are ready now. After learning that you were insistent on having the scores immediately I stayed late tonight and finished them up. Irma came back down here from home to help me. I am iust waiting on your initials on the memos. I will bring them to the Institute tomorrow. Irma can come pick them up and make copies I understood Dr. Carnine to say that the Board reports could be sent in the Friday report. I had them readv at the Board meeting but he didn't want them distributed until we had more time to confirm the data. Since you have asked for them I printed what we have at this time in draft copy. I will give the copies to you that are printed for the Board. If you think they need to be sent by special courier rather than in the Friday report, that will be your choice. I was only trying to follow the directions I was given. ..... , u If you needed the scores so guickly. why didn't you call me out of the meeting today? Irma didn t even know where we had secured the copies of the reports. It was very unfair of you to keep harassing her and making her feel badly because ~ 1 \u0026gt; ir.____ J f-i-iz-. tkrt oAi iHocu Mt ck'inn mo tnr it i nau becuieu iHti cuuic:\u0026gt; UI uic\nicpwiio. It w.  ,.r\n--------\\l -t c jt i she couldn't oroduce the reports instantly for you. If you need something, please do me the courtesy of asking me for it. I r ..  . . \u0026lt; ________L'.-C_____________:tU . . U /z\u0026gt;t I okzM ilrl Izif ma Ln/^VA/ understood that the Friday timeline was satisfactory with you. If it wasnt, you should have let me know. Kathy Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 17Subject: RE: This has been the week from hell. I hear that Walker may call Kathy to testify. Of course, that may not be good for the district. We'll see. I'm so tired I could fall on my face. Sooooooo glad it's Friday! Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: BRIGGS, MONA R. Thursday, June 28, 2001 8:00 PM LESLEY, BONNIE RE: Bonnie, I hate all this, don't you? I guess you will have your day in court.\" Too bad Kathy didn't get in on it...I understand from Eddie that she took all her files with her. What a deal. Surelv, the judge will see through this and let us get on with our lives. Walker just doesn't want to give up those big bucks he makes off of us. Hope you have some down time somewhere along the line. Mona R. Briggs Middle Level Specialist Little Rock School District 501-324-2412 \"Seek First to Understand\nthen to be understood^ (Covey) -----Original Message------ From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 9:08 AM To: CHAPMAN, SUSAN\nSLENN, RANDALL\nWATSON, LINDA\nELSTON, JO\nWIEDOWER, JULIE\nESSLESTON, DEANA\nADAMS, LEON\nARNOLD, LAURA BETH\nAUSTIN, LINDA\nBRANDON, BARBARA\nBRIGGS, MONA R.\nBROADNAX, KAREN\nBUSBEA, PAT\nCARR, MARCELLINE\nCARSON, RENE'\nCLEAVER, VANESSA\n CLIFFORD, ELIZABETH\nCRAWFORD, PAMELA\nDAVIS, SUZI\nDEBBIE MILAM\nDILLINGHAM, YVETTE\nDONALDSON, MABLE\nFINNEY, ANTONETTE\nFLETCHER, DANNY\nFREEMAN, ANN\nGILLIAM, ANITA\nGLASGOW, DENNIS\nHARDING, CASSANDRA\nHUFFMAN, KRIS\nJACKSON, MARION\nJOHNSON, VIRGINIA\nJONES, DOCIA\nJONES, STEPHANIE\n. 192Subject: RE: 751 This has been the week from hell. I hear that Walker may call Kathy to testify. Of course, that may not be good for the district. We'll see. I'm so tired I could fall on my face. Sooooooo glad it's Friday! Original Message From\nSent: To: Subject: BRIGGS, MONA R. Thursday, June 28, 2001 8:00 PM LESLEY, BONNIE RE: Bonnie, I hate all this, don't you? I guess you will have your \"day in court.\" Too bad Kathy didn't get in on it...I understand from Eddie that she took all her files with her. What a deal. Surely, the judge will see through this and let us get on with our lives. Walker just doesn't want to give up those big bucks he makes off of us. Hope you have some down time somewhere along the line. Mona R. Briggs Middle Level Specialist Little Rock School District 501-324-2412 \"Seek First to Understand: then to be understood!' -----Original Message------ From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 9:08 AM To: CHAPMAN, SUSAN\nCLENN, RANDALL\nWATSON, LINDA\nELSTON, JO\nWIEDOWER, JULIE\nECSLESTON, DEANA\nADAMS, LEON\nARNOLD, LAURA BETH\nAUSTIN, LINDA\nBRANDON, BARBARA\nBRieOS, MONA R.\nBROADNAX, KAREN\nBUSBEA, PAT\nCARR, MARCELLINE\nCARSON, RENE'\nCLEAVER, VANESSA\n CLIFFORD, ELIZABETH\nCRAWFORD, PAMELA\nDAVIS, SUZI\nDEBBIE MILAM\nDILLINGHAM, YVETTE\nDONALDSON, MABLE\nFINNEY, ANTONETTE\nFLETCHER, DANNY\nFREEMAN, ANN\nGILLIAM, ANITA\nGLASGOW, DENNIS\nHARDING, CASSANDRA\nHUFFMAN, KRIS\nJACKSON, MARION\nJOHNSON, VIRGINIA\nJONES, DOCIA\nJONES, STEPHANIE\n192Cc: KIILSSAARD, SHARObJ\nKILLINSSWORTH, PATRICIA\nKOVACH, RENEE\nLA JUAN A RAINEY\nLOYA, STELLA\nMARION BALDWIN\nMARTEN, PAULETTE\nMcCOY, EDDIE\nMcNEAL, MARIE\nMILAM, JUDY\nNEAL, LUCY\nPAAL, MARY M.: PAUL, ANNITA\nPERRITT, YORIKO U.\nPRICE, PATRICIA\nRYNDERS, PAULA\nSMITH, CARY\nSMITH, PAULA\nTEETER, JUDY\nWALLS, COLLEEN\nWARD, LIONEL\nWILLIAMS, BARBARA\nWILLIAMS, ED\nWILSON, LEVANNA\nWOODS, MARION 'heller@fec.net' Subject: I just spoke with Chris Heller, our attorney. He asked me to reiterate to everyone that he does not want any of the staff talking with Mr. Walker about anything-to refer all his calls, faxes, and visits to Mr. Heller. And he asks that we absolutely not send to Mr. Walker anything without clearing it with him first. Finally, he asks that we remind all our staff once more about this! He was adamant. Please make sure the staff not named in this e-mail also understand this directive. Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To\nSubject\nLESLEY, BONNIE Friday, June 29, 2001 2:47 PM ADAMS, LEON\nARNOLD, LAURA BETH\nAUSTIN, LINDA\nBRANDON, BARBARA\nBRIGGS, MONA R.\nBROADNAX, KAREN\nBUSBEA, PAT\nCARR, MARCELLINE\nCARSON, RENE'\nCLEAVER, VANESSA\nCLIFFORD, ELIZABETH\nCRAWFORD, PAMELA\nDAVIS, SUZI\nDEBBIE MILAM\nDILLINGHAM, YVETTE\nDONALDSON, MABLE\nFINNEY, ANTONETTE\nFLETCHER, DANNY\nFREEMAN, ANN\nGILLIAM, ANITA\nGLASGOW, DENNIS\nHARDING, CASSANDRA\nHUFFMAN, KRIS\nJACKSON, MARION\nJOHNSON, VIRGINIA\nJONES, DOCIA\nJONES, STEPHANIE\nKIILSG/V\\RD, SHARON\nKILLINGSWORTH, PATRICIA\nKOVACH, RENEE\nLAJUANA RAINEY\nLOYA, STELLA\nMARION BALDWIN\nMARTIN, PAULETTE\nMcCOY, EDDIE\nMcNEAL, MARIE\nMILAM, JUDY\nNEAL, LUCY\nPAAL, MARY M.\nPAUL, ANNITA\nPERRITT, YORIKO U.\nPRICE, PATRICIA\nRYNDERS, PAULA\nSMITH, GARY\nSMITH, PAULA\nTEETER, JUDY\nWALLS, COLLEEN\nWARD, LIONEL\nWILLIAMS, BARBARA\nWILLIAMS, ED\nWILSON, LEVANNA\nWOODS, MARION\nBABBS, JUNIOUS\nFRANCES CAWTHON\nGADBERRY, BRADY L\nHURLEY, RICHARD\nJAMES, KENNETH\nLINDA WATSON\nMARIAN LACEY\nMILHOLLEN, MARK\nSadie Mitchell\nSTEWART, DONALD M.\nVANN, SUELLEN\nWATSON, LINDA\nANDERSON, BARBARA\nASHLEY, VIRGINIA\nBRANCH, SAMUEL\nBROOKS, SHARON\nCARSON, CHERYL\nCARTER, LILLIE\nCOURTNEY, THERESA\nCOX, ELEANOR\nDARIAN SMITH\nDEBORAH MITCHELL\nETHEL DUNBAR\nFaith Donovan\nFIELDS, FREDERICK\nGOLSTON, MARY\nHALL, DONNA\nHARKEY, JANE\nHOBBS, FELICIA L\nJONES, BEVERLY\nKEOWN, ADA\nLillie Scull\nMANGAN, ANN\nMANNO, ROBERTA\nMARY BARKSDALE\nMENKING, MARY\nMORGAN, SCOTT\nNANCY ACRE\nOLIVER, MICHAEL\nPHILLIPS, TABITHA\nSHARON BROOKS\nSMITH, MARY\nTAYLOR, LESLIE\nTUCKER, JANIS A.\nWILSON, JANICE M.\nWORM, JERRY\nZEIGLER, GWEN S.\nBERRY, DEBORAH\nBLAYLOCK, ANN\nFULLERTON, JAMES\nHUDSON, ELOUISE\nLarry Buck\nMOSBY, JIMMY\nPATTERSON, DAVID\nROUSSEAU, NANCY\nSAIN, LLOYD DRA Results by Middle School Feeder Pattern 193 the ALTS, and so they were down there yesterday and again today just kind of picking it up, but they do not necessarily know' what they are supposed to be doing. They need direction, and I don't feel that I should provide it. How do you want to handle this? LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Monday, October 02, 2000 6:48 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V. FW: Priorities 2000-2001 Dr. C., I'm sorry. I guess I don't quite know what to do with the plan I sent to Bonnie. I guess I missed the mark. I thought we were to develop what we were doing in our department to meet the areas you outlined in your critical priorities processes. Do you want me to send the parts to the people Bonnie mentioned below? Or are you going to put it all together using what you want out of what we sent? Let me know what you want me to do. KL Original Message----- From: Sent\nTo\nSubject: LESLEY, BONNIE Friday, September 29, 2000 3:04 PM LEASE, KATHY R. RE: Priorities 2000-2001 You need to send the technology stuff to Lucy Neal. You need to send the Campus Leadership stuff to Sadie Mitchell. I suggest that you forward the other two pieces directly to Dr. Carnine. They are much more detailed than the other items in the Division of Instruction Work Plan and therefore don't \"fit\" with what we have, /^si^ I know nothing about the_Quality Initiative Plan, so that makes no sense, to. me. Perhaps he can just include your items separately. .......... ~ -----Original Message From\nSent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Friday, September 29, 2000 2:50 PM LESLEY, BONNIE Priorities 2000-2001 Importance: High I had massive computer failures today. It took Ed, Ken, Virginia, and Irma to help me get it all back. Here are the priorities from PRE. Call me, if you want me to go over them with you. Thanks, Kathy  File: Priority II Technology 2000-2001.doc   File: Priority lll-2000.doc  Assessmentdoc   File: Priority IV lnstruction-evaluation.doc  File: Priority IV instruction- Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 51sounds like the our data is available. LESLEY, BONNIE From\nSent\nTo\nSubject\nLEASE, KATHY R. Tuesday, October 03, 2000 6:09 PM CARNINE. LESLIE V. CTA issues 75^1 Did Clementine come in today to discuss assessment issues with you? I invited her in last spring to talk with me, but she never came. If she has some specific issues that you think we need to address in the questionnaire, let me know. I started drafting some ideas about questions, but I think 1 need some input from you. It looks like from one of the emails you sent that folks have been communicating with you about their concerns. They may have shared some things we haven't thought about. Let me know if you have any time tomorrow afternoon to visit with me (phone or in person) about the survey. Thanks, Kathy Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc.lrsd.kl2.ar.us LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To\nSubject: LEASE, KATHY R. Tuesday, October 03, 2000 5:45 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V. RE: ALT Check-In, Etc. This is pure fabrication. This is not the situation here in PRE. We have a fox in the hen house. 1 thought this kind of thing was supposed to be over. The digs have continued. The ALT process has to have someone who shepherds it. I said originally that I would need Gayle at least six weeks to two months. I fully understand the strain that Sadie is under because she has come to depend on Gayle as well. If Gayle cannot fulfill her commitment with ALT, then I think she would let me know. She had to go over to the administration building to get some work done to be ready for the Bi-Racial committee report that she is scheduled to give tonight. Roz told her that she could take care of anyone who checked in things today. I guess the real question is that if my staff thinks they are having a problem \"handling\" the ALT today, why didn't they contact me? We had Ed here scanning and scoring, and Irma received no calls that she couldn't handle. I'm afraid 1 am left with no other conclusion but that this is continued harassment by the person that I thought had agreed to quit harassing. Can you help me with any other explanation? KL Original Message----- From\nSent To: Cc: Subject: CARNINE. LESLIE V. Tuesday, October 03, 2000 11:10 AM LEASE, KATHY R. Mitchell, Sadie FW: ALT Check-In, Etc. I know you know how assumptions can get you in trouble. Obviously, there appears to be a communication problem and I would hope you and Sadie could work it out. Original Message From: Sent\nTo: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Tuesday, October 03, 2000 10:55 AM CARNINE, LESLIE V. ALT Check-In, Etc. I have had three complaints already today-two from IRC staff and one from building-level. Gayle has returned to downtown, and Kathy is sitting in the school improvement meetings. Neither of them organized the staff for the return of 50LESLEY, BONNIE From\nSent: To: Subject\nLESLEY, BONNIE Wednesday, June 20, 2001 1:13 PM GRIFFIN, BEVERLY RE: Semester Test Exemption Thanks, Bev. -----Original Message----- From: Sent: To: Subject: GRIFFIN, BEVERLY Wednesday, June 20, 2001 1:15 PM LESLEY, BONNIE RE: Semester Test Exemption I gave a copy of the minutes from the February Board meeting to Mrs. Lacey earlier this week. I don't think I have a copy of the kids proposal, but I will check. I was under the impression that this action was for this year's seniors only. I might be wrong . . . but, it might be worth\nchecking with Board members to see if they intended for it to be a permanent change to the policy. I will fax you the minutes in just a minute. Original Message----- From: Sent: To: LESLEY, BONNIE Wednesday, June 20, 2001 12:51 PM GRIFFIN, BEVERLY Subject: Semester Test Exemption Bev, there is wide disagreement about what people remember as the motion the board made regarding the exemption of seniors from their spring semester tests. I don't remember the month they did thatprobably February or March? Will you send to me the text of the motion, as well as the text of the language used by the , kids in their proposal. I don't have that and will need it to update those regulations/poiicies. i Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock,.Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Wednesday, June 20, 2001 1:12 PM TRUETT, IRMA Compliance The compliance report lists several \"program evaluations\" that PRE reported that they had completed, but which I have never seen. Please provide me with three copies each of the following reports. They have been requested by Mr. Walker. Extended Year Schools Summer School HIPPY Program Charter School Campus Leadership Teams English as a Second Language Lyceum Scholars Program at Philander Smith College Southwest Middle School's SEDL Program Onward to Excellence (Watson Elementary) Collaborative Action Tearn (CAT) 3S1LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Monday, June 25, 2001 12:37 PM 'Clay Fendley'\n'heller@fec.net' RE: Meeting schedule Yea! Thanks you! I can't tell you how important this is! I just talked with Ann Brown. She wanted all the test scores. I put her off until the end of the week. We need to talk about what to give her. -----Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Clay Fendley [SMTP:FENDLEY@fec.net] Monday, June 25, 2001 12:42 PM BALESLE@IRC.LRSD.K12.AR.US Chris Heller RE: Meeting schedule Leaving at 1:05 on the 6th is fine. We will tell Walker that if he wants to call you as a witness, he will need to call you on the 5th. Thanks. \u0026gt; \"LESLEY, BONNIE\" \u0026lt;BALESLE@IRC.LRSD.K12.AR.US\u0026gt; 06/25/01 11:49AM \u0026gt; I just called the airlines. I would need to catch a plane at 1:05 on the 6th to get to Amarillo in time for the rehearsal dinner for this big wedding. If I can't do that, then the latest I could leave to get there at all on Friday is at 5:35. Then I would come home on Sunday. What do you advise? \u0026gt;-----Original Message----- \u0026gt; From: Clay Fendley [SMTP:FENDLEY@fec.net] \u0026gt; Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 9:41 AM \u0026gt; To: BALESLE@IRC.LRSD.K12.AR.US\nblgadbe@lrsdadm.lrsd.k12.ar.us\nDMSTEWA@lrsdadm.lrsd.k12.ar.us\nIvcarni@lrsdadm.lrsd.k12.ar.us\nSMMitch@lrsdadm.lrsd.k12.ar.us\nJCBABBS@STUASN.LRSD.K12.AR.US \u0026gt; Cc: Chris Heller\nKJAMES@lrsdadm.lrsd.k12.ar.us Subject: Meeting schedule \u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Here's the meeting schedule so far Mr. Gadberry - Wednesday at 2:00 at our office. Dr. Lesley - Thursday at 1:00 at our office. Ms. Mitchell - Friday at 9:00 at our office. \u0026gt; \u0026gt; We should get Joshua's objections today and have requested a witness list \u0026gt; by Wednesday. \u0026gt; We are leaving Monday (July 2) open until we get Joshua's witness list. \u0026gt; Everybody plan on meeting Tuesday (July 3) all day at our office. Let me \u0026gt; know if that presents a problem for you, and we can try to work around \u0026gt; your schedule. \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Remember, the most important thing in preparation for the hearing is for \u0026gt; you to know what's in the Revised Plan and the interim and final \u0026gt; compliance reports. \u0026gt; \u0026gt; We will provide copies of Joshua's objections as soon as they are \u0026gt; received. \u0026gt; Let me know if you have any questions. 297 76 Z selected to receive Merit Scholarship*' awards. The info in italics is from the National Merit web site. So, of the 1.2 million entrants, only 7,900 are named Finahsts for National Merit scholarships and corporate-sponsored scholarships. That amounts to 6/10 of 1 % of the entrants. Mr. Walker's statement on page 22 is: \"We note here that the district is yet to have a single Black national merit scholar in the nineteen years of this active litigation.\" THIS IS INCORRECT. Without reviewing 19 years of data (and we don't have all of the data for those years), as recently as 4 years ago Salonica Gray, an Afiican American female senior at Central, was a National Merit Finalist. Hope this helps! Suellen S. Vann, APR Director of Communications Little Rock School District (501) 324-2020 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent\nTo: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Thursday, June 28, 200T 11:36 AM MITCHELL, SADIE RE\nI am wondering how he is feeling as well. This is baptism by fire. -----Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: MITCHELL, SADIE Thursday, June 28, 2001 9:29 AM LESLEY, BONNIE RE: I panicked when I got here and saw all of the stuff from John. I am worried about Dr. James. I hope he will be able to handle all of this. Sadie Mitchell smmitch@lrsdadm.lrsd.kl2.ar.us Original Message----- From\nSent To: Subject\nLESLEY, BONNIE Thursday, June 28, 2001 9:09 AM MITCHELL, SADIE RE: He was kind of angry that we are even attempting to respond to this stuff. He asked me what he needed to do to make sure everyone understands that we are not to play Mr. Walker's game. How ya doing today? Original Message----- From: Sent: To: LESLEY, BONNIE MITCHELL. SADIE Thursday, June 28, 2001 9:18 AM Subject: RE\n:) Sadie Mitchell smmitch@lrsdadm.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 218762. Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Thursday, June 28, 2001 9:04 AM MITCHELL, SADIE\nEGGLESTON, DEANA: GADBERRY, BRADY L\nSTEWART. DONALD M  BABBS JUNIOUS\nJAMES, KENNETH 'heller@fec.net' RE: I just spoke with Chris Heller, and he asked me to tell all of you that we are not going to make this information (copies of our invitations and documents sent to Mr.Walker or Ms. Springer) available to Mr. Walker. It is without exception stuff we have already sent to him. He also asked me to reiterate to everyone that he does not want any of the staff talking with Mr. Walker about anything-to refer all his calls, faxes, and visits to Mr. Heller. And he asks that we absolutely not send to Mr. Walker anything without clearing it with him first. Finally, he asks that we remind all our staff once more about this! He was adamant. Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: MITCHELL, SADIE Thursday, June 28, 2001 9:03 AM EGGLESTON, DEANA LESLEY, BONNIE\nGADBERRY, BRADY L.\nSTEWART, DONALD M.\nBABBS, JUNIOUS RE: Thank you Sadie Mitchell srnmitch@lrsdadm.lrsd.kl2.ar.us -----Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: EGGLESTON.DEANA Thursday, June 28, 2001 8:38 AM MITCHELL, SADIE BABBS, JUNIOUS RE: Everyone sent the information when it was requested, however. I'm not sure if they have sent recent documents since his original request. I just spoke with Clay and he said to make the folders we have available to Joy on Monday as per her request, but for me to not to put the documents in any particular order (ie. date, subject, etc.) Deana Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: MITCHELL, SADIE Thursday, June 28, 2001 8:41 AM LESLEY, BONNIE\nSTEWART, DONALD M.\nGADBERRY, BRADY L\nBABBS, JUNIOUS\nJAMES, KENNETH EGGLESTON, DEANA Mr. Walker sent a fax requesting \"all invitations to Ms. Springer or Mr. Walker to meetings of any kind, as well as copies of any documents you have sent to them over the past three years. Also any document of whether Mr. Walker or Ms. Springer actually attended the meetings to which you invited them.\" I think we already sent this information to Mr. Babbs and he compiled it. Is this correct? Sadie Mitchell smmitch@lrsdadm.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 219LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Tuesday, February 13, 2001 12:54 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V. FW: Test Pack Importance: High Dr. Camine, What is the purpose of this? Am I missing something? Is Bonnie trying to eliminate her need to work with this department? We have some software that is licensed to this department. Eddie has been trying to get it loaded on her computer. My guess is that she needs it to work on her dissertation. She has not spoken to me about what her data needs are for her dissertation. Most doctoral candidates come in and visit with us about their data needs. We work with them, but they get data in an aggregate form, not individual students' information. I wish you would please tell me what role you want this department to play. I know the game that is being played. I am about to my wit's end with it. Kathy -----Original Message----- From: Sent To: Subject: JOHNSON, VIRGINIA Tuesday, February 13, 2001 12:43 PM LEASE, KATHY R. FW: Test Pack Original Message From: Sent To\nCc: Subject LESLEY, BONNIE Monday, February 12, 2001 5:31 PM RUFFINS, JOHN JOHNSON, VIRGINIA\nMcCOY, EDDIE\nCLEAVER, VANESSA RE: Test Pack Thanks so much, JOhn. -Original Message From\nSent To\nSubject RUFFINS, JOHN Monday, February 12, 2001 4:46 PM LESLEY, BONNIE RE: Test Pack I will come over and personally visit with Virginia and Eddie to access their data and program needs. From: Sent: To: Original Message- LESLEY, BONNIE Monday, February 12, 2001 2:40 PM RUFFINS, JOHN Subject: Test Pack John, 1 am moving Eddie McCoy and Virginia Johnson out of the rooms designated for PRE and into the room where Vanessa Cleaver is. Both of them will have some program evaluation responsibilities and need to be able to access the SAT9 data, as well as other student data. How do I get those programs loaded onto their machines? Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 SOl/324-2131 S01/324-0S67 (fax) 19 \" LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Tuesday, February 13, 2001 5:36 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V. RE: Another thought Here's one more thought, then I'm burying this frustration. I wouldn't have known about what she is doing at all if Virginia hadn't forwarded me a copy of the message. I'm trapped in junior high!!! Can't somebody save me??? Kathy Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Tuesday, February 13, 2001 4:05 PM LEASE, KATHY R. RE\nAnother thought I can support but you do not want to hold the data... You want free access. Give her ail the access she wants or needs... and then give her more. -----Original Message From\nSent\nTo: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Tuesday, February 13, 2001 12:56 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V. Another thought Is it possible to require Bonnie to work through me to get the data she needs? She is doing everything possible to undermine the work of this department. I have never seen such viciousness in ail my professional experience. Can you support us or are we on our own? Kathy Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc.lrsd.kl2.ar.us LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Tuesday, February 13, 2001 4:10 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V. RE: Another thought I totally agree with that. I want everyone to have access to the data at his or her fingertips. I just continue to be frustrated with the way she refuses to work with me. Kathy Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Tuesday, February 13, 2001 4:05 PM LEASE, KATHY R. RE\nAnother thought I can support but you do not want to hold the data... You want free access. Give her all the access she wants or needs... and then give her more. -----Original Message From: Sent\nTo: Subject\nLEASE, KATHY R. Tuesday, February 13, 2001 12:56 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V. Another thought 177^^ is it possible to require Bonnie to work through me to get the data she needs? She is doing everything possible to undermine the work of this department. I have never seen such viciousness in all my professional experience. Can you support us or are we on our own? Kathy Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc.lrsd.kl2.ar.us LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject LEASE, KATHY R. Tuesday, February 13, 2001 12:59 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V. Positions After Don's comment in Cabinet about not hiring people, I visited with him about the positions that I currently have advertised. He suggested that I visit with you about whether or not I can hire the people I need to do the assessment program. I am currently down to three employees. I don't think we can do assessment for 20,000 kids with that number. I want to set up interviews this week, but I want your blessing! Thanks, Kathy Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc.lrsd.kl2.ar.us LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Tuesday, February 13, 2001 12:56 PM CARNINE. LESLIE V. Another thought Is it possible to require Bonnie to work through me to get the data she needs? She is doing everything possible to undermine the work of this department. I have never seen such viciousness in all my professional experience. Can you support us or are we on our own? Kathy Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski UttleRock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 18From: Dr. Faucette To: Mrs. Hargis Date: 17 November 2000 76 S Subject: Exclusion of regular English students from Jennie Calder lecture I write to request a bit of information concerning the recent visit of Jennie Calder, a Robert Louis Stevenson scholar from Scotland, to Central as a part of the conference celebrating this great writer. It was my understanding, after our conversations last spring, that the event was in recognition of the universal appeal of a revered writer. Known and loved the world over, Stevenson is one of a select group whose works attract readers from widely varying backgrounds, uniting people of all classes and condition in the appreciation of a gifted artist. I was excited about the opportunity Central studentsincluding my own students would have to be^exposed to a world of exciting and enthusiastic research that would be especially significant for seniors, (Traditionally, the last year of high school English is dedicated to the exploration of the rich legacy of British literature.) I was disappointed beyond belief to learn that nonenot oneof my regular English students would be allowed to benefit from the singular experience of having the chance to see and hear the visiting scholar. Only AP and pre-AP students were allowed to attend the presentation. In fact, most teachers of regular English classes only learned of the event when students began to ask why they were not allowed to attend the assembly that students in other classes were discussing at lunch. Limiting the experience to students in AP and pre-AP English classes meant that very few black students were allowed to attend. I am shocked and outraged that yet another singular educational opportunity has been reserved for the children of privilege. Because many of the privileged AP English students took advantage of the event to slip out of the building and skip the assembly, and because you wanted to supplement their numbers, you solicited the attendance of students from AP science and history classes, still denying access to students from regular English classes. If you really wanted to impress Ms. Calder, having the Creative Writing Club presented would have done just that. The knowledge that, at 287 members, the Creative Writing Club is the most active club at Central would impress any true scholar or teacher. One can only wonder why you, Mr. Howard, and the third floor English department all miss the significance of the fact that the club that most fully represents the student diversity in our building is a club centered around an academic endeavor, the study and practice of literature. Yes, this is quite an example you set for our students. Central, Mr. Howard, the English department, and you all had a chance to shine as this scholar brought her enthusiasm to our large and diverse student body. Central, Mr. Howard, the English department, and you dropped the ball disastrously on this one. Rather than seizing the opportunity to be shining beacons by providing this opportunity for learning outside the traditional limitations of the classroom to all of our students, you have shown your true stripe. I thank you for the demonstration once again that, instead of a single unified English department. Central actually has two\nthe second floor containing primarily regular English classes, and the privileged third-floor home of AP English. I would now ask an additional bit of information. Please inform me in writing of your reasons for this latest instance of educational snobbery so that I might explain more accurately to my classes your dismissal of them as second-class students. I 1 I i ! I i j I i i i j iVia Facsimile - 324-2146 December 16, 1998 7^7 Dr. Leslie Gamine Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Carnine: Would you please ask Mr. James Washington, the Districts ombudperson, to look into the complaint of Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Deodis Fleming regarding their concerns at Carver Magnet. You are probably not aware that this office has had several complaints from other parents regarding the unfair treatment of black students at Carver. You should have received a letter from the Flemings outlining their concerns along with a response from Ms. Barksdale. Copies of both are enclosed for your convenience. The Flemings believe that Ms. Barksdale is trying to excuse the reason for Ms. Ransoms exclusion of their son from participation by stating that he had behavior problems. In todays society, persons who discriminate usually attempt to establish legitimate reasons for their discriminatory actions. The reason given by Ms. Ransom, we believe, is pretextual. In other words, the reason that she has given is not legitimate. The Flemings were not previously advised that their son had behavior problems regarding his participation in Odyssey of the Mind. Moreover, they are not aware that their son has a behavior problem. Ms. Barksdales commitment to establish an OM Guideline booklet is a step, I believe, in the right direction. However, I do not believe that she should wait until next year. That process should start immediately. Opportunity for discrimination evolves when there are no written guidelines or rules for participation in a particular activity. The person overseeing or administering the activity usually has the discretion to make rules as they go along. These rules usually favor their own personal interests. Moreover, these rules or guidelines usually change daily to fit a particular interest or situation. I am not sure why the Flemings chose not assist in the coaching of Odysseys students as indicated by Ms. Barksdale\nhowever, many of our childrens parents are unable to participate in many of the schools activities because often they occur when they are obliged to work and other commitments to meet the overall needs of their families. 76 7 Page 2 - Letter to Dr. Carnine December 17, 1998 I have indicated to Mr. \u0026amp; iVIrs. Fleming that I would be happy to sit down with Mr. Washington, Ms. Mitchell, Ms. Barksdale, and any other persons that they believe can help brini ig this matter to an amicable resolution. In fact, Mr. Washington may assume the role as the parent advocate, if the Flemings agree. I would, however, like to receive a report of his findings and resolution. Thank you for your attention to this request. Sincerely, Joy C. Springer Joshua Intervenors JCS/ Enclosures cc: Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Deodis Fleming Ms. Diane Barksdale Ms Sadie Mitchell Mr. James WashingtonVia Facsimile - 324-2146 February 18, 1999 Ms. Sadie Mitchell Associate Superintendent for Student Services Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Mitchell: This office has received several calls regarding the selection process for the new football coach at J. A. Fair High School. It is our information that the selection process has been changed to favor the selection of a particular coach for the position. In order to address the concerns that have been raised, would you please provide to me a copy of process being utilized by District officials for the selection of coaching positions including the selection criteria. If this information has changed from prior years, also please provide the process and criteria that was utilized in previous years. I have spoken with Mr. Gillespie regarding this matter and he has assured me that the only change in the process was that the selection committee did not meet on the school campus as it has done in previous years. I was, however, a bit concerned about the gender makeup of the selection committee for the Fair position. I voiced my concern to Mr. Gillespie that the committee was all males. I am available to discuss this matter with you and Mr. Gillespie at a mutually convenient time. Thank you for your attention to this request. Sincerely, Joy C. Springer Joshua Intervenors JCS/ cc: Mr. Ray GillespieVia Facsimile - 324-2308 March 17, 1999 Rudolph Howard  Principal, Central High School 1400 Park Street Little Rock, AR 72202 Dear Mr. Howard: I am writing on behalf of Rev. \u0026amp; Ms. Bennie Horton and their son, Tarick, to request a conference regarding his grades. As I review the revised desegregation plan, I can point to a number of areas including equal treatment, participation in honors and gifted classes, academic achievement, parental involvement etc. that are involved in these parents concern. By copy of this letter to the Districts Ombudsperson, Mr. James L. Washington, I am also putting him on notice of this concern and invite him to participate in the conference. I have spoken with Ms. Horton and she is available during her lunch hour to discuss this matter. Please let me hear from you. Sincerely, Joy C. Springer Joshua Intervenors JCS/ cc: Rev. \u0026amp; Mrs. Bennie Horton Mr. James L. WashingtonJohn W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Dttle Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 . 377(. ./7 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON N-LARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. Via Facsimile - 324-2213 October 14, 1999 Mr. James Washington Little Rock School District Office of Ombudsman 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Washington: I am writing to request that you look into the selection process for students participating on mock trial teams at Central High School. We request that you obtain some background information regarding past composition by grade, race and gender and the current composition by grade, race and gender. This office has received a complaint that these teams are generally one race and favor white students because their parents or other relatives are business professionals such as lawyers, judges, etc. Thank you for your attention to this matter. We further request a report of your findings with respect to this inquiry. By copy of this letter to Mr. Howard, Nir. Babbs and Dr. Camine, I am also advising them of these allegations. On Behalf of Joshua JCS/ cc: Mr. Ruduloph Howard Nir. Junious Babbs Dr. Leslie Camine y?/ Via Facsimile February\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_321","title":"Compliance court orders","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2002-01/2002-07"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","School administrators"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance court orders"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/321"],"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\nreceived JAN 2 200t IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Office of Desegregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANT MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS PRELIMINARY EXHIBIT LIST REGARDING JANUARY 28, 2002 HEARINGS The Joshua Intervenors plan to use the following documents during the January 28, 2002 hearings: 1. E-mail dated July 2, 2001 from Virginia Johnson to Bonnie Lesley (page 182) 2. E-mail dated October 19, 2000 from Gary Smith to Bonnie Lesley ( page 290) J. E-mail dated June 29, 2001 from Sueellen Vann to Gail Hester and subsequent dated July 2, 2001 (page 167) 4. E-mail dated January 18, 2001 from Junious Babbs to Kathy Lease (page 12) 5. E-mail dated July 2, 2001 from Mona Briggs to Bonnie Lesley ( page 191) 6. E-mail dated November 16, 2000 from Les Carnine to Bonnie Lesley 7. E-mail dated November 21, 2000 from Ken Savage to Kathy Lease (page 38) 8. E-mail dated March 7, 2001 from Kathy Lease to T Rose and subsequent dated March 7, 2001 at 12:44 p.m. (page 7) 9. E-mail dated July 15, 2001 from Bonnie Lesley to Lionel Ward and subsequent dated1 July 16, 2001 (page 88) 10. E-mail dated July 14, 2001, July 15, 2001 and July 16, 2001 from Bonnie Lesley to Ken James (page 96) 11. E-mail dated July 15, 2001 from Bonnie Lesley to Chris Heller (page 102) 12. E-mail dated April 18, 2001 from Bonnie Lesley to Kathy Lease and subsequent response (pages 708 and 709) 13. E-mails dated October 25, 2001 from Bonnie to Irma Truett and Kathy Lease re: Benchmark scores (pages 16 and 17) 14. E-mail dated June 28, 2001 8:00 p.m. from Mona Briggs to Bonnie Lesley (page 192 15. E-mail dated June 28, 2001 9:08 a.m. from Bonnie Lesley to members of her staff (Page 192 and 193) 16. E-mails dated September 29, 2000 between Bonnie Lesley and Kathy Lease re: Priorities 2000-01 (Page 51) 17. E-mail dated October 3, 2000 between Les Carnine. Bonnie Lesley and Kathy Lease Re: ALT Check-in (Page 50) 18. E-mail dated June 20, 2001 from Bonnie Lesley to Beverly Griffin re: semester test Exemption (Page 351) 19. E-mail dated June 25, 2001 from Bonnie Lesley to Clay Pendley (page 297) 20. E-mails dated June 29, 2001 between Sadie Mitchell, Deanna Eggeston and Bonnie Lesley (page 219) 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. E-mails dated February 12 and 13, 2001 Lesley, Ruffins, Lease and Carnine (page 19) Email dated February 13m 2001 from Kathy Lease to Les Carnine (Pages 17 and 18) Memo dated November 17, 2000 from Dr. Faucette to Mrs. Hargis re: exclusion of Regular English students fro Jennie Calder lecture Email dated September 27, 2000 from Sale Mitchell to Junious Babbs (Page 1) Letter dated December 16, 1998 to Les Carnine from Joy Springer Letter dated February 18, 1999 to Sadie Mitchell from Joy Springer27. Letter dated March 17, 1999 to Rudolph Howard from Joy Springer 28. Letter dated October 14, 1999 to James Washington from Joy Springer 29. Letter dated February 28, 2000 to James Washington from Joy Springer 30. Letter dated February 28, 2000 to James Washington from Joy Springer re: Scouts 31. Letter dated August 28, 2000 to Ray Gillespie from Joy Springer 32. Letter dated September 12, 2000 to Les Gamine from Joy Springer 33. Letter dated October 10, 2000 to Les Gamine from Joy Springer 34. Letter dated September 13, 2000 to James Washington from Joy Springer 35. E-mail dated June 6, 2000 to Les Gamine from Don Stewart (Pages 100-01) 36. E-mail dated April 19, 2001 from Deanna Eggeston to Don Stewart ( Page 37) 37. E-mail dated April 25, 2001 from Kathy Lease to Mark Millhollen 38. E-mail dated May 25, 2001 from Bonnie Lesley to Debbie Berry (Page 358) 39. E-mail dated June 7, 2000 from Glay Fendley to Bonnie Lesley 40. E-mail dated June 7, 2000 from Bonnie Lesley to Mary Paal (Page 136) 41. E-mail dated April 17-18, 2001 to Don Stewart from Bonnie Lesley 42. E-mail dated July 12, 2001 to Bonnie Lesley from Don Stewart (240) 43. E-mail dated February 28, 2001 to Bonnie Lesley from Don Stewart 44. Memo dated February 24, 1999 to Gayle Bradford from James Washington 45. Memo dated March 11, 1999 to Les Gamine from James Washington 46. Letter dated April 12, 1999 to Gayle Bradford from James Washington 47. Letter dated March 22, 1999 to Gayle Bradford from James Washington 48. Letter dated April 26, 1999 to John Walker from Les Gamine 49. Memo dated May 3, 1999 regarding visit to Pupil Services \u0026amp; Administrationbuildings Joshua reserves the right to utilize exhibits listed by Little Rock School District and further reserves the right to supplement this list after additional discovery. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P. A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 fax By: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing exhibit list and exhibits have been hand carried to counsel for the Little Rock School District and the Office of Desegregation Monitorini on this 2\"' day of Janauiy, 2002. ig LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Monday, July 02, 2001 2:24 PM 'heller@fec.net' Latest Fax I had Anita fax over to you the latest-a bunch of stuff on our literacy plan. 1. He already has a copy of the PreK-3 Literacy Plan. Other information is in the Interim and Final Compliance Reports. 2. He also has the test results for SAT9, Grade 4 Benchmark, and DRA-so those are the results. 3. I don't know what he means by monitoring reports. 4. The assessment program is outlined in several pages in the Compliance Report. 5. I can copy those policies and regs for him. Want me to go ahead and send? Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Monday, July 02, 2001 1:44 PM JOHNSON, VIRGINIA RE: Needed Information-Important! Do you have dates for those three times? -----Original Messagi From: Sent: To: Subject: JOHNSON, VIRGINIA Monday, July 02, 2001 1:15 PM LESLEY, BONNIE RE: Needed Information-Important! Three times I sat in on sessions with Steve Ross along with other PRE staff. At no time did we review any NSF documents. The sessions focused on document review of the ESL and Pre-K Literacy reports. I have never \"consulted\" with him. I have never consulted with Dr. Roberts either. Original Message From: Sent: To: LESLEY, BONNIE Monday, July 02, 2001 12:07 PM ADAMS LEON\nARNOLD, LAURA BETH\nAUSTIN, LINDA\nBRANDON, BARBARA\nBRIGGS, MONA R.\nBROADNAX, KAREN\nBUSBEA, PAT\nCARR, MARCELLINE\nCARSON, RENE'\nCLEAVER, VANESSA\nCLIFFORD, ELIZABETH\nCRAWFORD, PAMELA: DAVIS, SUZI\nDEBBIE MILAM\nDILLINGHAM, YVETTE\nDONALDSON, MABLE\nFINNEY, ANTONETTE\nFLETCHER, DANNY\nFREEMAN, ANN\nGILLIAM, ANITA\nGLASGOW, DENNIS: HARDING, CASSANDRA\nHUFFMAN, KRIS\nJACKSON, MARION\nJOHNSON, VIRGINIA\nJONES, DOCIA\nJONES, STEPHANIE\nKIILSGAARD, SHARON\nKILLINGSWORTH, PATRICIA\nKOVACH, RENEE\nLAJUANA RAINEY\nLOYA, STELLA\nMARION BALDWIN\nMARTIN, PAULETTE\nMcCOY, EDDIE\nMcNEAL, MARIE\nMILAM, JUDY\nNEAL, LUCY\nPAAL, MARY M.\nPAUL, ANNITA\nPERRITT, YORIKO U.\nPRICE, PATRICIA\nRYNDERS, PAULA\nSMITH, GARY\nSMITH, PAULA: TEETER, JUDY\nWALLS, COLLEEN\nWARD, LIONEL: WILLIAMS, BARBARA: WILLIAMS, ED\nWILSON, LEVANNA\nWOODS, MARION Subject: Needed Information-Important! 182snimitch@lrsdadm.lrsd.kl2.ar.us Original Message----- From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: CARNiNE, LESLIE V. Thursday, October 19, 2000 1:59 PM MITCHELL, SADIE NEAL, LUCY: LESLEY, BONNIE\nLEASE, KATHY R.\nSMITH, GARY RE: Will we have the software available by 2nd Semester? What system(s) are being looked at? Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: MITCHELL, SADIE Thursday, October 19, 2000 10:33 AM CARNINE, LESLIE V. FW: Sadie Mitchell smmitch@lrsdadm.lrsd.kl2.ar.us -----Original Message----- From: Sent: To: Cc: SMITH, GARY Thursday, October 19, 2000 10:25 AM LESLEY, BONNIE WARD, LIONEL\nGADBERRY, BRADY L\nNEAL, LUCY\nMITCHELL, SADIE\nCAWTHON, FRANCES H.\nLACEY, MARIAN G.\nADAMS, LEON\nAUSTIN, LINDA\nBRADFORD, GAYLE\nBRIGGS, MONA\nBROADNAX, KAREN\nCLEAVER, VANESSA\nCOLFORD, SUSAN\nDAVIS, SUZI\nDONALDSON, MABLE\nEddie McCoy\nELSTON, JO\nFULLERTON, JAMES\nGLASGOW, DENNIS\nHAWKS, EVERETT\nKEOWN, ADA\nMARION BALDWIN\nNORMAN, CASSANDRA R.\nPRICE, PATRICIA\nTATUM, KATHY: WYATT-ROSS, JANICE Subject: Dr. Lesley, The consensus recommendation of the SAIP committee is for a SAIP be created for students at all grade levels who are not proficient based state mandated benchmark tests and/or District mandated Achievement Level Tests (ALT) - Our specific recommendations to implement this are\nobtain/create the software necessary to identify students not proficient on state benchmarks/district assessment that will also generate/print the adopted SAIP form with student information and test scores printed on the SAIP form obtain/create the software that will generate/print specific strategies (along with and printed checklists forthose who wish not to use computer) developed by a committee made up of teachers and curriculum specialists as a resource available for teachers to use (especially secondary teachers) - this can be attached to the SAIP form as needed develop an \"instructional\" sheet for the SAIP form that will explain in more detail the information to documented and procedures to follow provide training on the use of SAIP form directly to teachers (the exact training may have to be determined at a future date based on the development of software noted above) - delivery of training would need to be coordinated with staff development for most effective and comprehensive presentation to all teachers to all of you in Cyber Land - is there anything else I forgot? - thanks Gary 290LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject\nBABBS, JUNIOUS Monday, July 02, 2001 8:08 AM ELSTON, JO NEWBURN, LINDA\nLESLEY, BONNIE RE: Counseling Program Kit Message Flag: Due By: Flag Status\nFollow up Monday, July 09, 2001 5:00 PM Flagged It is positive to see that things are moving forward on this \"01 - 02 priority. Prior to coming to closure, I ask that your look to set up a time to fill me in on the \"buy in\" of players called upon (committee members) to develop districtwide literature to be distributed. The connection to Curriculum and Instruction is a biggee that should be run through Dr. Lesley. I will look to give you a call a bit later regarding B/W high school scholarship information and the 3 - 4 year comparisons. To date, this information has not been provided. Junious C. Babbs, Jr jcbabbs@stuasn.lrsd.kl2.ar.us Little Rock School District Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: VANN, SUELLEN Friday, June 29, 2001 11:08 AM HESTER, GAIL ELSTON, JO\nBABBS, JUNIOUS Counseling Program Kit Jo Evelyn Elston is in my office, and we're working on a counseling program kit with insert sheets. Mr. Babbs will pay for this out of his budget. I'm going to talk with Kristy Black about the design of the kit and sheets, but 1 figured we'd better give you the info for the quote since it looks like a pretty good-sized job. The kit will be one-pocket on right side with a business card slot\nthe kit will print front and back with one pocket. There won't be a separate \"wing\" like the recruitment kit had. Quantity\n25,000 Jo Evelyn likes the paper we used for the recruitment kit and insert sheets, so we could just go with those. The insert sheets: 1. JOBBS sheet - print front only\nquantity 30,000 2. Early college planning sheet - print front only\nquantity 20,000 3. PCEP sheet - print front only\nquantity 20,000 4. What Does Counselor Do? sheet - print front only\nquantity 30,000 5. Counseling program sheet - print front and back\nquantity 30,000 6. Couseling fact sheet - print front only\nquantity 30,000 The kit and insert sheets would print 4-color. Have I forgotten anything? No bleeds. THANKS! (Mr. Babbs, you might want to set up a lemonade stand on Sherman to pay for this!!!!!) Suellen S. Vann, APR Director of Communications Little Rock School District (501) 324-2020 167LESLEY, BONNIE From\nSent: To: Subject\nLEASE, KATHY R. Thursday, January 18, 2001 6:06 PM BABBS, JUNIOUS RE: Section 2 Thanks for the input! We have been with the program evaluation consultant all day, so I just finished editing the report to send to Bonnie. I will incorporate your changes and suggestions, and send it to her again. Do you want the Power Point as an Appendix or the outline for it incorporated into the body of the report? I'm so sorry I am just getting around to my email, but I'll take the heat for sending another correction. Not enough hours in the day!! Kathy PS-Thanks for the encouragement! Original Message- From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: BABBS, JUNIOUS Thursday, January 18, 2001 10:53 AM LEASE, KATHY R. GADBERRY, BRADY L. FW: Section 2 Good information. Working with timelines and specific report information submissions for this division, I have not been able to dissect in great detail but my original thinking touches upon 2 - 3 items that may warrant some review. You will note that Brady is also being forwarded who can provide his thinking as well. Future compliance sessions will toss this about for further revision. 1. Inclusion of the power point presentation. 2. When touching upon Dr. Ross - It may be advantageous to refer to \"looks to build or acknowledges\" specific district efforts as opposed to \"praising\". 3. It would be appropriate to list current data that is available. Be reminded that when writing materials for our report submission, we will include \"districtwide\" numbers. We may not be there vet but this will help to serve as an indicator of established basSline information from which we will jump off of. Keep your ohm up.' ---------------------~~  Junious C. Babbs, Jr jcbabbs@stuasn.lrsd.kl2.ar.us Little Rock School District Original Message----- From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Wednesday, January 17, 2001 6:14 PM LESLEY, BONNIE BABBS. JUNIOUS\nDILLINGHAM, YVETTE\nHUFFMAN, MAC\nJOHNSON, VIRGINIA\nMcCOY, EDDIE\nSUMMERVILLE, ROSALYN P.\nTRUETT, IRMA\nWILLIAMS, ED Section 2  File: Deseg Report (2.7.1).doc  Bonnie, Here is the first draft of Section 2.7.1. Please let me know what additions or revisions you want made. Thanks, Kathy PS--PRE folks-Look to see what I left out, what typos I have, and what needs to be edited. Thanks 12Chris, I am in LR this week-end and you can reach me at 868-4289. I can come to your office to help, or I can work from my office. Call if you need me. Are we having fun yet? Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Monday, July 02, 2001 8:16 AM BRIGGS, MONA R. RE: Thank you, my friend. I \"vegged\" all week-end, seriously \"vegged.\" I know this will be a HARD week. Yes, I hear Kathy is on his witness list. It'll be interesting. -----Original Message----- From: Sent: To: Subject: BRIGGS, MONA R. Monday, July 02, 2001 6:53 AM LESLEY, BONNIE RE: I have been thinking a lot about you. You can't let this bring on a stroke or something. You don't need this kind of pressure all by your self!! It is not worth it-no job is worth it. And you can't take on the woes of a district that has been screwing up for a decade or more. I hope Kathy does get called to testify. She needs to have to answer to John Walker and if it bodes ill for the district so be it! She and Carnine just waltzes out of here and leaves everyone else holding the rope. You make time for sleep and food!! Mona R. Briggs Middle Level Specialist Little Rock School District 501-324-2412 \"Seek First to Understand\nthen to be understood.\" {CQvzy'} Original Message- From: Sent: To: LESLEY, BONNIE Friday, June 29, 2001 7:55 AM BRICSS, MONA R. 191STEWART, DONALD M. From\nSent: To: Cc: Subject: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Thursday, November 16, 2000 12:23 PM LESLEY, BONNIE BABBS, JUNIOUS\nMitchell, Sadie\nGADBERRY, BRADY L\nSTEWART, DONALD M. Upper Division Classes and African Americans Were you able to pull together the numbers--last year and this year's enrollment? John Walker also has called and Is questioning his non involvement in the policy development(IKF). I told him I thought the evidence was so strong for Black kids and that I would send him the information. When was the first time he would have received the policy for comment? He is raising much the same issue-impact on black kids as Katherine...IKFI \\ Cc: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE\nCARNINE, LESLIE V. RE\nChart Revisions Ken, Thanks so much for this explanation of what happened. The important thing about making a mistake is finding a way not to make it again. I think you have done this, and we will all profit from it. I know you feel really badly about this, but the most important thing is to correct the process. We all make mistakes. We are committed to quality in PRE and that includes continuous improvement and continuous learning. This experience has provided us with both. What a bonus!! Thanks for helping with the corrections. I will take care of getting them to the appropriate Cabinet people and getting them redistributed to the Board. -----Original'Message----- From: Sent: To: Subject: Dr Lease, SAVAGE, KEN Tuesday, November 21, 2000 10:31 AM LEASE, KATHY R. Chart Revisions I have reviewed the charts that I created from the benchmark data. When I created the charts originally 1 had encountered a problem similar to the one described by Dr. Lesley, but I specifically remember correcting the error prior to sending the charts to you. Needless to say, I was more than a little alarmed that the charts you received contained errors because the charts I have appear to coincide with the data I have. I went on further to investigate by looking at the email I sent you. And there, big as day, the error had reappeared. So the charts I had sent you were incorrect because they were never updated in the manner that I expected. Here is what I believe happened based on what I remember and what 1 learned this morning:  I created the charts in an Excel document that contained the data.  I copied the charts only out into another document, creating what is called a linked object.  I printed and reviewed the charts and this is when I found the error.  I corrected the error and reopened the linked charts. They appear to have accepted the corrections.  I emailed the file with the linked charts to you rather than the file containing the charts and data. Heres where the problem arose and information that I have just become aware of this morning.  First, when using linked objects, each time you open the file you are given a choice to update the information. Unfortunately, 1 only sent you the charts and not the data that drives them. So regardless, you could not have updated the charts.  Second, and more importantly, even though a chart has been updated previously, it will always revert back to the original chart that was corrected no matter how many times the data has been updated.  Third, if the file with the original data is already open, when the linked item is opened it automatically updates without intervention. I believe that the second option above is what occurred. The charts were created, an error was encountered and corrected, the link was updated but the chart reverted back to its original when the file was closed. What I propose to do to prevent this kind of fiasco in the future is: 1. Only send charts embedded in files which contain the data-no linking. 2. Only create the linked charts after ALL data has been proofed and corrected. The erroneous data was only last year's data for black students in the comparison between this year and last year for both Math and Literacy. I am printing and will send ten revised copies of the charts. Ken. 38LESLEY, BONNIE From\nSent\nTo: Subject\nLEASE, KATHY R, Wednesday, March 07, 2001 12:44 PM BABBS, JUNIOUS RE: Research Committee Meeting Bonnie said that the evaluations weren't part of the court submission. Is that still correct? If so, then it looks like we should slow down a bit and do it rignt. Are you in agreement? ' --------------------- ~ KL ------------------------------------------------- . Original Message- From: Sent\nTo: Subject: BABBS, JUNIOUS Wednesday, March 07, 2001 12:36 PM LEASE, KATHY R. RE: Research Committee Meeting Original thinking was to get another date scheduled prior to the March 1 Sth court submission but with information you have noted, consideration of a later date is necessary. I don't see major conflict. Junious C. Babbs, Jr jcbabbs@stuasn.lrsd.kl2.ar.us Little Rock School District Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: Importance: High LEASE, KATHY R. Wednesday, March 07, 2001 12:27 PM 'trrose@ualr.edu'\nBABBS, JUNIOUS Research Committee Meeting We have had another committee member who will not be able to come to the meeting on the 13th. We now have agenda meeting at 5:00, and Steve can only be with us by phone. What do you all think about postponing the meeting until after spring break? That would give John plenty of time to make revisions, and we can schedule a meeting when Steve can be with us. I hope to have the template/program evaluation guidelines completed by then as well. Let me know what you think! Kathy Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 7LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Monday, July 16, 2001 7:24 PM MITCHELL, SADIE RE\nDocuments yes, thanks. I need asap. Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: MITCHELL. SADIE Monday, July 16, 2001 5:51 PM LESLEY, BONNIE WASHINGTON. CHARLOTTE Documents We got the list of doouments on file done but I forgot to remind Charlotte to send it to you. She is gone for the day and it is on her computer. You will have it first thing in the morning. Sadie Sadie Mitchell smmitch@lrsdadm.lrsd.kl2.ar.us LESLEY, BONNIE From\nSent: To\nSubject: LESLEY, BONNIE Monday, July 16, 2001 7:24 PM WARD, LIONEL RE\nSAIP He requested info from me. I told him I had given him all I had but that you are the administrator on this issue. I was following up to see if he had contacted you. Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: WARD, LIONEL Monday, July 16, 2001 4:29 PM LESLEY, BONNIE RE: SAIP Are you trying to tell me something? I have not received any such request from Mr. Walker. If he talks with me, I will talk to you about a proper response first. One basic problem with implementation is in the thought some might harbor which explains why their efforts started late in the game. I am sure some folks faced more struggles than others. Clearly, schools must satisfy the requirements with wise, careful and timely deliberations this year. Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject\nSAIP LESLEY, BONNIE Sunday, July 15, 2001 3:49 PM WARD, LIONEL f I Lionel, has Mr. Walker requested anything from you about the implementation of SAlPs? if so, what did you send to him? Thanks. Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 88501/324-0567 (fax) LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To\nSubject\nLESLEY, BONNIE. Monday, July 16, 2001 8:16 AM JAMES, KENNETH RE\nWork in Progress Absolutely! -----Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject\nJAMES, KENNETH Monday, July 16, 2001 7:54 AM LESLEY, BONNIE RE: Work in Progress Bonnie: I agree. The work and time that you have invested in this will indeed pay off, as the testimony unfolds. It will be interesting to see how the judge handles all of this information and to observe her thought process. Ken -----Original Message- From: Sent: To: LESLEY, BONNIE Sunday, July 15, 2001 9:42 PM JAMES, KENNETH Subject: RE: Work in Progress When I left today, 1 left a lot still un-done, but I left feeling more and more certain that we have strong evidence that we did the plan. This is going to be helpful to me in remembering all the efforts-even if Chris decides not to use some of it as evidence. 1 think it will particularly be strong when we combine what Sadie has with ours in this Division. -----Original Message----- From: Sent: To: LESLEY, BONNIE JAMES, KENNETH Sunday, July 15, 2001 9:34 PM Subject: RE\nWork in Progress Bonnie: 1 have reviewed both documents and they are excellent at showing what has been accomplished in the areas of evaluation and assessment. Great job! We will touch base tomorrow. Ken Original Message- From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Saturday, July 14, 2001 6:24 PM 'heller@fec.net\nJAMES, KENNETH\nMITCHELL, SADIE Work in Progress Ive worked today on getting the ideas laid out about assessment/program evaluation. That includes collecting and organizing stacks of paper that document our work and processes. In addition, please see the attached documents to determine if this is where we want to go. I welcome your feedback. File: 1 Program tvaluation.doc   File: 1 Assessment Grid.doc  96Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Sunday, July 15, 2001 3:41 PM 'heller@fec.net' JAMES, KENNETH SAIPs Mr. Walker requested on June 20 the follow: \"Please advise whether you have information regarding the District's implementation of STudent Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) as required by the State. If so, please share with this this office.\" I replied: \"You will find that information in the March 2001 Compliance Report in Section 2.7. I do not have any information beyond what you will find there since the implementation is done at the school level. Leonel Ward is in charge of implementation.\" When I searched everything for the documents I needed from you, I found several memos in Learning Links that I had forgotten aboutabout the philosophy in implementing SAIP, sample SAiPs done by Price, Glasgow, and Davis, the memo establishing the committee to develop the program, the memo to the board, etc. Should I forward those to Mr. Walker as well? Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Saturday, July 14, 2001 6:24 PM 'heller@fec.net'\nJAMES, KENNETH\nMITCHELL, SADIE Work in Progress I've worked today on getting the ideas laid out about assessment/program evaluation. That includes collecting and organizing stacks of paper that document our work and processes. In addition, please see the attached documents to determine if this is where we want to go. I welcome your feedback. Q 1 Program Evaiuation.doc 1 Assessment Grid.doc Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) 102LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Don Crary [dcrary@newfuturesforyouth.org] Wednesday, April 18, 2001 1:33 PM LESLEY, BONNIE mopierce@newfuturesforyouth.org Re: Computer with Access Great. We can pay for it. I'm sure it will be cheaper if it is purchased through the'district contract. The district can invoice us and we will reimburse them for the cost. Don -----Original Message----- From: LESLEY, BONNIE \u0026lt;BALESLE@IRC.LRSD.K12.AR.US\u0026gt; To- 'dcrary@newfuturesforyouth.org' \u0026lt;dcrary@newfuturesforyouth.org\u0026gt; Cc: BRIGGS, MONA R. \u0026lt;MRBRIGG@ANNEX.LRSD.K12.AR.US\u0026gt;\nPAAL, MARY M. \u0026lt;MMPAAL@ANNEX.LRSD.K12.AR.US\u0026gt; Date: 04/18/2001 12:50 PM Subject: Computer with Access \u0026gt;1 talked with Mona about your need for a dedicated computer somewhere in the \u0026gt;district so that your evaluator can come work on direct access to the data \u0026gt;base. She is arranging for an additional computer drop in the office that \u0026gt;Mary Paal will have at Garland. Can you all purchase the computer out of \u0026gt;your budget? \u0026gt;Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction \u0026gt;Little Rock School District \u0026gt;3001 S. Pulaski \u0026gt;Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 \u0026gt;501/324-2131 \u0026gt;501/324-0567 (fax) LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Wednesday, April 18, 2001 12:32 PM LESLEY, BONNIE MITCHELL, SADIE\nCAWTHON, FRANCES H.\nLACEY, MARIAN G. RE\nALT Results Bonnie, did you meet with yesterday? Do I need to contact them? I explained to all of them when we What group of principals ot tnem wnen did the testing calendar that we could get results back to everyone before school was out, if they followed the schedule. If there are some that we need to follow up with, please let me know who they are. We are returning ALT results as quickly as schools get them in. The whole purpose of setting up the schedule like it is centers around being able to get the results back to everyone before school is out. District results can't be calculated until all schools are in. That is why it is imperative that everyone stay on schedule. Both teachers and parents will get their results unless someone doesn't follow the schedule. Second grade results have all been returned to the schools, along with two copies of the parent report. High school preliminary results have been returned to Parkview and Fair. McClellan's results are here and are being scored. Central and Hall have not turned in their answer sheets yet. All make-ups were to have been completed by this past Monday. Retests for high schools are due back on Friday. The first page of the parent report can be printed, but we can't print the longitudinal report for parents unless all high schools are in. 708Our elementary schools did a great job during 2nd grade testing\nso if they keep that up, we will sail right through their scoring and printing. They have all of their results. We're still missing two of the middle schools' Algebra I / geometry results as of this morning. We are having a scoring problem with the high school science tests, but NWEA is working on it. The subject specific math and science tests require no retests, so that shouldn't hold things up. Also, we have provided data on request any school who wants to know last fall's ALT scores for their rising grade students. If you have any other questions, please let me know. Kathy Original Message----- From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Wednesday, April 18, 2001 10:37 AM LEASE, KATHY R. ALT Results I met with a group of principals yesterday who suggested to me that if they can't receive their ALT results before school is out that there is no use in sending them at all. Kids and parents need them quickly, and the school needs them quickly in order to plan for next school year. What our your chances of being able to do that? Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: Paulette Mabry [pmabry@newfuturesforyouth.org] Wednesday, April 18, 2001 10:59 AM Bonnie Lesley\nBrady Gadberry\nJunious Babbs\nLinda Austin\nMarian G. Lacey\nSadie Mitchell Words to encourage us 0 Rose.doc Thought you might enjoy this today as a way to jumpstart the afternoon when things seem impossible. Paulette LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: BRIGGS, MONA R. Wednesday, April 18, 2001 10:10 AM LESLEY, BONNIE Cost of Tools for Learning (Fred Jones)\nParent Component Importance: High The discounted costs of books is\n500 books @ $18.00 (regularly priced at 29.95) 300-499 @ $18.50 200-299 @ $18.95 100-199 @ $19.95 Shipping for 500 is $546.75\nit may be slightly less for fewer numbers but not significantly. RE\nParent involvement with training 709From: Sent: To: LESLEY, BONNIE Wednesday, October 25, 2000 9:44 AM TRUETT, IRMA Subject: Benchmark Scores I need copies of the state test results by school in my office asap. Board members and others are calling for information. Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) GADBERRY, BRADY L. From: Sent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Wednesday, October 25, 2000 8\n17 PM LESLEY, BONNIE Benchmark Scores Bonnie, Irma forwarded your messages to her about the test scores. As I told you when we met with Suellen, I would have your curriculum copies ready by Friday. They are ready now. After learning that you were insistent on having the scores immediately, I stayed late tonight and finished them up. Irma came back down here from home to help me. I am just waiting on your initials on the memos. I will bring them to the Institute tomorrow. Irma can come pick them up and make copies. I understood Dr. Carnine to say that the Board reports could be sent in the Friday report. I had them ready at the Board meeting, but he didn't want them distributed until we had more time to confirm the data. Since you have asked for them, I printed what we have at this time in draft copy. I will give the copies to you that are printed for the Board. If you think they need to be sent by special courier rather than in the Friday report, that will be your choice. I was only trying to follow the directions I was given. If you needed the scores so quickly, why didn't you call me out of the meeting today? Irma didn't even know where we had secured the copies of the reports. It was very unfair of you to keep harassing her and making her feel badly because she couldn't produce the reports instantly for you. If you need something, please do me the courtesy of asking me for it. I understood that the Friday timeline was satisfactory with you. If it wasn't, you should have let me know. Kathy Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 17Thanks, Kathy  File\nAdditional Programs and Strategies Requesting Evaiuation.doc  GADBERRY, BRADY L. From: Sent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Friday, October 27, 2000 2:52 PM MITCHELL, SADIE\nLESLEY, BONNIE\nBABBS, JUNIOUS\nGADBERRY, BRADY L\nSTEWART, DONALD M. Memo to Gene Jones logo memo.doc know ASAP. KL Here is what I am having Irma send on Monday. If you see anything that needs to be changed, let her GADBERRY, BRADY L. From: Sent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Wednesday, October 25, 2000 8:37 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V.\nMITCHELL, SADIE\nBABBS, JUNIOUS\nGADBERRY, BRADY L. FW: Benchmark Scores Dear Folks, If Bonnie wants to continually harass me that is one thing, but I would appreciate it if she didn't pick on my assistant. Please read the exchanges below. She also left Irma a voice message that was very curt. Irma has been working like a dog in room 16 to finish up the answer documents for the CRTs, so she wasn't immediately available to read email or answer the telephone. No one came down here looking for her, so she didn't know that there was an urgent message. I emailed a reply message to Bonnie and sent you all a blind copy\nso I'm sure I'll be in trouble again. However, there has to be an end to this. We are working as hard as we can to produce these test reports, implement the assessment program, and produce program evaluations. I don't know how much more I can stand. She also continues to work behind my back through Eddie McCoy. This is ridiculous!! Who could be successful in such an environment? I'm sorry for ranting, but I am exhausted mentally, physically, and emotionally. Kathy Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: TRUETT, IRMA Wednesday, October 25, 2000 8:21 PM LEASE, KATHY R. FW: Benchmark Scores Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Wednesday, October 25, 2000 5:05 PM TRUETT, IRMA RE: Benchmark Scores I'm sorry, Irma, but I can't accept that response. Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: TRUETT, IRMA Wednesday, October 25, 2000 2:08 PM LESLEY, BONNIE RE: Benchmark Scores Sorry, I'm just now getting your e-mail, but I've been working in room 16. I don't have this information and from what I understand Dr. Lease has it with her to give to the principals this afternoon. Sorry! Original Message 16 GADBERRY, BRADY L. From: Sent: To\nSubject: LEASE, KATHY R. Tuesday, November 28, 2000 4:31 PM BABBS, JUNIOUS\nFRANCES CAWTHON\nGadberry, Brady L\nHurley, Richard\nLESLEY, BONNIE\nLeslie Carnine\nLINDA WATSON\nMARIAN LACEY\nMilhollen, Mark\nSadie Mitchell\nSTEWART, DONALD M.\nVann, Suellen Steve Ross-Program Evaluation.ppt Steve Ross-Program Evaluation.... KL FYl-Here is a copy of Steve's presentation to the Board. GADBERRY, BRADY L. From: Sent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Thursday, November 16, 2000 8:32 AM GADBERRY, BRADY L. RE: PRE List Requested I shared with Babbs that I thought we could provide some assistance in PRE to make the surveying process a little easier. We've got the equipment and the software! I just talked with Gene Jones to confirm his schedule, and he said that he was invited to the compliance meeting tomorrow morning. I told him, \"Great! See you then!\" KL Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: GADBERRY, BRADY L. Thursday, November 16, 2000 8:17 AM BABBS, JUNIOUS LEASE, KATHY R. RE: PRE List Requested We were told early in the year by Dr. Carnine that all surveys would be done through PRE. -----Original Message----- From: BABBS, JUNIOUS Sent\nTuesday, November 14, 2000 7:15 PM To\nGADBERRY, BRADY L. Cc\nLEASE, KATHY R. Subject\nFW: PRE List Requested To my knowledge Vic and I both allowed department \"Quality of Service Surveys\" that went to appropriate building staff to be returned and worked through our own division shops. What is your thinking to continue with this format or consideration through PRE ? Junious C. Babbs, Jr jcbabbs@stuasn.lrsd,kl2.ar.us Little Rock Schoo! District Original Message From: LEASE, KATHY R. Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Friday, November 10, 2000 12:18 AM 'Clay Fendley\nLESLEY, BONNIE\nBABBS, JUNIOUS\nMITCHELL, SADIE\nGADBERRY, BRADY L.\nSTEWART, DONALD M. CARNINE, LESLIE V. List Requested Dear Folks, Attached is the list of programs or strategies that have either received some evaluation services or have requested evaluation services. If you need additional information, please let me know. IS Subject: RE: This has been the week from hell. I hear that Walker may call Kathy to testify. Of course, that may not be good for the district. We'll see. I'm so tired I could fall on my face. Sooooooo glad it's Fridayl Original Message- From: Sent: To: Subject: BRIGGS, MONA R. Thursday, June 28, 2001 8:00 PM LESLEY, BONNIE RE: Bonnie, I hate all this, don't you? I guess you will have your \"day in court.\" Too bad Kathy didn't get in on it...I understand from Eddie that she took all her files with her. What a deal. Surely, the judge will see through this and let us get on with our lives. Walker just doesn't want to give up those big bucks he makes off of us. Hope you have some down time somewhere along the line. Mona R. Briggs Middle Level Specialist Little Rock School District 501-324-2412 \"Seek First to Understand\nthen to be understood!' (Covey) ----Original Message----- From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 9:08 AM To: CHAPMAN, SUSAN\nGLENN, RANDALL\nWATSON, LINDA\nELSTON, JO\nWIEDOWER, JULIE\nEGGLESTON, DEANA\nADAMS, LEON\nARNOLD, LAURA BETH\nAUSTIN, LINDA\nBRANDON, BARBARA\nBRIGGS, MONA R.\nBROADNAX, KAREN\nBUSBEA, PAT\nCARR, MARCELLINE\nCARSON, RENE'\nCLEAVER, VANESSA\n CLIFFORD, ELIZABETH\nCRAWFORD, PAMELA\nDAVIS, SUZI\nDEBBIE MILAM\nDILLINGHAM, YVETTE\nDONALDSON, MABLE\nFINNEY, ANTONETTE\nFLETCHER, DANNY\nFREEMAN, ANN\nGILLIAM, ANITA\nGLASGOW, DENNIS\nHARDING, CASSANDRA\nHUFFMAN, KRIS\nJACKSON, MARION\nJOHNSON, VIRGINIA\nJONES, DOCIA\nJONES, STEPHANIE\n192Cc-. KIILSGAARD, SHARON\nKILLINGSWORTH, PATRICIA\nKOVACH, RENEE\nLAJUANA RAINEY\nLOYA, STELLA\nMARION BALDWIN\nMARTIN, PAULETTE\nMcCOY, EDDIE\nMcNEAL, MARIE\nMILAM, JUDY\nNEAL, LUCY\nPAAL, MARY M.\nPAUL, ANNITA\nPERRITT, YORIKO U.\nPRICE, PATRICIA\nRYNDERS, PAULA\nSMITH, GARY\nSMITH, PAULA\nTEETER, JUDY\nWALLS, COLLEEN\nWARD, LIONEL\nWILLIAMS, BARBARA\nWILLIAMS, ED\nWILSON, LEVANNA\nWOODS, MARION 'heller@fec.ne+' Subject: I just spoke with Chris Heller, our attorney. He asked me to reiterate to everyone that he does not want any of the staff talking with Mr. Walker about anything-to refer all his calls, faxes, and visits to Mr. Heller. And he asks that we absolutely not send to Mr. Walker anything without clearing it with him first. Finally, he asks that we remind all our staff once more about this! He was adamant. Please make sure the staff not named in this e-mail also understand this directive. Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Friday, June 29, 2001 2:47 PM ADAMS, LEON\nARNOLD, LAURA BETH\nAUSTIN, LINDA\nBRANDON, BARBARA\nBRIGGS, MONA R.\nBROADNAX, KAREN\nBUSBEA, PAT\nCARR, MARCELLINE\nCARSON, RENE'\nCLEAVER, VANESSA\nCLIFFORD, ELIZABETH\nCRAWFORD, PAMELA\nDAVIS, SUZI\nDEBBIE MILAM\nDILLINGHAM, YVETTE\nDONALDSON, MABLE\nFINNEY, ANTONETTE\nFLETCHER, DANNY\nFREEMAN, ANN\nGILLIAM, ANITA\nGLASGOW, DENNIS\nHARDING, CASSANDRA\nHUFFMAN, KRIS\nJACKSON, MARION\nJOHNSON, VIRGINIA\nJONES, DOCIA\nJONES, STEPHANIE\nKIILSGAARD, SHARON\nKILLINGSWORTH, PATRICIA\nKOVACH, RENEE\nLAJUANA RAINEY\nLOYA, STELLA\nMARION BALDWIN\nMARTIN, PAULETTE\nMcCOY, EDDIE\nMcNEAL, MARIE\nMILAM, JUDY\nNEAL, LUCY\nPAAL, MARY M.\nPAUL, ANNITA\nPERRITT, YORIKO U.\nPRICE, PATRICIA\nRYNDERS, PAULA\nSMITH, GARY\nSMITH, PAULA\nTEETER, JUDY\nWALLS, COLLEEN\nWARD, LIONEL\nWILLIAMS, BARBARA\nWILLIAMS, ED\nWILSON, LEVANNA\nWOODS, MARION\nBABBS, JUNIOUS\nFRANCES CAWTHON\nGADBERRY, BRADY L.\nHURLEY, RICHARD\nJAMES, KENNETH\nLINDA WATSON\nMARIAN LACEY\nMILHOLLEN, MARK\nSadie Mitchell\nSTEWART, DONALD M.\nVANN, SUELLEN\nWATSON, LINDA\nANDERSON, BARBARA\nASHLEY, VIRGINIA\nBRANCH, SAMUEL\nBROOKS, SHARON\nCARSON, CHERYL\nCARTER, LILLIE\nCOURTNEY, THERESA\nCOX, ELEANOR\nDARIAN SMITH\nDEBORAH MITCHELL\nETHEL DUNBAR\nFaith Donovan\nFIELDS, FREDERICK\nGOLSTON, MARY\nHALL, DONNA\nHARKEY, JANE\nHOBBS, FELICIA L.\nJONES, BEVERLY\nKEOWN, ADA\nLillie Scull\nMANGAN, ANN\nMANNO, ROBERTA\nMARY BARKSDALE\nMENKING, MARY\nMORGAN, SCOTT\nNANCY ACRE\nOLIVER, MICHAEL\nPHILLIPS, TABITHA\nSHARON BROOKS\nSMITH, MARY\nTAYLOR, LESLIE\nTUCKER, JANIS A.\nWILSON, JANICE M.\nWORM, JERRY\nZEIGLER, GWEN S.\nBERRY, DEBORAH\nBLAYLOCK, ANN\nFULLERTON, JAMES\nHUDSON, ELOUISE\nLarry Buck\nMOSBY, JIMMY\nPATTERSON, DAVID\nROUSSEAU, NANCY\nSAIN, LLOYD DRA Results by Middle School Feeder Pattern 193sounds like the our data is available. LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LEASE. KATHY R. Tuesday, October 03, 2000 6:09 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V. CTA issues Dr. C., Did Clementine come in today to discuss assessment issues with you? I invited her in last spring to talk with me, but she never came. If she has some specific issues that you think we need to address in the questionnaire, let me know. 1 started drafting some ideas about questions, but I think I need some input from you. It looks like from one of the emails you sent that folks have been communicating with you about their concerns. They may have shared some things we haven't thought about. Let me know if you have any time tomorrow afternoon to visit with me (phone or in person) about the survey. Thanks, Kathy Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc.lrsd.kl2.ar.us LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LEASE. KATHY R. Tuesday, October 03, 2000 5:45 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V. RE: ALT Check-In, Etc. This is pure fabrication. This is not the situation here in PRE. We have a fox in the hen house. I thought this kind of thing was supposed to be over. The digs have continued. The ALT process has to have someone who shepherds it. I said originally that I would need Gayle at least six weeks to two months. I fully understand the strain that Sadie is under because she has come to depend on Gayle as well. If Gayle cannot fulfill her commitment with ALT, then I think she would let me know. She had to go over to the administration building to get some work done to be ready for the Bi-Racial committee report that she is scheduled to give tonight. Roz told her that she could take care of anyone who checked in things today. I guess the real question is that if my staff thinks they are having a problem \"handling\" the ALT today, why didn't they contact me? We had Ed here scanning and scoring, and Irma received no calls that she couldn't handle. I'm afraid I am left with no other conclusion but that this is continued harassment by the person that I thought had agreed to quit harassing. Can you help me with any other explanation? KL Original Message From: Sent: To: Co: Subject: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Tuesday, October 03, 2000 11:10 AM LEASE, KATHY R. Mitchell, Sadie FW: ALT Check-In, Etc. I know you know how assumptions can get you in trouble. Obviously, there appears to be a communication problem and I would hope you and Sadie could work it out. Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Tuesday, October 03, 2000 10:55 AM CARNINE, LESLIE V. ALT Check-In, Etc. I have had three complaints already today-two from IRC staff and one from building-level. Gayle has returned to downtown, and Kathy is sitting in the school improvement meetings. Neither of them organized the staff for the return of 50the ALTS, and so they were down there yesterday and again today just kind of picking it up, but they do not necessarily know what they are supposed to be doing. They need direction, and I don't feel that I should provide it. How do you want to handle this? LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Monday, October 02, 2000 6:48 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V. FW: Priorities 2000-2001 Dr. C., I'm sorry. I guess 1 don't quite know what to do with the plan I sent to Bonnie. I guess I missed the mark. I thought we were to develop what we were doing in our department to meet the areas you outlined in your critical priorities processes. Do you want me to send the parts to the people Bonnie mentioned below? Or are you going to put it all together using what you want out of what we sent? Let me know what you want me to do. KL Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Friday, September 29, 2000 3:04 PM LEASE, KATHY R. RE: Priorities 2000-2001 You need to send the technology stuff to Lucy Neal. You need to send the Campus Leadership stuff to Sadie Mitchell. I suggest that you forward the other two pieces directly to Dr. Carnine. They are much more detailed than the other items in the Division of Instruction Work Plan and therefore don't \"fit\" with what we have. /Mso, 1 know nothing about the Qjjality Initiative Plan, so that makes no sense to, me, Perhaps he can just include your items s'eparately. ' -----Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Friday, September 29, 2000 2:50 PM LESLEY, BONNIE Priorities 2000-2001 Importance: High I had massive computer failures today. It took Ed. Ken, Virginia, and Irma to help me get it all back. Here are the priorities from PRE. Call me, if you want me to go over them with you. Thanks. Kathy File: Priority 11 Technology 2000-2001.doc Assessmentdoc   File: Priority IV lnstruction-evaiuation.doc File: Priority lll-2000.doc  File: Priority IV Instruction- Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 51Original Message From: Sent: To: LESLEY, BONNIE Tuesday, June 26, 2001 12:08 PM MITCHELL, SADIE\nMOSBY, JIMMY\nOLIVER, MICHAEL\nRAINEY, L. KAYE Subject: Requests from Mr. Walker I have an foi from John Walker requesting copies of program evaluations on the following programs. PRE says they provided you data for them, but I need a copy of the report. SEDL program-Southwest Middle School-Jim Mosby Onward to ExcellenceWatson Elem.-Mike Watson Collaborative Action Team-Kaye Rainey Campus Leadership Teams-surveys done\nGayle Bradford did report? He wants these right away, please. Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Tuesday, June 26, 2001 1:21 PM MITCHELL, SADIE RE: Update In Waco, Delaware, and KCK. We went to Austin the next year after they became unitary and we had to implement the plan that the court had approved-mainly a system of providing lots of resources to what they called \"priority\" schools-like the incentive schools here. The pre-hearing process was fairly peaceful in all. The hearing itself is always awful. John Walker was the plaintiff attorney in Waco. I probably told you that. But he came into town the day before the hearing, did depositions that evening, and beat the hell out of us for the next two days-mainly about how cheerleaders at Waco High had been selected. We had great test score improvement there, etc., and he didn't dwell on that. Delaware had a long process of trying to develop a plan in collaboration with the plaintiffs, and the leader of that group was pretty hostile. In KCK I was the person in charge of desegregation planning. I did the redistricting plan, the facilities study, the demographic projections, the assessment of need fora millage increase\nplus the planning and beginning implementation of the education plan. So when we went to court, 1 was almost the only witness for the district-hours and hours. The supt, some board members, and the interim supt. were briefly questioned. The plaintiff there was the US Dept, of Justice, so 1 had been working in collaboration for three years with an attorney from DC, plus two consultants whom she hired to help us develop our plans. It wasn't all peaches and cream, but fairly non violent. In both Waco and KCK, the judge ruled that we were unitary from the bench. We didn't even have to wait for a written opinion. What I don't understand here is that LR has done many more times as much as either Waco or KCK-or Delaware, and they all got almost instant unitary status. Going to federal court is scarey. They can ask you absolutely anything, and you have to answer. The rules for discovery are real different in federal court than in state, and I was really confused the first couple of times I had to be a witness. I try to be super prepared, to breathe deeply, and to remember that it's not an oral exam, that if I don't know, I can say that, and it will be all right. But it is awful at best, and we need to start getting steeled for that. Original Message- From: Sent: To: Subject: MITCHELL, SADIE Tuesday, June 26, 2001 1:23 PM LESLEY, BONNIE RE: Update Have you gone through this before and how did you deal wiith it? Sadie Mitchell 255LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Wednesday, June 20, 2001 1:13 PM GRIFFIN, BEVERLY RE: Semester Test Exemption Thanks, Bev. -----Original Message----- From: Sent: To: Subject: GRIFFIN, BEVERLY Wednesday, June 20, 2001 1:15 PM LESLEY, BONNIE RE\nSemester Test Exemption I gave a copy of the minutes from the February Board meeting to Mrs. Lacey earlier this week. I don't think I have a copy of the kids proposal, but I will check. I was under the impression that this action was for this year's seniors only. I might be wrong .. . but, it might be worth j checking with Board members to see if they intended for it to be a permanent change to the policy.  I will fax you the minutes in just a minute. Original Message----- From: Sent: To: LESLEY, BONNIE Wednesday, June 20, 2001 12:51 PM GRIFFIN, BEVERLY Subject: Semester Test Exemption Bev, there is wide disagreement about what people remember as the motion the board made regarding the exemption of seniors from their spring semester tests. I don't remember the month they did that--probabiy February or March? Will you send to me the text of the motion, as well as the text of the language used by the , kids in their proposal. I don't have that and will need it to update those reguiations/policies.\nDr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock,.Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Wednesday, June 20, 2001 1:12 PM TRUETT, IRMA Compliance The compliance report lists several \"program evaluations\" that PRE reported that they had completed, but which I have never seen. Please provide me with three copies each of the following reports. They have been requested by Mr. Walker. Extended Year Schools Summer School HIPPY Program Charter School Campus Leadership Teams English as a Second Language Lyceum Scholars Program at Philander Smith College Southwest Middle School's SEDL Program Onward to Excellence (Watson Elementary) Collaborative Action Team (CAT) 351LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Monday, June 25, 2001 12:37 PM 'Clay Fendley'\n'heller@fec.net' RE: Meeting schedule Yea! Thanks you! I can't tell you how important this is! i just talked.with Ann Brown. She wanted all the test scores. I put her off until the end of the week. We need to talk about what to give her. Original Message From\nSent: To: Cc: Subject: Clay Fendley [SMTP:FENDLEY@fec.net] Monday, June 25, 2001 12:42 PM BALESLE@IRC.LRSD.K12.AR.US Chris Heller RE: Meeting schedule Leaving at 1:05 on the 6th is fine. We will tell Walker that if he wants to call you as a witness, he will need to call you on the 5th. Thanks. \u0026gt; \"LESLEY, BONNIE\" \u0026lt;BALESLE@IRC.LRSD.K12.AR.US\u0026gt; 06/25/01 11:49AM \u0026gt; I just called the airlines. I would need to catch a plane at 1:05 on the 6th to get to Amarillo in time for the rehearsal dinner for this big wedding. If I can't do that, then the latest I could leave to get there at all on Friday is at 5:35. Then I would come home on Sunday. What do you advise? -----Original Message----- From: Clay Fendley [SMTP:FENDLEY@fec.net] Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 9:41 AM \u0026gt;To: BALESLE@IRC.LRSD.K12.AR.US\nblgadbe@lrscladm.lrsd.k12.ar.us\nDMSTEWA@lrsdadm.lrsd.k12.ar.us\nIvcarni@lrsdadm.lrsd.k12.ar.us\nSMMitch@lrsdadm.lrsd.k12.ar.us\nJCBABBS@STUASN.LRSD.K12.AR.US \u0026gt; Cc: Chris Heller\nKJAMES@lrsdadm,lrsd.k12.ar.us \u0026gt; Subject\nMeeting schedule Here's the meeting schedule so far: \u0026gt; Mr. Gadberry - Wednesday at 2:00 at our office. \u0026gt; Dr. Lesley - Thursday at 1:00 at our office. \u0026gt; Ms. Mitchell - Friday at 9:00 at our office. \u0026gt; \u0026gt; We should get Joshua's objections today and have requested a witness list by Wednesday. \u0026gt; We are leaving Monday (July 2) open until we get Joshua's witness list. \u0026gt; Everybody plan on meeting Tuesday (July 3) all day at our office. Let me \u0026gt; know if that presents a problem for you, and we can try to work around \u0026gt; your schedule. Remember, the most important thing in preparation for the hearing is for \u0026gt; you to know what's in the Revised Plan and the interim and final compliance reports. \u0026gt; We will provide copies of Joshua's objections as soon as they are \u0026gt; received. \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Let me know if you have any questions. \u0026gt; 297-----Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Thursday, June 28, 2001 9:04 AM MITCHELL, SADIE\nEGGLESTON, DEANA\nGADBERRY, BRADY L\nSTEWART DONALD M  BABBS JUNIOUS\nJAMES, KENNETH 'heller@fec.net' RE: I just spoke with Chris Heller, and he asked me to tell all of you that we are not going to make this information (copies of our invitations and documents sent to Mr.Walker or Ms. Springer) available to Mr. Walker. It is without exception stuff we have already sent to him. He also asked me to reiterate to everyone that he does not want any of the staff talking with Mr. Walker about anything-to refer all his calls, faxes, and visits to Mr. Heller. And he asks that we absolutely not send to Mr. Walker anything without clearing it with him first. Finally, he asks that we remind all our staff once more about this! He was adamant. Original Message----- From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: MITCHELL, SADIE Thursday, June 28, 2001 9:03 AM EGGLESTON, DEANA LESLEY, BONNIE\nGADBERRY, BRADY L\nSTEWART, DONALD M.\nBABBS, JUNIOUS RE: Thank you Sadie Mitchell smmitch@lrsdadm.lrsd.kl2.ar.us -----Original Message----- From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: EGGLESTON,DEANA Thursday, June 28, 2001 8:38 AM MITCHELL, SADIE BABBS, JUNIOUS RE: Everyone sent the information when it was requested, however, I'm not sure if they have sent recent documents since his original request. I just spoke with Clay and he said to make the folders we have available to Joy on Monday as per her request, but for me to not to put the documents in any particular order (ie. date, subject, etc.) Deana -----Original Message----- From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: MITCHELL, SADIE Thursday, June 28, 2001 8:41 AM LESLEY, BONNIE\nSTEWART, DONALD M.\nGADBERRY, BRADY L\nBABBS, JUNIOUS\nJAMES, KENNETH EGGLESTON, DEANA Mr. Walker sent a fax requesting \"all invitations to Ms. Springer or Mr. Walker to meetings of any kind, as well as copies of any documents you have sent to them over the past three years. Also any document of whether Mr. Walker or Ms. Springer actually attended the meetings to which you invited them.\" I think we already sent this information to Mr. Babbs and he compiled it. Is this correct? Sadie Mitchell smmitch@lrsdadm.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 219selected to receive Merit Scholarship'^ awards. The info in italics is from the National Merit web site. So, of the 1.2 million entrants, only 7,900 are named Finalists for National Merit scholarships and corporate-sponsored scholarships. That amounts to 6/10 of 1 % of the entrants. Mr. Walker's statement on page 22 is: \"We note here that the district is yet to have a single Black national merit scholar in the nineteen years of this active litigation.\" THIS IS INCORRECT. Without reviewing 19 years of data (and we don't have all of the data for those years), as recently as 4 years ago Salonica Gray, an African American female senior at Central, was a National Merit Finalist. Hope this helps! Suellen S. Vann, APR Director of Communications Little Rock School District (501) 324-2020 LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Thursday, June 28, 2001 11:36 AM MITCHELL, SADIE RE: I am wondering how he is feeling as well. This is baptism by fire. -----Original Message----- From: Sent: To: Subject: MITCHELL, SADIE Thursday, June 28, 2001 9:29 AM LESLEY, BONNIE RE: I panicked when I got here and saw all of the stuff from John. I am worried about Dr. James. I hope he will be able to handle all of this. Sadie Mitchell smmitch@lrsdadm.lrsd.kl2.ar.us Original Message----- From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Thursday, June 28, 2001 9:09 AM MITCHELL, SADIE RE: He was kind of angry that we are even attempting to respond to this stuff. He asked me what he needed to do to make sure everyone understands that we are not to play Mr. Walkers game. How ya doing today? -----Original Message----- From: Sent: To: LESLEY, BONNIE MITCHELL, SADIE Thursday, June 28, 2001 9:18 AM Subject: RE: Sadie Mitchell smmitch@lrsdadm.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 218LESLEY, BONNIE From\nSent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Tuesday, February 13, 2001 12:54 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V. FW: Test Pack Importance: High Dr. Carnine, What is the purpose of this? Am I missing something? Is Bonnie trying to eliminate her need to work with this department? We have some software that is licensed to this department. Eddie has been trying to get it loaded on her computer. My guess is that she needs it to work on her dissertation. She has not spoken to me about what her data needs are for her dissertation. Most doctoral candidates come in and visit with us about their data needs. We work with them, but they get data in an aggregate form, not individual students' information. I wish you would please tell me what role you want this department to play. I know the game that is being played. 1 am about to my wit's end with it. Kathy -----Original Message----- From: Sent: To: Subject\nJOHNSON, VIRGINIA Tuesday, February 13, 2001 12:43 PM LEASE, KATHY R. FW: Test Pack -----Original Message- From: Sent: To\nCc: Subject\nLESLEY, BONNIE Monday, February 12, 2001 5:31 PM RUFFINS, JOHN JOHNSON, VIRGINIA\nMcCOY, EDDIE\nCLEAVER, VANESSA RE: Test Pack Thanks so much, JOhn. Original Message- From: Sent: To: Subject: RUFFINS, JOHN Monday, February 12, 2001 4:46 PM LESLEY, BONNIE RE: Test Pack I will come over and personally visit with Virginia and Eddie to access their data and program needs. -Original Message- From: Sent: To: LESLEY, BONNIE Monday, February 12, 2001 2:40 PM RUFFINS, JOHN Subject\nTest Pack John, I am moving Eddie McCoy and Virginia Johnson out of the rooms designated for PRE and into the room where Vanessa Cleaver is. Both of them will have some program evaluation responsibilities and need to be able to access the SAT9 data, as well as other student data. How do I get those programs loaded onto thejr machines? Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) 19LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent\nTo: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Tuesday, February 13, 2001 5:36 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V. RE: Another thought Here's one more thought, then I'm burying this frustration. I wouldn't have known about what she is doing at all if Virginia hadn't forwarded me a copy of the message. I'm trapped in junior high!I! Can't somebody save me??? Kathy Original Message- From: Sent: To: Subject: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Tuesday, February 13, 2001 4:05 PM LEASE, KATHY R. RE: Another thought I can support but you do not want to hold the data... You want free access. Give her all the access she wants or needs... and then give her more. -----Original Message----- From: Sent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Tuesday, February 13, 2001 12:56 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V. Another thought Is it possible to require Bonnie to work through me to get the data she needs? She is doing everything possible to undermine the work of this department. I have never seen such viciousness in all my professional experience. Can you support us or are we on our own? Kathy Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc.lrsd.kl2.ar.us LESLEY, BONNIE From\nSent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Tuesday, February 13, 2001 4:10 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V. RE: Another thought I totally agree with that. I want everyone to have access to the data at his or her fingertips. I just continue to be frustrated with the way she refuses to work with me. Kathy Original Message- From: Sent: To: Subject: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Tuesday, February 13, 2001 4:05 PM LEASE, KATHY R. RE: Another thought I can support but you do not want to hold the data... You want free access. Give her all the access she wants or needs... and then give her more. -Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Tuesday, February 13, 2001 12:56 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V. Another thought 17Is it possible to require Bonnie to work through me to get the data she needs? She is doing everything possible to undermine the work of this department. I have never seen such viciousness in all my professional experience. Can you support us or are we on our own? Kathy Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc.lrsd.kl2.ar.us LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent\nTo: Subject: LEASE, KATHY R. Tuesday, February 13, 2001 12:59 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V. Positions After Don's comment in Cabinet about not hiring people, I visited with him about the positions that I currently have advertised. He suggested that I visit with you about whether or not I can hire the people I need to do the assessment program. I am currently down to three employees. I don't think we can do assessment for 20,000 kids with that number. I want to set up interviews this week, but I want your blessing! Thanks, Kathy Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc.lrsd.kl2.ar.us LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject\nLEASE, KATHY R. Tuesday, February 13, 2001 12:56 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V. Another thought Is it possible to require Bonnie to work through me to get the data she needs? She is doing everything possible to undermine the work of this department. I have never seen such viciousness in all my professional experience. Can you support us or are we on our own? Kathy Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 18From: Dr. Faucette To: Mrs. Hargis Date: 17 November 2000 Subject: Exclusion of regular English students from Jennie Calder lecture I write to request a bit of information concerning the recent visit of Jennie Calder, a Robert Louis Stevenson scholar from Scotland, to Central as a part of the conference celebrating this great writer. It was my understanding, after our conversations last spring, that the event was in recognition of the universal appeal of a revered writer. Known and loved the world over, Stevenson is one of a select group whose works attract readers from widely varying backgrounds, uniting people of all classes and condition in the appreciation of a gifted artist. I was excited about the opportunity Central studentsincluding my own students - would have to be-exposed to a world of exciting and enthusiastic research that would be especially significant for seniors. (Traditionally, the last year of high school English is dedicated to the exploration of the rich legacy of British literature.) I was disappointed beyond belief to learn that nonenot oneof my regular English students would be allowed to benefit from the singular experience of having the chance to see and hear the visiting scholar. Only AP and pre-AP students were allowed to attend the presentation. In fact, most teachers of regular English classes only learned of the event when students began to ask why they were not allowed to attend the assembly that students in other classes were discussing at lunch. Limiting the experience to students in AP and pre-AP English classes meant that very few black students were allowed to attend. I am shocked and outraged that yet another singular educational opportunity has been reserved for the children of privilege. Because many of the privileged AP English students took advantage of the event to slip out of the building and skip the assembly, and because you wanted to supplement their numbers, you solicited the attendance of students from AP science and history classes, still denying access to students from regular English classes. If you really wanted to impress Ms. Calder, having the Creative Writing Club presented would have done just that. The knowledge that, at 287 members, the Creative Writing Club is the most active club at Central would impress any true scholar or teacher. One can only wonder why you, Mr. Howard, and the third floor English department all miss the significance of the fact that the club that most fully represents the student diversity in our building is a club centered around an academic endeavor, the study and practice of literature. Yes, this is quite an example you set for our students. Central, Mr. Howard, the English department, and you all had a chance to .shine as this scholar brought her enthusiasm to our large and diverse student body. Central, Mr. Howard, the English department, and you dropped the ball disastrously on this one. Rather than seizing the opportunity to be shining beacons by providing this opportunity I for learning outside the traditional limitations of the classroom to all of our students, you have shown your true stripe. I thank you for the demonstration once again that, instead of a single unified English department, Central actually has two: the second floor containing primarily regular English classes, and the privileged third-floor home of AP English. I would now ask an additional bit of information. Please inform me in writing of your reasons for this latest instance of educational snobbery so that I might explain more accurately to my classes your dismissal of them as second-class students. i i I ! i I (GILLESPIE, RAY From\nSent: To: Subject: LACEY, MARIAN G. Saturday, September 30, 2000 10:46 PM MITCHELL, SADIE\nGILLESPIE, RAY RE\nFinal Report What do you think, Ray? I can see last year's: what about the other 2 years? mgl Original Message From: MITCHELL, SADIE Sent: To: Subject: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 6:28 PM GILLESPIE, RAY\nLACEY, MARIAN G. FW: Final Report '* T.?' r? ZT i. it V Z .Til Can this be done? OCT 2 ZOOO i ! I From\nSent: To\nCc: Subject\nBABBS, JUNIOUS Wednesday, September 27, 2000 5:32 PM GILLESPIE, RAY LACEY, MARIAN G.\nSMITH, LINDA K.\nMITCHELL, SADIE RE: Final Report We should be able to pull this data from past LRSD AAA report information submitted ? Junious C. Babbs, Jr jcbabbs(astuasn.lrsd.kl2.ar.us Little Rock Schoo! District Original Message- From: Sent\nTo: Cc\nMITCHELL, SADIE Wednesday, September 27, 2000 6:36 AM BABBS, JUNIOUS LACEY.'MARIAN G.\nSMITH. LINDA K.\nGILLESPIE, RAY Subject: FW\nFinal Report Marian and Linda will not have the data to pull a three year report together for the extracurricular activites. We have not compiled that data since we discontinued the School Profile. However, we will have it for this school year. Ray does not have any information on file either. Sorry From: Sent: To: Subject: Clay Fendley(SMTP:FENDLEY@fec.net] Tuesday, September 19, 2000 2:52 PM BALESLE@IRC.LRSD.K12.AR.US\nblgadbe@lrsdadm.lrsd.k12.ar.us: DMSTEWA@lrsdadm.lrsd.k12.ar.us\nIvcaml@lrsdadm.lrsd.k12.ar.us\nSMMItch@lrsdadm.lrsd.k12.ar.us\nJCBABBS@STUASN.LRSD.K12.AR.US Final Report  File: Des-final-report-outline.doc  Attached please find a draft outline for the final report to be filed 3/15/2001. Please think about additions/changes for the sections for which you are responsible, and we can discuss at our next meeting. I look forward to seeing you then. Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock. AR 72201 E-mail: fendley@fec.net Direct Phone: 501-370-3323 Direct Fax: 501-244-5341 1Via Facsimile - 324-2146 December 16, 1998 Dr. Leslie Carnine Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Carnine: Would you please ask Mr. James Washington, the Districts ombudperson, to look into the complaint of Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Deodis Fleming regarding their concerns at Carver Magnet. You are probably not aware that this office has had several complaints from other parents regarding the unfair treatment of black students at Carver. You should have received a letter from the Flemings outlining their concerns along with a response from Ms. Barksdale. Copies of both are enclosed for your convenience. The Flemings believe that Ms. Barksdale is trying to excuse the reason for Ms. Ransoms exclusion of their son from participation by stating that he had behavior problems. In todays society, persons who discriminate usually attempt to establish legitimate reasons for their discriminatory actions. The reason given by Ms. Ransom, we believe, is pretextual. In other words, the reason that she has given is not legitimate. The Flemings were not previously advised that their son had behavior problems regarding his participation in Odyssey of the Mind. Moreover, they are not aware that their son has a behavior problem. Ms. Barksdales commitment to establish an OM Guideline booklet is a step, I believe, in the right direction. However, I do not believe that she should wait until next year. That process should start immediately. Opportunity for discrimination evolves when there are no written guidelines or rules for participation in a particular activity. The person overseeing or administering the activity usually has the discretion to make rules as they go along. These rules usually favor their own personal interests. Moreover, these rules or guidelines usually change daily to fit a particular interest or situation. I am not sure why the Flemings chose not assist in the coaching of Odysseys students as indicated by Ms. Barksdale, however, many of our childrens parents are unable to participate in many of the schools activities because often they occur when they are obliged to work and other commitments to meet the overall needs of their familias Page 2 - Letter to Dr. Carnine December 17, 1998 I have indicated to Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Fleming that I would be happy to sit down with Mr. Washington, Ms. Mitchell, Ms. Barksdale, and any other persons that they believe can help brin\nQ '  -------------------------------3 VXXV-J l^\\,/AXVVV VCill Ulllig this matter to an amicable resolution. In fact, IVIr. Washington may assume the role as the parent advocate, if the Flemings agree. I would, however, like to receive a report of his findings and resolution. Thank you for your attention to this request. Sincerely, Joy C. Springer Joshua Intervenors ICS/ Enclosures cc: Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Deodis Fleming Ms. Diane Barksdale Ms. Sadie Mitchell Mr. James WashingtonVia Facsimile - 324-2146 February 18, 1999 Ms. Sadie Mitchell Associate Superintendent for Student Services Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Mitchell: This office has received several calls regarding the selection process for the new football coach at J. A. Fair High School. It is our information that the selection process has been changed to favor the selection of a particular coach for the position. In order to address the concerns that have been raised, would you please provide to me a copy of process being utilized by District officials for the selection of coaching positions including the selection criteria. If this information has changed from prior years, also please provide the process and criteria that was utilized in previous years. I have spoken with Mr. Gillespie regarding this matter and he has assured me that the only change in the process was that the selection committee did not meet on the school campus as it has done in previous years. I was, however, a bit concerned about the gender makeup of the selection committee for the Fair position. I voiced my concern to Mr. Gillespie that the committee was all males. I am available to discuss this matter with you and Mr. Gillespie at a mutually convenient time. Thank you for your attention to this request. Sincerely, Joy C. Springer Joshua Intervenors JCS/ cc: Mr. Ray Gillespie Via Facsimile - 324-2308 March 17, 1999 Rudolph Howard Principal, Central High School 1400 Park Street Little Rock, AR 72202 Dear Mr. Howard: I am writing on behalf of Rev. \u0026amp; Ms. Bennie Horton and their son, Tarick, to request a conference regarding his grades. As I review the revised desegregation plan, I can point to a number of areas including equal treatment, participation in honors and gifted classes, academic achievement, parental involvement etc. that are involved in these parents concern. By copy of this letter to the Districts Ombudsperson, Mr. James L. Washington, I am also putting him on notice of this concern and invite him to participate in the conference. I have spoken with Ms. Horton and she is available during her lunch hour to discuss this matter. Please let me hear from you. Sincerely, Joy C. Springer Joshua Intervenors JCS/ cc: Rev. \u0026amp; Mrs. Bennie Horton Mr. James L. WashingtonJohn W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 M /? JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. Via Facsimile - 324-2213 October 14, 1999 Mr. James Washington Little Rock School District Office of Ombudsman 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Washington: I am writing to request that you look into the selection process for students participating on mock trial teams at Central High School. We request that you obtain some background information regarding past composition by grade, race and gender and the current composition by grade, race and gender. This office has received a complaint that these teams are generally one race and favor white students because their parents or other relatives are business professionals such as lawyers, judges, etc. Thank you for your attention to this matter. We further request a report of your findings with respect to this inquiry. By copy of this letter to Mr. Howard, Mr. Babbs and Dr. Gamine, I am also advising them of these allegations. On Behalf of Joshua JCS/ cc: Mr. Ruduloph Howard Nir. Junious Babbs Dr. Leslie Gamine Via Facsimile February 28, 2000 Mr. James Washington Ombudsperson Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Washington: I am writing to request that you investigate the complaints of discrimination and retaliatory treatment by Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Eddy Harris Sr. against his son, Eddy Jr. by members of the staff at Oak Grove High School in the Pulaski County Special School District. For several years, Eddy Jr. was a M to M student in the County. Eddy is currently a student in the Little Rock School District. I have previously requested that Mr. Billy Bowles, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation, look into complaints of the Harrises. I am enclosing a copy of my request to Mr. Bowles. Mr. Bowles assured me that he would conduct a thorough investigation and, thereafter, provide a report of his findings. I am enclosing a copy of Mr. Bowles purported report of his findings. It is basically a one sentence conclusion. At least, I expected a report which enumerated all charges and a summary of his findings. I expected a more thorough report similar to the one that he and members of his staff conducted several years ago at Robinson High School where he noted findings, whether substantiated or unsubstantiated. The Harrises claim Eddy Harris Jr. was not allowed to participate on the football team for the last four or five games for racial and/or retaliatory reasons, that Eddy Jr. was not selected to participate on the basket ball team for racial and/or retaliatory reasons and that Eddy Jr. received retaliatory treatment from his classroom teachers, in particular, Ms. Morrison, his English teacher, who gave him gave him an F. The Harrises claim that Eddys English grade for the semester is based, in part, upon assignments that he should not have been charged for because they had officially withdrew him from Pulaski County School District. Enclosed is the documentation from the Harrises. Also enclosed are copies of letters directed to or copied to Mr. Bowles regarding the claims of the Harrises. I also have several tape recordings of conferences with staff members that I will be happy to share with you. Mr. Bowles was aware of these taped conferences, but he did not request a copy of either of them for his review. Mr. Bowles did not make single finding regarding his investigation nor did he address any of the points in this correspondence.In summary, the complaints of the Harrises are as follow: 1) failure of Eddy Jr. to participate in the remaining four or five games of the football season\n2) failure to Eddy Jr. to participate on the basketball team, and\nrade received by Eddy Jr. in English. 3) the failing g: The treatment referenced above, we believe is due to racial and/or retaliatory treatment by Pulaski County School District officials. Please let me know if additional information or clarification is needed regarding this matter. Again, 1 am copying Mr. Junious Babbs to alert him of this egregious situation and to request that he also utilize his offices to assist in the amicable resolution of this matter. I would also appreciate a report of your findings. Thank you for your attention to this request. Sincerely, Joy C. Springer Joshua Intervenors JCS/ cc: Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Eddy Harris Sr. Mr. Billy Bowles Mr. Junious Babbs Ms. Ann BrownFebruaiy 28, 2000 Mr, James Washington Ombudsperson Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Washington: I am writing to request that you investigate the complaints of Mr. Reginald Abrams. I am taking the time to put this request in writing due to the egregious nature of the situation. Mr. Abrams son is a Boys Scout at Cloverdale Middle School. Mr. Abrams complained to me regarding the treatment his son and other black Scouts received while attending the Boys Scout Council Area Banquet on last Thursday evening, February 24, 2000 at Ricks Armory. I have asked Mr. Abrams to call you with the specific details of this experience. I must state, however, that based upon his communication to me, I do not believe that the Little Rock School Districts commitment to inclusiveness and desegregation was demonstrated at this banquet. Upon information and belief, it appears that the black scouts roles at this activity were both demeaning and nonexistent. I must also question the expectations of Mr. Lacour, the Scout Master, who tolerated this treatment and was reported to have said that he did not expect black parents to participate and thus be able to question the roles and participation of their children during particular scouting activities. Mr. Lacour needs to understand that the spirit of desegregation plan called for activities such as scouting and that scouting would be an opportunity for black students to have new experiences and be given opportunities to develop skills such as social and leadership skills, to new a few. May I suggest that you conduct an investigation into the scouting programs for the entire District and determine the roles of black students and whether similar situations have occurred. I believe that you should interview Mr. Lacour to determine the schools that he has been working with and the names of other scout masters in the area who work with Little Rock District students. I understand that Mr. Lacours number is 758-1838 or pager 688-4533. Mr. Abrams may be reached at 9700 Stardust Trail, Little Rock, AR 72209, telephone number 562-0348. Please let me hear from you regarding the result of your findings and your recommendations to ensure that similar situations do not occur in the future. Thank you for your attention to this request. I believe that it is important that Air. Junious Babbs receives a copy of this letter given his role to ensure compliance with desegregation. Sincerely, Joy C. Springer Joshua Intervenors JCS/ cc: Mr. Reginald Abrams Mr. Junious BabbsJohn W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile August 28, 2000 Mr. Ray Gillespie Athletic Director Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Southwest Middle School Dear Mr. Gillespie: I am writing to request that you investigate the complaints of Mr. \u0026amp; Mrs. Michael Wesley regarding their son, Marquis, a student at Southwest Middle School. Mr. Wesley reports a very disturbing incident that occurred on Friday, August 24, 2000 at the school involving Coach Foote. In summary, Mr. Wesley reports that Coach Foote choked Marquis and has openly admitted doing so. The Wesleys are very upset about Coach Foote actions and request that he be dealt with. We are available to meet with you, if additional information is needed. 4ncerely, On Behalf of Joshua Intervenors JCS/ I  February 28, 2000 Mr. James Washington Ombudsperson Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Washington: I am writing to request that you investigate the complaints of Mr. Reginald Abrams. I am taking the time to put this request in writing due to the egregious nature of the situation. Mr. Abrams son is a Boys Scout at Cloverdale Middle School. Mr. Abrams complained to me regarding the treatment his son and other black Scouts received while attending the Boys Scout Council Area Banquet on last Thursday evening, February 24, 2000 at Ricks Armory. I have asked Mr. Abrams to call you with the specific details of this experience. I must state, however, that based upon his communication to me, I do not believe that the Little Rock School Districts commitment to inclusiveness and desegregation was demonstrated at this banquet. Upon information and belief, it appears that the black scouts roles at this activity were both demeaning and nonexistent. I must also question the expectations of Mr. Lacour, the Scout Master, who tolerated this treatment and was reported to have said that he did not expect black parents to participate and thus be able to question the roles and participation of their children during particular scouting activities. Mr. Lacour needs to understand that the spirit of desegregation plan called for activities such as scouting and that scouting would be an opportunity for black students to have new experiences and be given opportunities to develop skills such as social and leadership skills, to new a few. May I suggest that you conduct an investigation into the scouting programs for the entire District and determine the roles of black students and whether similar situations have occurred. I believe that you should interview Mr. Lacour to determine the schools that he has been working with and the names of other scout masters in the area who work with Little Rock District students. I understand that Mr. Lacours number is 758-1838 or pager 688-4533. Mr. Abrams may be reached at 9700 Stardust Trail, Little Rock, AR 72209, telephone number 562-0348. Please let me hear from you regarding the result of your findings and your recommendations to ensure that similar situations do not occur in the future. Thank you for your attention to this request. I believe that it is important that Air. Junious Babbs receives a copy of this letter given his role to ensure compliance with desegregation. Sincerely, Joy C. Springer Joshua Intervenors JCS/ cc: Mr. Reginald Abrams Mr. Junious BabbsJohn W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile September 12, 2000 Dr. Leslie Carnine Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Carnine: I am writing on behalf of Marcus Winston, a 9\"' grade student at Parkview High School and similarly situated students in the Little Rock District. Would you please direct my attention to the section of the Districts student handbook which states that 9* grade students cannot participate in varsity team athletics. It is my understanding that the practice of the District in previous years has been to allow these students to participate on varsity teams. By copy of this letter to Mr. James Washington, I am also requesting that he investigate this matter. I recommend that he identify all 9* grade students at the senior high level to determine the number, race and gender of the students who are being adversely affected by unwritten directive. As I review the Districts desegregation plan, I note in Section 2.6 of that plan that the District shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African Americans in extracurricular activities...  It appears that the Districts refusal to allow 9\" grade students to participate in athletics at the varsity level is contrary to plan commitments. This new practice is neither promoting nor ensuring participation. Prior to invoking the process regarding compliance issues, I ask that Mr. Washington provide to this office a report of his preliminary findings by September 20, 2000. Thank you for your attention to this matter.On Behalf of Joshua Intervenors JOS/ cc: Mr. James Washington, Ombudsman Mr. Junious Babbs, Associate Superintendent Mr. Ray Gillespie, Althletic Director Ms. Ann Brown John Walker, p.a. f Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile - 324-2146 October 10, 2000 Dr. Leslie V. Carnine Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR  72201 Re: Duties of Ombudsman Dear Dr. Carnine: Your letter of October 5, 2000, in response to my letter of October 3, 2000, was received by this office today. I look forward to receiving the other requested information. With respect to the second instance, may I call your attention to a letter dated July 25, 2000 addressed to you from a Parkview parent, Bill Winston? A copy is attached for your convenience. According to Mr. Winston, you did not respond to his inquiry. On September 12, 2000, I spoke briefly with Mr. Gillespie about Mr. Wintons concerns. Mr. Gillespie reported to Mr. Winston and me that there existed documentation which communicated to all parents the \u0026gt;ih Districts position regarding 9' grade participation on varsity teams for the 2000-2001 school year. This information was requested for the parent through the Ombudsman. To date, this information has not been received. This complaint was subsequently assigned to Dr. Marion Lacey for handling. Dr. Lacey, Mr. Gillespie and I met on September 29, 2000 regarding Mr. Winstons concerns. I was assured by Dr. Lacey that she would provide a written response along with the previously requested information by the Ombudsman and myself. By copy of this letter to Dr. Lacey, I hope that this will serve as a reminder that I would still like to have her letter and the requested information. By copy of this letter to Mr. Washington, I hope that this also refreshes his memory regarding the requested information that was not shared with him or a parent after inquiry and request for it. Surely, these records do not fall in the category of confidentiality. Moreover, the District has had approximately thirty (30) days to provide the information. Thank you again for your response and consideration given to this inquiry. LSin^rely, UH Q,. Springer / On Behalf of Joshua U JCS/ Enclosure cc: Mr. Junious Babbs Mr. James Washington Dr. Marion Lacey Mr. Ray Gillespie Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Gus TaylorSEP 1300 7:48 PR NfiTIONLJIDE 501 223 1743 TO 3374418? P.02/03 July 25,2000 Superiniendent Les Carnine 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72202 Superiniendent Carnine, Please be advised that I am attempting to contact you by letter, having been unsuccessful so far in getting you to call me back. 1 have left several messages with your secretary requesting to speak to you concerning my oldest son, Demarcus Winston, a freshman scheduled to attend Little Rock Parkview Arts and Science Magnet High School this year. My last attempt to reach you was July 14, 2000 and 1 was told by your secretary that you were out of town and she would have you call me on Monday, July 24, 2000 upon your return. In any event, my concern involves the situation or status of 9th grade athletes being able to participate on the varsity level. J have spoken with the head football coach, Ernest Mcgee, and the head basketball coach, Al Flanagan, about this issue and they advised they were unclear on whether 9th graders could play with the varsity, but both were hoping they could. They encouraged me to voice my concerns to you hopefully before any decision is made. I personally feel that my son would be penalized and held back ui his development as an athlete if he were not allowed to play on the varsity level. The 9th graders who were good enough to play at the varsity level were allowed to do so last year and I have no idea and, as a concerned parent, have not been given an explanation of why my son would not be allowed to play this year. There is not an organized 9th grade league of competition there is in the Pulaski County school district. Since the new format now moves 9th as graders to Senior High (9-12), then he should be allowed to play. The coaches want him to play, his parents want him to play, but I am told that he may not be allowed to play. I would hope that you would consider that my son who is 6-6, 2001bs gets penalized if he is not allowed to play with the varsity and compete at the highest level of competition. I am again asking you to discuss this issue with me and listen to my concerns. Sincerely, Mr. Bill WinsxonJohn W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile - 324-2260 September 13, 2000 Mr. James Washington Ombudsman Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: 9\"' grade Athletics Dear Mr. Washington\nFor your information, I am attaching a copy of a letter that was sent to Dr. Carnine by one of the concerned parents. It is my understanding that Dr. Carnine has not responded to the letter nor has he returned the parents numerous telephone calls. Also attached hereto is a list of other parents whose children stand to be adversely affected by the District unwritten rule regarding Q* grade athletics. Hopefully this information will assist you with your investigation. In speaking briefly with Mr. Gillespie on yesterday, he indicated that the District sent notices to parents regarding this matter. Would you also inquire about the notices that were sent to parents and share copies of same with this office. Finally, would you also check to see whether this issue was submitted to the Board for approval. I look forward to your preliminary report by September 20, 2000. Thank you for your cooperation. pnnger On Behalf of Joshua JCS/ SEP 1300 7:48 PR NfiTIONLJIDE 501 223 1743 TO 93744187 P . 02/03 July 25, 2000 Superintendent Les Carnine 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72202 Superintendent Carnine, Please be advised that 1 am attempting to contact you by letter, having been unsuccessful so far in getting you to call me back. 1 have left several messages with your secretary requesting to speak to you concerning my oldest son, Demarcus Winston, a freshman scheduled to attend Little Rock Parkview Arts and Science Magnet High School this year. My last attempt to reach you was July 14, 2000 and 1 was told by your secretary that you were out of town and she would have you call me on Monday, July 24, 2000 upon your return. In any event, my concern involves the situation or status of 9th grade athletes being able to participate on the varsity level. I have spoken with the head football coach, Ernest Mcgee, and the head basketball coach, Al Flanagan, about this issue and they advised they were unclear on whether 9th graders could play with the varsity, but both were hoping they could. They encouraged me to voice my concerns to you hopefirlly before any decision is made. 1 personally feel that my son would be penalized and held back in his development as an athlete if he were not allowed to play on the varsity level. The 9th graders who were good enough to play at the varsity level were allowed to do so last year and I have no idea and, as a concerned parent, have not been given an explanation of why my son would not be allowed to play this year. There is not an organized 9th grade league of competition there is in the Pulaski County school district. Since the new format now moves 9th as graders to Senior High (9-12), then he should be allowed to play. The coaches want him to play, his parents want him to play, but 1 am told that he may not be allowed to play. I would hope that you would consider that my son who is 6-6, 2001bs gets penalized if he is not allowed to play with the varsity and compete at the highest level of competition. I am again asking you to discuss this issue with me and listen to my concerns. Sincerely, Mr. Bill WinstonSEP 1300 7:49 PR NATIONWIDE 501 223 1749 TO 93744197 P.03/03 Concerned Parents:  Bill and Tammy Winston (Demarcus Winston, Little Rock Parkview) Home Phone # (501)224-5138  Glenn and Karen Anderson (Jamaal Anderson, Little Rock Parkview) Home Phone # (501)224-2593  Lynn and Angie Smith (Nicholas Smith, Little Rock Parkview) Home Number Unknown  Brian and Tracey Salley (Trey Salley, Little Rock Parkview) Home Phone # (501 )565-0947  William and Jean Givens (CaTravia Givens, Little Rock Central) Home Phone # (501 )562-6882  Fred and Dorothy Bledsoe (Fred Bledsoe, Jr., Little Rock Central) Home Phone # (501)562-5661  Eric Mcghee (Tori Mcghee, Linle Rock Central) Home Number Unknown ** TOTAL PAGE.003 **Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1522-1994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. ' ON M. EISEMAN. JR. P.A. BELL. P.A. J A. BUTTRY. P.A. ..^RICK S. URSERY. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR. P.A. JA14ES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B, BENHAM IH. 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 m. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. BARRYE. 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 m. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY, P.A. WALTER M. EBEL m, 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.fridayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 237 EAST MILLSAP, SUITE 7 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703 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. JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGUO, 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 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 fendley@fec.net July 18, 2001 Ms. Joy C. Springer John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 RE: FOIAs to LRSD Dear Ms. Springer: This letter shall serve as the District's response to you letter dated July 10, 2001, pertaining to your FOIA requests. We have reviewed the requests to determine if all documents requested have been provided. Our findings our as follows. FOIA request to Dr. Ken James dated June 25, 2001. requesting standardized test data from 1982 to present. Dr. Bonnie Lesley has responded and advised that this information is available for your review. When we spoke on July 16, it was my understanding that you were going to contact Dr. Lesley to schedule a time to review this data. Please let me know if there is any problem in that regard. FOIA request to Dr. Ken James dated July 2. 2001. regarding 18 different documents. (1) Minority graduate pool rate. The rate (8%) is in the District's Comphance Report. The District has been unable to locate the source document from which this was derived. (2) Manpower reports. These have been provided.Ms. Joy Springer July 18, 2001 Page 2 (3) Monitoring reports of staff. The District has no document entitled, \"Monitoring Reports of Staff.\" Based on our telephone conversation, we will provide you with a copy of Dr. Richard Hurley's notebooks used to monitor staff composition at schools. (4) Reports of the \"teachers of tomorrow\". For 2000-01, this report is part of the Recruitment Annual Report which is now CX 543. Per your request, we will request dom the District the Recruitment Annual Reports for 1989-99 and 1999-2000. (5) Staffing pattern reports. The District has no document entitled, \"Staffing Pattern Reports.\" Dr. Hurley's notebooks should provide the information you are seeking in this regard. (6) Strategic plan for the Dept, of Exceptional Children. This has been provided. (7) Strategic plan regarding student assignment. The District has no document entitled, \"Strategic Plan Regarding Student Assignment.\" In this regard, please review Section 3 of the Revised Plan and the Student Assignment Handbook previously provided. (8) Diploma award rate of handicap students by race and gender. The District has no document compiling this information. (9) Behavior modification plans bv school, race and gender including monitoring reports. FERPA prohibits the District from providing you with any individual student's behavior modification plan or documentation of monitoring related thereto. The District does not have any document compiling the total number of behavior modification plans or the race or gender of students for whom behavior modification plans have been prepared. Finally, the District does not have any document entitled, \"Monitoring Report of Behavior Modification Plans. H (10) Monitoring Reports and/or evaluations of placement criteria for Pre-AP and AP courses. The final Compliance Report provides the number of students in Pre-AP and AP courses II during the term of the Revised Plan. As we understand the phrase, there are no \"placement criteria' for Pre-AP or AP courses. (11) List of students who were encouraged to participate in honors, enriched and AP courses. The District has not compiled such a list. (12) Evaluations of the programs that assisted teachers and counselors in identifyingand encouraging students to participate in AP. enriched and honors classes. As noted above, the Compliance Report provides the numbers of students in Pre-AP and AP courses during the term of the Revised Plan. The District evaluated its efforts in this regard by looking at these numbers.Ms. Joy Springer July 18, 2001 Page 3 (13) programs. List of students by school, race and gender who participated in the CPEP and AEGIS The District has not compiled such a list. (14) Each school's plan to increase the number of minority students enrolling in AP courses. This was a District-wide initiative. If you would like to review the School Improvement Plan of each school to see if they included additional activities for increasing minority enrollment in AP courses, please let me know. (15) your review. Each school's guidance plans. Each school guidance plan can be made available for Please let me know if you would like to schedule a time to do so. (16) School profiles. The District no longer compile \"School Profiles. II (17) Evaluations of magnet programs listed in Section 3.3 of the Revised Plan. We are still attempting to determine what documents we may have responsive to this request. We will respond as soon as possible. (18) Budget allocations for former incentive schools. This has been provided. FOIA request to Dr. Don Stewart dated July 3, 200 T regarding enrollment and budget data for former incentive schools. We provided you this information by letter dated July 12, 2001. FOIA request to Junious Babbs dated July 2. 2001. regarding list of problems adversely affecting African-Americans. See attached response from Mr. Babbs. FOIA request to Junious Babbs dated July 2, 2001. regarding Compliance Plan and Compliance Handbook. See attached response from Mr. Babbs. FOIA request to Dr. Ken James dated July 3. 2001, regarding eight documents. Based on our telephone conversation of July 17, 2001, you have received Dr. Lesley's response to this request. You indicated that she did not respond to two requests, numbers six and seven. We will follow-up and respond to those request as soon as possible.Ms. Joy Springer July 18, 2001 Page 4 FOIA request to Junious Babbs dated July 3, 2001. regarding six documents. See attached response from Mr. Babbs. In our telephone conversation of July 17, you informed me that did not receive the Activities Advisory Board documents from Ms. Sadie Mitchell. Please give me a call to schedule a time to review these documents. FOIA request to Dr. Ken James dated July 3, 2001. regarding K-3 raw data. You now acknowledge that this has been proyided. FOIA request to Junious Babbs dated July 2. 2001. regarding Compliance Committee. In an effort to provide you the closest thing we have to \"minutes\" of the Compliance Committee, we will provide for your review copies of Mr. Babbs e-mail files. In addition to the above, you advised on July 16 that Dr. Lesley responded to an FOIA request regarding summer school that Ms. Mitchell would have that information. You requested that Ms. Mitchell be asked to respond to that request. We are meeting with Ms. Mitchell today and wiU discuss this with her. We appreciate your patience in working with us to gather the documents you have requested. We are doing are best to gather the documents you request in a timely maimer, but it takes time given the broad scope of many of your requests. Sincerely, John C. Fendley,STEWART, DONALD M. From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Tuesday, June 06, 2000 10:49 AM STEWART, DONALD M. RE: Desegregation Payments to Pulaski Co. Districts Thanks so much for this information. I am understanding it for the first time. Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: STEWART, DONALD M. Wednesday, May 24, 2000 4:17 PM CARNINE, LESLIE V. GADBERRY, BRADY L.\nANDERSON, VICTOR\nMILHOLLEN, MARK\nBABBS, JUNIOUS: MITCHELL, SADIE\nLESLEY, BONNIE Desegregation Payments to Pulaski Co. Districts Attached to this email is an Excel worksheet which calculates the total amount of funds received from the State by the three school districts in Pulaski County as a result of the Desegregation Settlement Agreement and various court orders. These calculations are based on the data from the 1999-2000 school year and do change slightly from year to year. In total payments the three districts in Pulaski County will receive approximately $39.5 M. in the 1999-2000 school year. This total is made up of funds for: Magnet School operation ($10.1), M-to-M transfer payments ($13 M), Magnet and M-to-M transportation ($5.9 M), Teacher Ret. \u0026amp; Health Ins. Reimburse. ($10.3 M), and Worker's Compensation Reimbursement ($.2 M). These payments are divided among the three Pulaski County Districts utilizing various methods and result in annual payments on behalf of district students to: LRSD ($19.86 M), NLRSD ($4.88 M), and PCSSD ($14.76 M). M-to-M Funding: Currently M-to-M transfer students are removed from the district enrollment prior to regular State Equalization Aid computations. If these students were not being funded through the separate M-to-M funding mechanism they would be eligible for regular State Aid and would create approximately $8.5 M per year. LRSD is currently sending a larger number (1100) of M-to-M students than it receives (422) and also, through the pooling agreement, must pay to the PCSSD ($.4 M) for the education of M-to-M students. Because of these provisions, doing away with the M-to-M provision would actually result in an increase in aid to the LRSD of appiroximately ($1.2 M), while NLRSD would lose ($1.3 M) and PCSSD would lose ($4.1 M). If all M-to-M transfers were returned to their home district, LRSD would be responsible for educating approximately 675 more students than it currently does. At the current rate of expense per student that would cost the district in excess of $4 M. Magnet Funding: Magnet funding is limited to students in the original stipulated magnet school, all located in LRSD. These students are included in the home districts enrollment count for equalization aid purposes. In addition to this funding source, the State is required to fund one half the cost of educating these students. This amount is calculated from MRC approved budget submissions and is paid directly to the LRSD on behalf of all students enrolled in those schools. The approved amount for the 1999-2000 school year is approximately ($10.1 M). The amount paid on behalf of each districts students is\n100LRSD ($6.3 M), LRSD ($1.29 M), and PCSSD ($2.47 M). Magnet \u0026amp; M-to-IVI Transportation: The three districts in Pulaski County are currently paid one hundred percent of the costs of providing transportation for all Magnet and M-to-M students, including some expenses for getting these students to after school activities and events. The estimated costs for 1999-2000 is: LRSD ($3.41 M), NLRSD ($.57 M), and PCSSD ($1.94 M). If this funding source were eliminated there would be no resulting increase in Transportation Aid to the districts from regular State sources. The basic assumption would likely be that all of these cost would also end. Teacher Retirement \u0026amp; Health Insurance: During 1999-2000 the school districts in Pulaski County are projected to receive approximately ($10.28 M) to offset teacher retirement and health insurance costs. This number is somewhat stable but is effected by a number of factors and could change significantly from year to year. Under the present payment calculation any increase in the required contribution rate, (currently $114. per employee, per month and set by the State Board of Education) would result in a corresponding increase in funding to the Pulaski County Districts. The funding breakout by district is currently: LRSD ($6.17 M), NLRSD ($1.02 M), and PCSSD ($3.08 M). The cessation of these payments would result in a negative bottom line of the amounts received. No offsetting funds would exist and no method for significantly decreasing cost is available. Workers Compensation: During 1999-2000 the school districts in Pulaski County will receive ($.19 M) to offset costs for providing Workers Compensation coverage to district employees. These payment amounts by district are currently\nLRSD ($.06 M), NLRSD ($.04 M), and PCSSD ($.09 M). Summary: If all special funding for desegregation programs and services were discontinued the ($39.5 M) estimated aid to the three Pulaski County School Districts from desegregation related funding sources would be offset by M-to-M students again being counted for regular State Equalization Aid. When that calculation is made the total aid loss would be approximately ($31 M) and by district would be: LRSD ($15.13M ), NLRSD ($4.21 M), and . PCSSD ($11.66 M). The actual total aid loss to the LRSD budget would be increased by the amount paid directly to the District on behalf of students from the other districts attending Stipulated Magnet Schools. The additional amount would be approximately $3.76 M but there would also be a decrease in the districts costs since the magnet students attending LRSD schools would by necessity either be reassigned to their home district or some other funding mechanism would need to be put in place. The total aid package is obviously a significant amount of funds and the abrupt loss of these funding sources would necessitate drastic changes in the way all the districts operate. A transition of several years may be necessary in order for the districts to work through the various changes that would be required. 101STEWART, DONALD M. From: Sent: To: Subject: BABBS, JUNIOUS Thursday, April 19, 2001 9:19 AM STEWART, DONALD M. FW: LRSD Biracial Committee Request Thanks for agreeing to give him a call. You will find his number listed in an earlier mailing attached. Will stay in touch. Junious C. Babbs, Jr jcbabbs@stuasn.lrsd.kl2.ar.us Little Rock School District Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: EGGLESTON, DEANA Wednesday, April 18, 2001 1:51 PM BABBS, JUNIOUS FW: LRSD Biracial Committee Request FYI Original Message----- From: Sent: To: Subject: STEWART, DONALD M. Wednesday, April 18, 2001 2:01 PM EGGLESTON, DEANA RE: LRSD Biracial Committee Request The reason we do not have an estimated completion date on Romine is that we have just started the preliminary design work on that project and until we know exactly what we are going to do we cant guess when it will be complete. I dont know who needs to talk to this person but if Junious want it to be me, let me know. -----Original Message----- From: EGGLESTON, DEANA Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 10:06 AM To: STEWART, DONALD M.\nGADBERRY, BRADY L. Cc: BABBS, JUNIOUS Subject: LRSD Biracial Committee Request We held the April meeting of the LRSD Biracial Committee last night. Delaney Fleming (Joshua's representative) was questioning why the Romine project had no start! est. completion date on the handout that Don provided. FYI - Delaney has questioned the district's committment to Romine and the \"poor conditions\" of the Romine bldg, many times. Mr. Babbs said that he would check into the projected start dates and have one of you telephone Mr. Fleming. His # is 224-0630. Mr. Fleming's address is 9505 Cerelle, Little Rock, AR 72205 (in Romine's zone). Babbs is out today, however, he wanted me to pass this info along to you. Deana Deana M. Eggleston Student Registration Office (501) 324-2408 dmeggle@stuasn.lrsd.l\u0026lt;12.ar.us 37STEWART, DONALD M. From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:  T LEASE, KATHY R. Wednesday, April 25, 2001 2:32 PM MILHOLLEN, MARK STEWART, DONALD M. Leave Accountability Report :^5 A\"*- .c \u0026gt;n- Importance: High Mark, I just received the June to March Leave Accountability Report. The names of all those people that we discussed earlier are still on the report. One of my concerns is that they do not have access to their leave information because it was all sent to my department. Another concern is that, again, it looks like there are more people in PRE that there really are. Interestingly enough, Regina Moore got changed to PRE since she is now Karen Broadnax' secretary. The following list of folks do not work in PRE\nMona Briggs, Karen Broadnax, Virginia Johnson, Shirley Lewis Eddie McCoy, Regina Moore, Rosalyn Summerville. The people who do work for me are the following: Eula Yvette Dillingham, Irma Truett, Charlotte Marks, Malinda Allen, Paulette Denson, and Ed Williams. Thanks for your help in straightening this out. It concerns me that the PRE staff list has not been accurate the whole time I've been here. I'm afraid that it presents a distorted picture of staffing for this department. If there is anything that you need me to do, please let me know. Thanks, Kathy Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease(a!irc.lrsd.k12.ar.usSent\nTo: WELCH, JANE Cc\nLESLEY, BONNIE Tuesday, May 22, 2001 1:01 PM Subject: RE: Plato Communication grade I did not know that Central was offering a PLATO Communications course. I am going to research my email from last year. Seemingly there was a question about it then either at Central or Hall. Original Message From\nSent: To: Cc: Subject: WELCH, JANE Tuesday, May 22, 2001 12:15 PM LESLEY, BONNIE GREEN, CAROL Plato Communication grade I have been given a grade in the Plato Lab for Larts-/communication. We do not have a number assigned for communication. How do I key this grade without an identifying number? Jane Welch, Registrar-Central High school LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Cc\nSubject: LESLEY, BONNIE Friday, May 25, 2001 4:14 PM BERRY, DEBORAH\nBLAYLOCK, ANN\nFULLERTON, JAMES\nHUDSON, ELOUISE\nLarry Buck\nMARIAN LACEY\nMOSBY, JIMMY\nPATTERSON, DAVID\nROUSSEAU, NANCY\nSAIN, LLOYD DAVIS, SUZI\nAUSTIN, LINDA Middle School Evaluation I understand that you all got \"assigned\" the middle school program evaluation yesterday. Probably most of the stuff you need is in the Compliance Report or the Interim Report. I am attaching both for your information. They are long, so you may want to look at what you need before you print them. I am not at all sure that you need to spend much time on that assignment. Let me check with the superintendent before you do a lot. I know you have many other things on your plate right now. Q 1A Final Compliance Report-001... Compliance Report, Feb. 2OOO.d... Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) 358 STEWART, DONALD M. From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Wednesday, June 07, 2000 11:31 AM CARNINE, LESLIE V.\nANDERSON, VICTOR\nBABBS, JUNIOUS\nMITCHELL, SADIE\nSTEWART, DONALD M.\nGADBERRY, BRADY L. FW\nAP  fyi Original Message From: Sent: To: Subject: Clay Fendley [SMTP:FENDLEY@fec.net1 Wednesday. June 07. 2000 11:13 AM BALESLE@IRC.LRSD.KI 2.AR.US AP I have received and reviewed you memo on AP enrollment. It looks great! As you know, there will be concern that we are simply lowering the standards so more kids can get into the courses. To counter this perception, it would be nice to show an increased number and/or percentage of students passing the AP exam. For this reason, I would support either requiring them to take the exam or offering some incentive for doing so. I think it's as important as a motivator for the teachers as the students because it provides an objective measure of their performance. With that said, I think Walker would object to withholding weighted grade points from students who do not take the exam. That makes the exam a de facto requirement. I would also be concerned in that this provides no incentive to actually pass the exam. Now that we have the kids in the pipeline, I think you may want to consider another run at requiring the exam. I think the weighted grade points should be the reward for passing the exam. Good work and good luck! Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 E-mail: fendlev@fec.net Direct Phone: 501-370-3323 Direct Fax: 501-244-5341LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Thursday, June 07, 2001 2:17 PM 'groussea@pcssd1.k12.ar.us' Middle Schools Hello, Gloria. I was so pleased to see that the judge is going to allow you all to move forward with your middle school plan. Congratulations! Remember that we'll be willing to share our stuff with you if you need us. Again, my best wishes to you. Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Thursday, June 07, 2001 2\n04 PM PAAL, MARY M. Hello I am soooo joyful that you are back among us. We missed you so very much. I forgot to give you an undate on the 010 controversy. We are NOT going to provide transportation to that program-and I am in full agreement with that decision. However, I did suggest to the Cabinet that we review the contracts with those churches, renegotiate the lease costs for space, look for space close to (with easy walking distance of each of the middle schools), and try to find resources to have a CIC near EACH middle school. Junious said he'd talk to Jo Evelyn about that, but probably either you and/or Mona needs to follow up with him to make sure that we have a serious conversation about making the ClC's more accessible. Also, we did NOT change the minimum suspension to 5 days, as Jo E. requested. It remains at 3. Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) 136STEWART, DONALD M. From: Sent: To: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Wednesday, April 18, 2001 12:54 PM STEWART, DONALD M. RE: There is NO justification that is legit for keeping Lionel in that position. We need to limit that office strictly to the compliance/grant management activities--not programming in any shape or form. Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: STEWART, DONALD M. Wednesday, April 18, 2001 10:54 AM MITCHELL, SADIE LESLEY, BONNIE\nGADBERRY, BRADY L.\nBABBS, JUNIOUS\nMILHOLLEN, MARK RE: If that is your ultimate intention, I would say yes. We need all the cards on the table as soon as possible so that better decisions can be made about who goes where and when. I know that Leon is going to make a pitch to keep the position that Lionel is currently holding. Original Message- From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: MITCHELL, SADIE Tuesday, April 17, 2001 6:03 PM STEWART, DONALD M. MILHOLLEN, MARK\nGADBERRY, BRADY L. Should I go ahead and request an additional Assistant Superintendent and or Middle School Director at this time? Sadie Mitchell smmitch@lrsdadm.lrsd.k12.ar.usSTEWART, DONALD M. From: Sent: To: Subject: JAMES, KENNETH Thursday, July 12, 2001 2:00 PM STEWART, DONALD M. RE: Title I \u0026amp; Title VI Budgets Don: Thanks for the info and your follow-up on this. As you know, this is the only way that we can get the system where it needs to be. Ken Original Message- From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: STEWART, DONALD M. Thursday, July 12, 2001 1:31 PM LESLEY, BONNIE MITCHELL, SADIE\nMILHOLLEN, MARK\nJAMES, KENNETH Title I \u0026amp; Title VI Budgets I met with Mr. Adams this morning regarding preparation and submission of both the Title I and Title VI budgets, including the Class size reduction funds. We also discussed the compliance visits and reports for both of these programs. We have a compliance report from ina i iti? \\/i vi.\nit and ^4r Ariamg rinpsnt pypprt that wn will have tn pay back any funds. There were some pr^lems and I ask Mr. Adams to work with Bonnie and other involved staff to resolve those issues. There an le orohlem.q on the Title I compliance report hut 'a\u0026gt;o ha''e-*^?t yet th? final rppnrt Mr Adams is workiiigwith ADE to try and resolve as many of those issues as possible before they finalize the report. Mark is working on getting all of the 2000-2001 expenditure information together which must be done before the final budget can be assembled. I also requested that Mr. Adams share current Title I budget information with Bonnie, both plan and financial information. He assured me that he would do this ASAP. There are still five or so schools who have not completed this information but those can be shared when they are available. I also requested that Mr. Adams talk with Sadie on the issue of how we are to report School Improvement Plan and Title I budget information to the ADE. He agreed to do that also. I know all of this is just adding to everyones already hectic schedule but if we can learn to work as a team on all of this it really will work better for all of us. Please let me know if I can do anything to help any of you. 240STEWART, DONALD M. From: Sent: To: Subject: STEWART, DONALD M. Wednesday, February 28, 2001 5:05 PM LESLEY, BONNIE mou-2-28-01 .doc Bonnie, Dr. Carnine just e mailed me his comments on his discussion with Ray Simon yesterday. His goal is for you and I to sit down with ADE folks tomorrow or Friday and try to iron out an agreement on the loan payback. I have called Ray and he is trying to set the time after he talks to Charity tomorrow. I will let you know the minute he calls me. We are also talking about some other means of ending this ordeal. Maybe just an agreement that we will pay back part of the loan and they will forgive the rest. He started with half and I said NO, actually hell no. Chris agrees. I also ran into Judy Magness and bounced that idea off of her, she also agrees. Ray indicated that he would not shut the door to something less but would not make a commitment. I suspect he needs advice from above and I recognize that with the POLS and other school people across the State he cant agree to just forgive it all. We will see if that can go anywhere but in the meantime we need to try and work out an acceptable agreement if that approach falls through. I know Dr. C requested that we all return the copy of the Draft agreement so if you didnt keep a copy and need one I have it in my email files. Let me know. Im going home now so will talk with you tomorrow.  mou-2-28-01_.doc STEWART, DONALD M. From: Sent: To: Subject: STEWART, DONALD M. Thursday, November 30, 2000 11\n46 AM LESLEY, BONNIE RE: Millage Bonnie you didnt ask and I didnt answer but of course there was another 13 to 15 million for technology in the bond issue part of the millage increase. Original Message From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: To: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 5:12 PM STEWART, DONALD M. Subject: Millage We need to tell NSF the following: How m\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_339","title":"Compliance plan","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2002/2004"],"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","Educational law and legislation","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance plan"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/339"],"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\nMr. John W. Walker October 4, 2002 Page 2 We respectfully request that any obj ections you may have to the compliance plan be provided in wnting to Ken James before the October 10,2002, Board meeting, so we will have an opportunity to resolve any disagreements before the Board meeting. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, ohn C. Fendley, Jr. / John JCF/bgb enclosure(s) cc: Dr. Ken James (w/enclosures) F:\\H0ME\\BBrowD\\Feodley\\LK5]\u0026gt;desegkouiMel b.wpd1 Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1922-1994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. BYRON M. BISEMAN. 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 UI. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS, P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMBS 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. RICHARD D. TAYLOR P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR, P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER, P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III, P.A. MICHAELS. 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. 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 F. JONES, P.A. DAVID D. WILSON. P.A. JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GRAF, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayflrm.cofn 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 479-685-2011 FAX 478-695-2147 CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR, P.A. JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR., P.A. JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO. 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 W. PLUNKETT. P.A. DANIEL L. HERRINGTON, P.A. MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON 6. 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 LINDSEY MITCHAM SLOAN KHAYYAM M. EDDINGS JOHN F. PEISERICH AMANDA CAPPS ROSE BRANDON J. HARRISON RECEIVED OCT - 4 2002 office OF desegregation monitoring 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2696 FAX 870-762-2918 October 4,2002 OF COUNSEL B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. JOHNC. ECHOLS. P.A. A.D. MCALUSTBR JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-3323 PAX 501-244-5341 fndlyOfc.nt ( By Hand Delivery ) Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Steve Jones John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 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 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm ( By Hand Delivery ) Ms. Ann Marshall 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, #146 Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza Ms. Sammye Taylor Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: Compliance Remedy Dear Counsel \u0026amp; Ms. Marshall: Enclosed please find the Little Rock School Districts proposed Compliance Plan for implementing the courts Compliance Remedy set forth in the District Courts September 13,2002, Memorandum Opinion. Included in the Compliance Plan is a timeline for implementation. It contemplates submitting the Compliance Plan to the Board for approval at the October 10, 2002, agenda meeting. All parties are invited to attend the meeting and will be provided an opportunity to address the board. F:\\HOME\\BBrown\\FcDdley\\LRSD\\deseg\\couQsel LwpdLittle Rock School District Compliance Committee I Proposed Compliance Plan Revised Plan  2.7.1 RECEIVED OCT - 4 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORINGThe 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 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 a 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\n(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 Afincan-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\nA. 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 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 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. Nunnerl/ 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 comphed 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. 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 of2003-04\nDevelop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to Revised Plan  2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of Afiican-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 elirmnation 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 m 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 African-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 Comphance Report that it was required: (a) to use both the testing data and the program evaluations to detemune 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 tune resulting from testing and test preparation\n(2) fall results did not provide sigmficantly different information from the previous springs results\nand (3) the cost of administering and scoring the tests. Second, the fall admimstration 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 admimstration\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 Batteiy 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 admimstered 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. 5as Proposed 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 _ Appendix 3. This regulation will be subimtted 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\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. 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 cuiriculum/instruction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students?. S^ 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 annual 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 replace the program. or 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 ReadingLanguage 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. Some may argue that Paragraph A and Paragraph C together require the LRSD to prepare new, 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 Afifrcan-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: (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. S^ Paragraph A of Comphance 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 tune and resources preparing evaluations of the programs designed to improve Afiican-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: 1. 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 Bonme 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 findings and provide written feedback. The LRSD team members who our 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, techmeal 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 the expertise that is required for a credible report. on 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 follovnng program evaluations identified Report have been completed: on page 148 of the Final Compliance 1. 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 of2002 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\n1999-2000, 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. Southwest Middle Schools 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 \u0026amp;e 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, whether it is sufficient that they were prepared by someone within LRSD with similar qualifications. I l or 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 African-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 Comphance 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 Comphance 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 Comphance Committee proposes retaining an outside expert to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing Hata HIPPY. This evaluation was completed by the LRSD staff. The Comphance 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 Comphance 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 Comphance 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 I 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 2002^February 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 fori2002-2003 (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 James Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Vanessa Cleaver Dennis Glasgow Ken James Attorneys Compliance TeamI Appendix 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, 2^^ 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: Stakeholder 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 j 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 that the evaluation questions are answered effectively. so 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 the evaluation reports reflect the evaluation findings fairly. Metaevaluation. The evaluation itself should be evaluated so 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. 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 the production of the report according to the timelines established in the action plan approved by the Board of Education. 4. 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. 5. 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. 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. D. 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.) E. 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.) F. Decide who will be the chief writer of the program evaluation. G. 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: ConA/in 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. 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: to assist in final proofreading\nand to write a brief executive summary, highlighting the program evaluation findings and recommendations. 8. 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. 9. 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)\nA. B. C. D. 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.) Names of the administrators who were involved in the program evaluation. Name and qualifications of the external expert who served on the evaluation team. 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 Joellen Kiliion (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\nIL-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 99I a It i n g m e a s ROBBY CHAMPION Map out evaluation goals A master plan can guide you down the rocky path of evaluation w 'hen you launch a major professional development evaluation, regardless of the projects scope, you may quickly find yourself on a slippery, often rocky road, with twists and unexpected turns. 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 TnimbeD Canyon, Mora. NM 87732, (505) 387-2016, fax (505) 387-5581, e-mail: RobbychampioD@aol.com. 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 wUl be open and not secretive. Whether your evaluation must be completed within a few months or will 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 might push the effort aside. Provide steering committee members with the tools to succeed. Members need not be evalu- 78 National Staff Development Council JSD Fall 2002I i I i I m e a s u r e ation-experts, but they do need information, support, and guidance to make informed decisions. They need background material to learn 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 TeacherJnduction 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: quantitative vs. quahtative/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 will be shaped to use a quantitative or a , qualitative model  or a mixture 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-dep case study, whether to ON THE WEB. See an example of a matrix to help guide evaluations at: www.nsdc.org/libraryrjsd/ champion234.html. survey the whole population, whether to use examples of student 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 student 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 tike 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 pubhc records, such as student attendance, may be valuable if, for example, 20% increase in student attendance at all grade levels is one of your programs indicators of impact PHASE III: 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 technical 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, policies, 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 I I JSD Fall 2002 National Staff Development Council 79Office 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 October 7, 2002 Dr. Ken James, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ken: I enjoyed our telephone chat today and look forward to meeting for coffee and more conversation on October 31 (all treats, no tricks!) Thanks for understanding our frustration at receiving the districts Proposed Compliance Plan at noon last Friday, October 4, 2002, giving us very few days in which to respond by your deadline of this coming Thursday, October 10'\\ Although youd been kind to notify me September 23' that your proposal would be forthcoming in the near future, Id not known exactly when to expect it. As a result, were trying to squeeze our review into an already crowded schedule. rd As I explained, the tight timeline will preclude as thorough a review of your plan as we might otherwise have been able to do. Nevertheless, as you and I agreed, well write up some of our preliminary observations and questions for you to factor into your deliberations. My associate. Gene Jones, has been monitoring program evaluation in the district and will continue to do so. Unless otherwise notified, we will assume that our primary contacts for information are those named in the Action Plan Timeline. We intend to do our best in continued support of the district, and will always appreciate ample lead time for our input. Thank you very much. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Marshall Office 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 Date: October 10, 2002 To: Dr. Ken James, LRSD Frorn^^ni in Marshall, ODM Re: LRSDs Evaluation Compliance Plan Thank you for forwarding the LRSDs Proposed Compliance Plan, Revised Plan 2.7.1, which was delivered to us last Friday, October 4, 2002. ODM is happy to provide comments when requested, and we will appreciate being accorded adequate time in which to do so. Our feedback, attached, is limited as a result of the very short lead time. We hope the enclosed observations and questions will be helpful as you fine-tune your compliance plan. We look forward to working with you over the coming months as we monitor implementation of the plan. Please let us know how we may be of assistance. Enc. cc: Judge William R. Wilson Judge J. Thomas Ray All Counsel of RecordOctober 10, 2002 ODMs Observations and Questions LRSD Proposed Compliance Plan, Revised Plan 2.7.1 1. 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-writes be limited to the data that were used at the time the eight evaluations had been written? 2. Page 7 of the Proposed Compliance Plan identifies Primary Reading/Langiiage Arts as a program to be evaluated as part of the evaluation agenda, while the term Elementary Literacy is used on page 15. The first term connotes PK-3, while the second connotes K-5. Do the different titles actually identify different programs? Which grades are to be included in the evaluation? 3. 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? 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 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? The proposed regulation, 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? The proposed regulation requires that all relevant student performance data will be used in the evaluations. Will other data, such as interviews with teachers or students, case studies, and classroom observations, supplement the performance data for the evaluation? 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? 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 or 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 of 2003. We note that the spring 2003 tests will not only be the final assessment, but also the only student 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?9. 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. 10. 11. 12. Given the assignments in the Action Plan Timeline, what is the role of the districts Planning, Research and Evaluation department under the new compliance plan? Under the envisioned Program Evaluation Agenda? The 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 informal 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? 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 purchases of evaluation services?Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1932-1994) 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. JAMBS 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 III. 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. DIANS 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. 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. JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GRAP. P.A. 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.frldayfirm.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 479-805-2011 FAX 479-605-2147 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. IF RAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN RYAN A BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON PHILIP B. MONTGOMERY KRISTEN S. RIGGINS ALANG. BRYAN LINDSEY MITCHAM SLOAN KHAYYAM M. EDDINGS JOHN F. PEISERICH AMANDA CAPPS ROSE BRANDON J. HARRISON OFCOUNSEL B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE, P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. A.D. MCALLISTER RECEIVED 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2808 FAX 870-762-2918 OCT 1 1 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING October 11,2002 JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-970-3323 FAX 501-244-5341 fandltyQf^c.ntt ( By Hand Delivery ) Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Steve Jones JohnW. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 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 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm ( By Hand Delivery ) Ms. Ann Marshall Mr. Dennis Hanson 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, #146 Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE\nCompliance Remedy 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 administrations 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: F:\\HOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD 200I\\unitary-all-counsd-10-l 1-02.wpdAll Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 11, 2002 Page 2 1. 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-writes be limited to the data that were used at the time the eight evaluations had been written? RESPONSE: The re-writes will be limited to the data that were used at the time the eight evaluations were written. 2. Page 1 of the Proposed Compliance Plan identifies Primary Reading/Language Arts as a program to be evaluated as part of the evaluation agenda, while the term. Elementary Literacy is used on page 15. The first term connotes PK-3, while the second connotes 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. 3. 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. 4. 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 administering student assessments through its training of teachers in administering the assessments and monitoring the results of assessments. 5. In the evaluation ofprimary 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 2001\\unitary-aJl-counsel-10-l 1-02. wpdAll 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 of 2003. 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: Yes, 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:\\HOMEVFENDLEY\\LRSD 2001\\unitary-ail-counsd-10-ll-02.wpdAll 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 Planning, Research and Evaluation department imder 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 xmclear. 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 Compliance 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 that this may be done in a timely manner, the LRSD asks all parties to F:\\HOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD 200l\\uniury-al!-counsci-10-11-02. wpdAll 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 vmting, 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, John C. Fendiey, Jr. cc: Dr. Ken James F:\\HOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD 2001\\unitary-all-counsd-10-l 1-02. wpdec: JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Bank Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (601) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile -376-2147 October 9, 2002 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY. P.A. DONNAJ.McHENRY 8210 Hendesson Road Little Rook, Aekans.as 72210 Phone (501) 372-3425  F.ax (501) 372-3428 Email\nmclieiiryd@swbelLnet RECEIVED OCT 11 2102 OmCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Re: LRSD Compliance Plan Dear Chris: This is to inform you that I received your Compliance Plan on Monday, October 1, 2002. I was in court on Monday and Tuesday. Incidentally, I am again in court today and have not had adequate time to even read what you propose. I understand that you will be presenting this matter to the Board on tomorrow evening. I have called you several times and have been informed that you were not in. Accordingly, when you present this matter to the Board, please let them know that I have not had an opportunity to review what you have proposed nor to have any discussions regarding the matter with you or the ODM. 1 // Sincerely, / 4 jefhn W. Walker JWW:js cc: Ms. Ann Marshall All Counsel of Record e\u0026lt;r: 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 McHENEY. P.A DONNA J. McHenry 8210 Henderson Ro.ad Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd@swbell.net Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED OCT 1 1 2002 Re: Little Rock School District v. PCSSD, et al. Case No. 4:82CV00866 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 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 African 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 evaluationsmentioned 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. Sitic^ly, / .\u0026gt;John W. Walker JWW.'js cc: Ms. Ann Marshall All Counsel of RecordFriday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1922-1994) WILUAM H. SUTTON. P.A. Byron m. eiseman, jr, p.a JOE D. BELL. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A. FREDERICKS. 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 UI. 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 UI. 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. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN HI. 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. 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. JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GRAF. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayfirm.cofT\u0026gt; 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 479-695-2011 FAX 479-665-2147 CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR.. P.A. JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO. 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. CLIPFORD W. PLUNKETT, P.A. DANIELL. 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 Q. BRYAN LINDSEY MITCHAM SLOAN KHAYYAM M. EDDINGS JOHN F. PEISERICH AMANDA CAPPS ROSE BRANDON J. HARRISON 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: 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2868 FAX 870-762-2918 October 14,2002 OPCOUNSEL B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILUAM L. PATTON. JR H.T. LARZELERE, P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A AD. MCALLISTER JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL S01-370-3323 FAX 501-244-S341 fn4lyQfc.nt RECEIVED OCT 1 6 2002 OmCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 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. Pendley, Jr. V F:\\HOME\\BBrown\\Fa\u0026gt;dley\\LRSD\\deseg\\judge wilsoo k.wpdHonorable William R. Wilson, Jr. October 14,2002 Page 2 cc: Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Steve Jones Mr^chard Roachell ^Ms. Ann Marshall Ms. Sammye Taylor Mr. Ken James F:\\HOME\\BBrown\\FcndJcy\\]J\u0026lt;SEMcscg\\/udge wibon h.wpdI . JOO JOHN W. WALEtER SHAWN CHILDS John W. walker, pa. Attohney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 October 23,2002 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENEY, PA. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Hendesson HoaL Uttle Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (601) 372-3426  Pax (501) 372-3428 RUAn,: mchearyd^awLelLxket Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY. ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK . 400 W. CapitoU Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RECEIVED OCT 2 4 2002 Re\nLRSD V, PCSSD OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dear Chris\nThis letter sets forth additional comments of the Joshua Intervenors concerning the I PSD 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 perform anrA 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 itI, Page Two October 23,2002 ^^0 dertake should make clear that the actual implementation of remediation ^vittes in distnct schools is to receive careful consideration. This is surely an important contextual factor (see Accuracy Standards, para. 2).  / 1 the LRSD plans evaluations of programs deemed to be paiticul^ly directed to achievement of African American students for the indefinite future, not smply for the period necessary to satisfy the court. We would like to receive the Boards assurance that this IS the case. We would appreciate yourproviding this letter to the Superintendent and the members of the school board. RffW. Walker Sincere^, JWW:lp cc: All Counsel Ms. Ann Marshall Judge Thomas Ray Dazs: .J- O JOHN W. NHLKER, Aitomsy ar Law 1723 Sroad'.way J2od^ Aakar\u0026lt;aas 72206 Telephons (501) 37a.375S Fea (501) 374-4137 RAH TR.liVSMI3SICiN COVTS S7TTF.F e Ltui L I fk- J 271-d/a-i} [. L Rz: SznRsr: / 70USHOULD HSCDD/E [ (iTiclzuimg caver shssi)} PAC-D(S). OfCLUDlHG THIS COVER SHEET. IF TOUDO HOT RECEIVE ALL THE PACES, r.4r.r \"\u0026lt;(501) 574-375S\u0026gt;\" The iMarmationconiaiaedin diis iiesiniilemessage is sitoiaeypri'/iiegedand coafideatial infSrmgrinn mr.qnripd eniy for the use of the iadivimial ar enrity named above, if ms .^ader of this message is not the intended tecipieat. ot the employes or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissetnination, oistibiinon or copying of mis conmunicahon. is strictly prohibited. If you have received dhs communication in error, please immediate aoui^us by teleptons. and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal SerAce. Thank you. received OCT 2 9 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 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 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P a DONNA J. McHenry 3210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Ahkans.as 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  P.4X (501) 372-3428 Email\nmchenryd@swbeil.net Via Facsimile - 376-2147 October 25, 2002 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: 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. Si-Hcerely, .hn W. Walker JWW\njs cc: Ms. Ann Marshall All Counsel of Record(TC: 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 IIL 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. RICHARD D. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANES. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM 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 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. JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GRAF. P.A. RECEIVED OCT 2 5 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 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 342S NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE. SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72703-4811 TELEPHONE 479-665-2011 FAX 479-695-2147 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2696 FAX 870-762-2918 October 25, 2002 CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR, P.A. JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR.. P.A, JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO. 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 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 BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON PHILIP 8. MONTGOMERY KRISTEN S. RIGGINS ALAN 0. BRYAN LINDSEY MITCHAM SLOAN KHAYYAM M. EDDINGS JOHNF. PEISERICH AMANDA CAPPS ROSE BRANDON J. HARRISON OF COUNSEL B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM 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 501-244-5341 fsndlay^fac.nct (By Hand Delivery ) Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Steve Jones John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Bank of America Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm ( By Hand Delivery ) Ms. Ann Marshall Mr. Dennis Hanson Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 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 any perceived deficiency in the Board-approved Compliance Plan on or before Monday, October 21, 2002. No responses were received on or before that date. However, Mr. Pressman called on October 21,2002, and advised that Joshua would rely on tlie comments contained in Mr. Walkers October 10, 2002, facsimile. On October 24, 2002, additional comments were received from Mr. Walker. All of Mr. Walkers comments will be addressed in turn.All 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 implementat[ed] pursuant to Section 2.7 .. which are to be subjected to comprehensive program evaluation .. \u0026gt; 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. 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 program evaluations would assess implementation of these programs. LRSD RESPONSE: On October 24,2002, the Board approved the Division of Instructions Plan to Support Low-Performing Schools, a copy of which is enclosed for your review. Under that plan, the LRSD will conduct curriculum, instruction and classroom management audits at low performing schools. Data gathered through these audits and other monitoring under the plan may be used by a program evaluation team to identify possible causes of poor performance, including poor implementation of interventions such as SAIPs. The LRSD lacks the resources to implement this plan at every school. 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. In a discussion prior to his testimony in the hearing [before] Judge Wilson, we understood Dr. Ross to indicate that the existing evaluation of the PreK-2 literacy program was not adequate. The notation on 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 imdermines the LRSD argiunent (page 11) that the existing 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 considering the PreK-2 literacy evaluation to have been completed pursuant to Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. Attached are the comments received by the LRSD from Dr. Ross related to that evaluation. As can be seen. Dr. Ross did not advise the LRSD that the evaluation was inadequate. Moreover, it does not make sense for the LRSD to expend resources to have this evaluation completed by an outside expert while it also prepares a new, comprehensive evaluation of the same program with the assistance of an outside expert.All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page 3 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 accoimt of the material provided, which describes an adequate evaluation. LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this statement, Joshua objects to the LRSD not completing the evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report in a manner consistent with IL-Rl. As the LRSD understands Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy, the District Court simply wants the LRSD to do what it said it did and complete the evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. That is what the LRSD intends to do. It is true that those evaluations, even after being completed, may not be model program evaluations as envisioned by IL-Rl. The LRSD decided, however, that the most prudent use of its limited resources would be to focus on the new, comprehensive evaluations of programs designed to improve Afiican-American achievement. 4. We question the period of implementation of a remedy which the court has identified and, therefore, the LRSD schedule. LRSD RESPONSE: The LRSD is willing to agree that any agreement between the LRSD and Joshua related to implementation of the Compliance Remedy will not prejudice Joshuas appeal of the District Courts September 13,2002, Memorandum Opinion. October 24, 2002 Facsimile 1. In using historical student assigiunent results, attention should be given to the quality of the data. In the past, LRSD has used results on the [D]RA and the Observation Survey in ways not consistent with the purposes of those instruments. In addition, because teachers provided scores for their ovra 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. LRSD RESPONSE\nParagraph A of the Compliance Remedy requires the LRSD to use all available data in its evaluations. It will be the responsibility of the evaluation team to weigh the reliability and validity of the available data. The Arkansas Department of Education and national organizations with expertise in early literacy recommend the use of the DRA and Observation Surveys. The primary piupose of those assessments is to determine whether students are learning the essential components of the reading curriculum. As to the integrity of the data from those assessments, the LRSD monitored student scores year-to-year to discoinage teachers from inflating scores in an effort to show improvement. Moreover, the ultimate 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 and Observation Surveys. 1. 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 maimer 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 personnel cannot be trusted to write an honest program evaluation. The LRSDs commitment to improving student achievement is second to none. To fulfill that commitment, it is in the LRSDs best interest to effectively evaluate its programs. The success of the programs and program evaluations will ultimately be measured by the States Benchmark evaluations. All evaluation team members will be actively involved in the evaluation process and are expected to provide a check against the self-interest of any one team member. The evaluation team will decide who writes the report based on the expertise of team members. The outside expert will be asked to take to the Superintendent any concerns about the evaluation not being 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, the Board has adopted apohcy 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 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). LRSD RESPONSE\nAs the LRSD understands this comment, it is a restatement of the first number paragraph in Mr. Walkers October 10, 2002 facsimile, and the LRSD hereby incorporates its response thereto.All Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25, 2002 Page 5 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 term, not simply for the period necessary to satisfy the court. We would hke to receive the Boards assurance that this is the case. LRSD RESPONSE: The Boards approval of IL-Rl was not limited to the term of the Compliance Remedy, and at this time, the Board anticipates continuing to evaluate programs pursuant to Policy IL after the term of the Compliance Remedy. Conclusion The LRSD hopes that it has been able to address all of Joshuas concerns. If any party has any questions about the LRSDs responses to Joshuas comments, we ask that those be submitted in writing, and the LRSD will promptly provide a written response. If Joshua continues to have concerns about the LRSDs Compliance Plan, Joshua should consider this the LRSDs written response to alleged noncompliance in accordance with Revised Plan  8. Pursuant 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. Jr. John Pendley, cc: Dr. Ken James (via hand-delivery)received cc 1 2 5 2002 OESEGREGWION MONITORING Plan to Support Low-Performing Schools Division of Instruction Little Rock School District 2002-2003 Background The Little Rock School District obtained approval from the federal court in spring 1998 for its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. In submitting its plan to the. judge, the District willingly assumed accountability for its numerous obligations, several of which addressed the issues of student achievement. The following sections were most relevant: 2.7 LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students. 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 African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. 5.1 Early Childhood Education. LRSD shall implement an early childhood education program which shall include a HIPPY program and a four-year-old program with no less than 720 seats. LRSD contemplates that the four-year-old classes will remain at their present site or in the same general location. 5.2.1 Primary Grades. LRSD shall implement at least the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in kindergarten through the 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\ng. Monitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices. 5.2.2 Intermediate Grades. LRSD shall implement at least the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in grades four through six: a. Adopt as a goal that by completion of the sixth grade all students will master and use daily higher-level reading comprehension skills for learning in all subject areas, for 1making meaning in real life experiences, and for personal growth and enjoyment\ne. Monitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices. 5.2.3 Secondary Schools. LRSD intends to implement the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in grades six through twelve: a. Adopt as a goal that upon graduation all students will read independently with comprehension in all subject areas and be proficient in language arts, as necessary to be successful workers, citizens, and life-long learners\nf. Monitor student progress and achievement using appropriate assessment devices. 5.3 Mathematics. LRSD shall implement the following strategies to improve mathematics instruction. 5.3.2 Develop appropriate assessment devices for measuring individual student achievement and the success of the revised curriculum. 5.3.5 Adopt as a goal that all students in regular classes will complete Algebra and Geometry by the end of their eleventh grade year and that students will be proficient in mathematics by graduation. On September 13,2002, the federal court ruled that the District was substantially in compliance in all areas of the obligations, except Section 2.7.1, and the judge established a Compliance Remedy for the completion of a number of program evaluations. The work to meet those requirements is in progress. In the Districts Covenant for the Future, the Little Rock School District pledged to the commumty and to all employees, students, and parents to continue its efforts for the improved academic achievement of aU the children: improve the academic achievement of all students, comply with the Constitution, and ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color, or ethnicity in the operation of the District, and provide equitable educational resources, programs, and opportunity in a nondiscriminatory environment for all students attending District schools. In June 1999 the Arkansas Department of Education published its statewide accountability plan, the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program (ACTAAP), which was subsequently revised in June 2000. The 2'f introduction states that ACTAAP is a comprehensive system encompassing high academic standards, professional development, student assessment, and accountability for schools and students. The four stated purposes are as follows: To improve student learning and classroom instruction\nTo provide public accountability by establishing expected achievement levels and reporting on student achievement\nTo provide program evaluation data\nand To assist policymakers in decision-making. Expected outcomes include the following: It will result in improved teaching and learning. It will identify successful schools and programs and encourage replication of those successes. It will encourage individual schools and school districts to reflect on then- practices, take corrective actions, and receive support from state agencies. It will fulfill the requirements of various Arkansas statutes, including Act 999 of 1999, which mandates that all students in the public schools of this state demonstrate grade-level academic proficiency through the application of knowledge and skills in the core academic subjects consistent with state curriculum frameworks, performance standards, and assessments. At the centerpiece of ACTAAP is the states new assessment program, which in 2002- 2003 includes annual criterion-referenced Benchmark examinations in literacy and mathematics at grades 4,6, 8, and high school end-of-course/level tests in Algebra I, Geometry, and Literacy. The states testing program also includes the administration of the SAT9 at grades 5,7, and 10. Accountability indicators for the three tiers of the accountability program are established. Tier I includes the following: Performance on Benchmarks and End-of-Course/Level tests School dropout rates Average daily attendance Classes taught by an appropriately licensed teacher 3Professional development (at least 30 hours) School safety. Tier n includes the same indicators, but the assessment is based on growth over multiple years, not absolute scores. Mandated subgroups to examine include the general population, special education, limited English proficient, and high mobility students. Tier HI is a narrative of approximately 500 words, developed by staff of each school. The narrative may include the progress that the school has made in implementing its school improvement plan. Page 19 of the plan includes the following definition of adequate yearly progress to be used until the ACTAAP can be fully implemented.\nIn order to meet federal mandates, a temporary system will be developed to identify those schools designated for school improvement. Beginning in 2000- 2001 and continuing until the ACTAAP accountability system is fully operational, a school will be designated in school improvement under the following condition: Seventy-five percent or more of the students perform below proficient on either the literacy (reading and writing) or the mathematics section of the Benchmark Exam for the designated grade or grades represented by the school. It has been this paragraph upon which the Little Rock School District has based much of its decision-making relating to school improvement since 1999-2000. Clearly, both in the description of Tier I and Tier n indicators and in the page 19 paragraph, it was not the performance on the SAT9 that mattered. SAT9 scores were included only as an optional indicator. A schools entire accountability for Title I depended on its performance on the Benchmarks. In January 2001 the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, which included the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), became law. The accountability provisions in Title I of this new law included, for the most part, the same language as several of the most recent reauthorizations^requirements that states and districts identify low-performing schools for improvement and requirements that progressively more intense consequences should occur for schools continuing not to improve over time. One difference in the 2001 law is that the first year a school is identified for improvement, the school must, in addition to the usual consequences, offer public school choice to the children and parents of that school so that they may elect to attend another higher performing school in the district. This option will remain in effect until the home school has earned its way out of the school improvement designation. Transportation costs must be paid out of the Title I allocation. The second year that a school is identified for improvement, the school must continue to offer choice, but must also offer, at no cost to the parent, a choice of state-approved supplemental services, or tutoring. Again, the cost of this service must be paid from Title I funds. 4NCLB requires states to establish curriculum standards and to test all students every year in both language arts and mathematics, grades 3-8, and once in grades 10-12. States must also establish an accountability system for all its public schools. The new law was to become effective at the beginning of the 2002-2003 school-year. However, implementation has been guided chiefly at both the state and local levels through Dear Colleague Letters fiom the Secretary of Education, since the formal regulations were still not complete as of late October 2002. Many, many questions regarding definitions of the mandated adequate yearly progress (AYP), what flexibility districts have in implementing the choice options, and other major issues remained unanswered. Arkansas educators assumed that the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) plan described in the ACTAAP document for accountability remained in force, and ADE announced in June 2002 that no Arkansas schools would be identified for improvement under NCLB until the end of the 2002-2003 school year, given the phase-in of the states Benchmarks and high school tests. In September 2002 everyone awoke one morning to a headline in the newspaper that the state had been required by the federal government to change its accountability plan, that schools would be identified based upon SAT9 data, not Benchmark data, and that the public school choice and supplemental services requirements must be implemented no later than the beginning of the 2002-2003 schoolyears second semester. ADE aimounced its list of identified schools on October 16, 2002. The 1998-99 schoolyear was established as the baseline year for making the identification decisions, the percent of students performing at/above the 50* percentile of the SAT9 Basic Battery score was selected as the measurement, and the first screening of schools included all Title I schools with fewer than 25 percent of its students performing at/above the 50* percentile. Schools in that pool could also be identified for improvement if they had failed to decrease the percentage of students performing in the bottom quartile for two consecutive years. From that pool of low-performing schools, schools failing to make AYP for the two subsequent years (1999-2000 and 2000-2001), based on SAT9 data, were identified for improvement. These ongoing commitments in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan and in the Covenant for the Future, plus the adoption of the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program (ACTAAP) by the State of Arkansas, the passage of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act by the United States Congress, and ADEs identification of schools for improvement all compel the Little Rock School District to enhance its efforts to provide a higher level of monitoring, support, and intervention for its low-performing schools. Through the activities outlined in this plan, the District adds another strategy to improve the academic achievement not only for Afiican American children, but for all children, whether representing a race/ethnicity, gender, firee/reduced lunch status, disability, or limited English proficiency subgroup. Stq)s have already been taken by the Division of Instruction to assume new roles and responsibilities in supporting school improvement. For the past two years curriculum 5staff and PRE staff have provided principals meeting in small groups a complete set of school performance data, including assistance in analyzing those data and support in implementing their school improvement plans. Division of Instruction staff concentrated many of their efforts on low-performing schools in 2001-2002, including the monitoring of Student Academic Improvement Plans (SAIPs), targeting those schools for grant proposals (Comprehensive School Reform grants and the Reading Exellence Act grants), providing follow-up professional development, consultation, and school visits. Needs Assessment According to the Arkansas Department of Education in its October 16, 2002, communication to the Superintendent, the following Little Rock School District schools have been identified in 2002-2003 for improvement: Bale Elementary (1 year) Baseline Elementary (2** year) Chicot Elementary (2\" year) Dodd Elementary (1* year) Fair Park Elementary (P* year) Mabelvale Elementary (L year) Mitchell Elementary (Pyear) Stephens Elementary (2\" year) Wakefield Elementary (2\" year) Watson Elementary (2\" year) Henderson Middle (1 year) Mabelvale Middle (1 year) Southwest Middle (l year) ADEs letter to the Superintendent included the following information relating to Removal from School Improvement: All schools, except high schools, listed in this notification will be eligible for removal from school improvement based on AYP as measured by the Benchmark exams and described in the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment, and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). Specifically, these schools will be eligible for removal following the 2003 administration of these exams based on two consecutive years ofAYP with 2000-2001 designated as the baseline year. Several issues remain unclear\n1. Whether AYP will be defined based on ten years or twelve years to reach 100 percent proficient/advanced\n2. Whether AYP will be defined for one year or over a two-to-three year period\n63. 4. 5. 6. Whether schools identified for school improvement in this first group will be accountable for subgroup performance\nHow AYP for subgroups will be determined\nWhat the minimum number of students will be to be considered a subgroup\nWhether the high priority schools will continue to be defined as those with fewer than 25 percent performing at the proficient/advanced levels. The deadline for states to submit their accountabihty plans, definitions for AYP, and related issues to the U. S. Department of Education for approval is the end of the calendar year. It is likely, therefore, that districts will not know until late spring or early summer what the rules will be for some of these issues related to schools already identified for improvement and for the new identification that will occur when 2002-2003 Benchmark scores are received. The Little Rock School District, however, cannot wait for answers to all these questions in order to begin providing the necessary support, assistance, interventions, and monitoring required to help the identified schools exit the School Improvement designation and to prevent as many additional schools as possible from being identified at the end of 2002-2003. To assess greatest need and to enable the Division of Instruction to determine priorities, a more complete needs assessment was conducted. The following matrix lists the schools that have been formally identifi\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_1722","title":"Court filings: District Court, Joshua intervenors' preliminary exhibit list regarding January 28, 2002, hearings; District Court, three orders; District Court, District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) 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","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2002-01"],"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","Joshua Intervenors","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational law and legislation","School management and organization","School integration","School discipline","Student activities","Parents","School administrators","School employees"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, Joshua intervenors' preliminary exhibit list regarding January 28, 2002, hearings; District Court, three orders; District Court, District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) 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/1722"],"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":["143 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Springer, Joy C."],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.   IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION CEIVED 2 2001, OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION M0NITOR!NQ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANT INTER VENO RS INTER VENO RS l\\llRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. JOSHUA INTERVENORS' PRELIMINARY EXHIBIT LIST REGARDING JANUARY 28. 2002 HEARINGS The Joshua Intervenors plan to use the following documents during the January 28, 2002 hearings: 1. E-mail dated July 2, 200 l from Virginia Johnson to Bonnie Lesley (page 182) 2. E-mail dated October 19, 2000 from Gary Smith to Bonnie Lesley ( page 290) 3. E-mail dated June 29, 2001 from Sueellen Vann to Gail Hester and subsequent dated July 2, 2001 (page 167) 4. E-mail dated January 18, 2001 from Junious Babbs to Kathy Lease (page 12) 5. E-mail dated July 2, 2001 from Mona Briggs to Bonnie Lesley ( page 191) 6. E-mail dated November 16, 2000 from Les Carnine to Bonnie Lesley 7. E-mail dated November 21, 2000 from Ken Savage to Kathy Lease (page 38) 8 E-mail dated March 7, 2001 from Kathy Lease to T Rose and subsequent dated March 7, 2001 at 12:44 p.m. (page 7) 9. E-mail dated July 15, 2001 from Bonnie Lesley to Lionel Ward and subsequent dated July 16, 2001 (page 88) 10. E-mail dated July 14, 2001 , July 15, 2001 and July 16, 2001 from Bonnie Lesley to Ken James (page 96) 11 . E-mail dated July 15, 2001 from Bonnie Lesley to Chris Heller (page 102) 12. E-mail dated April 18, 2001 from Bonnie Lesley to Kathy Lease and subsequent response (pages 708 and 709) 13 . E-mails dated October 25, 2001 from Bonnie to Irma Truett and Kathy Lease re: Benchmark scores (pages 16 and 1 7) 14. E-mail dated June 28, 2001 8:00 p.m from Mona Briggs to Bonnie Lesley (page 192 15. E-mail dated June 28, 2001 9:08 a.m from Bonnie Lesley to members of her staff (Page 192 and 193) 16. E-mails dated September 29, 2000 between Bonnie Lesley and Kathy Lease re: Priorities 2000-01 (Page 51) 17. E-mail dated October 3, 2000 between Les Carnine. Bonnie Lesley and Kathy Lease Re: ALT Check-in (Page 50) 18. E-mail dated June 20, 2001 from Bonnie Lesley to Beverly Griffin re: semester test Exemption (Page 3 51) 19. E-mail dated June 25, 2001 from Bonnie Lesley to Clay Fendley (page 297) 20. E-mails dated June 29, 2001 between Sadie Mitchell, Deanna Eggeston and Bonnie Lesley (page 219) 21. E-mails dated February 12 and 13, 2001 Lesley, Ruffins, Lease and Carnine (page 19) 22. Email dated February 13m 2001 from Kathy Lease to Les Carnine (Pages 17 and 18) 23. Memo dated November 17, 2000 from Dr. Faucette to Mrs. Hargis re: exclusion of Regular English students fro Jennie Calder lecture 24. Email dated September 27, 2000 from Saie Mitchell to Junious Babbs (Page 1) 25. Letter dated December 16, 1998 to Les Carnine from Joy Springer 26. Letter dated February 18, 1999 to Sadie Mitchell from Joy Springer - 27. Letter dated March 17, 1999 to Rudolph Howard from Joy Springer 28. Letter dated October 14, 1999 to James Washington from Joy Springer 29. Letter dated Februa1y 28, 2000 to James Washington from Joy Springer 30. Letter dated February 28, 2000 to James Washington from Joy Springer re: Scouts 31. Letter dated August 28, 2000 to Ray Gillespie from Joy Springer \"') .)~. Letter dated September 12, 2000 to Les Carnine from Joy Springer \"_)\".) . Letter dated October l 0, 2000 to Les Carnine from Joy Springer 34. Letter dated September 13 , 2000 to James Washington from Joy Springer 35 . E-mail dated June 6, 2000 to Les Carnine from Don Stewart (Pages 100-01) 36. E-mail dated April 19, 200 l from Deanna Eggeston to Don Stewart ( Page 3 7) 37. E-mail dated April 25, 200 l from Kathy Lease to Mark Millhollen - 38. E-mail dated May 25 , 200 l from Bonnie Lesley to Debbie Berry (Page 3 58) 39. E-mail dated .June 7, '.?.000 from Clay Fendley to Bonnie Lesley 40 E-mail dated June 7, 2000 from Bonnie Lesley to Mary Paa! (Page 136) 4l . E-mail dated April 17-18, 2001 to Don Stewart from Bonnie Lesley 42. E-mail dated July 12, 2001 to Bonnie Lesley from Don Stewart (240) 43 . E-mail dated February 28, 200 I to Bonnie Lesley from Don Stewart 44. Memo dated February 24, 1999 to Gayle Bradford from James Washington 45 . Memo dated March 11 , l999 to Les Carnine from James Washington 46. Letter dated April 12, 1999 to Gayle Bradford from James Washington 47. Letter dated March 22, 1999 to Gayle Bradford from James Washington 48 . Letter dated April 26, 1999 to John Walker from Les Carnine - 49. Memo dated tvJay 3, 1999 regarding visit to Pupil Services \u0026 Administration buildings Joshua reserves the right to utilize exhibits listed by Little Rock School District and further reserves the right to sup plement this list after additional discovery. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 fax Byf)4W~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing exhibit list and exhibits have been hand carried to counsel for the Little Rock School District and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring on this 2nd day of Janaury, 2002. LESLEY, BONNIE From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 2:24 PM To: 'heller@fec.net' Subject: Latest Fax I had Anita fax over to you the latest--a bunch of stuff on our literacy plan. 1. He already has a copy of the PreK-3 Literacy Plan. Other information is in the Interim and Final Compliance Reports. 2. He also has the test results for SAT9, Grade 4 Benchmark, and DRA--so those are the results. 3. I don't know what he means by monitoring reports. 4. The assessment program is outlined in several pages in the Compliance Report. 5. I can copy those policies and regs for him. Want me to go ahead and send? Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for I nstruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/ 324-0567 (fax) - LESLEY, BONNIE From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 1 :44 PM To: JOHNSON, VIRGINIA Subject: RE: Needed Information-Important! Do you have dates for those three times? - Original Message- From: JOHNSON, VIRGINIA Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 1 :15 PM To: LESLEY. BONNIE Subject: RE: Needed Information-Important! Three times I sat in on sessions with Steve Ross along with other PRE staff. At no time did we review anv NSF documents. The sessions focused on document review of the ESL and Pre-K Literacy reports. I have never \"consulted\" with him. I have never consulted with Dr. Roberts either. -Original Message- From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 12:07 PM To: __ ADAMS, LEON; ARNOLD, LAURA BETH; AUSTIN, LINDA; BRANDON, BARBARA; BRIGGS, MONA R.; BROADNAX, KAREN; BUSBEA, PAT; CARR, MARCELLINE; CARSON, RENE'; CLEAVER, VANESSA; CLIFFORD, ELIZABETH; CRAWFORD, PAMELA; DAVIS, SUZI; DEBBIE MILAM; DILLINGHAM, YVETTE; DONALDSON, MABLE; FINNEY, ANTONETTE; FLETCHER, DANNY; FREEMAN, ANN; GILLIAM, ANITA; GLASGOW, DENNIS; HARDING, CASSANDRA; HUFFMAN, KRIS; JACKSON, MARION; JOHNSON, VIRGINIA; JONES, DOCIA; JONES, STEPHANIE; KIILSGAARD, SHARON; KILLINGSWORTH, PATRICIA; KOVACH, RENEE; LAJUANA RAINEY; LOYA, STELLA; MARION BALDWIN; MARTIN, PAULETTE; McCOY, EDDIE; McNEAL, MARIE; MILA.M, JUDY; NEAL, LUCY; PAAL, MARY M.; PAUL. ANNITA; PERRITT, YORIKO U.; PRICE, PATRICIA; RYNDERS, PAULA; SMITH, GARY; SMITH, PAULA; TE::TER, JUDY; WALLS, COLLEEN; WARD, LIONEL; WILLIAMS, BARBARA; WILLIAMS, ED; WILSON, LEVANNA; WOODS, MARION Subject: Needed Information-Important! 182 smmitch@lrsdadm.lrsd.k12.ar.us -Original Message- From: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 1 :59 PM To: MITCHELL, SADIE Cc: NEAL, LUCY: LESLEY, BONNIE; LEASE, KATHY R.; SMITH, GARY Subject: RE: Will we have the software available by 2nd Semester? What system(s) are being looked at? -Original Message- From: MITCHELL, SADIE Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 10:33 AM To: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Subject: FW: Sadie Mitchell smmitch@lrsdadm.lrsd.k12.ar.us -Original Message-' From: SMITH, GARY Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 10:25 AM To: LESLEY, BONNIE Cc: WARD, LIONEL: GADBERRY, BRADY L.; NEAL, LUCY; MITCHELL, SADIE: CAWTHON, FRANCES H.; LACEY, MARIAN G.: Subject: Dr. Lesley, ADAMS, LEON; AUSTIN, LINDA; BRADFORD, GAYLE; BRIGGS, MONA; BROADNAX, KAREN; CLEAVER, VANESSA; COLFORD, SUSAN: DAVIS, SUZI: DONALDSON, MABLE: Eddie McCoy; ELSTON, JO; FULLERTON, JAMES; GLASGOW, DENNIS; HAWKS, EVERETT; KEOWN, ADA: MARION BALDWIN; NORMAN, CASSANDRA R.; PRICE, PATRICIA; TATUM, KATHY; WYATT-ROSS, JANICE The consensus recommendation of the SAIP committee is for a SAIP be created for students at all grade levels who are not proficient based state mandated benchmark tests and/or District mandated Achievement Level Tests (ALT) - Our specific recommendations to implement this are;  obtain/create the software necessary to identify students not proficient on state benchmarks/district assessment that will also generate/print the adopted SAIP form with student information and test scores printed on the SAIP form  obtain/create the software that will generate/print specific strategies (along with and printed checklists for those who wish not to use computer) developed by a committee made up of teachers and curriculum specialists as a resource available for teachers to use (especially secondary teachers) - this can be attached to the SAIP form as needed  develop an \"instructional\" sheet for the SAIP form that will explain in more detail the information to documented and procedures to follow  provide training on the use of SAIP form directly to teachers (the exact training may have to be determined at a future date based on the development of software noted above) - delivery of training would need to be coordinated with staff development for most effective and comprehensive presentation to all teachers to all of you in Cyber Land - is there anything e!se I forgot? - thanks Gary 290 LESLEY, BONNIE From: BABBS, JUNIOUS Sent: To : Monday, July 02, 2001 8:08 AM ELSTON, JO Cc: Subject: NEWBURN, LINDA; LESLEY, BONNIE RE: Counseling Program Kit Message Flag: Follow up Due By: Flag Status: Monday, July 09, 2001 5:00 PM Flagged It is positive to see that things are moving forward on this \"01 - 02 priority. Prior to coming to closure, I ask that your look to set up a time to fill me in on the \"buy in\" of players called upon (committee members) to develop districtwide literature to be distributed. The connection to Curriculum and Instruction is a biggee that should be run through Dr. Lesley. I will look to give you a call a bit later regarding B/W high school scholarship information and the 3 - 4 year comparisons. To date, this information has not been provided. Junious C Babbs, Jr ' jcbabbs@stuasn.lrsd.kl 2. ar. us Little Rock School District -Original Message- From: VANN, SUELLEN Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 11 :08 AM To: HESTER, GAIL Cc: ELSTON, JO; BABBS, JUNIOUS Subject: Counseling Program Kit Jo Evelyn Elston is in my office, and we're working on a counseling program kit with insert sheets. Mr. Babbs will pay for this out of his budget. I'm going to talk with Kristy Black about the design of the kit and sheets, but I figured we'd better give you the info for the quote since it looks like a pretty good-sized job. The kit will be one-pocket on right side with a business card slot; the kit will print front and back with one pocket. There won't be a separate \"wing\" like the recruitment kit had. Quantity: 25,000 Jo Evelyn likes the paper we used for the recruitment kit and insert sheets, so we could just go with those. The insert sheets: 1. JOB BS sheet - print front only; quantity 30 ,000 2. Early college planning sheet - print front only; quantity 20,000 3. PCEP sheet - print front only; quantity 20,000 4. What Does Counselor Do? sheet - print front only; quantity 30,000 5. Counseling program sheet - print front and back; quantity 30,000 6. Couseling fact sheet - print front only; quantity 30,000 The kit and insert sheets would print 4-color. Have I forgotten anything? No bleeds. THANKS! (Mr. Babbs, you might want to set up a lemonade stand on Sherman to pay for this!!!!!) Suellen 5. Vann, APR Director of Communications Little Rock School District (501) 324-2020 167 LESLEY, BONNIE A,From: LEASE, KATHY R. W,Sent: To: Thursday, January 18, 2001 6:06 PM BABBS, JUNIOUS Subject: RE: Seciion 2 Thanks for the input! We have been with the program evaluation consultant all day, so I just finished editing the report to send to Bonnie. I will incorporate your changes and suggestions, and send it to her again. Do you want the Power Point as an Appendix or the outline for it incorporated into the body of the report? I'm so sorry I am just getting around to my email, but I'll take the heat for sending another correction. Not enough hours in the day!! Kathy PS--Thanks for the encouragement! ----Original Message----- From: BABBS, JUNIOUS Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 10:53 AM To: LEASE, KATHY R. Cc: GADBERRY, BRADY L. Subject: FW: Section 2 Good information. Working with timelines and specific report information submissions for this division, I have not been able to dissect in great detail but my original thinking touches upon 2 - 3 items that may warrant some review. You will note that Brady is also being forwarded who can provide his thinking as well. Future compliance sessions will toss this about for further revision. 1. Inclusion of the power point presentation. 2. When touching upon Or. Ross - It may be advantageous to refer to \"looks to build or acknowledges\" specific district A.efforts as opposed to \"praising\". W,3. It would be appropriate to list current data that is available. Be reminded that when writing materials for our report submission, we wi ll include \"districtwide\" not be there yet but this will help to serve as an indicator of established base Ine information from which we will jump off of. - Keep your ch in up . . Junious C Babbs, Jr jcbabbs@stuasn.lrsd.kl2.ar.us Little Rock School District --Original Message- From: LEASE, KATHY R. Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 6:14 PM To: LESLEY, BONNIE Cc: BABBS, JUNIOUS; DILLINGHAM, YVETTE; HUFFMAN, MAC; JOHNSON, VIRGINIA; McCOY, EDDIE; SUMMERVILLE, ROSALYN P.; TRUETT, IRMA; WILLIAMS, ED Subject: Section 2  File: Deseg Report (2. 7.1 ).doc  Bonnie, Here is the first draft of Section 2.7.1. Please let me know what additions or revisions you want made. Thanks, Kathy PS--PRE folks--Look to see what I left out, what typos I have, and what needs to be edited. Thanks 12 Chris, I am in LR this week-end and you can reach me at 868-4289. I can come to your office to help, or I can work from my office. Call if you need me. - Are we having fun yet? Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District  3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/ 324-2131 501/ 324-0567 (fax) LESLEY, BONNIE From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: To: Monday, July 02, 2001 8: 16 AM BRIGGS, MONA R. Subject: RE: Thank you, my friend. I \"vegged\" all week-end, seriously \"vegged.\" I know this will be a HARD week. Yes, I hear Kathy is on his witness list It'll be interesting. --Original Message- F rom: BRIGGS, MONA R. Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 6:53 AM To: LESLEY, BONNIE Subject: RE: I have been thinking a lot about you. You can't let this bring on a stroke or something. You don't need this kind of pressure all by your self!! It is not worth it-no job is worth it . And you can't take on the woes of a district that has been screwing up for a decade or more. I hope Kathy does get called to testify. She needs to have to answer to John Walker and if it bodes ill for the district so be it! She and Carnine just waltzes out of here and leaves everyone else holding the rope. You make time for sleep and food!! Mona R. Br iggs Middle Level Specialist Little Rock School District 501-324- 2412 \"Seek rirst to Unders tand; then to be understood\" (Covey) - - - --Original Message--- -- - From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent : Friday, June 29, 2001 7:55 AM To: BRIGGS, MONA R. 191 STEWARr;oo~ALD M~ . From: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 12:23 PM To: LESLEY, BONNIE Cc: BABBS, JUNIOUS; Mitchell, Sadie; GADBERRY, BRADY L.; STEWART, DONALD M. Subject: Upper Division Classes and African Americans Were you able to pull together the numbers--last year and this year's enrollment? John Walker also has called and is questioning his non involvement in the policy development(IKF). I told him I thought the evidence was so strong for Black kids and that I would send him the information . When was the first time he would have received the policy for comment? He is raising much the same issue--impact on black kids as Katherine ... lKF Cc: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE; CARNINE, LESLIE V. RE: Chart Revisions Ken, Thanks so much for this explanation of what happened. The important thing about making a mistake is finding a way not to make it again. I think you have done this, and we will all profit from it. I know you feel really badly about this, but the most important thing is to correct the process. We all make mistakes. We are committed to quality in PRE and that includes continuous improvement and continuous learning. This experience has provided us with both. What a bonus!! Thanks for helping with the corrections. I will take care of getting them to the appropriate Cabinet people and getting them redistributed to the Board. - OriginalMessage- From: SAVAGE, KEN Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 10:31 AM To: LEASE, KATHY R. Subject: Chart Revisions Dr Lease, I have reviewed the charts that I created from the benchmark data. When I created the charts originally I had encountered a problem similar to the one described by Dr. Lesley, but I specifically remember correcting the error prior to sending the charts to you. Needless to say, I was more than a little alarmed that the charts you received contained errors because the charts I have appear to coincide with the data I have. I went on further to investigate by looking at the email I sent you. And there, big as day, the error had reappeared. So the charts I had sent you were incorrect because they were never updated in the manner that I expected. Here is what I believe happened based on what I remember and what I learned th is morning: I created the charts in an Excel document that contained the data. I copied the charts only out into another document, creating what is called a linked object. I printed and reviewed the charts and this is when I found the error. I corrected the error and reopened the \"linked\" charts. They appear to have accepted the corrections. I emailed the file with the linked charts to you rather than the file containing the charts and data. Here's where the problem arose and information that I have just become aware of this morning.  First, when using linked objects, each time you open the file you are given a choice to update the information. Unfortunately, I only sent you the charts and not the data that drives them. So regard less, you could not have updated the charts.  Second, and more importantly, even though a chart has been updated previously, it will always revert back to the original chart that was corrected no matter how many times the data has been updated. Third, if the file with the original data is already open, when the \"linked\" item is opened it automatically updates without intervention. I believe that the second option above is what occurred. The charts were created, an error was encountered and corrected, the link was updated but the chart reverted back to its original when the file was closed. What I propose to do to prevent th is kind of fiasco in the future is: 1. Only send charts embedded in files which contain the data--no linking. 2. Only create the \"linked\" charts after ALL data has been proofed and corrected. \" The erroneous data was only last year's data for black students in the comparison between this year and last'year for both) Math and Literacy. I am printing and will send ten revised copies of the charts. Ken. 38 LESLEY, BONNIE From: LEASE, KATHY R. Sent: To: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 12:44 PM BABBS, JUNIOLJS - Subject: RE: Research Committee Meeting Bonnie said that the evaluations weren't part of the court submission. Is that still correct? If so, then it looks like we shou ld slow down a bit and do it ngm. Are you In agreement? ._ KL  -----Original Message----- From: BABBS, JUNIOUS Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 12:36 PM To: LEASE, KATHY R. Subject: RE: Research Committee Meeting Original thinking was to get another date scheduled prior to the March 15th court submission but with information you have noted, consideration of a later date is necessary. I don't see major conflict. Junious C Babbs, Jr jcbabbs@stuasn.lrsd.kl2.ar.us Little Rock School District -Original Message- From: LEASE, KATHY R. Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 12:27 PM To: 'trrose@ualr.edu'; BABBS, JUNIOUS Subject: Research Committee Meeting Importance: High We have had another committee member who will not be able to come to the meeting on the 13th. We now have agenda meeting at 5:00, and Steve can only be with us by phone. What do you all think about postponing the meeting until after spring break? That would give John plenty of time to make revisions, and we can schedule a meeting when Steve can be with us. I hope to have the template/program evaluation guidelines completed by then as well. Let me know what you think! Kathy Kathy Lease, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, AR 72206 501-324-2122 (VM) 501-324-2126 (Fax) krlease@irc.lrsd. kl2.a r. us 7 LESLEY, BONNIE From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 7:2'1 PM To: MITCHELL, SADIE Subject: RE: Documents yes, thanks. I need asap. - Original Message- From: MITCHELL, SADIE Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 5:51 PM To: LESLEY, BONNIE Cc: WASHINGTON, CHARLOTTE Subject: Documents We got the list of documents on file done but I forgot to remind Charlotte to send it to you. She is gone for the day and it is on her computer. You will have it first th ing in the morning. Sadie Sadie Mitchell smmitch@lrsdadm.lrsd.kl2.a r. us LESLEY, BONNIE From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 7:24 PM A To: WARD, LIONEL W subject: RE: SAIP He requested info from me. I to ld him I had given him all I had but that you are the administrator on this issue. I was following up to see if he had contacted you. -Original Message- From: WARD, LIONEL Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 4:29 PM To: LESLEY, BONNIE Subject: RE: SAIP Are you trying to tell me something? I have not received any such request from Mr. Walker. If he talks with me, I will talk to you about a proper response first. One basic problem with implementation is in the thought some might harbor which explains why their efforts started late in the game. I am sure some folks faced more struggles than others. Clearly, schools must satisfy the requ irements with wise, careful and timely deliberations this year. ( -----------O- riginal MeSSoge--- ' From: LESlc--Y, BONNIE Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2001 3:49 PM To: WARD, UONEL Subject: SAIP - Lionel, has Mr. Walker requ ested anything from you about the implementation of SAIPs? If so, what did you send to him? Thanks. v- Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 88 501/324-0567 (fax) - LESLEY, BONNIE From: LESLEY, BONNIE . Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 8: 16 AM To: JAMES, KENNETH Subj ect: RE: Work in Progress Absolutely! -Original Message- From: JAMES, KENNETH Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 7:54 AM To: LESLEY, BONNIE Subject: RE: Work in Progress Bonnie: I agree. The work and time that you have invested in this will indeed pay off, as the testimony unfolds. It will be interesting to see how the judge handles all of this information and to observe her thought process. Ken ---Original Message----- From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent : Sunday, July 15, 2001 9:\u003cl.2 PM To: JAMES, KENNETH Subject: RE: Work in Progress When I left today, I left a lot still un-done, but I left feeling more and more certain that we have strong evidence that we did the plan. This is going to be helpful to me in remembering all the efforts-even if Chris decides not to use some of it as evidence. I think it will particularly be strong when we combine what Sadie has with ours in this Division. -Original Message- From: JAMES, KENNETH Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2001 9:34 PM To: LESLEY, BONNIE Subject: RE: Work in Progress Bonnie: I have reviewed both documents and they are excellent at showing what has been accomplished in the areas of evaluation and assessment. Great job! We will touch base tomorrow. Ken - --Original Message----- From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 6:24 PM To: 'heller@fec.net'; JAMES, KENNETH; MITCHELL, SADIE .. Subject: Work in Progress I've worked today on getting the ideas laid out about assessment/program evaluation. That includes collecting and organizing stacks of paper that document our work and processes. In addition, please see the attached documents to determine if this is where we want to go. I welcome your feedback.  File: 1 Program Evaluation.doc \u003e\u003e  File: 1 Assessment Grid.doc  96 Uttle Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/ 324-0567 (fax) LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE Sunday, July 15, 2001 3:41 PM 'heller@fec.net' JAMES, KENNETH SAIPs Mr. Walker requested on June 20 the follow: \"Please advise whether you have information regarding the District's implementation of STudent Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP} as required by the State. If so, please share with this this office.\" I replied: \"You will find that information in the March 2001 Compliance Report in Section 2.7. I do not have any information beyond what you will find there since the implementation is done at the school level. Leonel Ward is in charge of implementation.\" When I searched everything for the documents I needed from you, I found several memos in Learn ing Links that I had fo rgotten about--about the philosophy in implementing SAIP, sample SAIPs done by Price, Glasgow, and Davis, the memo establishing the committee to develop the program, the memo to the board, etc. Should I forward those to Mr. Walker as well? . Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 6 501;324-2131 W 501/324-0567 (fax) LESLEY, BONNIE From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 6:24 PM To: Subject: 'heller@fec.net'; JAMES, KENNETH; MITCHELL, SADIE Work in Progress I've worked today on getting the ideas laid out about assessmenUprogram evaluation. That includes coJlecting and organizing stacks of paper that document our work and processes. In addition, please see the attached documents to determine if this is where we want to go. I welcome your feedback. 1 Program E.va!uation.ooc 1 Assessment Grid.doc Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School -District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/ 324-2131 - 0l/ 324-0S67 (fax) 102 LESLEY, BONNIE A From: W sent: To: Cc: Subject: Don Crary [dcrary@newfuturesforyouth.org] Wednesday, April 18, 2001 1 :33 PM LESLEY, BONNIE mopierce@newfuturesforyouth.org Re: Computer with Access Great. We can pay for it. I'm sure it will be cheaper if it is purchased through the'district contract. The district can invoice us and we will reimburse them for the cost. Don -----Original Message--- From: LESLEY, BONNIE \u003cBALESLE@IRC.LRSD.K12.AR.US\u003e To: 'dcrary@newfuturesforyouth.org' \u003cdcrary@newfutu resforyouth .org\u003e Cc: BRIGGS, MONA R. \u003cMRBRIGG@ANNEX.LRSD.K12.AR.US\u003e; PAAL, MARY M. \u003cMMPAAL@ANNEX.LRSD.K12.AR.US\u003e Date: 04/18/2001 12:50 PM Subject: Computer with Access \u003eI talked with Mona about your need for a dedicated computer somewhere in the \u003edistrict so that your evaluator can come work on direct access to the data \u003ebase. She is arranging for an additional computer drop in the office that \u003eMary Paal will have at Garland. Can you all purchase the computer out of \u003eyour budget? \u003e - Dr. Bonnie A Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction \u003eLittle Rock School District \u003e3001 S. Pulaski \u003eLittle Rock, Arkansas 72206 \u003e501 /324-2131 \u003e501 /324-0567 (fax) \u003e \u003e LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Bonnie, LEASE, KATHY R. Wednesday, April 18, 200112: 32 PM LESLEY, BONNIE MITCHELL, SADIE; CAWTHON, FRANCES H. ; LACEY, MARIAN G. RE: ALT Results What group of principals did you meet with yesterday? Do I need to contact them? I explained to all of them when we did the testing calendar that we could get results back to everyone before school was out, if they followed the schedule. If there are some that we need to follow up with, please let me know who they are. We are returning ALT results as quickly as schools get them in. The whole purpose of setting up the schedule like it is centers around being able to get the results back to everyone before school is out. District results can't be calculated until all schools are in. That is why it is imperative that everyone stay on schedule. Both teachers and parents will get their results unless someone doesn't follow the schedule. A Second grade results have all been returned to the schools, along with two copies of the parent report. W High school preliminary results have been returned to Parkview and Fair. McClellan's results are here and are being scored. Central and Hall have not turned in their answer sheets yet. All make-ups were to have been completed by this past Monday. Retests for high schools are due back on Friday. The first page of the parent report can be printed, but we can't print the longitudinal report for parents unless all high schools are in. 708 Our elementary schools did a great job during 2nd grade testing; so if they keep that up, we will sail right through their scoring and printing. They have all of their results. We're still missing two of the middle schools' Algebra I / geometry resu lts as of this morning. We are having a scoring M robiem with the high school science tests, but NWEA is working on it. The subject specific math and science tests w equire no retests, so that shouldn't hold things up. Also, we have provided data on request any school who wants to know last fall's ALT scores for their rising grade students. If you have any other questions, please let me know. Kathy -----Original Message----- From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 10:37 AM To: LEASE, KATHY R. Subject: ALT Results I met with a group of principals yesterday who suggested to me that if they can't receive their ALT results before school is out that there is no use in sending them at all. Kids and parents need them quickly, and the school needs them quickly in order to plan for next school year. What our your chances of being able to do that? Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) LESLEY, BONNIE From: .aient: w o: Subject: ~ ~ Rose.doc Paulette Mabry [pmabry@newfuturesforyouth.org] Wednesday, April 18, 2001 10:59 AM Bonnie Lesley; Brady Gadberry; Junious Babbs; Linda Austin; Marian G. Lacey; Sadie Mitchell Words to encourage us Thought you might enjoy this today as a way to jumpstart the afternoon when things seem impossible. Paulette LESLEY, BONNIE From: Sent: To: Subject: Importance: BRIGGS, MONA R. Wednesday, April 18, 2001 10:10 AM LESLEY, BONNIE Cost of Tools for Learn ing (Fred Jones); Parent Component High The discounted costs of books is: 500 books @-$18.00 (regula rly priced at 29.95) 300-499@ $18.50 200-299@ $18.95  0-199@ $19.95 Shipping for 500 is $546.75; it may be slightly less for fewer numbers but not significantly. RE: Parent involvement with train ing 709 From: LESLEY, BONNIE Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 9:44 AM To: TRUETT, IRMA Subject: Benchmark Scores I need copies of the state test results by school in my office asap. Board members and others are calling for information. Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/.324-0567 (fax) GADBERRY, BRADY L. From: Sent: To: Subject: Bonnie, LEASE, KATHY R. Wednesday, October 25, 2000 8:17 PM LESLEY, BONNIE Benchmark Scores Irma forwarded your messages to her about the test scores. As I told you when we met with Suellen, I would have your curriculum copies ready by Friday. They are ready now. After learning that you were insistent on having the scores immediately, I s "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_980","title":"Discipline: ''Analysis of Disciplinary Actions, District Level,'' North Little Rock School District, 2 copies","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":["2002/2003"],"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","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School discipline"],"dcterms_title":["Discipline: ''Analysis of Disciplinary Actions, District Level,'' North Little Rock School District, 2 copies"],"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/980"],"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\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nNORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ANALYSIS OF DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS District Level FRAN CI CAL J. JACKSON Director of Student Affairs ' ) uu.l mcEoF OESEGREMmilOnKo RGI Ref: Date: Time: DIS032 9/16/03 13: 38: 18 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions DISTRICT LEVEL From AUGUST Through JUNE ---================================---------------------------------------==---- 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 --===================-==============-------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------=-------------------------=====---=-----------==========------====------- 09 S.A.C. 1276 55.2% 574 24.8% 354 15.3% 107 4.6% 2311 566 322 205 68 1161 10 HOME SUSP. 692 66.6% 234 22.5% 92 8.9% 21 2.0% 1039 370 135 68 11 584 11 BOYS CLUB 210 59.0% 83 23.3% 52 14.6% 11 3.1% 356 135 55 39 11 240 12 E.I.C. 342 56.8% 164 27.2% 67 11.1% 29 4.8% 602 172 84 46 19 321 17 EXPULSION 1 25.0% 0 .0% 2 50.0% 1 25.0% 4 1 0 2 1 4 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 1903 52.3% 1050 28.9% 513 14.1% 172 4.7% 3638 632 421 233 109 1395 10 HOME SUSP. 522 66.0% 193 24.4% 63 8.0% 13 1. 6% 791 280 121 49 11 461 11 BOYS CLUB 244 55.6% 86 19.6% 84 19.1% 25 5. 7% 439 151 56 66 20 293 12 E.I.C. 252 61. 2% 97 23.5% 52 12.6% 11 2.7% 412 130 52 36 10 228 17 EXPULSION 2 40.0% 0 .0% 3 60.0% 0 .0% 5 2 0 3 0 5 COMPARISON -----BM------ -. ---BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 627 49.1 % 476 82.9 % 159 44.9 % 65 60.7 % 1327 66 99 28 41 234 10 HOME SUSP. 170- 24.6-% 41- 17.5-% 29- 31. 5-% 8- 38.1-% 248- 90- 14- 19- 0 123- 11 BOYS CLUB 34 16.2 % 3 3.6 % 32 61. 5 % 14 127.3 % 83 16 1 27 9 53 12 E.I.C. 90- 26.3-% 67- 40.9-% 15- 22.4-% 18- 62.1-% 190- 42- 32- 10- 9- 93- 17 EXPULSION 1 100.0 % 0 . 0 % 1 50.0 % 1- 100.0-% 1 1 0 1 1- 1 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032 9/16/03 13:38:19 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions ELEMENTARYK -5 From AUGUST Through JUNE 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 4 80.0% 1 20.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 5 4 1 0 0 5 10 HOME SUSP. 335 68.5% 105 21. 5% 42 8.6% 7 1. 4% 489 186 64 28 3 281 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 341 56. 7% 164 27.3% 67 11.1% 29 4.8% 601 171 84 46 19 320 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU --------------------------------------------------------------================== 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 401 74. 7% 93 17.3% 41 7.6% 2 .4% 537 198 53 31 2 284 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 252 61.2% 97 23.5% 52 12.6% 11 2. 7% 412 130 52 36 10 228 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 ----------------------------------------=-=-==================================== COMPARISON -----------------------------------------=----====-============================= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 4- 100.0-% 1- 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 5- 4- 1- 0 0 5- 10 HOME SUSP. 66 19.7 % 12- 11. 4-% 1- 2.4-% 5- 71. 4-% 48 12 11- 3 1- 3 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 89- 26.1-% 67- 40.9-% 15- 22.4-% 18- 62.1-% 189- 41- 32- 10- 9- 92- 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: Date: Time: DIS032 9/16/03 13:38:19 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions MIDDLE SCHOOLS From AUGUST Through JUNE ===---==========================------------------------------------------------ 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 ==-===========================-------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU =-=========================----------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 688 55.2% 342 27.4% 182 14.6% 34 2. 7% 1246 319 193 108 25 645 10 HOME SUSP. 205 62. 9% 94 28.8% 22 6. 7% 5 1.5% 326 102 52 17 4 175 11 BOYS CLUB 125 53.9% 66 28.4% 33 14.2% 8 3.4% 232 73 42 26 8 149 12 E.I.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 33.3% 0 .0% 1 33.3% 1 33.3% 3 1 0 1 1 3 ==========================------------------------------------------------------ 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 1296 52.4% 742 30.0% 327 13.2% 107 4.3% 2472 369 267 119 63 818 10 HOME SUSP. 33 47.1% 31 44.3% 5 7.1% 1 1. 4% 70 29 25 4 1 59 11 BOYS CLUB 165 55.6% 60 20.2% 54 18.2% 18 6.1% 297 92 35 38 13 178 12 E. I .C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 1 0 0 0 1 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU 09 S.A.C. 608 88.4 % 400 117.0 % 145 79. 7 % 73 214.7 % 1226 50 74 11 38 173 10 HOME SUSP. 172- 83.9-% 63- 67.0-% 17- 77.3-% 4- 80.0-% 256- 73- 27- 13- 3- 116- 11 BOYS CLUB 40 32.0 % 6- 9.1-% 21 63.6 % 10 125.0 % 65 19 7- 12 5 29 12 E.I.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 1- 100.0-% 1- 100.0-% 2- 0 0 1- 1- 2- Ref: Date: Time: DIS032 9/16/03 13:38:19 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions HIGH SCHOOLS From AUGUST Through JUNE =------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ================================---------------------========-=----------------- 09 S.A.C. 584 55.1% 231 21.8% 172 16.2% 73 6.9% 1060 243 128 98 43 512 10 HOME SUSP. 152 67.9% 35 15.6% 28 12.5% 9 4.0% 224 82 19 23 4 128 11 BOYS CLUB 85 68.5% 17 13. 7% 19 15.3% 3 2.4% 124 62 13 13 3 91 12 E.I.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 100.0% 0 .0% 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 607 52.1% 308 26.4% 186 16.0% 65 5. 6% 1166 263 154 114 46 577 10 HOME SUSP. 88 47.8% 69 37.5% 17 9.2% 10 5.4% 184 53 43 14 8 118 11 BOYS CLUB 79 55.6% 26 18.3% 30 21.1% 7 4.9% 142 59 21 28 7 115 12 E.I.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 25.0% 0 .0% 3 75.0% 0 .0% 4 1 0 3 0 4 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 23 3.9 % 77 33.3 % 14 8.1 % 8- 11. 0-% 106 20 26 16 3 65 10 HOME SUSP. 64- 42.1-% 34 97 .1 % 11- 39.3-% 1 11.1 % 40- 29- 24 9- 4 10- 11 BOYS CLUB 6- 7.1-% 9 52.9 % 11 57.9 % 4 133.3 % 18 3- 8 15 4 24 12 E.I.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 100.0 % 0 .0 % 2 200.0 % 0 . 0 % 3 1 0 2 0 3 Ref: DIS032S Date: 7/14/03 Time : 10 : 0 8 : 4 9 School: 012 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E.I.C. 17 EXPULSION Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE NORTH LITTLE ROCK HIGH SCHOOL - 11/12 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU 148 47.9% 80 25.9% 62 20.1% 94 53 43 4 33.3% 2 16.7% 6 50.0% 4 2 6 28 62.2% 7 15. 6% 9 20.0% 25 6 8 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 -------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU 09 S.A.C. 190 54.6% 65 18.7% 73 21.0% 108 51 53 10 HOME SUSP. 3 27.3% 3 27.3% 4 36.4% 3 3 4 11 BOYS CLUB 16 59.3% 2 7.4% 7 25.9% 14 2 6 12 E.I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION t .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% f 0 0 -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 19 6.1% 13 0 .0% 0 1 2.2% 1 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 309 203 12 12 45 40 0 0 0 0 ----------------- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 20 5.7% 348 16 228 1 9.1% 11 1 11 2 7.4% 27 2 24 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 .0% 0 0 0 -----------------=-------------=--============================================== COMPARISON -----------------------------------============================================= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU 09 S.A.C. 42 28.4 % 15- 18.8-% 11 17.7 % 1 5.3 % 39 14 2- 10 3 25 10 HOME SUSP. 1- 25.0-% 1 50.0 % 2- 33.3-% 1 100.0 % 1- 1- 1 2- 1 1- 11 BOYS CLUB 12- 42.9-% 5- 71. 4-% 2- 22.2-% 1 100.0 % 18- 11- 4- 2- 1 16- 12 E.I.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .o % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .o % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 7/14/03 Time: 10:08:50 School: 013 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE NORTH LITTLE ROCK HIGH SCHOOL - 09/10 ======================================================-------------------------- 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU ====-=-===-================----------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 433 57.9% 151 20.2% 110 14. 7% 54 7.2% 748 149 76 55 30 310 10 HOME SUSP. 29 76.3% 1 2.6% 8 21.1% 0 .0% 38 24 1 8 0 33 11 BOYS CLUB 57 72.2% 10 12.7% 10 12.7% 2 2.5% 79 38 7 5 2 52 12 E. I .C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 100.0% 0 .0% 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 416 51.1% 242 29. 7% 111 13.6% 45 5.5% 814 156 103 59 30 348 10 HOME SUSP. 11 39.3% 13 46.4% 2 7.1% 2 7.1% 28 10 11 2 2 25 11 BOYS CLUB 63 54.3% 24 20. 7% 24 20. 7% 5 4.3% 116 45 19 23 5 92 12 E.I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 :\n0 0 0 0 --------- COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU 09 S.A.C. 17- 3.9-% 91 60.3 % 1 . 9 % 9- 16.7-% 66 7 27 4 0 38 10 HOME SUSP. 18- 62.1-% 12 1200.0 % 6- 75.0-% 2 200.0 % 10- 14- 10 6- 2 8- 11 BOYS CLUB 6 10.5 % 14 140.0 % 14 140.0 % 3 150.0 % 37 7 12 18 3 40 12 E.I.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 1- 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 1- 0 0 1- 0 1- Ref: DIS032S Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Date: 7/14/03 by School Time: 10:08:50 From AUGUST Through JUNE School: 020 ARGENTA ACADEMY 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU ===========================----------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 224 66. 7% 81 24.1% 20 6.0% 11 3.3% 336 87 33 12 5 137 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 ==========================----------------------------------------------------- 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 =--=--==================-------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU 09 S.A.C. 1 33.3% 1 33.3% 1 33.3% 0 .0% 3 1 1 1 0 3 10 HOME SUSP. 76 51.7% 53 36 .1% 11 7.5% 7 4.8% 147 42 32 8 5 87 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON - --- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 1 100.0 % 1 100.0 % 1 100.0 % 0 . 0 % 3 1 1 1 0 3 10 HOME SUSP. 148- 66.1-% 28- 34.6-% 9- 45.0-% 4- 36.4-% 189- 45- 1- 4- 0 50- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .o % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .o % 0 0 0 0 0 0 N __, 0 0 0 ...  '\"d 0 ti:, 0 ~ ' 00 __, z 0 ...... ::r ..-.... ,. :,:I 0 (\u0026gt; :,\n--  :,:I __, N '\"\"' '\"\"' \\J1 0 ' _00_ , \\J1 0 00 0 0 0 The  Choice North Little Rock School District RECEIVED MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: CC: DATE: RE: Margie Powell, Associate Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring Francical J. Jackson, Director Office of Student Affairs Bobby J. Acklin, Assistant Superintendent Office of Desegregation Monitoring September 25, 2003 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 2002-2003 SEP2 9 2003 OFFIOCFE DESEGREGMAOTNIIOTNO RING Enclosed you will find a copy of the 2002-2003 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions report. Per our phone conference on Thursday, September 25, 2003, the report contains the following errors: School - 012 - North Little Rock High School -11112 Should reflect one (I) black male expelled . School - 013 - North Little Rock High School - 09/10 Should reflect three (3) non-black males expelled. School - 025 - Lakewood Middle School - 718 Should reflect one (I) black male expelled. Ridgeroad Middle Charter School The school is being reviewed to insure accuracy due to the large increase in suspensions in SAC (Student Assignment Class). A copy of the revised report will be forwarded to you.  An Equal Opportunity Employer www.nlrsd.k12.ar.us Ref: DIS032S Date: 7/14/03 Time: 10:08:50 School: 024 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE RIDGEROADM IDDLE SCHOOL 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU ------------===================------------------===--==------------------------ 09 S.A.C. 318 59.2% 123 22.9% 84 15.6% 12 2.2% 537 127 66 46 8 247 10 HOME SUSP. 64 75.3% 13 15.3% 6 7.1% 2 2.4% 85 42 10 6 2 60 11 BOYS CLUB 97 63.4% 39 25.5% 13 8.5% 4 2. 6% 153 50 21 9 4 84 12 E.I.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 764 53.4% 465 32.5% 161 11. 3% 40 2.8% 1430 155 116 37 22 330 10 HOME SUSP. 10 27.0% 23 62.2% 3 8.1% 1 2.7% 37 10 19 2 1 32 11 BOYS CLUB 2 33.3% 1 16.7% 1 16. 7% 2 33.3% 6 2 1 1 2 6 12 E.I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU 09 S.A.C. 446 140.3 % 342 278.0 % 77 91. 7 % 28 233.3 % 893 28 50 9- 14 83 10 HOME SUSP. 54- 84.4-% 10 76.9 % 3- 50.0-% 1- 50.0-% 48- 32- 9 4- 1- 28- 11 BOYS CLUB 95- 97.9-% 38- 97.4-% 12- 92. 3-% 2- 50.0-% 147- 48- 20- 8- 2- 78- 12 E.I.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .o % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 1L 'i ~1 Ref: DIS032S Date: 7 /14/03 Time: 10:08:50 School: 025 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE LAKEWOOMD IDDLES CHOOL 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU 09 S.A.C. 110 45.3% 66 27.2% 53 21. 8% 14 5.8% 58 39 33 11 10 HOME SUSP. 2 66. 7% 1 33.3% 0 .0% 0 .0% 2 1 0 0 11 BOYS CLUB 11 29. 7% 14 37.8% 10 27.0% 2 5.4% 10 10 9 2 12 E. I.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 .0% 1 .0% 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 33.3% 0 .0% 1 33.3% 1 33.3% 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU 09 S.A.C. 146 42.3% 72 20.9% 95 27.5% 32 9.3% 66 41 50 21 10 HOME SUSP. 2 66. 7% 0 .0% 1 33.3% 0 .0% 2 0 1 0 11 BOYS CLUB 51 51.0% 20 20.0% 26 26.0% 3 3.0% 25 9 22 2 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% f 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF---'-- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU 243 141 3 3 37 31 0 0 3 3 345 178 3 3 100 58 0 0 0 0 ------------------------------------------------===-============================ 09 S.A.C. 36 32.7 % 6 9.1 % 42 79.2 % 18 128.6 % 102 8 2 17 10 37 10 HOME SUSP. 0 .0 % 1- 100.0-% 1 100.0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 1- 1 0 0 11 BOYS CLUB 40 363.6 % 6 42.9 % 16 160.0 % 1 50.0 % 63 15 1- 13 0 27 12 E.I.C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1- 100.0-% 0 .o % 1- 100.0-% 1- 100.0-% 3- 1- 0 1- 1- 3- Ref: DIS032S Date: 7/14/03 Time : 10 : 0 8 : 5 0 School: 026 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE ROSE CITY MIDDLE SCHOOL 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU =============================================-==---=---------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 90 48.4% 70 37.6% 23 12.4% 3 1. 6% 186 53 41 15 2 111 10 HOME SUSP. 7 33.3% 10 47.6% 4 19.0% 0 .0% 21 7 10 3 0 20 11 BOYS CLUB 14 40.0% 10 28.6% 9 25. 7% 2 5.7% 35 11 8 7 2 28 12 E.I.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------- ------ 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU 09 S.A.C. 65 60.2% 28 25.9% 6 5.6% 9 8.3% 108 43 23 3 4 73 10 HOME SUSP. 0 .0% 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 0 1 0 0 1 11 BOYS CLUB 33 68.8% 3 6.3% 7 14.6% 5 10.4% 48 23 2 5 4 34 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 25- 27.8-% 42- 60.0-% 17- 73.9-% 6 200.0 % 78- 10- 18- 12- 2 38- 10 HOME SUSP. 7- 100.0-% 9- 90.0-% 4- 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 20- 7- 9- 3- 0 19- 11 BOYS CLUB 19 135.7 % 7- 70.0-% 2- 22.2-% 3 150.0 % 13 12 6- 2- 2 6 12 E.I.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 7 /14 /03 Time: 10:08:51 School: 027 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE ROSE CITY MIDDLE LEVEL ACADEMY =-=================================-------------------------------------------- 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU =-----------------------===-===================------=-------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT /TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU 09 S.A.C. 3 75.0% 0 .0% 1 25.0% 0 .0% 4 3 0 1 0 4 10 HOME SUSP. 5 41. 7% 7 58.3% 0 .0% 0 .0% 12 3 5 0 0 8 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 1 0 0 0 1 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU 09 S.A.C. 3 300.0 % 0 .0 % 1 100.0 % 0 .o % 4 3 0 1 0 4 10 HOME SUSP. 5 500.0 % 7 700.0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 12 3 5 0 0 8 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 0 .o % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 1 100.0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 1 1 0 0 0 1 Ref: DIS032S Date: 7 /14/03 Time: 10:08:51 School: 030 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE POPLAR STREET MIDDLE SCHOOL - ------------------------------------------------------ 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ======-=====================---------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 173 61.1% 83 29.3% 22 7.8% 5 1.8% 283 88 50 15 4 157 10 HOME SUSP. 27 49.1% 21 38.2% 6 10.9% 1 1.8% 55 20 16 5 1 42 11 BOYS CLUB 3 42.9% 3 42.9% 1 14.3% 0 .0% 7 3 3 1 0 7 12 E.I.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 318 54.3% 177 30.2% 65 11.1% 26 4.4% 586 110 91 30 16 247 10 HOME SUSP. 14 93.3% 0 .0% 1 6. 7% 0 .0% 15 12 0 1 0 13 11 BOYS CLUB 79 55.2% 36 25.2% 20 14.0% 8 5.6% 143 42 23 11 5 81 12 E.I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 145 83.8 % 94 113.3 % 43 195.5 % 21 420.0 % 303 22 41 15 12 90 10 HOME SUSP. 13- 48.1-% 21- 100.0-% 5- 83.3-% 1- 100.0-% 40- 8- 16- 4- 1- 29- 11 BOYS CLUB 76 2533.3 % 33 1100.0 % 19 1900.0 % 8 800.0 % 136 39 20 10 5 74 12 E.I.C. 0 .o % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 7 /14 /03 T irne : 10 : 0 8 : 51 School: 031 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE AMBOYE LEMENTARYSC HOOL ======-~-=====================------=------------------------------------------- 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 ===================================================----=------------------------ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ===--===-===============================-----=--------==-----------------------= 09 S.A.C. 4 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 4 4 0 0 0 4 10 HOME SUSP. 78 71. 6% 24 22.0% 7 6.4% 0 .0% 109 39 12 4 0 55 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 33 56.9% 14 24.1% 0 19.0% 0 .0% 58 21 11 9 0 41 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 ----. BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------- --------------------- - --------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 36 67.9% 7 13.2% 10 18.9% 0 .0% 53 25 4 6 0 35 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 . 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C 42 71.2% 5 8.5% 8 13.6% 4 6.8% 59 23 5 6 4 38 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ------------ 09 S.A.C. 4- 100.0-% 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .o % 4- 4- 0 0 0 4- 10 HOME SUSP. 42- 53.8-% 17- 70.8-% 3 42.9 % 0 .0 % 56- 14- 8- 2 0 20- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 9 .0 % 9- . 0 % 3- . 0 % 4 .0 % 1 0 1- 3- 4 3- 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 7 /14 /03 Time: 10:08:51 School: 032 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE LAKEWOODE LEMENTARYS CHOOL ==-========================-==-=------------------------------------------------ 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 ==-====================================------------------------------------===-- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU =-======================================--------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 3 37.5% 5 62.5% 0 .0% 0 . 0% 8 2 3 0 0 5 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 =======================---=--------=-====--------------------------------------- 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 ===============================================--------------------------------- -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU --------------------.----------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 3 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 3 3 0 0 0 3 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ------------------------ -- - -- ---------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 0 .0 % 5- 100.0-% 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 5- 1 3- 0 0 2- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .o % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 7 /14/03 Time: 10:08:51 School: 033 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE BOONE PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL =------------------========================---=--------------------------------- 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 ==--===================================----------------------------------------- -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU =------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 90 67.2% 35 2,6.1% 4 3.0% 5 3. 7% 134 39 18 2 1 60 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 77 63.1% 38 31.1% 0 .8% 0 4.9% 122 44 22 1 4 71 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 161 78.9% 38 18.6% 5 2.5% 0 .0% 204 57 17 3 0 77 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 71 78.9 % 3 8.6 % 1 25.0 % 5- 100. 0-% 70 18 1- 1 1- 17 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 77- .0 % 38- .o % 1- .0 % 6- .o % 122- 1- 1- 1- 6- 71- 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .o % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 7 /14/03 Time: 10:08:51 School: 035 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E.I.C. 17 EXPULSION 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E.I.C 17 EXPULSION Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE SEVENTH STREET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 16 94.1% 1 5.9% 0 .0% 10 1 0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 74 63.2% 37 31. 6% 0 1. 7% 40 21 2 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 22 91. 7% 2 8.3% 0 .0% 16 2 0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 58 75.3% 19 24.7% 0 .0% 30 11 0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 ------------------------------- COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU 09 S.A.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 6 37.5 % 1 100.0 % 0 . 0 % 6 1 0 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 16- .0 % 18- . 0 % 2- .0 % 0 0 2- 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .o % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 .0% 17 0 11 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 3.4% 117 4 67 0 .0% 0 0 0 -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 .0% 24 0 18 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 .0% 77 0 41 0 .0% 0 0 0 -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # STU - - -- 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 . 0 % 7 0 7 0 .0 % 0 0 0 4- .0 % 40- 4- 26- 0 .0 % 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 7 /14/03 Time: 10:08:51 School: 037 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE LYNCH DRIVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ======---======================================-===-----=----=------------------ 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 =========================================================================-----=~ -----BM------ -----BF------ # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 16 72. 7% 2 9.1% 14 2 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 12 E.I.C. 10 100. 0% 0 .0% 7 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 .0% 0 4 18.2% 1 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 0 22 17 0 0 10 7 0 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ---------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 12 70.6% 4 23.5% 1 5.9% 0 .0% 17 11 3 1 0 15 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 24 63.2% 12 31. 6% 1 2.6% 1 2.6% 38 15 8 1 1 25 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 -------------- COMPARISON ----------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ---------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 4- 25.0-% 2 100.0 % 3- 75.0-% 0 .0 % 5- 3- 1 0 0 2- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 14 .0 % 12 .o % 1 .0 % 1 . 0 % 28 1 12 1 1 18 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 7 /14/03 Time: 10:08:51 School: 040 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE MEADOWP ARK ELEMENTARYS CHOOL 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 -------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E. I.C. 17 EXPULSION -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 .0% 0 51 67.1% 26 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 -----BF------ -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 21 27.6% 4 5.3% 12 3 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 .0% 0 100.0% 0 2 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 0 76 41 0 0 2 2 0 0 ------------==-====-------=-----============----=---===-=-=-=================== 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 ------------============---=-================================================== -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU -----BF------ -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU ---------------------------------==-=-========================================== 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 28 70.0% 8 20.0% 4 10.0% 0 .0% 40 19 5 3 0 27 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON ------------------------------------=-------=--=-==--=-==-==============-------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -----------------------------------------------------===============------------ 09 S.A.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 23- 45.1-% 13- 61. 9-% 0 .o % 0 . 0 % 36- 7- 7- 0 0 14- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 2- . 0 % 0 .o % 2- 0 0 2- 0 2- 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 7 /14/03 Time: 10:08:51 School: 041 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE NORTH HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 ==-===================---------------------------------------------------------- -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU =------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E. I.C. 17 EXPULSION 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E.I.C 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 15 57.7% 2 7.7% 9 34.6% 13 2 7 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 110 52.6% 51 24.4% 0 16. 7% 38 14 20 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 .0% 0 10 52.6% 8 0 .0% 0 31 60.8% 15 0 .0% 0 -----BF------ -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 .0% 8 42.1% 0 6 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 2 3.9% 16 31. 4% 2 11 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 COMPARISON 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 6.2% 7 0 .0% 0 -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 .0% 0 1 5.3% 1 0 .0% 0 2 3.9% 2 0 .0% 0 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU 0 0 26 22 0 0 209 79 0 0 0 0 19 15 0 0 51 30 0 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 5- 33.3-% 2- 100.0-% 1- 11.1-% 1 100.0 % 7- 5- 2- 1- 1 7- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 79- .0 % 49- .o % 19- .0 % 11- . 0 % 158- 1- 1- 19- 11- 49- 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .o % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 7 /14/03 Time: 10:08:51 School: 042 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE CRESTWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 =============================================----==----=----------------------= -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 30 83.3% 5 13. 9% 0 .0% 1 2.8% 36 17 5 0 1 23 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 54 85.7% 7 11.1% 2 3.2% 0 .0% 63 17 5 2 0 24 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------======== COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU ------------------------------------ ------------ ------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .o % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 24 80.0 % 2 40.0 % 2 200.0 % 1- 100.0-% 27 0 0 2 1- 1 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .o % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .o % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 7/14/03 Time: 10:08:51 School: 043 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE PARK HILL ELEMENTARYS CHOOL ====-=--========================================================--------------== 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E.I.C. 17 EXPULSION 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E. I.C 17 EXPULSION 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 -----BM------ # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 .0% 0 10 66.7% 6 0 .0% 0 6 40.0% 6 0 .0% 0 -----BF------ -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 1 6.7% 4 26. 7% 1 4 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 1 6. 7% 0 46.7% 1 7 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT /TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 11 64.7% 1 5.9% 5 29.4% 8 1 5 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 3 60.0% 0 .0% 1 20.0% 3 0 1 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 6.7% 1 0 .0% 0 -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 1 20.0% 1 0 .0% 0 0 0 15 11 0 0 15 15 0 0 0 0 17 14 0 0 5 5 0 0 ------------------------------------------------====-=----=--------====~======== 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E.I.C. 17 EXPULSION COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----# REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 1 10.0 % 0 .0 % 1 25.0 % 0 . 0 % 2 0 1 0 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 3- .0 % 1- .0 % 6- .0 % 0 . 0 % 1- 1- 6- 0 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .o % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 10- 10- 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 7 /14 /03 Time: 10:08:51 School: 044 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE PIKE VIEW ELEMENTARYSC HOOL 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 ==============================================-==------------------------------ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ====-==-================-=-------=---------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 10 55.6% 6 33.3% 2 11.1% 0 .0% 18 8 5 2 0 15 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 31 53.4% 18 31.0% 0 8.6% 0 6.9% 58 18 11 3 2 34 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 19 48. 7% 19 48.7% 1 2.6% 0 .0% 39 12 13 1 0 26 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C 87 51.8% 59 35.1% 19 11. 3% 3 1.8% 168 40 26 14 2 82 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU 09 S.A.C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .o % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 9 90.0 % 13 216.7 % 1- 50.0-% 0 .0 % 21 4 8 1- 0 11 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 56 .0 % 41 .0 % 14 .o % 1- .0 % 110 2 2 14 1- 48 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 7/14/03 Time: 10:08:51 School: 045 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE BELWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ================================================--=-===-----=---------------== 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E. I.C. 17 EXPULSION 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----# REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 6 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 4 0 0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 -----NBF----# REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 .0% 0 0 0 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 7 77.8% 2 22.2% 0 .0% 0 .0% 9 2 1 0 0 3 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------=----=--==-=============--=-=========================== 09 S.A.C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .o % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 1 16.7 % 2 200.0 % 0 .0 % 0 .o % 3 2- 1 0 0 1- 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E. I.C. 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 7 /14 /03 Time: 10:08:51 School: 046 09 S.A.C. 10 HOME SUSP. 11 BOYS CLUB 12 E.I.C. 17 EXPULSION Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE GLENVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 9 60.0% 3 20.0% 3 20.0% 8 3 2 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # STU 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 .0% 15 0 13 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 .0% 0 0 0 --------------------------------------========================================== 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 ---------- - ------------------------ -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 31 81. 6% 4 10.5% 3 7.9% 0 .0% 38 23 2 2 0 27 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 --------------------------=---================================================== COMPARISON -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -----------------------------------------=-----===----================-==-==---- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 22 244.4 % 1 33.3 % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 23 15 1- 0 0 14 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .o % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 .o % 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ref: DIS032S Date: 7 /14/03 Time : 10 : 0 8 : 51 School: 048 Analysis of Disciplinary Actions by School From AUGUST Through JUNE INDIAN HILLS ELEMENTARYSC HOOL ===================================================-====------=---------------=- 2 0 0 1 - 0 2 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 1 100.0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 0 1 0 0 1 10 HOME SUSP. 1 14.3% 0 .0% 5 71.4% 1 14.3% 7 1 0 3 1 5 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 1 9.1% 5 45.5% 0 36.4% 0 9.1% 11 1 5 3 1 10 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 - 0 3 -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # REF PCT/TOT # STU # STU # STU # STU ---------------------=-==--====----=-====-=-=---=----=---=--=--=--============== 09 S.A.C. 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 HOME SUSP. 7 63.6% 1 9.1% 2 18.2% 1 9.1% 11 3 1 2 1 7 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C 7 50.0% 0 .0% 7 50.0% 0 .0% 14 4 0 3 0 7 17 EXPULSION 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 .0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------------------------------=-=-==-=----=-==------=---==---============= COMPARISON ------------------------------================================================== -----BM------ -----BF------ -----NBM----- -----NBF----- # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # REF PCT(+/-) # STU # STU # STU # STU -------------------------------------=--------------------====================== 09 S.A.C. 0 .0 % 1- 100.0-% 0 .0 % 0 . 0 % 1- 0 1- 0 0 1- 10 HOME SUSP. 6 600.0 % 1 100.0 % 3- 60.0-% 0 .0 % 4 2 1 1- 0 2 11 BOYS CLUB 0 .0 % 0 .o % 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 E.I.C. 6 .0 % 5- .0 % 3 . 0 % 1- . 0 % 3 6 1- 3 1- 3- 17 EXPULSION 0 .0 % 0 .0 % 0 .o % 0 . 0 % 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Little Rock Public Schools .. -. . - I Analysis of Discipline Actions . I School Year 2002-2003 I District Level I Elementary I Middle Schools I High Schools I 9 Year Comparison North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 09: SAC 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 BM BF NBM NBF  01-02 1276 574 354 107 02-03 1903 1050 513 172  01-02  02-03 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 10: Home Suspension ---~.....-....~~-----~~ - =--- [t[\nJ\n:!iittllt~~~~~~~ 700 600 500 400  01-02 300 ml 02-03 200 100 0 BM BF NBM NBF  01-02 692 234 92 21 02-03 522 193 63 13 250 200 150 100 50 0  01-02 02-03 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 11: Boys Club BM BF NBM NBF 210 83 52 11 244 86 85 25  01-02 G'.i102-03 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0  01-02 13 02-03 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 12: Alt School Susp K-5 BM BF NBM NBF 342 164 67 29 253 97 52 11  01-02  02-03 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0  01-02  02-03 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions District Level Action 17: Expulsion ~ BM BF NBM NBF 1 0 2 1 2 0 3 0  01-02  02-03 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0  01-02 02-03 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 09: SAC BM BF NBM NBF 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0  01-02  02-03 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 10: Home Suspension ..-1..-.~-~- --~ ----~~-i-~J4]E\n.\n.~~~~ 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 BM  01-02 335 02-03 401 BF NBM 105 42 93 41 NBF 7 2  01-02 ml 02-03 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 11: Boys Club 1 _,, 0.9 _., 0.8 _v 0.7_/ 0.6 _\n0.5-\" 0.4- 0.3 _\n0.2- 0.1 _,, 0 BM BF NBM NBF  01-02 0 0 0 0 GI 02-03 0 0 0 0  01-02 lLl 02-03 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0  01-02 02-03 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 12: Alt School Susp K-5 BM BF NBM NBF 341 164 67 29 252 97 52 11  01-02 02-03 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Elementary K-5 Action 17: Expulsion 1 _/ 0.9 _v 0.8 _v 0.7-\" 0.6- 0.5-L, 0.4- 0.3 _v 0.2 _v 0.1 _v 0 BM BF NBM NBF  01-02 0 0 0 0 lliil 02-03 0 0 0 0  01-02 EJ 02-03 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Action 09: SAC 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 BM BF NBM NBF  01-02 688 342 182 34 02-03 1296 742 327 107  01-02 IJI 02-03 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Action 10: Home Suspension - - J-~-\n:::\n~~~~.....,..,.- 250 200 150 100 50 0 BM  01-02 205 02-03 33 BF NBM 94 22 31 5 NBF 5 1  01-02 02-03 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0  01-02 02-03 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Action 11: Boys Club BM BF NBM NBF 125 66 33 8 165 60 54 18  01-02 Q 02-03 2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0  01-02 02-03 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions Middle Schools Action 17: Expulsion BM BF NBM NBF 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0  01-02 l2102-03 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0  01-02 02-03 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 09: SAC BM BF NBM NBF 584 231 172 73 607 308 186 65  01-02 l4102-03 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0  01-02 02-03 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 10: Home Suspension - - -.---- BM BF NBM NBF 152 35 28 9 88 69 17 10  01-02 GJ0I 2-03 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0  01-02 02-03 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 11: Boys Club BM BF NBM NBF 85 17 19 3 79 26 31 7  01-02 ~02-03 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions High Schools Action 17: Expulsion 0 ...i.-1111111.S~~--11111 BM BF NBM NBF  01-02 0 0 1 0 0 02-03 1 0 3 0  01-02 DI 02-03 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison Action 09: SAC 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 BM BF NBM NBF  93-94 977 529 449 156 El 94-95 869 460 411 126  95-96 1052 446 410 140  96-97 1264 55 469 142  97-98 1801 862 547 132  98-99 1443 718 458 138  99-00 1468 662 401 139  00-01 1092 556 267 69  01-02 1276 574 354 107  02-03 1903 1050 513 172  93-94 CD94 -95  95-96  96-97  97-98  98-99  99-00  00-01  01-02  02-03 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison Action 10: Home Suspension 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 BM BF NBM NBF  93.94 231 60 76 22 94-95 236 106 103 20  95-96 162 46 47 3  96-97 591 208 125 17  97-98 511 125 104 13  98-99 566 141 125 22  99-00 406 113 102 18 D 00-01 385 92 64 7  01-02 692 234 92 21 522 193 63 13  93-94 E19I4 -95  95-96  96-97  97-98  98-99  99-00  00-01  01-02 D 02-03 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison Action 11: Boys Club 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 BM BF NBM NBF  93-94 119 39 39 9 94-95 133 44 31 8  95-96 334 82 72 12  96-97 357 146 85 20  97-98 515 148 112 8  98-99 359 148 88 22  99-00 351 129 90 27  00-01 325 136 56 12  01-02 210 83 52 11  02-03 244 86 85 25  93-94  94-95  95-96  96-97  97-98  98-99  99-00  00-01  01-02  02-03 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison Action 12: Alt School Susp K-5 1600- 1400 1200 1000 800- 600 400 200- Ii _I-fl~ 0- ~ _...,  - BM BF NBM NBF  93-94 168 54 45 8 1139 4-95 178 68 58 5  95-96 1563 492 510 71  96-97 154 30 32 3  97-98 0 0 0 0  98-99 211 106 27 6  99-00 246 63 75 16  00-01 162 55 40 21  01-02 342 164 67 29  02-03 253 97 52 11  93-94 8 94-95  95-96  96-97  97-98  98-99  99-00  00-01  01-02  02-03 North Little Rock Public Schools Analysis of Disciplinary Actions 10 Year Comparison Action 17: Expulsion 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 BM BF NBM NBF  93-94 6 4 3 0 Cil 94-95 7 0 1 0  95-96 2 1 0 2  96-97 3 7 0 0  97-98 6 5 0 0  98-99 7 2 1 1  99-00 3 0 2 0  00-01 3 0 5 3  01-02 1 0 2 1  93.94  94-95  95-96  96-97  97-98  98-99  99-00  00-01  01-02  02-03\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_445","title":"English as a Second Language","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"],"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","Educational planning","English language--Study and teaching--Foreign speakers","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","Student activities"],"dcterms_title":["English as a Second Language"],"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/445"],"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\na .- RECEIVED TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 February 7, 2002 Ann Marshall, ODM FEB 1 2 2002 (SnCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING bl-i FROM: Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction SUBJECT: 2000-2001 ESL Program Evaluation We are attaching a copy of the 2000-2001 ESL program evaluation. Please share it also with Horace Smith. We are rather pleased with the findings. Weve come a long way. Let us know if you have questions. BAL/adg Attachment frtn tJlSC) i-it-IZ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 TO: Board of Education FROM: PREPARED BY: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools ^^onnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction DATE: February 28, 2002 SUBJECT: Program Evaluation: Alternative Language Program Background Information A part of the Districts Commitment to Resolve with the Office for Civil Rights in 1999 was to conduct an annual program evaluation of the Alternative Language Program and to modify the programs and services based on the findings. The first program evaluation was presented to the Board of Education in August 2000 and submitted to OCR in October 2000. The second annual evaluation is now ready for Board review. Eddie McCoy was assigned the lead responsibility for writing the program evaluation in fall 1999. Other staff (Karen Broadnax, Ed Williams, Ken Savage, and Bonnie Lesley) have worked with her to verify data and the overall accuracy of the report. Mark Vasquez served as consultant to the process. Fiscal Impact No fiscal impact is anticipated. Recommendation That the Board of Education review and provide feedback to the ESL program evaluation. BAL/adg Attachment cc: Karen Broadnax Dr. Eddie McCoy I The Second Annual Program Evaluation for Alternative Language Program (ALP) School Year: 2000-2001 (Introduction and Key Findings/Recommendations) January 30, 2002 Division of Instruction Little Rock School District Prepared by Eddie Williams-McCoy Karen Broadnax Dr. Ed Williams Ken Savage Dr. Bonnie Lesley Mark Vasquez, Consultant T Table of Contents I I 1 I Section I: introduction Introduction Program Goals and Objectives Research Questions Methodology Evaluation Design and Focus Assessments Outline of Program Evaluation Section II: Policies, Procedures, and Programs to Ensure Compliance i I Top Ten Languages of PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE Students PHLOTE Students LEP Students FEPE Students Policy, Procedural, and Program Changes Program Objective 1 (Student Identification) Program Objective 2 (Assessment) Program Objective 3 (Program Placement) Organization and Role of LPACs Student Assignment Program Objective 4 (ESL Program) Curriculum Standards and Benchmarks Assessments ESL InstructionElementary Schools ESL InstructionMiddle Schools ESL InstructionHigh Schools Program Objective 5 (Staffing/Development) ESL Training Program (Elementary) ESL Training Program (Secondary) Schedule for ESL Training Summary of ESL Training Participation ESL Endorsement Program Summary of ESL Endorsement Participation Program Objective 6 (Instructional Materials) Program Objective 7 (Program Exit) Program Objective 8 (Parental Involvement) Program Objective 9 (Special Programs) Special Education Gifted and Talented Special Programs by PHLOTE and Grades Third Grade G/T PHLOTE Students Fourth Grade G/T PHLOTE Students Fifth Grade G/T PHLOTE Students 1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5 5-6 7-9 7 8 8-9 9 9-10 10 10-12 11 11-12 13-16 13-14 14 14-15 15 16 17-19 17 17 18 18 18-19 19 21 22 22 22-27 23 23-24 24 24 24-25 25r-  Middle-Level G/T and Special Education PHLOTE Students Special Education PHLOTE Students GfT PHLOTE Students Senior-Level G/T and Special Education Special Education PHLOTEs (9-10) G/T PHLOTEs (9-10) Special Educatoin PHLOTEs (11-12) G/T PHLOTEs (11-12) Program Objective 10 (Exited LEPs) Students Who Exited Prior to Fall 2000 Students Who Exited in 2000-2001 Program Objective 11 (Program Evaluation) Program Objective 12 (Student Records) Program Cost Section III: English Language Acquisition of LEP and FEPE Students Developmental Reading Assessment Kindergarten Performance Overall Performance of PHLOTEs Kindergarten PHLOTES with PreK Kindergarten PHLOTES without PreK Overall Performance of LEPs Kindergarten LEPs with PreK Kindergarten LEPs without PreK Kindergarten FEPEs Kindergarten PerformanceTwo Years Overall Performance of PHLOTEs Overall Performance of LEPs Summary and Conclusions First Grade PerformanceTwo Years Overall Performance of PHLOTEs Performance of LEPs Summary and Conclusions Second Grade PerformanceTwo Years Overall Performance of PHLOTEs Performance of LEPs Performance of FEPEs Summary and Conclusions Newcomer Centers School Enrollment by PHLOTE Elementary Newcomer Centers Elementary Non-Newcomer Centers DRA Results by Schools DRA by Newcomer Centers DRA by Non-Newcomer Centers Overall Performance of PHLOTEs 25 25 26 26 26 27 27 27 28-34 29-32 32-34 34-35 35-36 36 37-38 38- 38-39 39 39-40 40 40-41 41 42 42-44 42-43 43 43-44 44-45 44 44-45 45 45-47 46 46-47 47 47 48- 48 48-49 49-50 50-54 50 50-51 51-52 iiOverall Performance of LEPs Conclusions Achievement Level Tests 52-54 54 54-55 Data Interpretation for LEPs and FEPEs 55 ALT ReadingGrade 2 PHLOTEs ALT ReadingGrade 2 LEPs Summary and Conclusions ALT ReadingGrade 3 PHLOTEs ALT ReadingGrade 3 LEPs ALT ReadingGrade 3 FEPEs Summary and Conclusions ALT ReadingGrade 4 PHLOTEs ALT ReadingGrade 4 LEPs ALT ReadingGrade 4 FEPEs Summary and Conclusions ALT ReadingGrade 5 PHLOTEs ALT ReadingGrade 5 LEPs ALT ReadingGrade 5 FEPEs Summary and Conclusions ALT ReadingGrade 6 PHLOTEs ALT ReadingGrade 6 LEPs ALT ReadingGrade 6 FEPEs Summary and Conclusions ALT ReadingGrade 7 PHLOTEs ALT ReadingGrade 7 LEPs ALT ReadingGrade 7 FEPEs Summary and Conclusions ALT ReadingGrade 8 PHLOTEs ALT ReadingGrade 8 LEPs ALT ReadingGrade 8 FEPEs ALT ReadingGrade 9 PHLOTEs ALT ReadingGrade 9 LEPs ALT ReadingGrade 9 FEPEs Summary and Conclusions ALT ReadingGrade 10 PHLOTEs ALT ReadingGrade 10 LEPs ALT ReadingGrade 10 FEPEs Summary and Conclusions Conclusions\nALT Reading 55-56 56 56 56-57 57 58 58-59 59-60 60 60-61 61 61-62 62-63 63 63 63-64 64-65 65 65 65-66 66-67 67 67 68 68-69 69-70 70 71 71-72 72 72-73 73 73-74 74 74 ALT Language Usage ALT Language Grade 2 LEPs ALT Language Grade 2 FEPEs ALT Language Grade 3 LEPs ALT Language Grade 3 FEPEs ALT Language Grade 4 LEPs ALT Language Grade 4 FEPEs ALT Language Grade 5 LEPs 74-75 75 75 75-76 76 76-77 77 78 iiiALT Language Grade 5 FEPEs ALT Language Grade 6 LEPs ALT Language Grade 6 FEPEs ALT Language Grade 7 LEPs ALT Language Grade 7 FEPEs ALT Language Grade 8 LEPs ALT Language Grade 8 FEPEs ALT Language Grade 9 LEPs ALT Language Grade 9 FEPEs ALT Language Grade 10 LEPs ALT Language Grade 10 FEPEs ALT Language Grade 11 LEPs ALT Language Grade 11 FEPEs 78-79 79 79-80 80 80-81 81 81-82 82 82-83 83 83 83 83-84 Section IV: Content Area Knowledge and Skills of LEP and FEPE Students ALT Mathematics Grade 2 LEPs ALT Mathematics Grade 2 FEPEs ALT Mathematics Grade 3 LEPs ALT Mathematics Grade 3 FEPEs ALT Mathematics Grade 4 LEPs ALT Mathematics Grade 4 FEPEs ALT Mathematics Grade 5 LEPs ALT Mathematics Grade 5 FEPEs ALT Mathematics Grade 6 LEPs ALT Mathematics Grade 6 FEPEs ALT Mathematics Grade 7 LEPs ALT Mathematics Grade 7 FEPEs ALT Mathematics Grade 8 LEPs ALT Mathematics Grade 8 FEPEs ALT Algebra I LEPs and FEPEs ALT Algebra 11 LEPs and FEPEs ALT Geometry LEPs and FEPEs 85 85 86 86-87 87 87-88 88 88-89 89 89-90 90 90 91 91 91-92 92 92 ALT Biology LEPs and FEPEs ALT Physics LEPs and FEPEs ALT Chemistry LEPs and FEPEs 93 93 93-94 Stanford Achievement Test, 9* Edition Grade 5 PHLOTEs Grade 5 LEPs Grade 5 FEPEs Grade 7 PHLOTEs Grade 7 LEPs Grade 7 FEPEs Grade 10 PHLOTEs Grade 10 LEPs Grade 10 FEPEs 94-95 95 95-96 96 96-97 97 97 97-98 98 98 ivArkansas Benchmark Examinations Primary and Middle Level Definitions Grade 4 PHLOTEs Grade 4 LEPs Grade 4 FEPEs Grade 8 PHLOTEs Grade 8 LEPs Grade 8 FEPEs 99 99-100 100 100-101 101 101 101-102 102 Section V: Behavioral Performance Indicators of LEP and FEPE Students Background Information on PHLOTEs in District Grade Distribution of PHLOTEs Grade Distribution of LEPs and FEPEs Six Highest PHLOTE Student Enrollments School Enrollment by LEP and FEPE PreKindergarten PHLOTEs Kindergarten PHLOTEs First Grade PHLOTEs Second Grade PHLOTEs Third Grade PHLOTEs Fourth Grade PHLOTEs Fifth Grade PHLOTEs Sixth Grade PHLOTEs Seventh Grade PHLOTEs Eighth Grade PHLOTEs Ninth Grade PHLOTEs Tenth Grade PHLOTEs Eleventh Grade PHLOTEs Twelfth Grade PHLOTEs 103 103-104 104 105 105 106 106 106-107 107 108 108-109 109-110 110-111 111 112 112-113 113-114 114-115 115-116 Graduation Rates for PHLOTEs Summary Who Are the Dropouts? 116 116 116-117 Section VI\nKey Findings and Recommendations Research Question 1 (Policies, Procedures, Programs) Research Question 2 (Special Opportunity Programs) Research Question 3 (Quality of Instruction) Research Question 4 (Learning English) Effect of PreKindergarten Two-Year Comparison of Kindergarten DRAs Two-Year Comparison of Grade 1 DRAs Two-Year Comparison of Grade 2 DRAs Summary of K-2 Findings 118 118 118-119 119-125 119-120 120 120-121 121 121 VComparison of K-2 Students in Newcomer and Non-Newcomer Center Schools Summary of Findings 121-122 122 Cohort Performance on ALT Reading Summary of Findings 122-123 123 Cohort Performance on ALT Language Usage Summary of Findings 123-124 124 Stanford Achievement Test Summary of Findings 124-125 125 Arkansas Benchmark Examinations Summary of Findings Conclusions 125 125 125 Research Question 5 (Content Knowledge and Skills) Cohort Performance on ALT Mathematics Summary of Findings 125-127 125-126 126 ALT High School Mathematics/Science Summary of Findings 126-127 127 Stanford Achievement TestMathematics Summary of Findings 127 127 Arkansas Benchmark Examinations Summary of Findings Conclusions 127 127 127 Research Question 6 (Behavioral Indicators) Attendance Discipline and Suspensions Retention Dropouts Graduation Rate Summary of Findings 127-129 128 128 128 128 128 128-129 Recommendations 129-130 References 131 vi Second Annual Evaluation of the Little Rock School Districts Alternative Language Program Section I: Introduction This Second Annual Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Little Rock School Districts (LRSD) Alternative Language Program builds on the information provided in an earlier report that was submitted to the Board of Education in August 2000 and to the Dallas Office of Civil Rights (OCR) in October 2000. The report for school year 2000-2001 is a part of the Little Rock School Districts continuing efforts to meet the requirements outlined in the LRSDs Commitment to Resolve (CTR) agreement with the Office for Civil Rights (September 29, 1999), to comply with the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and to meet the requirements of the Arkansas Department of Education. The requirement to conduct an annual evaluation of the Alternative Language Program was formally established by the Board of Education in its adoption of Policy IHBEA: English as a Second Language, on November 18,1999. Specific requirements and procedures were delineated in the administrative regulations (IHBEA-R) as adopted in October 1999 and amended in November 2001. This report also is in compliance with the Boards Policy IL: Evaluation of Instructional Programs, adopted on March 22, 2001, that requires program evaluations to include 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. Program Goals and Objectives According to the Districts Administrative Regulation IHBEA-R: English as a Second Language (adopted in September 1999 and amended in November 2001), the first goal of the ESL program is to enable identified students to master English language skills (reading, writing, speaking, and comprehension/understanding) and content area concepts and skills so that the students are able to participate effectively in the regular program as quickly as possible. The second goal of the program is to provide identified students with the cultural literacy necessary for them to feel comfortable in participating in the school, community, and greater community. To reach those goals, the District also established twelve program objectives. Each one addressed a policy, procedural, or program requirement mandated by federal, state, and/or local governance bodies. They are as follows: 1 I 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. To implement and maintain consistent procedures for student identification processes. To assess all students who have a primary home language other than English (PHLOTE), regardless of whether they are enrolled in a Newcomer Center. To establish and administer consistently appropriate criteria for entry and placement into an ESL program. To diagnose student needs and provide appropriate ESL standards/ benchmarks, instruction, and assessments to meet identified students individual needs for English-language instruction, for understandable instruction in other content areas, and for positive self-concept and identification with personal/family cultural heritages. To hire, train, and continually develop highly motivated, sensitive, and caring ESL teachers and other staff to provide effective ESL instruction, interact one-to- one with the identified students and their families, and serve as liaisons between school and relevant community. To provide appropriately aligned instructional materials. To establish and administer consistently appropriate criteria for exit from an ESL program. To provide for parental/family involvement in the school setting to support improved student learning. 9. To provide equitable access to other district programs and services, including special education and gifted/talented education and all procedural safeguards. 10. To monitor the progress of all identified students during program participation and after program exit and to reclassify students as needed. 11 .To evaluate the ESL program and make program modifications as needed. 12.To maintain accurate and useful student records, including procedural safeguards. Research Questions To address the requirements of federal, state, and local governance, the following research questions were selected to guide the evaluation of the effectiveness of the Districts Alternative Language program\nProgram Implementation 1. Has the District implemented appropriate policies, procedures, and programs to comply with federal law, the Commitment to Resolve with OCR, the ADE, and local LRSD policy? What has been the cost of implementation? 2. What is the evidence that LEP students have appropriate access to the range of special opportunity programs in the District, including special education, gifted/talented programs, 504 programs, and co/extra-curricular programs? 3. Has the District been successful in improving the quality of instruction through either ensuring an adequate number of ESL-endorsed teachers to serve the identified LEP students or in providing adequate training to ensure competent performance? I 2 I 5 t Academic Progress 4. Are identified LEP students being served in the Alternative Language Pmnrorr* _ __________  ____  .. . _ iy prggress in learning reading and English language arts soki/iiHllcsO? How does their _p__e__rfco__r_m___a nce compare wi_t_h__ _t_h e general popiyulation with PHLOTE students in general, and with fluent English-proficient students who have exited the program (FEPEs)? 5. Are identified LEP students being served in the Alternative Language Program making progress in learning content knowledge and skills? How does their performance compare with the general population, with PHLOTE students in general, and with fluent English-proficient students who have exited the program (FEPEs)? Other Behavioral Indicators 6. What are the attendance rates, retention rates, discipline/suspension rates dropout rates, and graduation rates of identified LEP students being served i the Alternative Language Program? How does their performance compare with that of the general population, with PHLOTE students in general and in with fluent English-proficient students who have exited the program (FEPEs)? Methodology A team comprised of staff from the Division of Instruction and from the Department of Testing, Research and Evaluation was assembled early in the year to determine the scope and focus of the evaluation, to formulate the research questions, and to ensure the availability of appropriate data upon which to base findings and conclusions. During all stages of the process, this team relied on findings from best practices in the development aanud ceififceucutivvec iimiiippileemmeennitaaitiioonn oorf AAlltteerrnnaattiivvee LLaanngguuaaggee PPrrooggrraammss and effective techniques for monitoring and assessing the performance of limited-EnqIish Mr. Mark Vasquez, an expert on the requirements for compliance with the Office of Civil Rights relating to LEP issues, served as a consultant to the team who prepared the program evaluation. Since this study is a year-two evaluation, the team decided to focus on the gualitv of the iimmnplloemmoennttoattiiroinn of the program, Xto__ _m___o__n:ixt_o_r 1t1h. e. _p errf ormance of _L__E__P_ and__ _F__EjPr ^E1 sUtudents academic performance in relation to the performance of the general student population in both acquiring English language skills and content knowledge and skills, and to monitor certain behavioral variables such as attendance, retention, discipline/ suspension, dropout, and graduation rates. Compiled data results for each academic or behavioral variable are displayed Tables follow the descriptions of the data. The descriptions always start with an overview of the demographics of the table, i.e., how many LEPs, FEPs, etc. The demographic overview is followed by An Overview of the Overall Performance of PHLOTE Students (Primary Home Language Other Than English) students. Caul description proceeds with the performance of LEP (Limited English Proficient) and in tables. Each FEPE (Fluent English Proficient Exited) students. A summary follows each description 3 of each PHLOTE category. Conclusions are included at the end of each grade-level section. Unless otherwise indicated, pre assessment refers to the spring of the 1999-2000 school year, and post refers to the spring of the 2000-2001 school year. The exception is with the Development Reading Assessment (DRA) for the kindergarten, first grade, and second grade students who took the DRA during the 2000-2001 school year. In these cases, pre refers to the fall of the 2000-2001 school year, and post refers to the spring of the 2000-2001 school year. Evaluation Design and Focus The general population for this report will consist of all students in the LRSD except the PHLOTE (Primary Home Language Other Than English) students. PHLOTE students include the following sub-populations: LEP, FEP, FEPE, NALMS, REFUSE, LEPREC, and LEPREF which are designated by acronyms. The acronyms and the definitions of the sub-populations of PHLOTE students are as follows:  LEP (Limited-English Proficient): Students administered the Language Assessment Scale (LAS) upon admission to the LRSD and determined not to be proficient in reading, writing, listening comprehension, and/or speaking English.  NALMS (Not Assessed Language Minority Students): PHLOTE students whose English language proficiency has not been assessed.  FEP (Fluent-English Proficient): PHLOTE students administered the LAS upon admission to the LRSD and determined to be proficient in reading, writing, listening comprehension, and speaking English.  FEPE (Fluent-English Proficient and Exited from the program): PHLOTE students initially identified as LEP\nreceived LRSD ESL program services\nand then exited the program after the LAS indicated a proficiency in reading, writing, listening comprehension, and speaking English.  REFUSE (Parent Refused Initial Assessment): PHLOTE students whose parents refused permission to assess the students English proficiency. I i I J  LEPREC (Limited English Proficient Reclassified): FEPE students whose performance after exiting the ESL program required that the student to again be identified as LEP.  LEPREF (Limited English Proficient Refused Services)\nPHLOTE students who were identified through language assessment to be LEP\nhowever, the parents refused permission to place the student in the ESL program. 4Although the evaluation analyzes the achievement of PHLOTE students as a group, the primary focus of the evaluation is the performance (behavioral and academic) of LEP (Limited- English Proficient) and FEPE (Fluent-English Proficient Exited) students. LEP students are the students receiving ALP (Alternative Language Program) services, and FEPE students are former LEP students who have been exited from the AL program and are no longer receiving direct services. The performance (academic) of FEPE students must be monitored in case reclassification is necessary. Reclassification is the process by which a FEPE student re-enters the ALP because he/she was not successful in the regular school program and is, thus, reclassified as LEP. Assessments The descriptions of academic performance in the English language arts are based upon student performance on the following national, state, and local assessments\n\" Stanford Achievement Test Series - Ninth Edition (grades 5, 7 and 10),Total Reading and Total Language\n Arkansas Benchmark Examination (grade 4 and 8), Literacy Examinations\n Developmental Reading Assessment (grades K-2)\n LRSD Achievement Level Tests\nReading and Language Usage (grades 2 through 11). The descriptions of academic performance in specific content knowledge and skills are based upon student performance on the following assessments\n LRSD Achievement Level Tests\nElementary Mathematics (Grades 2-5)\nMiddle School Mathematics (Grades 6-8), and the following content courses at the secondary level\n Physics  Chemistry  Biology,  Algebra I and II  Geometry. Outline of Program Evaluation This document is divided into six sections. Each of sections ll-V addresses specific research questions. Section I: Introduction The first section includes the introduction, an outline of the Districts program goals and objectives, a delineation of the research questions for the study, a description of methodologies, the evaluation focus, a list of assessments used to gather academic and behavioral data, and an outline of the sections in the stud/ Section II\nPolicies, Procedures, and Programs to Ensure Compliance Section II includes evidence of the Districts implementation of numerous new policies, procedures, and programs to ensure compliance and quality, including cost data, all aligned with the twelve program objectives. Also included are demographic datanumbers of PHLOTE, LEP, and PEPE students, as well as statistics on the top ten language communities represented by each subpopulation. 5 s Section III: English Language Acquisition Performance of LEP and FEPE Students This section includes an evaluation of the effectiveness of programs that develop students' English language arts skills. Section IV: Content Area Knowledge and Skills of LEP and FEPE Students This section evaluates LEP and FEPE students' progress in attaining content area knowledge and skills. Section V\nBehavioral Performance Indicators of LEP and FEPE Students This section evaluates LEP and FEPE students' performance in relation to attendance, retention, discipline and suspension, dropout, and graduation rates. Section VI: Key Findings and Recommendations\nBibliography 6Section VI: Key Findings and Recommendations Program Implementation 1. Has the District implemented appropriate policies, procedures, and programs to comply with federal law, the Commitment to Resolve with OCR, the ADE, and local LRSD policy? What has been the cost of implementation? A review of documents submitted to OCR as per the agreed-upon schedule, of the annual report to the ADE, and of LRSD data and reports, along with the information provided for this program evaluation provides adequate evidence for the Districts compliance with federal, state, and local expectations. Although the District has invested substantial funding in these efforts, most of the funds have come from the federal Class-size Reduction grant, from Title I, and from the States allocation for LEP students. District funds have been used to pay the salaries and office expenses of the ESL Supervisor, one-half secretary, and 20 percent of the ESL Parent Coordinators salary. The remaining 80 percent of her salary is paid through Title I. 2. What is the evidence that LEP students have appropriate access to the range of special opportunity programs in the District, including special education, gifted/talented programs, 504 programs, and co/extra-curricular programs? 5 J i As described under Program Objective 9 above, the LRSD has established and implemented appropriate policies and procedures, as well as training of various levels of staff, to ensure compliance with the expectation that LEP students will have appropriate access to the range of special opportunity programs. The District has provided evidence of the inclusion of LEP students in its special education and gifted/talented programs. In addition to the data provided, LEP students are also represented in the Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement courses at all secondary schools and in the University Studies (concurrent enrollment with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock) at Hall High School. Section III of this study also provides evidence of the participation of LEP students in the Districts pre-kindergarten program. 3. Has the District been successful in improving the quality of instruction through either ensuring an adequate number of ESL-endorsed teachers to serve the identified LEP students or in providing adequate training to ensure competent performance? Program Objective 5 activities described above includes evidence of the Districts effort's to support teacher endorsement in ESL, to provide training for scores of other teachers to enhance their effectiveness, to provide administrator training, and to schedule students appropriately with the trained or endorsed teachers. The ESL Supervisors database provides further evidence of the Districts commitment to provide quality instruction for LEP students. At all three levels of schools (elementary, middle, and high), the District already had at the end of the second year (2000-2001) more endorsed teachers than they projected a need for in the fall of 1999. 118Having more and more teachers endorsed allows a school to be more flexible in scheduling students, and it also enables the District to serve without so much stress its growing population of LEP students. 1 i Academic Progress 4. Are identified LEP students being served in the Alternative Language Program making progress in learning reading and English language arts skills? How does their performance compare with the general population, with PHLOTE students in general, and with fluent English-proficient students who have exited the program (FEPEs)? i i i 5 Effect of Prekindergarten on Academic Progress The performance of six groups of kindergarten students were displayed in the tables in the first part of Section 111\nall kindergarten PHLOTE students\nkindergarten PHLOTE students with pre-kindergarten\nkindergarten PHLOTE students without pre- kindergarten\nall kindergarten LEP students\nkindergarten LEP students with pre- kindergarten\nand, finally, kindergarten LEP students without pre-kindergarten. Each of the groups is rank-ordered below in terms of its performance on the spring 2001 DRA the percent of students performing At/Above the readiness level: PHLOTE kindergarten with pre-kindergarten LEP kindergarten with pre-kindergarten LRSD General Population All PHLOTE kindergarten All LEP kindergarten PHLOTE kindergarten without pre-kindergarten LEP kindergarten without pre-kindergarten 86% 81% 81% 78% 76% 68% 67% The rank order of the groups according to gains from the fall 2000 pre-test to the spring 2001 post-test is as follows: LEP kindergarten with pre-kindergarten PHLOTE kindergarten with pre-kindergarten All LEP kindergarten All PHLOTE kindergarten LEP kindergarten without pre-kindergarten PHLOTE kindergarten without pre-kindergarten 76%age points 72%age points 67%age points 67%age points 57%age points 57%age points Either way the data are examined reveals the importance of students participation in the pre-kindergarten program for more rapid acquisition of English language skills. The PHLOTE and LEP students with LRSD pre-kindergarten experience both out-performed those without pre-kindergarten, and they grew at faster rates. In comparison to all kindergarten students in the District, both the PHLOTE and LEP kindergarten students with LRSD pre-kindergarten experience out-performed the general population. The LRSD average in spring 2001 for all students was 80.7. The PHLOTE kindergarten average was 86%, and the LEP kindergarten average was 81%. It is also important to examine the differences in the performance of PHLOTE kindergarten students with LRSD pre-kindergarten (86% At/Above readiness) and those 119 without (68%)a difference of 18 percentage points. A similar disparity is found between the LEP kindergarten students with LRSD pre-kindergarten (81% At/Above readiness) and those without (67%)a 14 point difference. These differences are especially important, given that there is almost no difference between the performance of PHLOTE kindergarten students in general (78% At/Above readiness) and LEP kindergarten students in general (75% At/Above readiness), although the LEP students comprise 86 percent of the total kindergarten PHLOTE population. This study further finds that LEP kindergarten students who have attended LRSD pre-kindergarten (81 % At/Above readiness) out-perform PHLOTE kindergarten students in general (78% At/Above) and LRSDs general population (80.7% At/Above readiness). The students with the pre-kindergarten experience had an advantage over the students without the pre-kindergarten experience. This finding validates the research on the importance of early childhood education (Bredekamp, Knuth, Kunesh, and Shulman. 1992\nKagan, 1995\nSchwartz, 1996). Two-Year Comparison of Kindergarten DRA Scores Just as the students in the second year of the Districts new literacy program improved at each grade level, K-2, over the performance of students in the first year of the programs implementation, so did the PHLOTE and LEP students.  LRSDs general kindergarten population improved from 72% readiness to 81%-9 points.  Kindergarten PHLOTE students improved from 67% to 79%12 points.  Kindergarten LEP students improved from 59% to 76%-17 points. Both PHLOTE and LEP students improved more on average than the general population, with LEP students achieving the most improvement. The gap between the general population and PHLOTE students decreased from 5 points in 1999-2000 to only 2 points in 2000-2001 The gap between the general population and LEP students decreased from 13 points to 5 points in the second year. Two-Year Comparison of Grade 1 DRA Scores At grade 1, the general population, PHLOTEs and LEPs students all improved the second year of the program:  LRSDs general grade 1 population improved from 54% to 64%-10 points.  Grade 1 PHLOTE students improved from 33% to 60%--17 points.  Grade 1 LEP students improved from 23% to 59%--36 points. Again, both PHLOTE and LEP students improved more on average than the general population, and, again, with LEP students improving the most. The gap between the general population and PHLOTE students decreased from 21 points in 1999-2000 to 4 120 I points in 2000-2001, and the gap between the general population and LEPs decreased from 31 points to 5. Two-Year Comparison of Grade 2 DRA Scores The pattern of improved achievement during the second year of program implementation continued for grade 2 for the general population, PHLOTEs, LEPs, and FEPEs.  LRSDs general population at grade 2 improved from 68% to 75%--7 points.  Grade 2 PHLOTE students improved from 56% to 65%--9 points.  Grade 2 LEP students improved from 50% to 57%--7 points.  Grade 2 FEPE students improved from 60% to 100%~40 points. The grade 2 PHLOTE and FEPE students both improved more in the second year than did the general population. The LEP students improved the same. The gap between the general population and PHLOTE grade 2 students decreased from 12 points to 10 points in the second year and for the FEPE students decreased from 8 points to -25. The gap remained the same for LEP students18 points. Summary of K-2 Findings LEP students grew more than PHLOTE students or the general population in both kindergarten and grade 1. FEPE students, although small in number, all achieved the District standard at grade 2 (100% readiness), and their improvement in the second year was 40 points. FEPE students outperformed the general population in grade 3. Comparison of K-2 Students in Newcomer and Non-Newcomer Schools At the K-2 levels, there were 145 PHLOTE students attending Newcomer Schools in 2000-2001, and 140 attended non-Newcomer Center schools. Eight elementary schools had no PHLOTE students.  At the kindergarten level the Newcomer Center PHLOTE students (82%) outperformed the District (81%) and non-Newcomer Center schools (76%) with the percent of students reaching the readiness standard. LEP students (83%) at Newcomer Centers also outperformed the District and non-Newcomer Center schools (70%).  At grade 1 the PHLOTE (66%) students at the non-Newcomer Center schools outperformed the PHLOTE students at Newcomer Centers (53%), as well as the general population (64%). LEP students at the Newcomer Center schools performed as well as those in non-Newcomer Center schools (59%), but not as well as the general population (64%), 121 i Grade 2 non-Newcomer Center school PHLOTE students (70%) performed significantly better than those in the Newcomer Center schools (56%) and just five points below the general population (75%). Non-Newcomer Center LEP students (76%) also significantly outperformed LEP students in the Newcomer Centers (44%) and outperformed the general population by one point (75%). Summary of Findings Both PHLOTE and LEP students at the kindergarten level at the Newcomer Center schools outperformed the PHLOTE and LEP students at the non-Newcomer Center schools, as well as the Districts general population. At grades 1 and 2, however, both PHLOTE and LEP students at the non-Newcomer Center schools outperformed their peers in the Newcomer Center schools. In grade 1 the PHLOTE students in the nonNewcomer Center schools outperformed the general population. Cohort Performance on the Achievement Level Reading Test The Northwest Evaluation Association recommends the use of median RIT scores for the purpose of evaluating student performance.  The Grade 2 general population (183) outperformed both PHLOTE (171) and LEP (179) students.  The 1999-2000 grade 2 FEPE students grew 21 points by the end of grade 3, as compared to an 18-point growth by PHLOTEs, a 10-point growth by LEPs, and only one point by the general population. Both PHLOTE and FEPE students scored higher than the general population in grade 3 during 2000-2001. i 1  The 1999-2000 grade 3 PHLOTE students grew 16 points by the end of grade 4, as compared to a 13-point growth by LEPs, 10 points by FEPEs, and no growth by the general population. FEPE students outperformed the general population both in grade 3 in 1999-2000 and in grade 4 in 2000-2001. PHLOTE students also outperformed the general population in 2000-2001.  The 1999-2000 grade 4 LEP students grew 11 points by the end of grade 5, as compared to 10 points by the FEPEs, 3 points by the general population and a -9 points by PHLOTES, Both PHLOTEs and FEPEs outperformed the general population in grade 4 in 1999-2000, and FEPEs outperformed the general population in grade 5 in 2000-2001.  The 1999-2000 grade 5 LEP students grew 6 points by the end of grade 6 in 2000- .- 2001, as compared to 4 points each by PHLOTEs, FEPEs, and the general population. The general population outperformed PHLOTEs, LEPs, and FEPEs at the end of grade 6.  The 1999-2000 grade 6 FEPE students grew 15 points by the end of grade 7 in 2000-2001, as compared to 10 points by PHLOTEs, 3 points by LEPs, and 2 points by the general population. The general population scored higher than PHLOTEs, 122LEPs. and FEPEs in grade 6. but both FEPEs (222) and PHLOTEs (221) outperformed the general population (216) in grade 7.  The 1999-2000 grade 7 PHLOTE students grew 15 points by the end of grade 8 in 2000-2001, as compared to 10 points by FEPEs. 7 points by LEPs, and 2 points by the general population. The general population outperformed the PHLOTEs. LEPs. and FEPEs in grade 7. but PHLOTE students significantly outperformed the general population in grade 8.  The 1999-2000 grade 8 LEP students grew 7 points by the end of grade 9 in 2000- 2001. as compared to only one point of growth by PHLOTE and FEPE students and none by the general population. The general population outperformed the PHLOTE. LEP. and FEPE students in both grades 8 and 9.  The 1999-2000 grade 9 PHLOTE students grew 6 points by the end of grade 10 in 2000-2001. as compared to only one point by the general population, no growth by FEPEs. and a -2 by LEPs. Summary of Findings In general. PHLOTE and FEPE students performed better than the general population on the ALT Reading test in grades 3-4 and 7-8. This finding provides evidence of the strength and effectiveness of the elementary Alternative Language Program. The lower performance of these students in grades 6 and 9-10 requires examination to determine whether their lower performance is a result of the schools to which they are assigned, changes in the LEP and FEPE populations themselves from year to year, or the quality the Alternative Language Program at these levels. I Cohort Performance on the Achievement Level Language Usage Test Both the DRA and ALT reading scores already reported provide evidence that PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE students are improving in their ability to read in English. The following analysis provides evidence of the acquisition of English usage skills for these students.  At grade 2 in 2000-2001, the FEPE students outperformed the general population.  The 1999-2000 grade 2 LEP students grew 14 points by the end of grade 3 in 2000- 2001. as compared to 11 points by the general population and 10 points by FEPE students. The grade 2 FEPE students outperformed the general population, as did the grade 3 FEPE students in 2000-2001.  The 1999-2000 grade 3 FEPE students grew 8 points by the end of grade 4 in 2000- 2001, as compared to 5 points by the LEPs and no growth by the general population. The grade 3 FEPE students outperformed the general population, as did the FEPE students in grade 4 in 2000-2001.  The 1999-2000 grade 4 LEP students grew 12 points by the end of grade 5 in 2000- 2001, as compared to 5 points by FEPE students and 4 by the general population. 123The grade 4 FEPE students outperformed the general population in 1999-2000, as well as in grade 5 in 2000-2001.  The 1999-2000 grade 5 LEP students grew 3 points, as compared to no growth by FEPEs and -2 by the general population by the end of grade 6 in 2000-2001. The general population outperformed the LEP and FEPE students in both grade 5 and grade 6.  The 1999-2000 grade 6 FEPE students grew 5 points by the end of grade 7 in 2000- 2001, as compared to 1 point for LEP students, and -2 for the general population. The general population outperformed LEP and FEPE students in grade 6, but the FEPE students outperformed the general population in grade 7.  The 1999-2000 grade 7 FEPE students grew 7 points by the end of grade 8 in 2000- 2001, as compared to 2 points for LEP students and none for the general population. The general population outperformed the LEP and FEPE students in both grades 7 and 8.  The 1999-2000 grade 8 LEP students grew 4 points by the end of grade 9, but both FEPEs and the general population declined. The general population outperformed both LEP and FEPE students in both grades 8 and 9.  The 1999-2000 grade 9 general population posted no growth by the end of grade 10, and both the LEPs and FEPEs posted declines. The general population outperformed both the LEPs and FEPEs in grades 9 and 10. i Summary of Findings FEPE students in grades 2-5 consistently outperformed the general population on the English Language Usage ALT. With only one exception, however, neither LEP nor FEPE students scored as well as the general population in grades 6-10. I Stanford Achievement Test The degree to which PHLOTE students, as well as LEPs and FEPEs, are acquiring English reading and language arts skills can also be measured by the SAT9 reading and language subtests, although not all LEP students take these tests, as they do the DRA and ALTS. j I  At grade 5, the FEPE students (64' %ile) significantly outperformed the general population (42 %ile) on the language subtest. PHLOTE students (45 %ile) also outperformed the general population.  At grade 7 the PHLOTE students (45' %ile) outperformed the general population (39^ %ile) on the reading subtest. The FEPE students scored at the 38' %ile.  At grade 7 both the PHLOTES (49' %ile) and FEPEs (51 %ile) outperformed the general population (SS^^ %ile) on the language subtest. i I 124 At grade 10 the PHLOTE students (44** %ile) outperformed the general population (42\" %ile). I Summary of Findings PHLOTEs outperformed the general population at all three grade levels tests on the language subtest, and FEPE students did better in grades 5 and 7. Only in grade 7 did PHLOTEs and FEPEs outperform the general population in reading. Arkansas Benchmark Examinations Not all LEP students take the Benchmark Examinations, but the scores on these tests can also be analyzed to determine the degree to which PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE students are acquiring English literacy skills.  At grade 4, FEPE students (75%) significantly outperformed the general population (35%). PHLOTEs were close behind with 33%.  At grade 8, both PHLOTE (28%) and FEPE (25%) students outperformed the general population (17%). Summary of Findings Both PHLOTE and FEPE students are doing very well on the state Benchmark Examinations, as compared to the general population. i Conclusions A review of PHLOTE, FEPE, and LEP performance on the DRA, ALT reading, ALT language usage, SAT9 reading, SAT9 language usage, and Arkansas Benchmark Literacy Examinations, as compared to the general population, shows strong performance by PHLOTE and FEPE students at the elementary level and to some degree at the middle school level. Both PHLOTE and FEPE students compared to the general population more favorably on the SAT9 and Arkansas Benchmark examinations than they did on the ALTs. Kindergarten students who attended the LRSD prekindergarten program performed significantly better than those without this experience. Grades 1-2 students in the non-Newcomer Center schools outperformed their peers in the Newcomer Centers. ! I 5. Are identified LEP students being served in the Alternative Language Program making progress in learning content knowledge and skills? How does their performance compare with the general population and with fluent English- proficient students who have exited the program (FEPEs)? This question will be answered through analysis of student performance on the ALT mathematics test, the SAT9 mathematics subtest, and the Arkansas Benchmark Mathematics Examinations. Scores are also included for high school science ALTs. Cohort Performance on the Achievement Level Mathematics Test  The 2000-2001 grade 2 FEPE students outperformed the general population, and the LEPs did as well as the general population. 125 The 1999-2000 grade 2 LEP students grew 17 points by the end of grade 3 in 2000- 2001, as compared to 9 points by FEPEs and 2 points by the general population. In grade 2 the general population outperformed LEPs and FEPEs, but FEPEs outperformed the general population in grade 3, and the LEPs tied their score.  The 1999-2000 grade 3 FEPE students grew 8 points by the end of grade 4, compared to 5 points for LEPs and 2 points for the general population. The FEPE students outperformed the general population in grade grade 3 and grade 4. . The 1999-2000 grade 4 LEP students grew 11 points by the end of grade 5, as compared to 3 for the general population, and none for FEPEs. FEPE students tied the performance of the general population in grade 4, and the general population outscored both LEPs and FEPEs in grade 5.  The 1999-2000 grade 5 general population grew 4 points, as compared to none for LEP students and 6 for FEPEs. The FEPEs tied the performance of the general population in grade 5, but the general population outperformed the LEP and FEPE students in grade 6.  The 1999-2000 grade 6 LEP students grew 5 points by the end of grade 7 in 2000- 2001, as compared to 2 for the general population and none by FEPEs. The general population outperformed both groups in both grades 6 and 7.  The 1999-2000 grade 7 LEP students grew 8 points by the end of grade 8 in 2000- 2001, as compared to 3 by the general population and none for FEPEs. The general population performed slightly higher than FEPEs in grade 7 and slightly higher than LEPs in grade 8. Summary of Findings FEPE students generally outperformed the general population in mathematics in grades 2-4. They fall behind, however, in grades 508. Achievement Level Test: High School Mathematics and Science  FEPE students outperformed the general population in 2000-2001 in Algebra I.  FEPE students outperformed the general population in 2000-2001 in Algebra II.  FEPE students outperformed the general population in 2000-2001 in Geometry.  The general population outperformed FEPEs in 2000-2001 in Biology.  The general population outperformed FEPEs in 2000-2001 in Physics.  FEPE students outperformed the general population in 2000-2001 in Chemistry. 126Summary of Findings FEPE students outperformed the general population in all three required mathematics courses and in Chemistry. Stanford Achievement Mathematics Test  At grade 5 PHLOTE students (40* %ile) outperformed the general population (31  %ile).  At grade 7 PHLOTE students (53^' %ile) and FEPEs (41 %ile) both outperformed the general population %ile).  At grade 10 PHLOTE students (52\"'^ %ile) and LEPs (48* %ile) both outperformed the general population (46 %ile). Summary of Findings PHLOTE students outperformed the general population at all three grade levels on the SAT9 mathematics subtest. FEPE students outperformed the general population at grade 7 and LEPs outperformed them at grade 10. Arkansas Benchmark Mathematics Examination  PHLOTE (46%), LEP (33%), and FEPE (75%) students all outperformed the general population on the grade 4 Benchmark.  PHLOTE (25%) students outperformed the general population (17%) in grade 8. Summary of Findings As seen in elementary reading and language usage and in elementary mathematics on the ALT, PHLOTE students outperformed the general population in both grades 4 and 8. In addition, both LEP and FEPE students outperformed the general population in grade 4 on this important measurement. Conclusions Based on the available data on mathematics achievement, PHLOTE and FEPE students appear to be doing very well at all three levels of schools, even though the scores were weaker at the middle school level on the ALT. PHLOTE and FEPE achievement was good in chemistry, but weaker in biology and physics. Other Behavioral Indicators 6. What are the attendance rates, retention rates, discipline/suspension rates, dropout rates, and graduation rates of identified LEP students being served in the Alternative Language Program? How does their performance compare with that of the general population, with PHLOTE students in general, and with fluent English-proficient students who have exited the program (FEPEs)? The data indicate that kindergarten and grade 1 have the largest PHLOTE enrollments\nkindergarten through grade 3 the largest LEP enrollment, and grades 3 and 4 the 127 largest FEPE enrollment. The elementary school with the largest enrollment is Chicot with 109\nthe middle school with the most PHLOTEs is Cloverdale\nand the high school with the largest PHLOTE enrollment in Hall High School. Attendance  FEPE students attendance is better than the general population in grades kindergarten, 2-6, and 8-12. PHLOTE students attendance is better than the general population at grades 4-7 and grade 12. LEP students attendance is better than the general population at grade 12.  LEP students missed an average of 18 days at grade 9, apparently as a result in part of their being suspended. Discipline/Suspensions  There were no PHLOTE, LEP, or FEPE students disciplined in grades K-4. At grade 5 there were 2 students with 3 sanctions\nat grade 6 there were 6 students with 9 sanctions\nat grade 7 there were 6 students with 10 sanctions\nand at grade 8 there were 9 students with 15 sanctions. I  At the high school level at grade 9 there were 17 students with 41 sanctions and 416 missed days of school for suspensions. Grade 10 had 12 students, 26 sanctions, and 93 days of suspension. Twenty of the 29 students receiving discipline were LEP.  At grade 11 there were 5 students, 6 sanctions, and 19 days of suspension. Only 5 seniors were disciplined, with 10 sanctions, but with 371 days of missed school. Retention  A total of 50 PHLOTE students were retained in 2000-2001. Nineteen of these were in grades K-5\n6 in grades 6-8\nand 26 in grades 9-12. Dropouts  Only 4 PHLOTE students dropped out in 2000-2001. Graduation Rate  In 2000-2001,42 of the 48 PHLOTE students (88%) graduated, as compared to 27 of 27 the year before. Summary of Findings  Attendance of FEPE and PHLOTE students generally was better than the attendance of the general population. LEP attendance typically was not.  Discipline/suspensions does not appear to be a problem for any PHLOTE students, except at grades 9-10 and 12. The largest sub-group of those receiving sanctions is LEP students.  Retention occurs infrequently for PHLOTEs at the elementary and middle schools. 128 The retention rate of LEP students at the high school level is a weakness. . The dropout rate of PHLOTE students is less than that of the general population.  The graduation rate of PHLOTE students is about the same as the general population. Recommendations  The District's school-level staff must ensure that LEP students are scheduled with teachers who are either endorsed, partially endorsed, or fully trained in ESL methodologies. District-level staff should monitor carefully at the beginning of each school year to ensure compliance.  The District should continue to be advocates for more state funds for the education of LEP students.  The District should develop a plan in spring 2002 for the potential loss of the Classsize Reduction grant from the federal government and how extra teachers and professional development may be funded in 2002-2003.  District-level staff should complete and publish the procedural handbook for school staff in identifying and serving students in the Alternative Language Program. . Parent recruiters, the ESL Parent Coordinator, and other staff should actively recruit LEP students for the prekindergarten program, given the importance of that extra year in LEP students reading performance.  The District should continue with its plan to phase out elementary Newcomer Centers, given the performance of students in the non-Newcomer Center schools.  The District should examine the dip of performance of middle school LEP students to determine the cause.  The District should examine the attendance and discipline problems of LEP students in grades 9-10 and develop plans for improvement.  PHLOTE, LEP, and FEPE student performance on the elementary ALT science tests should be analyzed in 2002-2003 to help determine whether these students are acquiring content area knowledge and skills. The 2002-2003 program evaluation should include an analysis of PHLOTE, LEP,  Ine ZUUZ'ZUUO piuyidi11 cvdiuduiut oiluuiu \u0026gt;v- j i and FEPE participation in Pre-AP, AP, and University Studies courses at the middle and high school levels. 129 The District should continue to provide high levels of professional development for staff responsible for the Alternative Language Program to ensure continuous improvement. i I I s i 130Agenda RECEIVED FEB 2 8 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Little Rock School District Board of Directors' Meeting February 2002 R. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 TO: Board of Education FROM: PREPARED BY: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools ^/Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent of Instruction DATE: April 25, 2002 SUBJECT: Proposed Revision of Policy IHBEA: English as a Second Language Background Information The District gathered data in 1999-2000 on its identified limited-English proficient students (LEP) relating to where they were attending school. Significant percentages were assigned to the five elementary Newcomer Centers, the two middle school centers, and the one high school center. What surprised everyone, however, is how many were attending their neighborhood schools. Virtually every school in the District had LEP students in attendance. In 1999-2000 the District also conducted its first ESL program evaluation. That study included a look at the performance of students in the Newcomer Centers as opposed to other schools. Tentative findings indicated that the elementary students in the nonNewcomer schools were performing as well as or better than those assigned to the Newcomer Centers. That finding was repeated in the 2000-2001 study, with the exception of kindergarten LEP students. This important finding told the staff several things: 1. The literacy curriculum was working well for both native English speakers and for second-language students\n2. The assignment of LEP students to trained/endorsed teachers, regardless of whether the school was a Newcomer Center, was reaping benefits\n3. Significant savings could result in transportation if LEP students, at least at the elementary level, could attend their neighborhood schools\n4. Parental involvement for LEP students would more likely improve if LEP students were not bused to Newcomer Centers but attended school closer to their homes. Also, of course, the Districts obligation to provide an alternative language program is the same in the non-Newcomer schools as it is in the Newcomer schools. Board of Education April 25, 2002 Page Two District staff began informally to phase out the automatic assignment of elementary LEP students to Newcomer Centers in 2000-2001 and have continued to allow (and not discourage) attendance at the neighborhood school in 2001-2002. Those who wished to stay in the Newcomer schools to complete elementary school were allowed to do so. The proposed deletions to Policy IHBEA remove the language relating to Newcomer Centers to reflect this proposed change. At this time LEP secondary students continue to be offered an assignment to a Newcomer Center. If, however, enrollment continues to grow in other secondary schools, this option may in the future also be discontinued as more and more students are served well in their zoned schools. Fiscal Impact This proposed change will not cost the District anything. Instead, it should continue to provide opportunities to save money formerly required for transportation. Recommendation That the Board of Education approve on first reading the proposed amendments (deletions of language) to Policy IHBEA: English as a Second Language. BAL/adgLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IHBEA ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE The Board of Education is committed to providing appropriate and equitable programs and services in compliance with federal and state mandates and which are designed to ensure that students who are limited-English-proficient (LEP) achieve the curriculum content standards and benchmarks established by the State of Arkansas and the Little Rock School District. The Districts program will be designed to address the affective, linguistic, and cognitive needs of the limited-English proficient (LEP) students. A research-based English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL) program will be provided in designated Newcomer Centers at the elementary, middle, and high school levels for all identified students, regardless of the students grade levels and home language, except where parents have denied placement in the program. The District will meet its obligations to provide language services to students whose parents have denied services and placement in a Nowcomer Center through teachers professional development in ESL methodologies, tutoring, summer school opportunities, parental involvement, and monitoring of students academic progress. The District will ensure the provision of appropriate ESL curriculum standards and benchmarks, professional development, technical assistance, parent involvement, staffing, materials, access to special education and other special opportunity programs, qualified staff, and othqr resources to ensure compliance and effectiveness. The District will annually conduct an evaluation of the ESL programs and services, report the findings to the Board of Education, and make appropriate program modifications based on the evaluation. Revised: Adopted: November 18,1999 Legal Reference: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. 2000d seq., and sections 100.3(a), (b) of its implementing regulation, at 34 C.F.R. Part 100.0b/iy/2002 08: 48 501-324-2023 LRSD COMMUNICATIONS RAISE 01/05 810 West Markham Is Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 447-1027 \" (501)447-1161 Fax: DATE: June 19, 2002 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Central Arkansas Media Cynthia Howell, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette JuHe Davis, Communications Specialist ESL Graduate Academy Continues through June 28 Forty-one teachers from the Little Rock School District have joined forces with teachers from other central Arkansas school districts at the two-week ESL (English As a Second Language) Graduate Academy, held at the Oasis Renewal Center, 14913 Cooper Orbit Road. Technology Day, held on June 27, will take place at three locations: Williams Magnet Elementary (7301 Evergreen St.), Southwest Middle School (3301 S. Bryant St.) and the Instructional Resource Center (3001 S. Pulaski St.). The academy is sponsored by the Little Rock School District, the Arkansas Department of Education and Arkansas Tech University. The Little Rock School District is home to students who speak 42 foreign languages. Spanish-speaking children comprise the largest segment of this population. A schedule of activities and a list of presenters are attached. ###06/19/2002 08:49 501-324-2023 LRSD COMMUNICATIONS PAGE 02/05 ESL GKADUATE ACADEMY VI Week One at a Glance June 17 - 22,2002 Little Rock, Arkansas Time Monday 6/17 Tuesday 6a8 Wednesday 6/19 Thursday 6/20 Friday 6/21 Saturday 6/22 9:00 Welcome Addresses 10:00 11:00 Limguage Acquisition/ ESL . Medtodology JOr-Carmen Sarudtez-Sadek Life of an Immigrant Child Dr. Urisula Chandler Teaching with Arkansas Frameworks MaTgaret Zoller Language  Acquisition (Continued) -\nL--\nTauent-\u0026amp; .  Commiini^ \"'ReJationslups Al Lopez Culture (Continued) 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 ' Dmguage Aeqaieitiotd- ESL Methodology . (Continued) Language Acquisition/ ESL Methodology (Continued) Lanj^a^ Acquisition Dr. tlena Iztftiierdp L^guage Acquiritioh (Cdntiiiuiid)'  Culture , . Dr. Afa^ . Bmitei Culture (Continued ~ ~ L U N C H 4:00 5:00 --DINl^ER-- 6:00 7:00 I^guage Acquisitioii/ f'jSL Methodology (Cqnrinuedl Language '/Acquisition/ ,, I^thodolo^ (Continued) Laiigua^ , Acquisition (Continued). .Language Acqulsitiqiv . Vitali ' }- 8:00 --DISMISSAL-- fKv. 't ESL Graduate Academy VI Coordinators: Little Rock School OiatricL Karen Broadnax Arkansas Tech University# Dr- Ursula Chandler 06/13/2002 08:43 501-324-2023 LRSD COMMUNICATIONS PAGE 03/05 Time 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5-.00 6z00 7:00 8:00 Sunday 6/23 Group Projects Project^ Showcase Asiui Odtnie Mai te Ngttyeii ESL GRADUATE ACADEMY VI Week Two at a Glance June 23 - 28,2002 Little Rock, Arkansas Monday 6724 Tuesday 6/25 Wedaesday 6/26 Thursday 6/27 Triday 6/28 ESL Standards Workshop Dehhtr Sabo \u0026amp; Lisa Poteet ADE  Ron Tolson Methodology Dr. Prank Gonzales (Ltem.) \u0026amp; Diana Conzalez Worthen (Secondary) Language Assessment Dr. Carmen Sanchez-Sadei Technology. Dr. Yvonne Watts, .. -CItzistote z  B^k \u0026amp; Grace Kerr /tssesemeiA Karen Broadnax '--LUNCH Office of Civil Rights Recjuirements Mark Vas/fuez ESL Strategies Karen Broadnax AXKTESOt Resouice Display Methodology \u0026amp; Children's Literature (Continued) Language Assessment (Condhued) Technolo^ (Cp'ntUaed) Gtaduation , --DINNER-- Assessmmt Karen Broadnax . .. Hispanic Cultiue S tella Lt^a i ^^DISMISSAL-- ESI Graduate Academy VI Coordinators: Little Kock School DistricL Karen Broadnax Arkansas Tech University, Dr. Ursula Chandler 06/19/2002 08:49 501-324-2023 LRSD COMMUNICATIONS PAGE 04/05 Little Rock School District ESL Graduate Academy Oasis Renewal Center Little Rock, AR June 17-28, 2002 Presenters and Topics 1. Dr. Mario Benitez, Chair (Emeritus), Curriculum and Instruction, University of Texas at Austin Topic: Socio-Cultural Influences of Language on Learning 2. Dr. Carmen Sanchez-Sadek, Educational Consultant/Program Evaluator, Los Angeles, California Topic- Second Language Acquisition, ESL Methodology and Assessment 3. Dr. Ursula Chandler, Department Head, Foreign Languages and International Studies. Arkansas Tech University, Russellville, AR Topic: The Life of an Immigrant child 4. Dr. Elena Izquierdo, College of Education. University of Texas at El Paso Topic: Second Language Acquisition 5. Mark Vasquez, Esq., Consultant/Civil Rights Attorney, Dallas, Texas Topic: Civil Rights Requirements for Language Minority Students 6. Dr. Frank Gonzales Topic: Methodology/Childrens Literature (Elementary) 7. Christine Black, ESL Services/Gifted Education, Lake Hamilton School District Grace Kerr, Media Specialist, The New School. Fayetteville, AR Dr. Yvonne Waits, Consultant/ADE, Little Rock, Arkansas Topic: Utilizing technology for ESL/ Core Content Instruction with LEP students 8. Dr. Diana Worthen Topic: Methodology/Childrens Literature (Secondary) The following presenters will provide special presentations^ Arkansas Department of Education Ron Tolson, Director Professional Licensure Topic: The ESL Endorsement Application Process Al Papa Rap Lopez, Springdale Public Schools/N.W. Arkansas Multicultural Youth Clubs Topic: Parent and Community Relationships06/19/2002 08:49 501-324-2023 LRSD COMMUNICATIONS PAGE 05/05 ESL Graduate Academy Oasis Renewal Center Little Rock, AR June 17-28, 2002 The following presenters will provide special presentations: Fort Smith Public Schools Mai Le Nguyen Topic: Asian Culture Little Rock School District Debbie Sabo and Lisa Poteet Topic: ESL Standards Workshop Little Rock School District Karen Broadnax, ESL Supervisor Topic: The Language Assessment Scales/An Introduction Little Rock School District Stella Loya, ESL Parent Liaison Topic: Hispanic Culture0 f/ov. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 TO: Board of Education FROM: T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools PREPARED BY: ^^Sonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction DATE: SUBJECT: November 21,2002 Approval of the ESL Program Evaluations for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 Background The LRSDs Compliance Plan for completion of the tasks relating to page 148 of the Final Compliance Report (Section 2.7.1) requires the Boards approval of already completed program evaluations that were conducted with the assistance of external experts. Two of those completed program evaluations are those for the English-as-a-Second Language program for 1999-2000 and 2000-01, which the Board has previously reviewed. The external expert who participated on those evaluation teams was Mr. Mark Vasquez, a former employee of the Office for Civil Rights in Dallas and an expert on OCRs expectations for the evaluation of alternative language programs. Those participating in the design and writing of the 1999-2000 evaluation included Dr. Ed Williams, Karen Broadnax, Ken Savage, and Mr. Vasquez. The Board of Education initially reviewed this program evaluation in fall 2000. Those participating in the design and writing of the 2000-2001 evaluation included Dr. Eddie McCoy, Dr. Ed Williams, Karen Broadnax, Ken Savage, Dr. Bonnie Lesley, and Mr. Vasquez. The Board of Education initially reviewed this program evaluation in fall 2001. Neither of these program evaluations included data related to the improvement or remediation of student achievement for African American students. Rather, the data were disaggregated for limited-English proficient students and fluent-English proficient students who had exited the LRSDs alternative language program. These data were then compared to the data for the general population. The research questions, the data to be collected, and the disaggregations were Board of Education - Memo November 21,2002 Page Two specified, for the most part, in the Commitment to Resolve, the District's voluntary agreement with OCR to put into place the necessary programs, policies, and procedures to be in full compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Fiscal Impact None Recommendation That the Board of Education formally approve the following: 1. 1999-2000 program evaluation for LRSDs alternative language program 2. 2000-2001 program evaluation for LRSDs alternative language program \u0026amp; i BAL/adg 3 Attachment 1?ESL Standards for Pre-K-12 Students *1 Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.die ess .on .tor 197 Introduction: Promising Futures ESL Standards for Pre-K-12 Students All elementary and secondary school students currently in the United States will be Ihing in and contributing to an increasingly diverse society and interdependent community' of nanons in the 21st century. To realize their personal, social, and long-term career goals, indincuals will need to be able to communicate with others skillfully, appropriately, and effectively. The challenge of contemporary education is to prepare all students for life in this new world, including those learners who enter schools with a lang'uage other than English. The purpose of this document is to identify the ESL standards and their role in meeting this challenge. Why ESL Standards Are Needed Schools and communides throughout the United States are facing increased linguistic and cultural diversity. Ever}' year, more and more studencs who speak languages ocher than Er h r from homes and communities with diverse histones, traditions, world news, and experiences, populate classrooms in urban, suburban, and rural settings. Th num: school-age children and youth who speak languages other than English at home increas 68.6% in the past 10 years. By 1993 English lang'uage learners in U.S. public schools m more than 2.5 million. Current projections estimate that by the year 2000 the majonty school-age population in 50 or more major U.S. cities will be from language minor.?.' b: grounds. I I 1 fn this document use [WO acronyms. E5L and ESOL. ES refers io [hefieid oj ing'.ish as a se: 0 com.e tonal\nen oy imbered of the .1 fSOL students vary greatly in proficiency level and academic needs. Some ESOL students are recent immigrants, brought to the United States by families seeking refuge from political repression or persecution or by families seeking economic opporrunim Others are members of ethnolinguisuc groups that have lived on this continent for generations, some for longer than the United States has e.xisted as a nation. Some'have had prior education, including literacy, in their native languages. Others hav'e had limited formal schooling. Some have had normal dev'elopmental histories, while others have identified disabilities that challenge their learning. Our'  primary concerns in this document are with students in elementary and secondary' schools who are not native speakers of English, and whom we refer to as ESOL students and learners. ESL Standards describe the language skills necessary for social and academic purposes. The standards described in this document specify the language competencies ESOL students tn elementary and secondary schools need to become fully proficient in English, to have unre- ESL Standards for Pre-K-12 Students I I I i i language ana te cht scandards chemsecves. EiCL ( En^iish io sve-iic' oy ocher languagesj refers co che ieamer u ho are idencifiea a sccll in the process o acquiring Engiish a an additional language. 1 stricted access to grade-appropriate instruction in challenging academic subjects, and ultimately to lead nch and productive lives. The development of these standards has been informed by the work of other national standards groups, particularly by the English language arts and foreign language standards. All three language standards projects share an emphasis on the importance of:  language as communication  language learning through meaningful and significant use  the indixddual and societal value of bi- and multilingualism 8' th  the role of ESOL students native languages in their English language and general acade- -SU mic development o' o' cultural, social, and cognitive processes in language and academic development * assessment that respects language and cultural diversity let th The ESL Standards provide the bridge to general education standards expected of all Ths ESL standards articulate the developmental Endish language needs of ESOL learners and highlight special instructional and assessment considerations that must be given to ESOL learners if they are to benefit from and achieve the high standards proposed for other subjects. 2 dents in the United States. stu- Standods do not ano cannot stand alone. Other professional have developed standards that organizations and groups Of useful. Thes\nincluding E and strategic are world-class, imponant. developmentally appropriate, and standards mandate high levels of achievement in content learning for ail learners. :Oi- students. But the content standards do not orovide educators the directions\ns mey need to assist ESOL leaimers to attain these standards because t student understanding of and ability to use English to engase with content. Many tent stanna\nO' do not acknowledge the central role of language in the achievement of iSor do they highlight the learning styles and particular instructional and assessme learners who are still developing proficiency in English. In sum. the content stand: 14 Er bii ac e\\ assume f the Con: content, needs of s do not in addiess the specific needs of ESOL students who are adding znglish to their home !an\u0026lt;maoes. Therefore. ESL standards are needed. o O or mt The uSL standards recognize that upon entry to scnool ESOL learners must acquire an addi- tional language and culture and learn the English language com.petencies that are characteristic of native Englisn speakers of the same age and, most importantly, that are fundamental to the full attainment of English language arts and other content standards. The ESL standards articu- late the developmental English language needs of ESOL learners and highlight special mstruc- tional and assessment considerations that must be given-to. ESOL learners if they are to benefit from and achieve the high standards proposed for other subjects. Thus, the ESL Standards important because they:  aniculate the English language development needs of E5OL learners  pro\\-ide directions to educators on how to meet the needs of ESOL learners  emphasize the central role of language in the attainment of other standards are Introduction: Promising Futures if. T fo\ndu In ESely he 1 ce Myths About Second Language Learning Several myths regarding second language learning prevail both among many lay persons and some educational professionals and policy makers. One intent of this document is to refute these myths. Myth 1\nESOL students learn English easily and quickly simply by being exposed to and surrounded by native English speakers. Fact: Learning a second language takes time and significant intellectual effort on the part of the learner. Learning a second language is hard work\neven the youngest learners do not simply pick up\" the language. Myth 2: When ESOL learners are able to converse comfortably in English, they have developed proficiency in the language. Face It can take 6-9 years for ESOL students to achie^/e the same le'.'cls of proficiency in academic English as native speakers. Moreover, ESOL students participating in thoughtfiilly designed programs of bilingual or sheltered content instruction remain in school longer and attain signifii academic achie'/ement in comparison to students without such advantages. I Myth 3: In earlier times immigrant children learned English rapidly and into American life. '.dy higher ra[es of niiated .1- I i I Fact: Many immigrant students during the early part of this century did not learn English auicklv or well. Many dropped out of school to work in Jobs that did not require the kinds of academic achie.'e-ment and communication skills chat substantive employment oppotiunities reauire :odav. 1- I i TESOLs Vision of Effective Education for All Students The role of ESL standards can only be fully understood in the broader context of education for ESOL students. Therefore, before presenting the ESL Standards, it is important to desenbe our overarching vision of effecave education. In TESOLs vision:  Effective education for ESOL students includes nativelike levels of proficient?/ in English.  Effective education for ESOL students includes the maintenance and promotion of ESOL students' native languages in school and community contexts. \u0026gt; All educational personnel assume responsibility for the educadon of ESOL students. - Effective education also calls for comprehensive provision of first-rate services and full access to those services by all students \u0026gt; Knowledge of more than one language and culture is advantageous for all students. !S ESL Standards for Pre-K-12 Students 3 Effective education for ESOL students includes nativelike levels of proficiency in English. For ESOL students to be successful in school and ultimately in the world outside school. they must be able to use English to accomplish their academic, personal, and social goals with the same proficiency as native speakers of English. In school environments, ESOL students need to be able to use spoken and written English both to acquire academic content and to demonstrate their learning. ESOL learners also need to be able to follow routine classroom instructions given o' in English and understand and use appropriate communication patterns so that they can be successful learners in academic environments. Finally, ESOL learners need to use English to function effectively in social settings outside the school, as well as in academic settmgs. The ESL standards in this document are concerned with these types of social and acad- emic skills. Moreover, appropriate performance and assessment standards that distinguish between language and academic achievement are also required if ESOL students are* to be given full credit for learning academic content while acquiring English. o' Effective education for ESOL students includes the maintenance and promotion of ESOL students native languages in school and community contexts. The auHinmeni. oi ihallenging, wo.'-ld- ciass eaucatioria\nBy definition. ESOL learners already know and use another language. Both the academic Siam SLUG .cards by ui! ier.LS is oniv j achievement and the school completion of ESOL learners is significantly enrianced when they are able to use their native languages to leam in school. In fact, full proficiency in the native language (including literacy) facilitates second language development. Developing and using COSSfOL scnoos i design their i I ESOL students guistic and cul\nBilingualism is o native languages also sen'es U.S. national interests because it increases the lin- rral resources available as the United States competes in the global economy. UI dsset whose \\aiue for the indhidual and for societv can onlv increase as the a, Kmc Sim Sdiv |at} id me U Ian ^Th S sp\u0026lt; i she cot eaucanonai | :ons v.-.d- EiCi.\nL .S. role in the global market place expands in the next centurv. siuden Olh: \u0026lt; as well ss i All educational personnel assume responsibility for the education of ESOL students. Ai in mi: ' I I I i I The attainment of challenging, worid-class educational standards by al! students is only possible it scnools design their educational missions with ESOL students, as well as others, in mind, u.omprehen.si'. e education calls tor shared responsibility by and collaboration among all educational protessionals wort-ting wuth ESOL students. It also calls for professionals to expand their knowledge to encompass issues of relevance to the education of ESOL students. This e.xpanded knowledge base includes an understanding of similarities and differences in first and second language acquisition, the role ot the native language in second language and content learning, instructional methods and strategies that facilitate both English language and content learning, instructional practices that accommodate individual differences in learning styles, the interrelationships between culture, cogniuon and academic achievement, alternative approaches to assessment, and the imponance of community-school linkages in education. These are all  for tx'scf f?- tin \u0026amp; ^wh det ^coi aca 4 I 1 I I part of the professional development of ESL specialists that general educators must tap into if educational reform is to result in the attainment of high standards by all students. Effective education also calls for comprehensive provision of first-rate services and full access to those services hy all students. Quality educational experiences and ser\\nces must be made fully accessible to all ESOL students. These include, among others, comprehensive and challenging curricula, access to the full range of curricula (e .g., gifted classes, laboratory sciences, college preparatory courses), safe and Introduction: Promising Futures we us\u0026lt; off\nSr' wc ?- ^0 ESi a:h 1 ) id- 2n well-equipped classrooms, appropriate instructional practices and assessment measures, inclusion in extracurricular activities, fully and appropriately certified teachers, and other educational specialists and resources. However, this is often not the case in most schools. To have quality programs and to serve ESOL students appropriately on their way to mastery of English, instruction must take into account the different entry-level abilities in English that ESOL learners have. Some learners come to school with oral and written skills\nothers do not. In addition, where necessary, programs should provide some instruction in the native languages of ESOL students. TESOLs Access Brochure provides a description of the conditions needed to provide ESOL students with equitable opportunities to leam. (See Appendix A.) Knowledge of more than one language and culture is advantageous for all students. Internationalism is the hallmark of modem U.S. education and of the education reform movement, and linguistic and cultural diversity are the hallmarks of internationalism. The challenge of contemporary education is to contribute to students abilities to live in increasingly diverse local communities and an ever-shrinking world community. Effective education for the 21st century' must provide firsthand opportunities for students to leam about the cultural diversity around them and to leam world languages. Cross-cultural competence can be fostered bv meaningful and long-term interactions with others with different world views, life e.xperiences. languages, and cultures. Language learning can be fostered by interactions with native speakers. This means that, not only should ESOL students leam about the U.S. from native-Envli^h speakers, but native-English-speaking students, teachers, administrators, and school staff should leam about the world and its languages from ESOL students, their families, and their communities. IfESOLsiudii iO have full aci challenging i cumeuia and: i achieve :o che I high level content a: native Ens Audience \u0026gt;5- 1 This document is written for educators who work with ESOL learners. First, it is intended for educators who work directly with ESOL students at elementary\nmiddle, and secondarv school levels. This includes designated ESL teachers (whether in resource or self-contained set- tings), bilingual teachers who work with ESOL students in their native languages and English, 'O 4 t e .es and teachers who work with ESOL students with special needs and talents. Other educators who will use these standards are content area teachers who teach ESOL students. If ESOL students are to have full access to challenging curricula and to achieve to the same high level in the content are:^ as native English speakers, then content area specialists must become aware of the importance of language in relationship to their disciplines, so that they' can better facilitate the ^^demic achievement of their ESOL students. Curriculum developers and program coordinators are likely to refer to thus document as The standards and descriptors will be helpful for developers of ESL curricula and may be ^rj^^ out learning objectives. The sample progress indicators, vignettes, and discussions ^yoffer ideas for learning activities, assessment and program design. 111 id speakers, \"ler. content area specialists rat-t become awareate imponar.ee of language in relationship to ateir disciplines sc that they can better facilitate the academic achievement of their ESOL students. document may be used as a reference for educators such as counselors, school social ^ud psychologists who provide additional service to ESOL students and for profes- ^onals whose activities and decisions affect programs for ESOL students, that is, building es i KL Standards for Pre-K-12 Students 5i i ! i I 6 administrators, preservice and in-service teacher educators, and local, state and national policy makers. Parents and communities with ESOL learners may also wish to consult this document so that they may better understand what constitutes appropriate and effective education for their children. General Principles of Language Acquisition . A number of general principles derived from current research and theory about the nature of language, language learning, human development, and pedagogy, underlie the ESL standards described in this document. These principles are described briefly here.  Language is functional\nO o  Language varies. o  Language learning is cultural learning.  Language acquisition is a long-term process.  Language acquisition occurs through meaningful use and interaction.  Language processes develop interdependently.  Native language proficiency contributes to second language acquisition. ,x Etc ca idf t f-  Bilingualism is an indixidual and societal asset. Language is junctional. Language, oral and written, is primarily a means of communication used by people in multiple and varied social contexts to express themselves, interact with others, learn about the world, and meet their indi\\-idual and collective needs. Successful language learning and language teaching emphasize the goal of functional proficiency. This is a departure from traditional pedagogical approaches that new language learning and teaching primarily as mastety of the elements of language, such as grammar and vocabulary, without reference to their functional usefulness. Therefore, what is most important for ESOL learners is to function effectively in English and through English while learning challenging academic content. Language varies. Language, oral and written, is not monolithic\nit comes in different varieties. Language varies according to person, topic, purpose, and situation. Everyone is proficient in more than one of these social varieties of their native language. Language also varies with respect to regional, social class, and ethnic group differences. Such language varieties are characterized by distinctive structural and functional characteristics, and they constitute legitimate and functional systems of communication within their respective sociocultural niches. Additionally, language varies from one academic domain to anotherthe language of mathematics is different from the language of social studies. As competent language users, ESOL students already use their own language varieties. They must also learn the oral and written language varieties used in schools and in the community in large. What is most important for ESOL learners is to function effectively in academic environments, while retaining their own native language varieties. Introduction: Promising Futures Bl S ar be le\nac ac \u0026gt; er F.i/ Li e L er ^ac ^le Seb L-f' to ^in g'lb ^al feicy .nt -e of s Language learning is cultural learning. Patterns of language usage vary across cultures and reflect differences in values, norms, and beliefs about social roles and relationships in each culture. 'When children learn their first language, they learn the cultural values, norms, and beliefs that are characteristic of their cultures. To learn another language is to learn new norms, behaviors and beliefs that are appropriate in the new culture, and thus to extend one's sociocultural competence to new environments. To add a new language, therefore, is to add a new culture. Learning a new language and culture also provides insights into ones own language and culture. This is imponant for ESOL students because general education in U.S. schools tends to reflect a culture other than their own. If ESOL students are to attain the same high standards as native-English-spealdng students, educational programs must be based on acknowledgment of, understanding of, respect for, and valuing of diverse cultural backgrounds. What is imponant for all language learners is to develop attitudes of additive bilingualism and biculturalism. Language acquisition is a long-term process. iki- rld. dae- j fo ties .f 5- Language acquisition occurs over time with learners moving through developmental stages and gradually growing in prohciency. Individual learners however move through these stages at variable rates. Rates of acquisition are influenced by multiple factors including an indhiduals educational background, first language background, learning style, cognitive style, motivation, and personality. In addition, sociocultural factors, such as the influence of the English or native language communir. in the learners life, may play a role in acquisition. In many instances. learners pick up\" conversation skills related to social language more quickly than th acquire academic language skills. Educational programs must recognize the length of time it takes to acquire the English language skills necessary for success in school. This means that ESOL !eam- ers must be given the time it takes to attain full academic proficiency in English, often fro.m 5 to 1 years. Language acquisition occurs through meaningful use and interaction. Research in first and second language acquisition indicates that language is learned most effectively when it is used in significant and meaningful situations as learners interact with others (some of whom should be more proficient than the learners are) to accomplish their purposes. Language acquisition takes place as learners engage in activities of a social nature with opportunities to practice language forms for a variety of communicative purposes. Language acquisition also takes place during actixnties that are of a cognitive or intellectual nature where learners have oppormnities to become skilled in using language for reasoning and mastery of S- challenging new information. This means that ESOL learners must have multiple opportunities to Efigiish, to interact with others as they study meaningful and intellectually challengng content, and receive feedback on their language use. ^Language processes develop interdependently. Learner K' conversation\nrelated to sect language more 5- quickly man: acquire acace: O' / Educui ?ro.^ra: recoi^r.izs 'O of time it acquire tf language le le :e: necessar.' ior 5UCCSS5 in sc\nICCl. I lan^. Traditional distinctions among the processes of reading, listening, writing, and speaking are ^^cial. So is the conceptualization that language acquisition as linear (with listening preced- ion jres peaking, and speaking preceding reading, and so forth). Authentic language often entails simultaneous use of different language modalities, and acquisition of functional language ^^lities occurs simultaneously and interdependently, rather than sequentially. Thus, for exam- 'depending on the age of the learner, reading activities may activate the development of Standards for Pre-K-12 Students 71 -I 8 speaking abilities, or vice versa. Additionally, listening, speaking, reading, and writing develop as learners engage with and through different modes and technologies, such as computers. music, film, and video. This means that ESOL learners need learning environments that provide demonstrations of the interdependence of listening. e\u0026gt; speaking, reading, and writing. They also need to develop all of their language abilities through the use of varied modes and technologies. Native language proficiency contributes to second language acquisition. Because, by definition, ESOL students know and use at least one other language, they have acquired an mtuitive understanding of the general structural and functional characteristics of language. They bring this knowledge to the task of second language learning..students also come to the task of learning English and learning content through. English already lit- erate in their native languages. These learners know what a Some E5OL stu- it means to be literatethey know that they can use written forms of language to leam more about the world, to convey information and receive information from others, to establish and maintain relationships with others, and to e.xplore the perspectives of others. Literacy in the native language correlates positively with the acquisition of literacy' in a second language. In addition, academic A fl i - ! 1 I I i i j I i I I 1 I I I includes the use of E5OL students instraction that native languages, especially if they are literate in that Ian- guage. promotes learners' academic achievement while they are acquiring the English needed to benefit fully from instruction through English. Native language literacy abilities cin a_____ students in English-medium classrooms to construct meaning from academic materials and o ESOL expenences in English. And. in learning a new language, students also leam more about their natii e tongae-. This means that for aSOL leatmers the most effective teaching and learning are those th romote ESOL students' native langua\u0026lt; environments for secona language as a foundation jor English language and academic dc'.elopment. Bilingualism is an individual and societal asset. o' '.ge and literacy development .Acquisition of two languages simultaneously is a common and normal developmental ph? nomenon and that acquisition of a second (or third) language can confer certain cognitive and linguistic advantages on the indindual. To realize these benefits, however, advanced levels of pne- proficiency in both languages are necessary. Therefore, the most effective educational environ- ments for ESOL learners are those that promote the continued development of learners' primary' languages for both academic and social purposes. In addition, as noted earlier, bilingual proficiency enhances employment possibilities in the international marketplace and enhances the competitive strength of U.S. industry' and business worldwide. This means that bilingualism benefits the individual and serves the national development of multiple languages. Goals for ESOL Learners o' interest, and schools need to promote the retention and TESOL has established three broad goals for ESOL learners at all age levels, goals that include personal, social, and acadermc uses of English. Each goal is associated wth three dis- tinct standards. In TESOLs vision, ESOL learners will meet these standards as a result of the instruction they receive, thereby achieving the goals. Our schools need to ensure that all stu- Introduction\nPromising Futuresop dents achieve the English language competence needed for academic success and for life in a literate culture. 0 Goal 1: To use English to communicate in social settings\nve if lU- y lit- V .la- s, V SB' A primary goal of ESL instruction is to assist students in communicating effectively in English, both in and out of school. Such communication is vital if ESOL learners are to avoid ' the negative social and economic consequences of low proficiency in English and are to panici-  pate as informed participants in our democracy. ESOL learners also need to see that ere are j personal rewards to be gained from communicating effectively in English. This goal does not S'suggest, however, that students should lose their native language proficiency. Standards for Goal 1 Students will\n:d to SOL\n.x gi- 1. 2. 3. use English to participate in social interaction interact in, through, and with spoken and written English for personal expression and enjoyment use learning strategies to extend their communicative competence\nir nags r.snt  Goal 2: To use English to achieve academically in ail content areas In school settings, English competence is critical for success and expectations fcr -SOL I learners are high. They are expected to leam academic content through the English .anguase I lend m- T'and to compete academically with native-English-speaking ^/kamers use spoken and written Engiish in their schooiwor ig^ndards for Goal 2 -Students will\neers. This process requires that\nal :es im nd use English to interact in the classroom use English to obtain, process, construct, and proxide subject matter information in spoken and written form use appropriate learning strategies to construct and apply academic knowledge s- 1- in socially and culturally appropriate ways ^tt^udents in U.S. schools come into contact with peers and adults who are different ^^rlmguistically and culturally. The diversity in U.S. schools mirrors the diversity in g^^y and around the world that young people will encounter as they move into the 21st of work. In order to work and live amid diversity, students need to be able to appreciate people who are different and communicate effectively with them. ^^^gmcation includes the ability to interact in multiple social settings. itures for Pre-K-12 Students 9 aStandards for Goal 3 Students will: 1. 2. use the appropriate language variety, register, and genre according to audience, purpose, and setting use nonverbal communication appropriate to audience, purpose, and setting 1. J. use appropriate learning strategies to extend their sociolinguistic and sociocultural competence Conclusion 11 The ESL standards dsscnoe the proficiencies in Enaiish that ESOL students need to acquire sc they can Full proficiency in English is critical for the long-term personal, social, and economic development .of all students in the United States. In this document, TESOL outlines a framework for considering and planning language education for ESOL students and for interpreting and making use of the ESL standards. The ESL standards describe the proficiencies in English that E50L students need to acquire so.they can attain the same high level standards in other content domains, including English language arts, as fully proficient English-speaking students. Thus, the ESL Standards for Pre-K-12 Siudenis is the starting point for developing effective and equitable education for ESOL students. Planning effective English language instruction for ESOL students cannot be don isolation. It must be part of a comprehensive and challenging educational program that takes into a same hish itandaros in 0! lonisnt domains, including English language arts, as .fully proficient English- speaking students.  10 account OL students social, educational, and personal backgrounds as well as the: existing skills and knowledge bases. It must understand and respond appropriatelv to the interrelation- ships between language, academic, and sociocultural developm^ent. The linguistic, cosnitive. and sociocultural competencies that ESOL students bring to school are a solid base for buildin: 'g their future, in terms of educational and career success. Only if tSL instruction is part of a comprehensive, challenging, and enriching educational program, however, will the promising futures of ESOL learners be realized. Introduction: Promising Futures 31ie Hie ^Haku! ?K\nHo\u0026amp;r ^^Krash lihdfc II cLat rCac ilii I* Sta s m- .'el-for ik- OL References for Further Reading Bilingualism and Second Language Acquisiti(^n \u0026lt; Ai d: August, D., \u0026amp; Hakuta, K. (Ed.). (1997). Improving schooling^^rl(ingiiage-mindri^,cifyi\u0026gt;^, A' research agenda. Washington, DC\nNational Academy K^sS' 'V Bialystok, E., \u0026amp; Hakuta, K. (1994). In ocher words: The scienc'^^nd:psvchplogy oj secori^^ldtx^iage acijuisicion. New York: Basic Books. A'-.. . d- Collier, V (1987). Age and rate of acquisitio'^.bt^econd langua^)fe?.\nach\n^^ic purposes. ' TESOL Quarterly, 21 (3), 617-641.' 'f fi ' ' ' ' \"(S'' % Collier, V (1989). How long? A synthesis of research on academ.ic achievement in a second language. TE5OL Quarterly, 23(2), 509-532' W- p Hak-uta, K. (1986). mVirror o/language\n1 he dehafil^n'New York^^^sic Books. Hoffman, C. (1991). Introduction to bilingualism. NetV.-YSfk: Longmian. Krashen, S. (1982). Princi_p!es of first and second lang'.iage^cduisicion. O.xford: P. iamon. Lindfors, J. (1987). Children's language and leatming. (2nd ed\u0026lt;)\n^ Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentl Hall. .ulus McLaughlin, B. (1984). Second language acquisition in children. Volume 1: Preschool children. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. McLaughlin, B. (1985). Second language acquisition in children. Volume 2\nSchool-age children. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. McLaughlin, B. (1992). Myths and misconceptions about second language learning:,.What teacher needs to know. Educational Practice Report No. 5. Santa Cruz, CA and'^asl^.'gt^n^ DC: Nauqnal Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language t^rhins. a\nPease-Alvarec, L, \u0026amp; Hakuta, K. (1992). Enriching our views of bilingualism and bilin'^i^i^U' cation. Educational Researcher, 21(2), 4-6. Bilingual Education: Importance of Native Language Collier, V (1992). A synthesis of studies'e-xamining long-term language-minority student data on academic achievement. Bilingual Research Journal, 16(1/2), 187-212. ESL Standards for Pre-K-12 Students Si-f* ! 1 II I si-.- \\ hi, v\u0026lt;- %%. '.v 11 V Exhibit No. 66: LI230-90 Program Evaluation for English as a Second Language.Section L. Program Evaluation Program Goals The Little Rock School district shall provide a research-based English-as-a- Second Language (ESL) program for its students who are identified limited-English proficient (LEP). The first goal of the ESL program is to enable students to master English language skills (reading, writing, speaking, and listening), content area concepts, and skills so that the students are able to participate effectively in the regular program as quickly as possible. The second goal of the ESL program is to provide identified students with the cultural literacy necessary for them to feel comfortable in participating in the school, community, and greater community. Program Objectives ESL program objectives are as follows: 1. 2. J. 4. 5, 6. 1. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. To implement and maintain consistent procedures for student identification processes. To assess all students who have a primary language other than English (PHLOTE), regardless of whether they are enrolled in a Newcomer Center. To establish and administer consistently appropriate criteria for entry and placement into an ESL program. To diagnose student needs and provide appropriate ESL standards/benchmarks, instruction, and assessments to meet identified students individual needs for English-language instruction, for understandable instruction in other content areas, and for positive self-concept and identification with personal/family cultural heritages. To hire, train, and continually , develop highly motivated, sensitive, and caring ESL teachers and other staff to provide effective ESL instruction, interact one-on-one with the identified stodents and their families, and serve as liaisons between school and relevant community. To provide appropriately aligned instructional materials. To establish and administer consistently appropriate criteria for exit from an ESL program. To provide for parental/family involvement in the school setting to support improved student learning. To provide equitable access to other district programs and services, including special education, gifted/talented education, and all procedural safeguards. To monitor the progress of all identified students during program participation and after program exit and to reclassify students as needed. To evaluate the ESL program and make program modifications as needed. To maintain accurate and useful student records, including procedural safeguards (See Administrative Regulations, IHBEA-R, approved November, 1999). Categories of English Second Language Students An objective of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) is to assess all PHLOTE students regardless of whether they are enrolled in a Newcomer Center. After attempting to assess these students, they are tagged within the Districts database as: (1) LEP - Limited English proficient, (2) NALEP - not assessed, or (3) FEP - Fluent English proficient. As of June 2,2000 the District has identified 805 PHLOTE students (LEP = 467, N-AfcEP = 45, and FEP = 293). -4here-i3-\u0026amp;fte-horTte-schQoled-sludent that has heerLassessed-EEPrbtrrwiltTTorbe included in this~' Supporting charts reflect three data gathering points, 11/30/99, 3/24/00, and 6/2/00, and correspond to the Districts reporting to the Arkansas State Department of Education, Districts Quarterly Report, and the Annual OCR report. The Districts primary database is the AS400 mainframe computer using CIMS, an electronic student database software. Student data are collected at school level. Cunent year data are filed with the students permanent record file (PRF). Baseline data are stored in ESL Department files. 'BSi7pTograirrand'DRtricrstaff1iave-reviewed-studenliiala_aud_mlLcnittinueJu44pdate4he mainframe database. As i^fereRecririrHlhHApdan. District staff are members nCthe Divi.sion of Curriculum andTnstraction. The Divisions-Associate Superintendent is Dr. Bonnie-Lesley^ The initial portion of this section will report demographic data (i.e,, gender, language, school location, grade level distribution, and any sub-groups) on LEP, NALEP, and FEP students. The subsequent sections will report academic and behavioral progress (e.g., attendance) of LEP students and how LEP students compare on academic and behavioral variables to NALEP, LEP, and the Districts general school population. Description of Limited English Proficient (LEP) Students. As of June 2, 2000, there are 467 LEP students in the Little Rock School District (LRSD). Demographics on this population are:  255 male (54.6%) and 212 female (45.4%),  Newcomer Centers serve most of the LEP students, 309 students (66.2%) (see also Figure#!), 3  LRSD has 48 schools, LEP students are being served in all of the High schools. Middle schools, and all but six of the Elementary schools (i.e., Badgett, Dodd, Jefferson, Mitchell, Western Hills, Rightsell, and Woodruff),  Non-Newcomer Centers serve the remaining LEP students (N = 158), with the top seven schools serving between 7 and 20 students (see also Figure 2),  The elementary level (grades Kindergarten through 5*) has the highest number of students per grade level with an average grade level enrollment of 46. Middle school (grades 6* through 8*') average grade level enrollment is 29, and high school (grades 9* through 12'*) per grade level enrollment averaged 19. The pre-kindergarten program (i.e. LRSDs 4-year- old program) had 29 LEP students enrolled, and  Among LEP students Spanish is the most common language spoken (71.1%), followed by Chinese (4.5%), Arabic (3.6%), Assyrian (2.3%), Korean (2.3%), and Vietnamese (1.5%). An additional 29 languages account for the remaining 14.3% of LEP students. One student has no language listed. Within the LEP population are several sub-groups: LEPNC - LEPSO - In an ESL program at a Newcomer Center (N = 309) Being served at a school other than a Newcomer Center (N = 158) LEPNS - Not being served (N = 9) LEPSPD - Receiving special education services (N = 9) LEPGT- Receiving gifted and talented (GT) services (N = 7) LEPREC - Students who have left the program, have been reclassified, and have re-entered the program (N = 0) Additional demographic data on these sub-populations are:  Newcomer Centers serve all of the students receiving gifted and talented services (N = 8),  Five of the Center, ^e^ students receiving special education services (LEPGT) attend a Newcomer  Five of the nine LEP students not receiving services (LEPNS) attend Newcomer Centers, and  Students not rei being monitored (N = 4y lirect services (LEPNS) have either refused services (N = 5) or areNewcomer Center LEP Enrollment Brady Chicot Romine Terry V\\feshington 11/30/99 26 _____68 33 22 38 3/24/00 25 71 30 18 33 6/2/00 ___  74 28 23 30 Cloverdale Middle Dunbar Middle 42 16 44 16 47 13 Hail High Total Languages LMS [ Figure 2 Top 7 Non-Newcomer Centers serving LEP Students Wakefield Cloverdale El McDermott Bale Garland Henderson Middle Forest Heights 11/30/99 21 17 17 10 6 7 11 3/24/00 22 14 18 9 8 8 10 6/2/00 20 14 13 12 8 8 7 Total I 97 I 73  88 Description of Not Assessed Limited English Proficient (NALEP) Students. There are 45 NALEP students identified in the Districts database. Demographics for this population are:  23 Male (51.1%) and 22 Female (48.9%),  Spanish is the most common language (31.1%), followed by Korean (15.5%), Gujarati (8.9%), German (4.4%), Farsi (4.4%), and Chinese (4.4%),  Grades kindergarten through 5* have an average grade level enrollment of 1, grades 6* through 8* have an average enrollment of 2, and grades 9* through 12* have an average enrollment of 8, 5  Most NALEP students, 80% (N = 36), have refused to be assessed, three (6.7%) are special education students and were unable to complete the Language Assessment Survey (LAS), three (6.7%) have not been at school when the LAS was administered, one (2.2%) is auditing, one (2.2%) has not returned the signed letter from a parent, and one (2.2%) has been assessed but the score report has not been received by the ESL office, and  Only 6.7% (N - 3) attend a Newcomer Center. Parkview High School has the most NALEP students, 44.4% (N = 20). Description of Fluent English Proficient (FEP) Students. There are 299 FEP in the Little Rock School District. Demographics for this population are:  147 male (50.2%) and 146 female (49.8%),  Spanish is the most common language (32.2%), followed by Chinese (11.2%), Vietnamese (6.4%), Urdu (4.1%), Korean (3.1%), Arabic (3.1%), and Russian (2.7%). While 34 remaining languages constitute an additional 31.4%, 5.8% (N = 17) have no language listed,  One hundred and eighteen (N = 118, 31.8%) of the students attend a Newcomer Center, with Chicot Elementary having 75 students, Cloverdale Middle having 46 students, and Hall High having 72 students.  For grades Kindergarten through 5 the average grade level distribution is 26, grades 6* through 8the average grade level distribution is 27, and grades 9 through 12^'the average grade level distribution is 13. There are nine FEP students in the Districts 4-year old program. Evaluation Plan Across four components listed below data will be collected, analyzed, and used to make appropriate, research-based, modifications to the program. The process of this evaluation is to report not only the basic program, demographic, and achievement data, but to used the data and data analysis to investigate and develop new and innovative instructional strategies. 1.(2,  Discussion of variables. All LEP academic and other data (e.g/lattendance) will be compared to the general population. The general population for this report consists of all students in the Little Rock School District except those students classified as LEP and students receiving special education services. The District will not compile the graduation, attendance, or retention rates for the 1999-2000 school year until August of 2000y These data will not be reported. LAS scores have only been entered into the Districts debase for those students who have become fluent after October 1999. Since most of the LEP, r and Pep students were not tagged in the Districts database 1999-2000 school ye^graduation data for 1998-1999 is not available. Retention and attendance data only will be reported for the 1998-1999 school year. Database information indicates that no students dropped out during the 1998-1999 or 1999-2000 school year. / Evaluation Components Curriculum service delivery, including curriculum for students who are identified for both Special Education and ESL. Materials and resources\nstaffing, including the number of teachers and aides trained, frequency of training, scope of training and results\nand student progress. Student progre^^^ademic progress of LEP students in ESL programs, LEP students who have been exited, anoifEP students not served in ESL programs. Examination of the number of retentions, drop-outs, and the student attendance rates of LEP students, former LEP students, and non-LEP students, and the extra become proficient in English/^ extent to which the aforementioned groups are becoming or have _______ .eview and comparison of data reflecting the gradtiation-and-\n(d^but rates of LEP a^former LEP students with that of their non-LEP peers. 7 Description of LRSDs Academic Testing to Assess LEP Student Progress State Mandated ACTAAP Benchmark Examination, Grades 4 \u0026amp; 8. The State is in the process of implementing its Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment \u0026amp; Accountability Program (ACTAAP) which includes a Benchmark Examination containing a measure of mathematics achievement and literacy. The intent and purpose of this component is to identify students in need of additional instruction in mathematics and literacy. This examination process is being developed, piloted, and implemented in a sequential and cumulative process beginning with 4* grade in SY 1997-98, and including 8* grade in SY 1998-99. SY 2000-01 will incorporate the math measure for 6* grade currently being piloted in other schools across Arkansas. Also end-of- course measures for Algebra I, Geometry, and Biology I are currently in the item development phase. All ESL students are to take the test unless parental permission to exempt is given. The comprehensive mathematics and literacy components contain multiple-choice and openresponse questions based on The Arkansas Mathematics, Reading, and English/Language Arts Curriculum Frameyvorks. Items are developed with the assistance and approval of the Arkansas Content Advisory Committees composed of active Arkansas educators with expertise in mathematics and literacy. The committees developed and reviewed both multiple-choice and open-response items to ensure they reflect the Arkansas Curriculum Frameworks and are grade-appropriate. While multiple-choice questions are scored by machine to determine if the student chose the correct answer from four options, responses to open-response mathematics questions are scored by trained readers using a pre-established set of scoring criteria. Students are given scores in math and literacy. Students can receive a test score of one through four with four representing Advanced followed by Proficient, Basic, and Below Basic. Achievement Level Test (ALT), Grades 2-11. The recently implemented Achievement Level Test (ALT) includes a series of mathematics, reading, language, usage, and science achievement measures that increase in difficulty across eight levels. This type of measurement is designed to document growth by assessing students at the cutting edge of their individual achievement level. Fall and spring administration across grades 3-11 permit measurement of growth within and across school years expressed in two kinds of scores: percentile scores and scale or RIT (Rasch Interval Scale) scores. Percentile scores can be used to compare students to the large group of test takers using the ALT developed by the Northwest Evaluation Association. It is important to note that this is a comparative group currently involving 104 schools districts and 500,000 students and growing 4 to 13 points annually. This is not a norm group configured to represent public school populations. All ESL students are to take the test unless parental permission to exempt is given. More importantly, demonstration of growth within and across an individuals matriculation in grades 2 - 11 is documented using the RIT score designed to make direct comparisons to a criterion performance level along a scale from 160 to 250. Students typically start at a RIT score of about 170-190 in the fall of the 3\"^* grade and progress to the 230-260 range by high school. Students at 235 have reached a readiness level for Algebra I. It is very important to note that along the Rasch Interval Scale, scores have the same meaning regardless of the individual students grade level. This type of measurement allows some students to start at a higher RIT level and some low-achieving students to never reach the top level. The design provides an accurate measure of each students achievement where the typical standardized test, by its nature, provides inadequate measures for many students, especially those at the high and low ends of the scale. Also important is the fact that tests are aligned with The Arkansas Mathematics, Reading, and English/Language Arts Curriculum Frameyvorks, thus enabling the District to determine impact and effectiveness of its instructional programs. The pool of test questions, developed by the Northwest Evaluation Association, has been extensively field tested to insure items of the highest quality and fairness. A balance of math teachers and curriculum specialists (i.e., race, gender, and grade level) matched the pool of questions to the standards and their attending benchmarks included in the aforementioned Frame^vorks. During test development activities, questions were calibrated for difficulty and assigned to a level (e.g.. Math levels 1-8). For example: An appropriate expectation of a Level 1 student is to multiply whole numbers, while a Level 6 student should be able to multiply fractions. This calibration makes it possible to calculate the RIT score which is tied directly to the curriculum. ALTs are administered during the f  and 4th quarters. Stanford Achievement Test- O*** edition (SAT-9). The Sat-9 is a overall measure of achievement in reading, mathematics, language arts, science, and social science. The SAT-9 is designed to measure student achievement in relation to the performance of a national sample selected to be representative of the nations students in each of the grades tested. The test provides a method for comparing the achievement of students with that of students in the same grade across the country. The SAT-9 is administered to students in grades 5, 7, and 10 during the month of September. The SAT-9 is a timed test. In addition to a raw score, mean scaled scores, normal curve equivalent (NCE), percentile, and stanine scores are provided. For this report, NCE scores are to be used.Marie M. Clav: An Observation Survey (AOS). The AOS is an observational measure that is used to guide student work on tasks related to reading and writing. The AOS consists of six measurable tasks.  Running Records records student behavior as text is read aloud.  Letter Identification records the what letters a student knows.  Concepts in Print records what a student is attending to on the printed page.  Word Test records the number of words a students knows.  Writing records a students writing behavior, and  Writing Vocabulary records all the words a student can write in ten minutes. Running records is considered the pivotal task among the remainder of the observation tasks. During this observation the student reads materials that are typically used within the classroom and the observer records the directional movements that are made, errors or miscues, and the student is assessed on deriving meaning, structure and information from the material. Given the number of observational tasks, only the running record data will be reported. The AOS is administered in the fall and spring to Kinderg^en through 2\"* grade. The AOS is written for classroom teachers who want to become careful observers of young children as they learn to read and write. The Survey is useful to teachers who work one-on-one with students who are having difficulty in learning to read and write. The AOS is administered to all students. Results State Mandated ACTAAP Benchmark Examination. Grades 4 \u0026amp; 8. The State Benchmark exam for the 1999-2000 school year was given in April 2000 and the results will not be available to the District until October 2000. The Benchmark exam was given to 4* and 8* grade students in February 1999 for the 1998-1999 school year. Data from the 1998-1999 school year will be used Jbr this report. Initial test results are provided to the District in hard copy form, only disagregating the data by race and ethnicity. At this time database data (e.g. Excel file) are only available for 4* grade students. Several LEP students (N = 18) did not take the test. The State of Arkansas allows LEP students, with permission from their parents, to be exempted from taking the test. This is probably the case for most of these students. The Arkansas Department of Education is currently field testing an alternative assessment for exempted students. Training on the administration of the alternative assessment will begin in fall 2000. There were no 4^ grader NALEP students, thus no test results. LEP students that took the test performed below District results and FEP students performed above District results (see Figures 3 \u0026amp; 4). (insert Figures 3 \u0026amp; 4) CL Stanford Achievement Test, 9^ edition (SAT-O). Students in the 5*, 7*, and lO'^ grades took the SAT-9 during September 2000. The complete battery scores reported are a compilation of reading, mathematics, language, spelling, study skills, science, social science, using information, and thinking skills subtest results. Percentile scores are reported (see Figure 5). The general population consists of all student with the exception of exempted LEP and special education students. A number of students (18 5 graders, 15 graders, and 18 10* graders) did not take the SAT-9. The State of Arkansas allows LEP students, with permission from their parents, to be exempted from taking the test. %js=?rpF^ably=^e\u0026lt;ise-fb-iaastailise-stedeHts. The Arkansas Department of Education is currently field testing an.alteBtrative assessment for exempted students. Training on the administration of the altemativ\nassessment will begin in fall 2000. Figure 5 SAT-9 Complete Battery Percentile Scores Grade General Population LEP NALEP FEP Sth 7th 10th 36 N = 1481 42 N = 1363 40 N = 1448 15 N = 11 27 N = 22 30 N=2 78 N = 2 40 N = 5 55 N = 30 71 N = 21 55 N = 16 Marie M. Clay: An Observation Survey (AOS). During the 1999-2000 school year, kindergarten through 2\"' grade students were assessed during the early fall and late spring on the six categories of the AOS. No students were to be exempted from taking the test. However, there were some students that were not assessed. During the fall testing 10 kindergarten, 19 1 grade, and 19 2\" grade students and during spring testing 11 kindergarten, 15 1 grade, and 5 2\"'' grade wee not assessed. There was an improvement from fall to spring on the number tested. On most of the State and District assessments (i.e., SAT-9 and State Benchmark), LEP students are allowed to be exempted, with parental permission, from testing. Teachers were asked to assess all students. With the exception of Kindergarten, LEP students did not grow as fast as the general population (see Figures 6, 7, \u0026amp; 8). V (insert figures 6, 7, \u0026amp; 8) rd Retention rate. Twenty-five students (16 LEP, 1 NALEP, arid 8 FEP)^ere retained after the 1998-1999 school year. Retention rates of these subpopulatiQns_were generally higher than the general school population (see Figure 8). Among the LEP students there were 10 male and 6 female students, and 14 students spoke Spanish, with 1 speaking Chinese and 1 Filipino. The one NALEP student was female and spoke Spanish. Among the FEP students there were 6 male and 2 females, with 7 speaking Spanish and 1 speaking Portuguese Figure 4 Retention Rate for the 1998-1999 school year by Level Level General Population LEP NALEP lElementar^ |Middle f HZ 1.33%| 4.29% I [High EI 0.98%| 2.94^ 0.42%| 1,31^ 3.30% I ^.00%| I 0.65%l iJ--  I 5.06%] EP I Attendance. The average daily attendance for the District in 1998-1999 was 92%. District data is not reported by level. Average Daily Membership (ADM) data is sent to the Arkansas State Department of Education and the Dept, of Ed. calculates the attendance rate. Dropout. According to the Districts database, no LEP, NALEP, FEP students dropped out during the 1998-1999 or 1999-2000 school years. However, 63 students did leave the District. Reasons for leave were:  Moved to another country, 23%, N = 15  Transferred to a private school, 10%, N = 6  Moved out of state, 30%, N = 19  Moved to another school District within the state, 35%, N = 22  Withdrew from school, 2%, N = 1 / ^eview^f academic dataj)f students reclassified and exited from ESL programs. Review of data reflecfing fh'e number of LEP students who have exited from ESL but returned to e ESL program to address academic deficits. Twenty-five students, since 11/30/99, have beeia-r/clasai-fied fro\n200 school year, no students have exited the program and ret\n, ,^me^ De data for this subpopulation are: ,EP to FEP. ^uring the 1999- le^ Demographic and academic  12 males (48%) and 13 females (52%),  10 students with aLASof3/4andl5 students with a L AS o f 3/5,  2 students exited March 2000, 5 exited April 2000, 10 exited May 2000, and 8 have no exit date,  17 of the 25 students do not have a language code in the database.  All of the students receive Gifted and Talented (GT) services.  64% of the exited students were from grades 2\" through 5*, 28% from grades 6* through 8*, / and 8% from grades 9 and 11, /  11 of the students (44%) were from Newcomer Centers. /fcr 4 P Z L L 1^- Figure 5 SAT-9 Complete Battery Percentile Scores Grade General Population LEP NALEP FEP Sth 7th 10th Figure 9 36 N = 1481 42 N = 1363 40 N = 1448 15 N = 11 21 N =22 30 N =2 78 N = 2 40 N = 5 55 N = 30 71 N = 21 55 N= 16 Retention Rate for the 1998-1999 school year by Level Level General Population LEP NALEP LEP 3 J I Elementary} 1.33% I 4.29% I I 0,65^ [Middle 0.98%| 2.9\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_1043","title":"External Evaluations, correspondence and personal vitas","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":["2002/2003"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["External Evaluations, correspondence and personal vitas"],"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/1043"],"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\nMemorandums related to \"\"Extended Year Education (EYE) Program Evaluation\"\" and \"\"Middle School Transition Program Evaluation.\"\" Personal vitas for Theresa Akey and William P. Moore.\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nMd:l!c: 5:/4col ll'cJnsffe,IJh /Jrd?l'i:2#7 Educo/c.tJh TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER 3001 PULASKI STREET RECEIVED LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 Board of Education T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools FEB 11 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PREPARED BY: ~~onnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction DATE: February 27, 2003 SUBJECT: Middle School Transition Program Evaluation Background Information One of the group of programs requ ired by the federal court to be evaluated with the participation of an external evaluator was the Middle School Transition Program. The District made the transition to middle schools in fall 1999. One of the four \"draft\" program evaluations presented to the Board of Education in summer 2000 was the one on the Middle School Transition for school year 1999-2000. Steps Taken as a Result of the Program Evaluation The District took no steps as a result of the 1999-2000 program evaluation, since, as is noted in the document, the data gathered that year were considered to be baseline data, against which to evaluate progress in the future. That statement does not mean that no changes in the middle schools have occurred since 1999-2000. In addition to numerous individual school level changes, the following significant District-led changes have occurred:  Full phase-in of new mathematics curriculum, instructional strategies, materials, and assessments\n Full phase-in of new science curriculum, instructional strategies, materials, and assessments\n Refinement of implementation of the new middle school Reading/Writing Workshop program (curriculum, instructional strategies, materials, and assessments)\n Implementation of new curriculum for Research and Writing Pre-AP at grades 6-8\n New writing curriculum implemented in 2002-2003.  Beginning of phase-in of new social studies curriculum, instructional strategies, materials, and assessments\nBoard Memo February 27, 2003 Page Two  New magnet programs implemented in fall 2001 at Cloverdale Middle School and Mabelvale Middle School\n Full implementation of the Safe Schools/Healthy Students grant project, focused almost exclusively at the middle school level, providing a range of comprehensive programs and services to improve learning climate and student achievement\n Increased enrollment in grades 6-8 Pre-AP courses in the core areas\n Increased enrollment in Algebra I in grades 7-8\n Administration of new Benchmark examinations in grade 6\n Involvement of four middle schools (Cloverdale, Mabelvale, Henderson, and Southwest) in Successful Transitions and Making Middle Grades Work, as developed by the Southern Regional Education Board\n Strengthening of the middle school fine arts programs\n Implementation of Act 1748, requiring physical activity at each grade level, K-9\n Implementation of Fred Jones' classroom management strategies. Designation of External Consultant and His/Her Qualifications On December 2, 2002, the District awarded the contract for the Middle School Transition program evaluation to the firm, Youth Policy Research Group, Inc., Dr. William Moore, Senior Partner. The resumes of Dr. Moore and his associate, Dr. Theresa Akey, are attached, establishing their qualifications. Administrator Participation in Conducting the Program Evaluation In addition to Dr. Moore and his associates, specifically Dr. Theresa Akey, the following LRSD staff participated in the evaluation: Dr. Ed Williams, Department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation Ms. Mona Briggs, Department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation Dr. Kathy Lease, Assistant Superintendent for Planning, Research, and Evaluation Principals of the eight middle schools, who participated in the administration of assessments and who completed surveys and administered student surveys Teacher Participation in Conducting the Program Evaluation All grade 7 teachers who administered the SAT-9\nand all grade 8 teachers who administered the Benchmarks\nAll grades 6-8 teachers who completed surveys and/or who administered student surveys I Board Memo February 27, 2003 Page Three Impact on African-American Student Achievement The study conducted by the external evaluator did not attempt to draw any conclusions related to this research question 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.\" Recommendation That the Board of Education approve the Middle School Transition program evaluation for submission to the federal court. BAL/adg ' ~ ~ ~ \"\" \"\"- \"\" - - ~    .a. T. AJceY f l uuw, v .. - . -- RFQ23-01 a-Response of Youth Policy Research Group, Jnc. THERESA AKEY, PH. D. BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OCTOBER, 2002 Dr. Toeresa J,/\n.ey bas extensive experience in the areas of evaluation, research and assessment. She earned her doctorate in educationil psychology, research and statistics from the UniversitY of](ansas in 1995 and her master's in comrnunitY and school counseling from Delta Staie University in !990. She bas approximately 12 years experience working as a consultant with nonprofit service agencies. Her major work bas focused on agencies that provide supports to families of children with disabilities, including evaluation of grants, staff development traming, and site-based research projects. She bas also worked with nonprofit organiza!ions in the areas of alcohol and drug abuse, comrnunitY counseling, and other services in both rural and urban areas. She served as project director and research director of the Beach Center on Families and Disabilities where sbe co-anthored grants, conducted research, and coordinated research and evaluation activities for a large research center focused on service provision to fumilies of children with disabilities. Dr. J,/\n.ey bas extensive background in educationil assessment. research, evaluation, and analytic methods. She served as an assistant professor in the area of research and analytic methods at Auburn University for two years, and roost recently in the role of director of educationil research. evaluation, and assessment in a ](ansas City area school district for the last four years. 38 ~   '  '-   I -..       J. T. A~ (Y01J1h Policy Research Group, inc.) 2 RFQ23-0JO--Respon.se ojYowh Policy Research Group, inc. CURRICULUM VITAE THERESA M. AKEY, PH.D. P.O. Box 4196 Kansas City, KS 66104-0196 (816) 935-0852 (V) (816) 62S-1927 (F) tak~rg.org PROFESSIONAL STATEMENT A collaborative, innovative professional with interests in educational evaluation and assessment issues, including school reform, teacher professional development and evaluation, instructional strategies, standards-based education, and alternative educational environments. Seeks to promote continuous improvement of educational and youth-serving organizations through collaborative partnerships, action-oriented research, and application of theory to practice. AREAS OF PROFESSIONAL EXPERTISE o Research design and analysis including complex quantitative analyses (HLM, SEM), categorical modeling, and qualitative design and analysis. o Development of educational assessment materials and psychometric validation of those materials. o Program evaluation in educational and community settings o Curriculum development in K-12 and higher education settings o Professional development in the use of data for organizational improvement, assessment development, and program evaluation o Grant and proposal writing o Information management development for educational information EDUCATIONAL HISTORY Ph.D. (1995). University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, Educational psychology and research with emphases in developmental psychology and quantitative research methods  Ed.S. (1992). University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, School psychology  M.Ed. (1991). Delta State University, Cleveland, MS, School psychology B.S. (1990). University of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR, Psychology and sociology 39 ,     '  ''  ' - II       T. Akev (Yowh Policy Research Group. inc.) 3 RFQ23-0JO-Response of Youth Policy Research Group, bu\n. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCES RESEARCH AND EVALUATION Youth Policy Research Group, Kansas City, Mo (June, 2002 to present). Senior Partner D Acting managing partner in research and evaluation corporation- administration and company management D Indiana Teaching ~ality Center (May 2002 to present). Evaluation project of best practices in teacher evaluation. ~alitative policy analysis of national standards in teacher evaluation and comparison of Indiana school districtS to those standards.  YDSI, Inc (May 2002 to present). Multivariate statistical analyses of insuuctional survey and observation data, including data display, technical assistance, and interrupted ti.me-series analyses   Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools (May 2002 to present). Development and implementation of case management system to display and organize student information  Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools Qune 2002 to present). Alignment and development of standards-based mathematics and language artS assessments  Park Hill School District, Kansas City, MO (July 1998 to May, 2002), Director of Research Evaluation and Assessment D Oversight and coordination of all district assessment and program evaluation activities. D Preparation of short-term and long-range budget and operational plans\nD Fiscal authority for budget of $200,000+ annually. D Responsibility for all personnel and resource utilization within the Department D Development and implementation of a comprehensive local curriculum-cm.bedded assessment system integrated with the Missouri Standards  D Development and implementation of district-wide continuous improvement planning and  eDvoacluuamtieonnt ation and analysis of district performance on all state accreditation performance and evaluation guidelines . D Development and implementation of district-wide: program evaluations of instructional practices, special education, professional development, assessment, supplemental instruction (Title 1, gifted, ESL), curriculum, and otha educational initiatives  D Served on regional and state comminees related to K-U assessment and evaluation issues. D Led applied and theoretical research projectS to address pressing educational issues relevant to local policy and instructional practice. D Collaborated with district stakeholders and school leadership to find innovative solutions to chronic educational problems in the Disrrict. Akey Consulting, Auburn, AL (June 1996 to July 1998) and Kansas City, MO. (Aug. 1999 to May, 2002), Founder and Owner O Online assessment and data information coordinating consultant for Kansas Cir-y, Kansas Public Schools. Design and implementation of online assessment and case management sysrem for reporting assessment information to teachers and adminiscrarnrs  D Assessment and data consultant for Kansas City, MO Regional Professional Development Center. Facilitated development of regional local assessments tied tO state standards and benchmarks  ::J Statistical analysis consultant for Kansas City Kansas Public Schools. Systems reform data analysis 40 I t   ' ' '          t  T Akey (Yowh Policy Research Group. Jnc.J ./ RFQ23-0JO-Response of Youth Policy Research Group. Inc D Educational consultant to Missouri school disrrictS- using data to make insuuctional decisions and best practices in standards-based assessment. Have consulted with approximately 10 different school districts to do uaining and planning in this area. D Consultant to Kansas City, MO School District- review of performance indicators and data management system and statistical consultant for desegregation case. D Educational consultant to Alvin Nash, Kansas City, Missouri Mayor's office. Suategic planning. D Educational consultant for the West Alabama Learning Coalition of Schools. Program evaluation and grant/proposal writing on teacher professional development and collaboration. D Educational evaluation consultant for Celebration School and Disney Corporation. Evaluation of integrated assessment practices. D Consultant for Chambers County-Auburn University Partnership. Program evaluation of insuuctional effectiveness and professional development. Beach Center on Families and Disabilities (1993 to 1996), Lawrence, Kansas, Research coordinator (1995-1996) and Research project director (1993-1996). D Coordinated center research activities and data analysis as research coordinator D Provided technical assistance in instrument development o Developed insuuments to measure consuucts of psychological empowerment D Primary research investigator on two projectS (one qualitative and one quantitative) concerning responsive services and psychological empowerment in family members of a child with a disability  D Worked in collaborative manner with community-based family support programs in several states to evaluate responsiveness of services to families of a child with a disability  D Grant and report writing Jones Research Consulting (1991-1996), Lawrence, Kansas, Founder and owner D Training consultant in empowering professionals and families. Beach Center on Families and Disabilities, University of Kansas. D Research and statistics consultant. Department of Educational Psychology and Research, University of Kansas D Family support consultant to Wisconsin Family Support program. Program evaluation D Insuuctional consultant to Douglas County Christian Schools, Lawrence, KS TEACHING AND ACADEMIC POSITIONS University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS (September 2001 to present). Psychology and Research in Education Department, Adjunct Professor, Educational 'Research, Statistics, and Classroom Assessment University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, MO Qanuary 2000 to present). Department of Educational Psychology and Research, Adjunct Professor, Classroom Assessment Park University, Parkville, MO Oanuary 2000 to present). Education Department, Adjunct Professor, Standards-Based Assessment Auburn University, Auburn, AL (1996 to 1998). Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Foundations, Leadership and Technology, Educational Statistics (including suucrural equation modeling, hierarchical linear modeling, multivariate statistics, and basic statistics), Research Methods, and pre-service classroom assessment University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS (1995-1996), Department of Educational Psychology and Research, Insuuctor, Basic educational statistics  41 I '    '           T. Akev (fowh Policy Research Group, Jnc.) ) RFQ23-01 O-Response of Youih Policy Research Group, Inc. University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS (1991-1995). Department of Educational Psychology and Research, Graduate Teaching Assistant, Developmental psychology, basic educational statistics, and multiple regression. CLINICAL AND APPLIED PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCES Topeka Public Schools (1991-1993). Topeka, KS, School Psychologist Clarksdale Public Schools ( 1990-1991 ), Clarksdale, MS, School Psychologist Arkansas Children's Hospital (1989-1991), Little Rocle., AR, Behavioral Intervention Unit, Classroom Teacher Arkansas Children's Hospital (1989-1991), Little Rocle., AR, Counselor GRANT FUNDING St. Clair, MA, \u0026amp; Akey, TM. (1999). Using Reflective Practice Groups to Improve Mathematics Instruction. Goals 2000 Grant, $40,000, .!J\u0026lt;ey, T. M. (1993). Family support influences on the development of parental skill and efficacy. NIDRR Grant # H133330070, RTD-5. Funded June 1993 as part of $650,000 grant, $45,000 per year for 5 years. /\\key, T. M. (1993). Validating the Psychological Empowerment Scale for parents of children with disabilities. NIDRR Grant# H133330070, RTD-7, Funded June 1993 as part of $650,000 grant, $35,000 for 5 years . PUBLICATIONS Aley, T. M. \u0026amp; Ares, N. M. (in press). Using a Learning Partnership to Teach Classroom-based Assessment in Context: .Conceptual and Belief Changes in Preservice Teachers. Teaching Education  Aies, N.M., \u0026amp; /\\key, T. (2000/2001). Self-organization in educational systems. Louisiana Education Research 1oumal. 25(1), 49-71  /\\key, T. M., Marquis, J. M., \u0026amp; Ross, M. E. (2000). The development of the Psychological Empowerment Scale: Evidence of its construct validity. Educational and Psvchological Measurement. 60Q), 419-437  Jensen, C., Hansen, C., Green, S. B., \u0026amp; /\\key, T. M. (1997). An investigation of item difficulty incorporating structure of listening tests: A hierarchical linear modeling analysis. Proceedings of the Language Testing Research Colloauium  Green S.B., Salkind, .J., \u0026amp; /\\key, T.M. (1999). Using SPSS for Windows: Analvzing and Understanding Data, 2nd Edition. New York: Prentice Hall  Green, S. B., .AJzey, T. M., Fleming, K. K., Hershberger, S. L., \u0026amp; Marquis, J. G. (1997). The effecrs of the number of scale points on chi square fit indices in confirmatory factor analysis. Srrucrural Eauation Modeling, 1(2) . 42 t t            J,.. T. Akey (fouih Policy Research Group, Jru:.) 6 RFQ23-0JO-Response of YOUih Policy Research Group, In!:. Akey, T. M. (1996). Empowering families of children with a disability: Implications for professional educators and service providers from a family-centered program- Teacher Education Research and Practice, 12(2). Green, S.B., Salkind, N .J., \u0026amp; Akey, TM. (1996). Using SPSS for Windows: Analvzing and Understandin_g Dara~ 1st Edition. New York: Prentice Hall. Jones (Akey), T. M., Garlow, J. G., Turnbull, H. R., \u0026amp; Barber, P. A. (1995). Family empowerment in a family suppon setting. In G. Singer, L E. Powers, \u0026amp; Olson, A.L (Eds.) Redefining farnilv support Introduction to oublic-orivate oarmershios. Jones (Akey), T. M. (1995). To hdp o, not to hdpc A ,n,dy of group ,nd in\u0026lt;fi,idu,l wriabks in , monl system. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Depanment of Educational Psychology and Research, University of Kansas Jones (Akey), T. M. (1994). Development of the Psychological Empowerment Scale: Preliminary investigations. Unpublished master's thesis. Department of Educational Psychology and Research, University of Kansas. Frey, B., Jones (Akey), T. M., \u0026amp; Saxon, T. F., (1993). Exoloring Research: Teacher's Manual ITeacher's Manual for N.J. Salkind's Exploring Researchl. New York: MacMillan. CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS A.ND WORKSHOPS Akey, T. M. (2000). Using Data to Improve Instruction. Workshop presented to the Regional Professional Development Center, Kansas City, MO, April 16, 2001. Akey, T. M. (2000). Using Data to Improve Instruction. Workshop presented to East Central Show-Me Curriculum Administrators Association, St Louis, MO, April 1, 2000  Akey, T. M. (2000). Using Data to Improve Instruction. Workshop presented to West Central Show-Me Curriculum Administrators Association, Kansas City, MO, February 16, 2000  Pennell, J., Eick, C., and Akey, T. M. (2000). Teacher beliefs and grading practices. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, April 2\u0026amp;-30, 2000  Akey, T. M., Sanders, S., Boyd, P., Gorrell, J. J., Kamen, M., \u0026amp; Salisbury-Glennon, J. (1999). Assessment and evaluation .in the Celebration School: Links to learning and curriculum. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada, April 19-23, 1999  Ares, N. \u0026amp; Akey, T. M. (April, 1999). Modeling and understanding of social interactions. Roundtable presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada, April 19-23, 1999 . Akey, T. M. \u0026amp; Lawrence, F. (April, 1998). Undersranding the effecrs of non-normal data on latent growth curve models. Violations of normality and influence of sample size. Paper accepted as part of a ,ymposi= (also chai, wd o,g,niw of session) Madding Non-norm,\\ Dau fo, the annual m~cing of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA., April 12-17, 1998  43 I 9 ~ --~ ~ ~  ~ w l.l!.t ~ - T. Akey (J'owh Policy Research Group, inc.) 7 RFQ23-0 I (}-Response of }'ouch Policy Research Group, inc. Mey, T. M., \u0026amp; Ares, N. M. (November, 1997). Conceptual and Belief Changes: Implications of a Sociocultural Approach to Educating Preservice Teachers in Classroom-Based Assessment. Paper presented at the annual meeting cif the MidSouth Educational Research Association, Memphis, TN, November 12- 14, 1997 Mey, T. M., Marquis, J. G., \u0026amp; Turnbull, H. R. (August, 1997). Effecr.s of Family Support Programs on Parental Empowerment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Chicago, IL, August 1997. Lmcig, D., \u0026amp; M\u0026lt;y, T. M. (April, 1997) Family Adapucion in f,mili,s wiili Adult Cbild\u0026gt;-en wiili Mcnul Retardation: Impact of Family Suengths and Appraisal. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Counseling Association, Orlando FL, April 1~13, 1997. Mey, T. M. \u0026amp; Green, S. B. (March, 1997). A Model of Moral Decision-Making: A Srudy of Group and Individual Influences. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. March 24-28, 1997. Mey, T. M. \u0026amp; Green, S. B. (March, 1997). The Relationship Between Power and Intercorrelated Dependent Variables in MANOVA. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. March 24-28, 1997. Mey, T. M. (February, 1997). Confirmatory Factor Analysis of a Moral Dilemma Helping Measure. Papa p,esmt\u0026lt;d at th, ,nnu,I mming of ili, E,,tem Educaciou,I Ros=ch Assnciacion, Hilton Hou!, SC, February 19-22, 1997. Jensen, C., Hansen, C., Green, S. B., \u0026amp; Mey, T. M. (1996). An investigation of item difficulty incorporating structure of listening tests: A hierarchical linear modeling analysis. Paper presented at the Language Testing Research Colloquium, Tampere, Finland, July 31-August 3, 1996. Mey, T. M. (December, 1995). Effecr.s of family support programs on parental empowerment. Workshop presentation at the annual Empowering Families Conference, Chicago, IL. Jones (Mey), T. M. (August, 1994). The development of the Psychological Empowerment Scale: Preliminary investigations. Poster presentation at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles, CA. Jones (Akey), T. M. Qune, 1993). Roundtable discussions on family empowerment and family services. Invited round table participant and presenter at the annual-Family Support and Family Empowerment Conference, Dartmouth, NH. RECENT TECHNICAL AND EVALUATION REPORTS Mey, T.M. (2002). Effecrs of standards-based assessment on insuuctional practices in middle school math teachers. Technical report for the Park Hill School District, February 2002. Akey, T.M (2001). Using data as a method for school improvement planning and decision-making: Administrators. Technical report for Park Hill School District, August 2001  Akey,~- M. (2000). 2000-2001 Disuict Performance Update: Assessment of the Show-Me Standards. Evaluaoon report prepared for Park Hill Scnool Disuict, October 1::, 2000.   J t '  t 'I           ill T. Akey (fouth Policy Research Group, inc.) 8 RFQ23-0JO-Response of YOUJh Policy Research Group, inc. Akey, T.M (2001). Using data as a method for insrructional planning and decision-making: Teachers. Technical repon for Park Hill School Disuict, August 2001. Akey, T.M. (2001) Validation of learning expectations for a standards-based curriculum in communication am. Technical repon for Park Hill School Disuict, January, 2001 Akey, T. M. (2001). Effectiveness of the Class-Within-a-Class Model .. Evaluation report for Park Hill School District. February, 2001 Akey, T. M. (2001). Evaluation of class rank procedures: Examination of alternate methods. Evaluation report for Park Hill School District. February, 2001 Akey, T. M. (2001). EffectS of Block Scheduling on lnsrructional Practices. Evaluation repon prepared for Park Hill School Disuict, February, 2001  Akey, T. M. (2000). Title I Evaluation Report Adequate Yearly Progress and Recommendations for Program Improvement. Evaluation report prepared for Park Hill School Disuict, December 7, 2000. Akey, T. M. (2000). 1999-2000 District Performance Update. Evaluation report prepared for Park Hill School District, October U, 2000. Akey, T. M. (2000). EffectS of Block Scheduling on Student Outcomes: Mastery achievement, credits, and test scores. Evaluation report prepared for Park Hill School District, April, 2000. Akey, T. M. (1999). Effectiveness ofFull-Day Kindergarten: Third Year Evaluation. Evaluation report prepared for Park Hill School District. Akey, T. M. (1999). 1998-1999 Disuict Performance Update. Evaluation repon prepared for Park Hill School District, October 10, 1999  BOOKS Green, S. B., Sal.kind, N. ]., \u0026amp; Akey, T. M. (1997). Using SPSS for Wmdows: Analyzing and Understanding Data. New York: Prentice Hall  Green, S. B., Sal.kind, N. ]., \u0026amp; Akey, T. M. (1997). Using SPSS for the Macintosh: Analyzing and Understanding Data. New York: Prentice Hall. PROFESSIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE Kansas City, Kansas YWCA, (Dec 2001 to present), Board of Directors Heartland Student Achievement Gap Organization, (August 2001 to present). Board of Directors Park Hill Educational Foundation, (August 2000 to present), Advisory Board 45 I  ~    ~ -  t t         Auburn University T. Akey (Youth Policy Research Group, Inc.) 9 RFQ23-0JO-Response of Youth Policy Research Group, Inc. 1998: Undergraduate Core Curriculum Development Committee for Teacher Education 1997: Chair, Library Appeals Committee 1997: Reviewer. Professional Educator, College of Education Universitv of Kansas 1993: Representative to the Graduate Student Council Student representative for faculty meetings of Educational Psychology and 1993, 1995: Research .Deparonent. RECENT HONORS Nomination for Dissertation of the Year: University of Kansas, School of Education, May 1996 Who's Who in College, 1987, 1991 President's List 1987-1991 Outstanding Psychology Student, 1990 PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZA TIONS Show-Me Curriculum Administrators Association 1998 to present ASCD National Organization, 1998 to present Missouri ASCD: 1998 to present American Psychological Association: 1990-1998 Society for Research In Child D~elopment 1992 to present American Educational Research Association: 1993 to present 1997: Reviewer for American Educational Research Association Arinual Meeting MidSouth Educational Research Association: 1996-1998 1998: Graduate Student Involvement Committee 1997: Reviewer for MidSoutb Educational Research Association Annual Meeting 1997: Graduate Student Involvement Committee Eastern Educational Research Association: 1996-1998 American Evaluation Association 1998-present 46 I                  W. P. Moore (Youth !'Otley J(esearcn vruu , ,,,.__ , , RFQ23-01 O--Response of Youth Policy Research Group, Inc Wn.,LIAM P. MOORE, PH. D. BIOGRAHICAL SKETCH OCT0BE~ 2002 Dr. Moore holds a doctorate in Educational Psychology from the University of Kansas and is a Senior Parmer with Youth Policy Research Group, Inc. located in Kansas City, Kansas. Currently be is the co-investigator for the evaluation of a systemic change initiative (First Things First) in the Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools and just completed a post-doctoral fellowship with Juniper Gardens Childrens Research Project exploring the dimensions of effective learning communities in schools. Dr. Moore serves also as a lecturer at the University of Kansas where he teaches Evaluating School Programs, a doctoral-level educational evaluation course  Dr. Moore has served as Research and Evaluation Director in two urban school districts\nSenior Research Associate with the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation\nand held faculty positions in research and measurement at the University of Kansas- Dr. Moore co-founded and directed the Dramatic AIDS Education Project, a collaborative AIDS education program for school-age youth and has spent the last 6 years conducting research and evaluation srodies on the efficacy of this AIDS education program for youth. Two years ago, the Project received Kansas City's Ribbon of Hope Award for outstanding community service towards the elimination of HIV /AIDS  Previously, Dr. Moore was Senior Ma.na:,oing Consultant with GPR\u0026amp;E, a research and evaluation consulting firm. He has consulted with school districts, not-for-profits, health care institutions, national foundations, youth development intermediaries and universities. He is a past member of the Board of Directors of Kansas City Public Achievement, a Minnesota-based youth empowerment program\nand recently retired, after 6 years, from the Board of Directors of Sunflower House: A Child Abuse Prevention Center, where be was Vice-President of Education and a member of the agency's Executive Committee. He now serves as a member of the Advisory Board . Dr. Moore has served as an expert witness in Federal school desegregation litigation\nwas a member of the Panel of Writers for the development of the new Student Evaluation Standards coordinated by The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation\nand served a twoyear term as a member of the National Research Development Committee for the American Occupational Therapy Foundation  Dr. Moore's research and evaluation interests have focused on effectively documenting the success of educational reform initiatives\nthe impact of mandated assessment -programs on teacher instructional practice\nand the impact of education on the HIV-related knowledge, attitudes and behavioral intentions of youth. Dr. Moore has published in Applied Measurement in Educarion, Educational Assessment, the International Journal of Educational Research, and The American Occupational Therapy Journal. Dr. Moore served 4 years on the Editorial Board of the Occupational Therapy Journal of Research and is currently a grant reviewer for the W. T. Grant Foundation . 7       t  W. P. Moore (Youth Polic-y Research Group. inc.) 2 RFQ23-0JO--Response of Youth Poiicy Research Group, inc. CURRICULUM VITAE WILLIAM P. MOORE, PH. D. OCT0BE~ 2002 Home 114 78 South Wtlder Street Olathe, KS 66061 913. 829. 3077 gprekc@aol.com Office P. 0. Box4196 Kansas City, KS 66104-0196 816. 564. 0143 01) 913. 390. 6162 (F) wmoore@YPrg.org Educational History 1991 Ph.D. 1984 M.A. 1981 B.S. University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS Educational Psychology Major: Evaluation, Research, and Measurement University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS Education Major: Secondary Curriculum and Instruction University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS Education Major: Secondary Soci.al Sciences Emphasis: Psychology and Sociology Current Appointments and Positions Senior Parmer. Youth Policy Research Group lnc  Kansas City, KS Lecturer. University of Kansas. Lawrence. KS Granc Reviewer. Willi.am. T. Grant Foundation., ew York.. JY Advisory Board, Sunflower House: A Child Abuse Prevention Center. Overland Park.. KS Advisory Board. Community Health Promotion Program. University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City. KS 8 t  t t '' ' -' ~,, ,  ~  ii  ..  W. P. Moore (l outh Policy Research Group. mc.1 j RFQ23-0JO-Response of YouJh Policy Research Group. inc. Professional Experience Consultation 2002-Present Senior Parmer, Youth Policy Research Group, Inc., Kansas City, KS. Youth Policy Research Group is a cmpora!e partnership formed by youth and education researchers located ID the Kansas City merropofuan area. The mission of this fum is to engage ID applied research and evaluation studies that will conrnDnte to policy and practice decisions and dialogue about the necessary supports and resources youth require to aclrieve long-term developmental success both acaderoicallY and behaviorally. Mucb of the work already complered by YPRG researchers is ID the K-12 education arena. Acting n,anagmg partner in research and evaluation corporation- administration and company management. 1993-2002 Senior Manrurin9- Consu)tan~ Great Plains Research and Evaluation, Olathe, KS. GPR\u0026amp;E was an education and youth development research and policy fum focused on improving the programming and organizations that children and youth experience- Qverall responsil,ility for managing research and evaluation conrractual work. Oversaw a staff of part-time consultants. managed resources and budget, negotiated contraets, oversaw project development, implementation, coordination of cla1a collection, analysis, rnssemmation, and action planning for future decision-making with clients. Clients included:  Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Through contactual work awarded by EMKF we assisted the following clients:  State of Kansas, SRS, Alcohol \u0026amp; Drug Abuse Services + State of Missouri, Dept. of Mental Health, Div. of Alcohol \u0026amp; Drug Abuse + State of Colorado, Team Fort Collins + Kansas City-St. Joseph Diocese Schools  youth Opportunities unlimited  Coalition for Positive Family Relationships Shawnee Mission East High School, St. Thomas Aquinas High School, Shawnee Mission North High School, Grandview High School, Lee's Summit High School Blue Valley High School, Wmnetonka High School, Park Hill School District, Center High School, Hickman Mills Management School II  Telemedicine Research Center, Portland OR.  Gambone \u0026amp; Associates: Youth Policy and Research Firm, Philadelphia, PA  Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Kansas  Shawnee Mission Medical Center Foundation  Johnson County Regional Prevention Center  Kansas City Young Audiences-KCY A  Center for Educational Testing and Evaluation, University of Kansas  Child Abuse Prevention Coalition  The Coterie Theatre 9 I  .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t  i   ~ ii8 W. P. Moore (Yourh Policy Research Group. Jnc.J .: RFQ23-0JO-Response of Youth Policy Research Group, Inc. Tbrough contactual work awarded by KCY A., we worked with the following clients:  Kansas City Arts Partners  Kansas City Lyric Opera  Kansas City Symphony  Fort Osage School District 1988 Evaluation Consultant. Deparrment of Art Education, Universitl' of](ansas, Lawrence, Kansas- Evaluation and data analysis of survey data examining the impact on participants of the Artist-in-Residence program, an integrated art education approach. 1987-88 Research Consultant. iawrence Unifred School District, Lawrence, ](ansas. Citywide telephone survey of attitudes towards Lawrence Public Schools. Development of sampling procedures, u,strumen1 development and revision, training of telephone interviews and protocol development. Oversee all technical aspects of data collection and analysis for survey oftaXPayers and for survey of district employees. Research \u0026amp; Evaluation Management and Staff Positions 1998-2002 Director, Department of Educational Research and Assessroent. Kansas Ciry, Kansas Public Schools, K,nsas City, ](ansas. Cabinet-level position with direct report to superintendent of Schools. Responsibilities included the overall IIJllllll,,oeroent of research, evaluation and assessment functions within the District. Created and organized the department from separate functional units. Prepared short-term and long-range budget and operational plansResponsibility for all personnel and resource utilization within the Department- Coordinated the actions of 8 professional and suppart staff members, as well as ten consultants, to respond to policy and strategic decision making ~ of senior district leadership, board memb=, building ~tors and district staff_ Met with State-level )ea\u0026lt;lership, communitl' 1eadershiP, and Unified Government staff to respond to external stakeholder needs for information. Planned for. and led applied and theoretical research projects to ,rldress pressing educational lssues relevant to local policy and i:nstnJCtional practice. Collaborated withJdistrict stakeholders and school leadersmP to find innovative solutions to cbronic educational problems in the District. 1997-1998 Senior ReseaICh Associate, Department of Research and Evaluaiion. Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. K,nsas City, Missouri. Responsibilities include providing research and evaluaiion support to internal clients and external grantees. PriroarY responsibility for leading all research and evaluation support to Foundation youth developm.ent-k-12 educational program initiatives. Client initiatives include local and national resrrucruring efforts in urban school districts. Provide leadership and management of teams associated with research and evaluation efforts. supervise three junior research and evaluation associates, liaison between research and evalUBiion and clientso creaxe, plan and manage research and evaluation projects: identifl' and select external vendors for specific projectS\ncreate and review RFPs: review grant proposals requiring research and evaluation oversight or support. Provide information for senior Foundarion and school district leadersmP to infonn policy and program decisions regarding urban school restructuring. 10   ' ~ ~  ~     ~ ~,,,, ,,.. \",.., ,,, W. P. Moore ffouth Policy J(esearc:11 v, uuy, ,,__  RFQ23-0J{}-Response ofYouch Policy Research Group. Jnc. 1996-1997 Director, Department 0 [Educarional Research and Improvement, Km,sas Ciry. Missoud School Dis1ricl, K,msas City, Missouri. Cabinet-level position with direct report to Superintendent of Schools. Responsibilities included the overall management of research and evaluation functions within the Disrrict. prepared short-tenn and loog-range budget plans, fiscal authority for budger of $600,0Q(},-. Resjl\u0026lt;\u0026gt;DS1DilitY for all personnel and resource utilizarion withio the Department. Coordinared the actioos of IO professional and support staff. Established partnerships with communirY groups and school facu]t)' to discuss innovative solutions to chronic educational problems in the Disrrict. Represented the District through information and expert testimony to attorneys and the Federal Court in desegregation litigation. !993-1995 Director of Research and Assist\u0026lt; Professor, Deparnnent of OT Education, University of Kansas Medical Cenrer, K,msas City, Kansas ResponsibiJities included mentoring faculty and sn,dents to develop and complete researcb. coordjnariog and facilitating federal and private grant development, and conducting educational and psychological research. Collaborating with other researchers in health and education. In addition, provided technical support, ins(rumelll and methods development- analytic assistance, and evaluation support to researchers, students  and faculty rnernb= univefsiry-wide. MernbershiP in Data Envelopment Analysis Users Group and Tele-educarion users group. Served on~ and school-wide committees representing researcb. curriculum and instrUCUon interests. As a member of the faculty of the School of Allied Health I coordinated all school-wide professional development events for faculty. 1989-92 Proer.mEvaluator. Km,sas City, Missouri School District, Department of Research. Evaluation, and Testing, K,msas City, MissourL Complete responsibilitY for the evaluation of seven to nine magnet school programs ,nnually. Developed evaluation plans, instmlllentation data collection procedures, trained ev-tion personnel, com:dinated all data  collection schedules and activities, assessed reliability, analyzed all data, and wrote formative, summ,rive, and achievement-enrollment surnn,aries annually. Reports informed local policy decisions for Board and senior district )eadership. Reports were used to infonn Federal court decisions regarding coropJiance with court orders and progress toward established desegregation outcomes as well as state-level policy reg,rding desegregation effectiveness in Missouri. I 987-88 Research A,sistallt. Center for Educational Testing and Evaluation. Kansas Internship Program, University ofK,msas, Lawrence, Kru,sas. Collected, analyzed, and presented da1a concerning the development of an observational system for intern teacher/trainer performance-based assessment. Teaching and Academic Appointments 2002 Lecrorer. Depanment ofPsycbology and Research in Educarion, University of Kansas. Teaching PRE 816 Evaluation of School Programs, a graduate-level evaluation comse for doctoral students. j  1993-1995 Assistant Professor. Department of OT Education. University of Kansas Medical Center. Tenure-line faculty appointment in the o,aduate School Concurrent appointment as J\nlirector of Research. Taught research methods course, graduate s,aristics and research seminar, graduate professional development ge,ninar\nprovided thesis advising to gtudents and contnDuted to the development of graduate progrmtl policies and curriculum. Mentored faculty and students in applied social science and behavioral research. o,airperson of Program Evaluation Corornittee. W. P. Moore (Youth Policy Research Group, inc.) 6 RfQ23-01 a-Response of Youth Policy Research Group. Inc Coordinator of school-wide faculty Development Education semmars. Elected to School of Allied Health Research Committee. 1993-1995 B,,search Assi-t ProfesSO'- University of l(ansaS eancer Center, University of Kansas Medical Center. Honornr)' appointroent ,eeogrn,:ing contnDution to research and scholarly activitl' ContnDute consulting and coJlaborarive service to research projects- 1991-1992 J.se'U\"\" I)epartro\"nt of Educational Psychology-and Rese\u0026amp;ch. University of Kansas. Courses taught included EPR 720 a graduate level classroom assessment course\nEPR 790 Research and EvaJuarion Proposal Development\nand EPR 710 a graduate level statistics course. 1988-89 g,.,,uate Teaching As~ Department ofEducational Psychology and Research, University of Kansas- Complete responsibility for teaching two sections of EPR 3 JO, a first year graduate level educational assessment and measurement c\\asS. 1984-86 Social Sciences m=ctor and De artmen' Actin\" C  erson. Turner High School, Tumer Unified School District, 1(ansaS City, l(ansaS- Taught sections of psychology, sociology, political science, and history. Assutned acting cl,airperson pos\\tion in Spring of 1986    1981-82 fu,cial Sci\"\"'es ]I,@!!Ctor. parsons Junior High SciJool, Parsons Unified School District, parsons, Kansas- Taught ,ections of American rnstotY and introductory Jaw. -- .... .... -rt   ~ t8 ~ ~.. Assessment and Testing I 998-2002 Drr\u0026lt;Ct% Educational Resemch and Assessroent Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools, K,,nsas City, l(ansaS- l see above for description of responsibilities)  t 996-1997 n_rrecrgr, Dep,rttnent of Educational Research and 1mproveroont, Kansas Ci,y, Missouri School District, Kansas City, J,!issouri (see above for description of responsibilities)- 1988-1989 filsistmt to T estjng Coordina19\u0026lt; Center for Educational Testing and Evaluation, K,,nsas J,,linimum eorrrpetency Testing Program, University of l(ansaS, 1..awrence, K,,nsasResponsible for assisting the coordinator in the dailY operation and coordination of a state-wide legislative mandated basic skills testing program. Developed system for rtern banking 3.000 test rterns\ntest paste-up and consrruction\nreviewins printing drafts, a\u0026lt;Jroinistering pilot srod\nes of items\nassisting with test equating and srandard setting activities.    ' -'.. .. .. ~ ~.. ~ ~ ~ ~.... ~ ~ '8 ~ .~. a..t W. P. Moore (Youth Policy Research Group, inc.} - RFQ23-01 O-Response of Youth Policy Research Group, inc. 1987 Test Item Writer. Center for Educational Testing and Evaluation, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas. Developed original and revised existing multiple choice mathematics and reading items for inclusion on the 1988 K.MCT tests (grades 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10). 1986-1987 Testing Research Assistant. Center for Educational Testing and Evaluation, Kansas Minimum Competency Testing Program, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas. Assisted in test construction., item tracking, and general test development activities and research regarding the KCMT. Publications Educational Psychology Gambone, M.A., Klem, A., Moore, W. P., and Summers, J. A. (2002). First Things First: Creating the conditions \u0026amp; capacity for community-wide reform in an urban school district. Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation: Kansas City, MO  Gambone, M.A., Klem, A., Moore, W. P., and Summers, J. A. (2002). Executive Summary of First Things First: Creating the conditions \u0026amp; capacity for community-wide reform in an urban school district. Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, Kansas City, MO. Moranetz C.A., Hammig B.J., Moore W.P., and Coleman-Henderson K. Violence and Teens: Characteristics of High Risk Youth, Submitted to the The American Journal of Health Behavior. Moore W.P., Moranetz C.A., Owens M.M., Wordlaw-Watkins S.D., Parmet D.B., Enenbach M.J., Arroyo E.J., Hanna M.T., and Hammig B.J. The Effectiveness of a Dramatic HWIAIDS Education Program on the .Knowledge, Attitudes, Behavioral Intentions and Perceived Personal Risk of Urban Adolescents, Submitted to the Journal of Adolescent Health Moranetz C.A., Hammig B.J., Moore W.P., Turkman D.F., Miller J.W., Stebbins D.R., Brown C.M., and Mosier M.C. The Community Health Project: An Example of Effective Service Learning at the University of Kansas, Submitted to Academic 1\n1:edicine. Moore, W. P. (1996). Successful grantspersonship: Achieving the three clarities. Ewing Marion Kau:ffi.:nan Foundation, Kansas City, MO  Brown, C., Moore, W. P., Heroman, D., \u0026amp; Yunek, A. (1996). Influence of instrumental activities of daily living assessment method on judgments of independence. The American Occupational Therapy Journal_ 50(3), 202-206. Moore, W. P. (1995). Action research: A primer for teacher professional development. Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, Kansas City, MO. 13 I  I  I ~ '_,  ~ ' -' -' ---- ' W. P. Moore (Youth Policy Research Group, Inc.) 8 RFQ23-0J(}-Response of Youth Policy Research Group. Inc Moore, W. P. (1994). Toe devaluation of standardized testing: One district's response to a mandated assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 7(4), 343-367. Moore, W. P. (1994). Appropriate test preparation: Can we reach a consensus? Educational Assessment, 2(1), 51-68. Miller, M. D. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1991). Private-public school differences in the United States: Findings from the Second International Mathematics Study. International Journal of Educational Research, 15 (5), 433-444. Moore, W. P. Relationships among teacher test performance pressures, perceived testing benefits, test preparation strategies, and student test performance (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, 1991 ). Dissertation Abstracts Internationale. Health Research and Psychology Beisecker, A. E., Murden, R., Moore, W. P., Graham, D., Helmig, L. (1996) Attitudes of medical students and primary care physicians regarding input of older and younger patients in medical decisions. Medical Care, 34(2), 126-13 7. Fabian, C. J., Kamel, S., McKittrick, R., Zalles, C., Simon, C., l(imler, B. F., Zeiger, S., Moore, W. P., and Chin, T. (1995). Breast tissue biomarkers in women at high and low risk for breast cancer. Proceedings of Cancer Symposium. Wayne State University: Kluwer Publishers. Beisecker, A. E., Helmig, L., Graham, D., and Moore, W. P. (1994)._Attitudes of oncologists, oncology nurses, and patients regarding medical decision-making by older and younger breast cancer patients. The Gerontologist, 34, 505-512 Fabian, C. J., Zalles, C., Kamel, S., IGmler, B. F., McKittrick, R., Trainin, A. S., Zieger, S., Moore, W. P., Hassanein, R.S., Simon, C., Johnson, N., Vergara, B., Jewell, W.R., Lin, F., Bhatia, P., and Chin, T. (1994). Prevalence of aneuploidy, overexpressed ER and EGFR and dysplastic cytology in random breast aspirates of women at high and low risk for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 30, 263-274  Beisecker, A. E. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1994). Oncologists' perceptions of the effects of cancer patients' companions on physician-patient interactions. Journal of Psychosocial Oncology, 12 (1/2), 23-39. Fabian, C. J., Zalles, C., Kamel, S., McKittrick. R., Moore, W. P., Zeiger. S  Simon, C., IGmler. B., Cramer, A., Garcia, F., and Jewell, W. (1993). Biomarker and cytologic abnormalities in women at high and low risk for breast cancer. Journal of Cellular Biochemistry, J 7G, 153- 160. ~ I ' '  '  ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -' --' -\" ' ' --'  W. P. Moore() owh Policy Research Group. Inc.} 9 RFQ23-0J(}-Response of Youth Policy Research Group. inc. Beisecker, A. E. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1992). Physician-cancer patient-companion interactions. Proceedings from the first annual meering of Psychosocial Oncology: Enhancing Parient and Family Care, Beverly Hills. Research, Evaluation and Planning Reports Moore, W. P. and Husman, M. (in press). Constructing youth engagement: A synthesis of literature, observation and professional opinion. Prepared under contract to Kansas City Young Audiences by Youth Policy Research Group, Inc.: Kansas City, KS. Moore, W. P. and Gramlich, A. (Sep. 2002). Evaluation of the impact of the school to enrrepreneurship program: Findings from the 2001-2002 implementation. Prepared under contract to the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation by Youth Policy Research Group, Inc.: Kansas City, KS. Gambone, M. A, Klem, A., Moore, W. P., and Summers, J. A. (2002). First Things First: Creating the conditions \u0026amp; capaciry for community-wide reform in an urban school district. Gambone \u0026amp; Associates: Philadelphia: PA. Gambone, M. A, Klem, A., Moore, W. P., and Summers, J. A. (2002). Executive Summary of First Things First: Creating the conditions \u0026amp; capaciry for community-wide reform in an urban school district. Gambone \u0026amp; Associates: Philadelphia: PA. Moore, W. P., Anthony, J., and Husman, M. (Nov. 2001). Evaluation of the TeacherArtist Residency Professional Development Model. Great Plains Research and Evaluation: Olathe, KS. Moore, W. P. (June, 2001) Effectiveness of the Young Audiences' Artist Training Conference. Great Plains Research and Evaluation: Olathe, KS. Moranetz, C., Moore, W. P., \u0026amp; Coleman-Henderson, K. (Dec, 1999). Evaluation of a Violence Prevention Program for High Risk Youth Phase One: Profiling Participants in Project SAFE. Great Plains Research and Evaluation: Olathe, KS. Moore, W. P. (1999). Learning about evaluation: Who are the stakeholders? Research Brief 4, Department of Educational Research and Assessment, Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools. Moore, W. P. (1999). Summary of parent and staff support for the Early Release Program, Research Brief, 2, Department of Educational Research and Assessment, Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools. Moore, W. P. (1999). School leadership mobility in the Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools. KCKPS Research Brief 1, Department of Educational Research and Assessment. Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools. 15 I I   I '    ' ' ' ' ' ' '  -    W. P. Moore (Yauch Policy Research Group, Inc.) JO RFQ23-0JO-Response of Youth Policy Research Group, Inc. Moore, W. P., Wright, D., \u0026amp; Cantwell, D. (1999). Assessment 2000: A Plan to create a world class assessment system in the Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools. Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools. Moore, W. P., Wright, D., \u0026amp; Cronister, J. (1998). 1997-1998 Student perceptions of instructional environment: District summary. Kansas City, KS: Department of Educational Research and Assessment, Kansas City, KS Public Schools. Richtermeyer, G., Moore, W. P., \u0026amp; Jones, R. L. (1998). Project Choice: A summary of parent perceptions five years later. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Moore, W. P., Helliner, T., fomas, L., Jones, R., \u0026amp; Gonzalez, S. (1998). Public achievement in Kansas City: Evaluation of the first year of implementation. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Moore, W. P., Jianas, L., Helliner, T., \u0026amp; Jones, R. (1998). The scholarship initiative: Synthesis of findings from phases 1 and 2 of the implementation evaluation. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Moore, W. P., Helliner, T., Jianas, L., Jones, R., \u0026amp; Robinson, R. (1998). Evaluation of the first year of implementation of Public Achievement in Kansas City: Mid-course findings  Kansas City, MO: Ewmg Marion Kauffman Foundation. Moore, W. P. (1998). Long-term planning for the evaluation of Arts Partners programming in schools. Olathe, KS: Great Plains Research and Evaluation. Moore, W. P., Richtermeyer, G., Helliner, T., \u0026amp; Jones, R. (1998). Professional development for urban principals: Findings from a needs assessment of Kansas City principals. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Jones, R. (1998). Evaluation of the third annual Successful Schools network meeting. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Moore, W.P. \u0026amp; Jones, R. (1998). Evaluation of the second Missouri Superintendent's Forum. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Jones, R. (1998) Evaluation of the second First Things First educational roundtable for school-site reform . Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Jones, R. (1998). Evaluation of the Missouri Superinrendent's Forum. Kansas City. MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation  16  '  '' '  '' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' W. P. Moore (fouih Policy Research Group, 1 nc.J JI RFQ:!3-0JO-Response of Youih Policy Research Group. Jn:: Moore, W. P., Jones, R. (1997). Evaluarion of the First Things First Educational Roundtable for Schaal-Sire Reform. ].(ansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman F oundarion Daniels, S. D., fomas, L., \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1997). Sustainability study of youth development granrees. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Moore, W. P. (1997). Teacher perceprions of school leadership: Decision making support informarion. Kansas City, MO: Kansas City. Missouri School District. Moore, W. P. ( 1997). College prepatory education' Results of observations at Lincoln College P,eparatory Academy. ].(ansas CIT)'. MO: ].(ansas CIT)', Missouri School District. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; )(ass. H.K. (1997). Evaluation of the educational resrructuring efforr in the Kansas City-St. Joseph Catholic Diocese elementary schools: Findings from the second year of evaluation. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Moore, W. P. (1997). Intern.al audit of Iowa Tests of Basic Skills special testing to determine swdent eligibility for Admission to Lincoln College P,epartory: A report to the Superincendent. Kansas City, MO: Kansas City, MO School District. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Kass, H.K. (1996). Evaluarion of the implementation of the FYI Training Insritute. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation  Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Kass, H. K. (1996). Evaluation of the initial implemenJation af the Bug H U. G. S. educarion.al program. Shawnee Mission, KS: Shawnee Mission Medical Center Foundation.. Moore, W. P ., Kass, H.K., \u0026amp; Welch., K. (1996). Evaluation of the education.al rest,ucruring effort in the Kansas City-St. Joseph catholic diocese elementary schools: Findings from the first yew of evaluation. ].(ansas CIT)', MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Kass, H. K. ( 1996). Implementation evaluation and identification of our comes for selected music programs offered through Arts Partners. ].(ansas City, MO: )(ausaS City Young Audiences. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Kass, H.K. (1996). Evaluarion of the implementation of Arts Farmers prog,ams in the Fort Osage School District. Kansas CIT)', MO: J(ausaSCity Young Audiences. Moore, W. P. (1996). Summary of technical assistance ourcomesfor nation-wide substonce use projectsfimded by the Ewing Mwion Kauffman Foundation. Kansas City, MO, Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Welch. K. (1996). Evaluarion report for the 3-on-3 youth ourreach prog,am Context, implementation and preliminary outcomes. ].(ansas City. MO: Emlg Marion Kau:ffinan Foundation. I   ' -~ '' ''' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' W. P. Moore (Youth Policy Researcn Group. inc.) !2 RFQ23-0JO-Response of Youth Policy Research Group. Inc Moranetz., C. A., Moore, W. P. Hutcheson, D. \u0026amp; Wendt, K.. J. (1996). Summary of impact of the Dramaric AIDS Education Project at catholic high sclwols: Technical Report. Kansas City, KS: University ofl(ansas Medical Center. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Kass, H. ( I 996). Evaluation report for Baseline Training in the midwest region of the United States: Implementation, rechnicol specifications, and perceived outcomes. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion K.auffinan Foundation. Moore, W. P., Welch, K.., \u0026amp; Kass, H. (1995). Final evaluation report for the STAR continuarion grants program. I(ansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Welch, K. (1995). Evaluation report for the Ewing Marion Kauffino-n Foundation's Project ST AR continuation granrs program: Unintended outcomes and future role off oundation in substance abuse prevention. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kanffinan Foundation. Moore, W. P. (1994). Evaluarion of the Mind's Edge arts integration program: An examination of the process and products. Kansas City, MO: Kansas City Young Audiences. Atwater, J. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1992). Achievement and enrollment evaluation of the Applied Learning ElementarY Magnet Schools, I 990-I 99 I  Kansas City, MO: Kansas City  Missouri School District, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1992). Achievement and enrollment evaluation of the Faxon Monressori Elemenrary Magnet Sclwol Program, 1991-/992. Kansas City, MO: Kansas City, Missouri School District, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1992). Achievement and enrollment evaluation of the Science/Math Middle Magnet Sclwols Program. I 991-199 2. Kansas City, MO: Kansas City, Missouri School District, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1992). AchievemenI and enrollment evaluation of the Southwest High School Math/Science Magnet Program, I 991-1992. Kansas City, MO: Kansas City. Missnuri School District. Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1992). Summarive evaluation of the Applied Learning Elemenrary Magnet Sclwols Program. I 99 J-199 2. Kansas City. MO: Kansas City. Mi,souri School D\n,\nrrict. Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1992). Summarive evaluation of the Science and Mathematics Magner Elemenrary Sclwols. Longiwdinal Report, I 989-1990. Kansas City. MO: Kansas City. Missouri School District.. Evaluation Office. 18 I  ~ - ' '  '  ' ' '' '''''' 1ft -~ ~ Ir P. Moore (T'oucn Poucy Research Group  .1 n:. J 3 RFQ23-0I (}-Response of J'ouih Policy Research Group. in::. Moore, W. P. (1992). Summative evaluation of the lnvesrigarive Learning Elementary Magnet Schools, 1991-1992. Kansas City, MO: KansaS City. Missouri School District, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1992). Formative evaluation of the Holliday Monressori Elementary Magnet School Program, 1991-1992. J(\n,nsas City, MO: Kansas City, Missouri School District, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1992). Formative evaluation of the Southeast Health Professions Magnet High School, 1 991-199 2. J(\n,nsas City, M 0: J(\n,nsas City, Missouri School Disrrict. Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1991). Achievement and enrollment evaluation of the Investigative Learning Elemenrary Magnet Schools, 1990-1991. I(ansas City, MO: 1(ansas City, Missouri School District, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1991). Achievement and enrollment evaluation of theScience/Math Middle Magnet Schools, 1990-1991. I(ansas City, MO: l(ansaS City, Missouri School District, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1991). Formative evaluation of the Holliday Montessori Elementary Magnet Schaal, 1990-1991. Kansas City, MO: K\n,nsas City, Missouri School Disrrict, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1991). Formative evaluation of the Science and Mathematics Magne1 Elementary School Program, 1990-1991. Kansas City. MO: l(ansaS City, Missouri School District, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1991). Formative evaluation of the Southeast Health Professions Magnet Wgh Schaal, 1990-1991. Kansas City, MO: K\n,nsas City, Missouri Schoo 1 Disrrict, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1991). Summative evaluation of the Fax.on Montessori Magnet School Program, Longicudinal Report, 1989-1991. Kansas City, MO: Kansas City, Missouri School District, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1991 ). Summative evaluation of the Southwest Science and Mathemacics Magnet High School Prag.-am, Longitudinal Report, 1989-1991. K\n,nsas City, MO: Kansas City. Missouri School District, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1990). AchievemenI and enrollment evaluation of the Jnvescigarive Learning Elemenrary Magnet Schools, 1989-1990. Kansas City. MO: Kansas City. Missouri School District, Evaluation Office. 19 I   ' ' ' '  '  '  '    W. P. Moore (iourh Policy Research Group, Jnc.j /4 RFQ23-0JO-Response of Youth Policy Research Group, Jnc. Moore, W. P. (1990). Formative evaluation of the New Faxon Montessori Magnet School, 1989-1990. Kansas City, MO: Kansas City, Missouri School District, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1990). Formative evaluation of the First Year Science and Mathematics Magnet Elementary Schools, 1989-1990. Kansas City, MO: Kansas City, Missouri School District, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1990). Formative evaluation of the Southwest Science and Mathematics Magnet High School, 1989-1990. Kansas City, MO: Kansas City, Missouri School District, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1990). Mid-year formative evaluation of the First Year Science and Mathematics Elementary Magnet Schools, 1989-1990. Kansas City, MO: Kansas City, Missouri School District, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1990). Mid-year formative evaluation of the Science/Math Middle Magnet Schools, Longitudinal Report, 1987-1988, i988-1989, 1989-1990. K,,nsas City, MO Kansas City, Missouri School District, Evaluation Office. Moore, W. P. (1990). Summative evaluation of the Science/Math Middl.e Magnet Schools: Longitudinal Report, 1987-1988, 1988-1989, 1989-1990. Kansas City, MO: Kansas City, Missouri School District, Evaluation Office  Moore, W. P. (1988). Evaluation report on the Artist-in-Residence Program. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas, Department of Art Education. Published Abstracts Wendt K.J., Moranetz C.A., Wallace D.D .. HoffG.L., Moore W.P., Hamm.R.H., Bindman A.B., Lehman J.S. Deterrents to HIV Testing and Care: An Analysis of the HIV Referral Syscem in Missouri, Presented at 125th Annual American Public Health Association Meeting. Indianapolis. Indiana. November 1997  Wendt K.L Moranetz C.A., and Moore W.P. Treatment Group Composition Effects in A HIV Education Program For Teenage Youth. Presented at 18th Annual Scientic Sessions of The Society of Behavioral Medicine. San Francisco, California., April 1997  Moore, W.P .. Moranetz C.A., and Wendt K.J. , Artitudes and Predicrors of HIV Risk Reduction Behavior in Carholic Teenagers. Presented at 26th International Congress of Psychology. Monrreal. Canada. August 1996. 20 I I ' ' ~ ' -~ \\ ' ' '' ' ' ' ' -' ' ' -'  W. ?. Moore (Youth POiicy Researcn Group, inc.J ,J RFQ23-0JO-Response o_( l'outh Policy Research Group, In=. Conference Presentations and Session Chairs Wright. D ., Moore, W. P ., and Heiro=. J. (2002, Apr.). Whom did we miss and why? Character\nstics of non-participating general education srudents in mandated achievement assessments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, ew Orleans, LA. Moranetz, C. A., Hamming, B. J., Moore, W. P., Mosier, M. M., Turla:nani, D. F., Young. B., \u0026amp; Anthony, A. (2000, Apr.). Service learning Merging medicine and public health. The Community Healrh Project at the University af Kansas. Paper presented at the annual meeting oftbe Association for Teachers of Preventive Medicine, Atlanta. GA. Coleman-Henderson K., Moranetz C.A., Moore W.P. (2000, Apr.). Violence and Teens Characteristics of High-Risk Youth, Srudent National Medical A.,sociarion 35 Annual Medical Education Conference, Los Angeles, CA. Wendt, JU., Moranetz, C. A., Wallace, D. D., Hoff, G. L., Moore, W. P., Har=, RH  B-A. B., and Lebman, J. S. ( l 997, Nov.). Deterrents to HIV testing and carec An analysis of the HIV referral system in Missouri. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association, Indianapolis, IN. Moore, W. P. (1997, Apr.). Using multiple measures in evaluation. Chairpenon for conference session in Division R Research on Evaluation Special Interest Group. Session delivered at the annual rneerinll of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Wendt, IC, Moranetz., C. A, \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1997, Apr.). Treatment Group Composition Effects in A HW Education Program For Teenage Youth. Paper pre-ed at the annual meeting oftbe Society for Behavioral Medicm.e, Washington, DC. Moore, W .P ., Moranetz C.A., and Wendt K.l. ( 1996, Aug.). Attitudes and Predicrors of HIV Risk Reduction Behavior in Catholic Teenagers, Presented at the 26th International Congress of Psychology, Montreal.\nCanada- Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Mercer, C. (1995, Apr.). The role of teachers in the development of the national educational research agenda Is ar,yone in Washington listening? Paper presented at the I 995 annual meeting of the AJDerican Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Moranetz, C. A. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P., Owens, M., \u0026amp; Wordlaw, S. (1995, Apr.). A collaborative AIDS education model for changing knowledge and behavioral intentions of adnlescenrs. Paper presented at the I 995 annual meeting of the Society of Behavioral Medicllle. San Diego. 21 W. P. Moore () 'owh Pnlicy Research Group, inc./ /6 RFQ23-0JO-Response of YouJh Policy Research Group, Inc Moranetz., C. A., Moore, W. P., Owens, M., \u0026amp; Wordlaw, S. (1995, Mar.). The impact of a dramatic AIDS education program on knowledge and behavioral intentions of teenagers. Paper presented at the 1995 annual meeting of the Association for Teachers of Preventive Medicine, New Orleans, LA. Moranetz, C. A., Moore, W. P., Owens, M. M., \u0026amp; Wordlaw, S. D. (1994, Nov.). AIDS education and prevention: A medicine and drama model for changing knowledge and behavioral intentions of adolescents. Paper presented at the annual University of Kansas Medical Center Faculty Research Day, Kansas City, KS. Kamel. S., Fabian, C., Zalles, C., McKittrick, R., Kimler, B., Zeiger, S., Simon, C., Moore, W. (1994, Nov.). Correlation of breast tissue biomarkers with hyperplasia and dysplasia in fine needle aspirates (FNA's) of women at high and low riskfor breast cancer. Paper presented at the annual Faculty Research Day at the University of Kansas Medical Center. Kansas City, KS. Moranetz, C. A., \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1994, July). The dramatic AIDS education project: The impact of an innovative program on the knowledge, attitudes and behavior of teenagers. Paper presented at the 19th annual meeting of the National Wellness Conference, Stevens Point, Wl. Scott, D. A., \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1994, Jun.). Predicting academic success and failure. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Commission on Education, Boston. Moore, W. P., Moranetz, C. A., Hanna, M. T., \u0026amp; Arroyo, E. Y. (1994. Jun.). Effects of a dramatic education intervention on AIDS-related knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral intentions. Paper presented at the sixth annual meeting of the American Psychological Society. Washington. DC. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Esselman., M. E. (1994, Apr.). Exploring the context of teacher efficacy: The role of achievement and school climate. Paper presented at-the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans. Fabian. C., Zalles, C., Kamel. S., McKittrick. R., Kimler, B., Zeiger. S., Simon, C  Moore, W. (1994, Apr). Correlation of breasr tissue biomarkers with hyperplasia and dysplasia in fine needle aspirates (FNA's) of women at high and low riskfor breast cancer. Paper presented at the 85th annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research, San Francisco. Moranetz. C. A., Arroyo, E. Y .. Hanna. M. T .. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1994. Feb). The implementation and evaluation of an innovative AIDS education program. Paper presented at the fifth annual meeting of the American Journal of Health Promotion research conference. Colorado Springs. CO. 22   ' ' ~ ' ' ' ~ ' ' ' ' ' '\\ '.. '''\" -.. W. P. Moore (Youth Policy Research Group, Inc.) Ji RFQ23-0JO-Response of Yourh Policy Research Group. Jnc. Beisecker, A. E. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1993, Nov.). Attirudes regarding desire for information and patient input in medical decisions for breast cancer. Paper presented a! the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association, San Francisco. Beisecker, A. E. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. ( l 993, Sept.). The effects of patient age on attitudes of oncologists. oncology nurses and female patients regarding patient input in medical decisions for breast cancer. Paper presented at the snnual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research, San Diego. Moranetz, C. A., Moore, W. P., Arroyo, E. Y., \u0026amp; Hanna, M. T. (1993, Nov.). The impact on teenagers of an innovafive AIDS education program: Results from the first pilot year Paper preseoted at the University of Kansas Medical Center annual faculty research day, Ki,nsas City, KS. .  Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Mercer, C. ( l 993, Nov.). Identifying research prioriries in education: Results from a national sample of university educarors. Paper presented at the snnual F acuity Research Day, University ofl(ansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS. Moore, W. P. ( l 993, Apr.). Preparation of swdents for testing: Teacher differentiation of appropriare and inappropriate practices. Paper presented at the snnual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Atlanta- Beisecker, A. E. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. ( l 992, Nov.). Attiwdes of oncologists and oncology nurses regarding medical decision-making by older and younger breast cancer patients: Implications for provider-patient communication. Paper presented at the snnual meeting of the American Public Health Association, Washington, D. C. BeIBecker, A. E. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1992, Nov.). Attitudes of medical sn,dents and primary care physicians regarding input of older and younger patients in medical decisions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Gerontological Society of America, wasmngton, D c. Moon,, W. P. \u0026amp; Beisecker, A. E. (l 992, Nov.). Oncologist's perceptions of physician cancer patient-companion interactions. Poster presented at the University of Kansas Medical Center Faculty Research Day, Kansas City, KS. Beisecker, A. E. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1992, Sept.). Physician-cancer patient-companion interactions. Presented at the first Psychosocwl Oncology: Enhancing PatiOnt and Family Care Conference, Beverly Hills, CA. Essebnan, M. E. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. ( 1992, Apr.). In search of organiiationnl variables which can be altered to promote an increased sense of efficacy. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association annual meeting, San Francisco. 23 W. P. Moore ffouch Policy Research Group. Inc.) 18 RFQ23-0JO-Response of Yauch Policy Research Group, Jnc. Moore, W. P. (1992, Apr.). Testing perceptions, practices, and malpractice: The impacr on teachers of court-ordered achievement testing in a desegregation setting. Paper presented at the National Council on Measurement in Education annual meeting, San Francisco. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Esse~ M. E. (1992, Apr.). Teacher efficacy, empowerment, and a focused instructional climate: Does student achievement benefit? Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association annual meeting, San Francisco. Moore, W. P. (1990, Apr.). Ethnic group differential mathematics achievement: Some findings from the Second International Mathematics Study. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association annual meeting, Boston. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Miller, M. D. (1990, Apr.). Differential insrructional environments in public and private school classrooms: Some findings from the Second International Mathematics Study. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association annual meeting, Boston. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Peckover, R. (1989, Nov.). Integrating the phases of item management utilizing Apple's HyperCard. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Psychological and Educational Research in Kansas, Pittsburg, KS. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Hsia, S. (1989, Nov.). Qualitatively better education in private school classrooms? Some findings from the Second International Mathematics Study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Psychological and Educational Research in Kansas, Pittsburg, KS. Hsia. S. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1989, Nov.). Factors associated with minority group achievement: Some findings from the Second International Mathematics Study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Psychological and Educational Research in Kansas. Pittsburg, KS.  Miller, M. D. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1988, Apr.). Private-public achievement differences in the Second International Mathematics Study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, ew Orleans. Salkind, N. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1988, Apr.). Leaming about children and families. Paper presented at the meeting of the Southwestern Society for Research in Human Development. New Orleans. Moore, W. P. (1 987. ov.). Teacher observation under a microscope: A iechniquefor evaluating the effectiveness of beginning teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Psychological and Educational Research in Kansas- Lawrence, KS. lnvited Addresses, Seminars, and Training Presentations I ~  ' '' '''''' ' ' ' ' -''' .. '..  '  '.. W. P Moore(} ouih Polzet Researcn Grou_o. 1nc.1 , ~ RFQ23-010---Response of fown Policy Researcn Group, Jru: Moore, W. P. and Gambone. M.A. (2002. Aug.). A theory ofchange approach to evaluating community-wide reform. Invited presentation to the Los Angeles. California County Commissioners meeting, Long Beach, CA. Gambone, M. A. and Moore, W. P. (200'.?.. Feb.). A theory of change approach to evaluating education system reform. Invited presentation at The Aspen Institute's Roundtable on Comprehensive Community Initiatives for Children and Families. Glen Cove, Long Island, New York. Moore, W. P. (2001. Aug.). Re-casting the role of the arts in k-12 education: How the arts can contribute to the national educational reform dialogue . Invited panel presentation at the Annual National Conference of Young Audiences Organizations. Kansas City, MO. Moore, W. P. (1998, Aug.). Next steps for the evaluation of Public Achievement in Kansas City. Invited presentation to the Kansas City Partners of Public Achievement. Kansas City, MO. Moore, W. P. (1998, May). Understanding the process of benchmarking and establishing benchmarks w guide internal improvement efforts. Invited presentation to the Department of Research and Evaluation, Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Independence. MO. Moore, W. P. (1998, Feb.). Re-casting the role of the arts in education: How evaluation can shape the local and national agenda. Invited panel presentation to the Young Audiences Board of Directors. Kansas City, MO. Moore, W. P. (1997, Jun.). Furure direcrionsfor the West-Cenrral Associated Schools: What do evaluation results tell us? Invited presentation to community and school stakeholders of the West-Central Associated Schools sponsored by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. Kansas City, MO. Moore, W. P. (1997, Apr.). Setting realistic and meaningful system and school goals. Invited kevnote address at the Kansas City, Missouri School District's District-wide administrators workshop on school improvement planning. Kansas City, MO. Moore, W. P. (1996, May). Consequences of mandared achievement testing: Resulrs from a desegregating school district. Invited presentation to College of Education faculty and staff, Auburn University. Auburn, AL. Moore, W. P. (1996, Apr.). Introduction to positive youth development through asset building in our communities and schools. Invited keynote address to the Advisory Board ofthe HelpNet Community Project. Overland Park. KS. 25 ' ~ ' -- \" \"-   -~ \"\" \" ~ -  -  W. P. Moore rTouzh Policy Research Group, h,c.) 2(J RFQ23-0JO-Response of You1h Policy Research Group. Inc. Moran.etz, C. A. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1996, Apr.). Adolescent health behaviors: The good, the bad and the ugly. Invited keynote address to parents of O'Hara High School. Kansas City, MO. Moore, W. P. (1996, Apr.). Consequences of mandated achievement testing: Results from a desegregating school district. Invited presentation to College of Education faculty and staff, University of Wyoming. Laramie, WY. Moore, W. P. (1996, Mar.). Teacher leadership through action research. Invited keynote address to Park Hill School District Administrative Leadership. Kansas City, MO. Moore, W. P. (1996, Feb.). Preparing your grant application to increase the chances of funding. Invited professional development seminar to Baseline Cad.re members from Colorado, Kansas, and Missouri. Kansas City, MO. Moore, W. P. (1996, Feb.). Professional development through action research. Invited staff development seminar to Park Hill School District faculty and staff. Kansas City, MO. Moore, W.P. (1995, Dec.). Evaluation as a stimulant for creating a learning organization. Invited presentation to the Board of Directors of l(ansaS City Arts Partners. Kansas City, MO. Moore, W. P. (1995, Nov.). The role of evaluation in a learning organization. Invited presentation to the Board ofDirectors of Kansas City Young Audiences. Kansas City, MO. Moore, W. P. (1995, Nov.). Locatingfunders and.preparing grant applications. Invited staff development seminar to ST AR schools faculty. Sponsored by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, Kansas City, MO. Moore, W. P. (1995, Oct.). Achieving the three clarities of successful grantspersonship  Invited staff development seminar to Baseline program cad.re in Kansas, Missouri, and Colorado  Sponsored by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, 1(ansaS City, MO  Moore, W. P. (1995, Sept.). Designing client-focused program evaluacions. Invited staff development seminar sponsored by the University of Kansas Medical Center, Child Development Unit, Kansas City, KS. Moore, W. P. (1995, May). Outcomes-Based Evaluation. Invited staff development seminar to the staff of Kansas City Young Audiences. Kansas City, MO. Moore, W. P. (1995. Apr.). Using SPSS (Statiscical Package for the Social Sciences) in applied research. Invited staff development seminar to the faculty of the University of Kansas Department of Occupational Therapy Education. Kansas City. KS  26 I  ' ' ~ ~  .. .. ~ ~ ~ ..   ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.-. W P. Moore (Youih Policy Research Group, Inc. ) ~l RFQ23-0JO--Respome of Youth Policy Research Group, Inc. Moore, W. P. (1995, Mar.). Improving your classroom-based assessments. Invited staff development seminar to the University of Kansas Department of Physical Therapy Education, Kansas City, KS. Moore, W. P., \u0026amp; Richards, L. (1994, Dec.). Assessing independent living. Invited presentation at the University of Kansas Medical Center OT Education conference: The Competent Professional: A Balance of Work-Play-Leisure, Kansas City, KS. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Moranetz, C. (1994, Aug.). An AIDS education program. Invited presentation to community and business leaders sponsored by the Child Abuse Prevention Coalition, Overland Park, KS. Moranetz, C. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1994, Apr.). The implementation of an innovative AIDS education project. Invited presentation to the Kansas University Affiliated Programs Child Development Unit (CDU), Kansas City, KS. Moore, W. P. (1994, Apr.). How to improve your classroom-based assessments  Svmposium Chair for the University of Kansas School of Allied Health Faculty Development Education Seminar, Kansas City, KS. Moore, W. P. (1994, Mar.). Clinician as researcher. Invited address to the Kansas University Affiliated Program Child Development Unit (CDU), Kansas City, KS. Moore, W. P. (1994, Mar.). The clinician as researcher. Invited address to the Leadership in Occupational Therapy Service Systems (LOTSS) Group at the University of Kansas, Kansas City, KS . Moore, W. P. (1994, Mar.). Problem-based learning and critical thinking. Symposium chair for the University of Kansas School of Allied Health Faculty Development Education Seminars, Kansas City, KS.  Moore, W. P. (1994, Mar.). How children are assessed in schools. Invited address to community and business leaders sponsored by the Child Abuse Prevention Coalition, Overland Park, KS. Moore, W. P. (1994, Feb.). How to be creative and effective in the classroom  Svmposium Chair for the University of Kansas School of Allied Health Faculty Development Education Seminars. Kansas City, KS  Moore, W. P. (1993, Dec.). Developing educationally useful and defensible classroom tests. Invited training seminar to the faculty of the Department of Occupational Therapy Education, University of Kansas, Kansas City, KS. Moore, W. P. Clinician as researcher. (1993, Nov.). Invited kevnote address at the annual meeting of the Kansas Occupational Therapy Association, Topeka, KS. 27 ~ ' \\ ~ \\ ~ '  ' ~ ' ' '  ~ ~ W. P. Moore (Yourh Policy Research Group. j 11!:.} 2] RFQ23-0W-Response ofYourh Policy Research Group, Inc. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; McCl~ L. (1993, Nov.). Understanding quantitative and qualitative research approaches. Invited presentation to the Leadership in Occupational Therapy Service Systems (LOTSS) Group at the University of Kansas, Kansas City, KS. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Esselman, W. P. (1992, Mar.). The influence of school climate on student achievement and teacher efficacy. Invited presenta1ion to Kansas City, Missouri School Di.strict Conflict Resolution subcommittee, l(an.sas City, MO. Moore, W. P. \u0026amp; Seever, M. (1992, Mar.). Large-scale testing: The impact on instrUction and school curriculum. Invited presentation to Area 2 Di.strict principals, Hartman Elementary, Kansas City, MO. Seever, M. \u0026amp; Moore, W. P. (1992, Jan.). How students learn: Implications for insrrucrional design. Invited presentation to Area 2 Di.strict principals, Hartman Elementary, Kansas City, MO. Moore, W. P. (1992, Mar.). Test performance and test preparation: How instruction and curriculum are influenced Invited presentation during spring staff development to administration and faculty at district elementary schools, West Rock Creek Elementary, Kansas City, MO. Moore, W. P. (1992, Mar.). Testing practices and preparation: How to benefit your students' test performance. Invited presentation to Swinney and Volker elementary school administration and faculty, Swinney Elementary, Kansas City, MO. Moore, W. P. (1992, Feb.). Testing programs and teacher practices. Invited presentation to Swinney and Volker elementary school School Advisory Committee, Swinney Elementary. Kansas City. MO. Moore, W. P. (1991, Aug.). Health professions educational programs in the Kansas Cicy, Missouri School Disrrict, A sta1US report. Invited kevm,te address to fi,oulty at the 1991 District Inservice Conferences. University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, MO. Moore, W. P. (1990, Aug.). A report on the status of mathematics and science education in the Kansas Ciry, Missouri School Disrrict. Invited kevnote address to di.strict-wide faculty at the 1990 Opening of School Conference, Kansas City, MO. Externally Funded Research \u0026amp; Training The Evaluation of the Kansas Superintendent's Forum. Principal Investigator: W. Moore. Total CostS: 96.157.25. Funded by the Kansas Health Foundation.. November 2002-December. 2004. 28 W P. Moore (Youth Policy Research Group, Inc.) 23 RFQ23-0!0-Response of Yau.th Policy Research Group, Inc. Evaluation of the Impact of the School to Entrepreneurship Program. Principal InveStigator: W. Moore. Total Costs: 9750.00. Funded by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation., July 2002- ovember, 2002. The Dramatic AIDS-Education Project: A program for extreme risk youth. Co-principal Investigators: J. Pelster, C. Moranetz, W. Moore. Total Costs: 18,000. Funded by Heart of America Community Foundation for AIDS and Design Industries Foundation Fighting AIDS, October, 1995-September, 1996. Development of a Consolidated Interdisciplinary Model for Providing Inclusive Education and Related Services for Children and Youth with Disabilities. Co-Principal Investigators: W. -Dunn and W. Moore, Dept. of OT Education. US Department of Education. Total Costs: 157,962. Application Approved, May, 1995. Institute on Statistical Analysis for Education Policy. American Educational Research Association Grants Program for the Enhancement of Education Statistics, Mathematics, and Science Education., and the Educational Research Infrastructure. Funded. April, 1995. The Dramatic AIDS Education Project: Development of a Middle School Educational Intervention. Principal Investigator: C. Moranetz\nCo-Investigator: W. Moore. Joint submission with The Coterie Theatre. Total Costs: 34,000. Funded by The Kansas City Junior League, June, 1995-May, 1997. The Dramatic AIDS Education Project: Continuation for Year Two. Principal Investigator: C. Moranetz\nCo-Investigator: W. Moore. Joint submission with Toe Coterie Theatre. Total Costs 36,000. Funded by Twentieth Century Companies, AU:,crust, 1994-August 1995. Establishing Educational Priorities in Kansas. Principal Investigator: W. Moore, Dept. of OT Education\nCo-investigator: C. Mercer. Funded by the Kansas State Board of Education. Total Costs: 5,000. January 1993-September 1994. Establishing Educational Priorities in Kansas. Principal Investigator: W. Moore, Dept of OT Education. Funded by the University of Kansas, Graduate Studies and Faculty Research Grant, Total Costs: 1,000. April, 1994 and March, 1995 The Validity of JADL Assessments for Predicting Function in Natural Environments. Principal Investigator: W. Moore, Dept of OT Education\nCo-Investigator: C. Brown. Funded by the University of Kansas, School of Allied Health, Dean's Research Fund. Total Costs: 750.00. July 1993-June 1994. The Dramatic Aids Education Project. A joint project with Toe Coterie Theatre and the University of Kansas Medical Center. Principal Investigator: C. Moranetz, Associate Professor Preventive Medicine. Co-investigator: W. Moore. Total Costs: 23,000. Funded by Twentieth Century Companies, Inc. August 1993-July 1994. 29 I  ~ '   ..   \".... .... .... .... .... ..  W. P. Moore (fouth Policy esearcn RFQ23-0JO-Response of Youth Policy Research Group, inc. Honors, Awards, Elected and Appointed Positions Adv\u0026lt;\nory Council, CommunitJ' Health Promotion Project, University of Kansas Medical Center, 2A0d0v1i-sPorreys Benota rd, Sunflower House: A Child Abuse Prevention Ctr, 1998-Present National Panel of Writers, Joint Cornrrrinee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, Subcommittee to develop standards for student evaluation, Western Michigan University, 1998 Vice-President of Education, Sunflower House, A Child Abuse Prevention Ctr, 1998 Kansas City Ribbon of Hope Award, The Dramlictic AIDS Education Project, 1997 Board Secretary, Sunflower House, A Child Abuse Prevention Center, 1997 Board of Directors, Sunflower House, 1997-1998 Vice-President for Education, Child Abuse Prevention Coalition, 1996. \"Faculty Marshall, University of Kansas Commencement Ceremonies, 1995 Who's Who in American Education, 5th Edition. A. N. Marquis Publishers, 1996-1997 Univ. ofKansas School of Allied Health, Research Committee, Elected by Faculty, 1994 Univ. of Kansas Graduate Studies and Research faculty Travel Grant, 1994, 1995 Board of Directors, Child Abuse Prevention Coalition, 1994 Appointment to the KU Cancer Center as Honorarv Research AssisW\u0026gt;t Professor, 1993 Univ. of Kansas School of Allied Health, Dean's Research Award, Fall, 1993 Selected by faculty to Madeline Hunter Effective Tear.rung Cadre, 1985-1986 Kansas National Education Association-Turner, Building Representative, 1985-86 Professional Service National Reviewer. W. T. Grant Foundation., 2002-Present Member, Panel of Writers, The Joint Committee on Standmds for Educational E valuarilm  Western Michigan University., 1997-1998 National Succes.eful Schools planning T earn. 1997-1998 Editorial Board Member. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 1994-1998 Member. ational Research Development Committee. American Occupational Therapy Foundation. 1995-97 Grant Reviewer, U.S. Deparrment of Health and Human Services. Administration on Children- Y outb and Families, 1992-1998 Program Reviewer. American Psychological Sociery. 1992-1995 Manuscript Reviewer, Macmillan Publishing. Educational Psychology. 1991-1995 Manuscript Reviewer. Wadsworth Publishing. Educational Psychology. 1995-1996 30  t       .. .... .... .... .... ....  \" W. P Moore (You1h Policy Research Group. inc.) __ RFQ23-0JO--Response of }'ou1h Policy Research Group, Jr::. Regional and Local Kansas Ciry Merropolitan Task Force to Establish Local Standards for Evaluarion, 1998 Kansas Ciry Urban Principal's Leadership Planning Team. 1997-1998 Kansas Ciry Metropolitan Area Early Childhood Care and Education Planning Team. 1997-1998 Missouri Superintendent's Forum Planning Team, 1997-1998 Kansas Ciry, Missouri School-to Career Communiry Steering Commitree, 1997-1998 BE2 School-to-Career Functional Team Member, Benchmarking and Evaluation, 1997-2000 Kansas Ciry Public Achievement: Leadership Team member. 1998-2000 Dramatic AIDS Education Projecr: Co-Director, Research and Evaluation. 1993-1997 Consuhant, Research and Evaluation, 199'.?., 1998-Present Coalition for Positive Family Relationships: Education and Training Committee member, 1995-1997 Family Research Team Committee member, 1995-1997 Sunflower House: A Child Abuse Prevention Center Advisory Board Member, 1998-Present Vice-President of Education, 1997-1998 Executive Committee, 1997-1998 Strategic planning Crurirperson, 1997-1998 Board of Directors, 1997-1998 Education Committee member, 1997-199 Child Abuse Prevention Coalition: Board of Directors, 1994-1997 Sunflower Children's Advocacy Center/CAPC Merger Joint Task Force, 1995-96 Wyandotte County, Child Abuse Task Force, CAPC 1995-1996 Vice-President, Education, 1996 Executive Committee, 1996-1997 Executive Director Search Committee, 1994 Strategic Planning Chairperson\n1994-1997 Education Committee member, 1993-1997 HelpNET:A Communiry Response to Youth Development, Overland Park, KS, Co-Organizer, 1995-1996 Institutional Summer School Planning Committee, Member, Kansas City. Kansas Public Schools. 1998-2002 KCKPS and KNEA Instructional Improvement Initiative Planning Committee, 1999-2002 Overcrowded Schools Committee. Member. Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools, 1999-200'2 Superintendent's Assessment Advisory Committee. Chairperson. Kansas City. Kansas Public 31 W. P. Moore (YouJh Policy Research Group, Inc.) 26 R.FQ23-0IO-Response of Youth Policy Research Group, inc. Schools, 1998-2002 Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools District Data Team, Chairperson., Kansas City, Kansas Public Superintendent' s Management Team (Cabinet), Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools, 1998-2002 Schools, 1998-2002 First Things First: Kansas City, Kansas School District, Research Management Team, 1997-2002 Superintendent's Cabinet, Kansas City, Missouri School District, 1996-97 Desegregation Transition Planning Team, Kansas City, Missouri School Dist., 1996-97 Education Leadership Planning Team, Kansas City, Missouri School District, 1996-97 Missouri School Improvement Plan, Advisory Council, KCMSD, 1996-97 Superintendent's Planning Team for School Reorganization and Closings, KCMSD, 1996-1997 Superintendent's Testing Advisory Committee, Kansas City, Missouri School District, 1991-92 Kansas City, Missouri School District Magnet Program Planning Committees, 1989-91 Graduate Faculty, University ofKansas, 1993-1995 Internal Advisory Panel, University of Kansas Medical Center, Primary Care Physician Education Grant, 1994 Coordinator, School of Allied Health Faculty Development Seminars, 1993-95 Research Committee, Member \u0026amp; Secretary, School of Allied Health, 1994-1995 Thesis Committee Member, Departments of OT Education., Preventive Medicine, Speech and Hearing, 1993-96 Co-Chairperson., Program Evaluation Committee, Dept of OT Education, 1993-1995 Graduate Committee, Dept of OT Education, Member, 1993-1995 Senior Directors Committee, Dept of OT Education, Member, 1993-1995 Chairperson, Student Research Handbook Committee, Dept of OT Education., 1993-1995 Acting Department Chairperson, Dept. of Social Sciences, Turner High School, 1986 Turner SRA Testing Committee, 1985-86 Faculty Sponsor, Turner Students Mental Health Patients Cbristma:S Fund, 1985 orth Central Accreditation Steering Committee, Turner Unified School District, 1985 Chairperson., North Central Accreditation Goals and Objectives Committee, Turner School District, 1985 32 Likmd ,Yeh~ Mu~(0G) /12?/(}A'I ~/uQ-/u)n TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE CENTER RECEIVED 3001 PULASKI STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 FEB 11 2003 Board of Education T. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PREPARED BY: 1 ?--.Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction DATE: February 27, 2003 SUBJECT: Extended Year Education (EYE) Program Evaluation Background Information One of the group of programs required by the federal court to be evaluated with the participation of an external evaluator was the Extended Year Education (EYE) program. District staff had completed a program evaluation after the end of the 2000-2001 school year, and it was presented to the Board of Education for information. Another report was also completed for the 2001-2002 school year. Both of these preliminary studies are attached for the Board's information. Steps Taken as a Result of the 2000-2001 Program Evaluation Three schools initially participated as EYE schools: Stephens Elementary, Mabelvale Elementary, and Woodruff Elementary. In fall 2002, two additional schools were added : Cloverdale Elementary and Mitchell Elementary. Some modifications to the intersessions were made in 2002-2003, but these were not a result of the program evaluation. Designation of External Consultant and His/Her Qualifications On December 2, 2002, the District awarded the contract for the Extended Year Education (EYE) program evaluation to the firm , Youth Policy Research Group, Inc., Dr. William Moore, Senior Partner. Dr. Moore's and Dr. Theresa Akey's resumes are attached, establishing their qualifications. Administrator Participation in Conducting the Program Evaluation In addition to Dr. Moore and his associates, specifically Dr. Theresa Akey, the following LRSD administrators participated in the evaluation: Ms. Frances Jones, Assistant Superintendent for Elementary School Services Dr. Ed Williams, Department of Planning, Research, and Evaluation Ms. Patricia Price, Director of Early Childhood and Elementary Literacy Board Memo February 27, 2003 Page Two Mr. Ken Savage, Department of Computer Information Systems Ms. Sharon Brooks, Principal, Stephens Elementary School Ms. Tab Phillips, Principal, Mabelvale Elementary School Ms. Janice Wilson, Principal, Woodruff Elementary School Teacher Participation in Conducting the Program Evaluation Teachers at Stephens, Mabelvale, and Woodruff who administered the various assessments-ORA and Observation Surveys at grades K-2\nBenchmarks at grade 4\nAL Ts at grades 2-5\nand SAT-9 at grade 5. Impact on African-American Student Achievement The external evaluator's conclusion wast hat \" Unfortunately, the limited nature oft he original design and existing data do not afford us an opportunity to answer in a rigorous manner the key evaluation question oft he extent of impact of the initiative on black student performance.\" Recommendation That the Board of Education approve the Extended Year .Education (EYE) program evaluation for submission to the federal court. BAL/adg ' ~ -~ \"\" ~ ' ~ ~ \"\"- --  Jl T A/CeV fl UWr\u0026lt;, v .. - . -- RFQ13-0JO-Response ~[Yauch Policy Research Group, Jnc. THERESA AKEY, PH. D. BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OCTOBER, 2002 Dr. Theresa Akey bas exrensive experience m the areas of evaluation, research and assessment She earned her doctorate m educational psychology, research and sraristics from the University of Kansas m 1995 and her master's m cornrnunitY and school counseling from Delta State University m 1990. She bas approximately 12 years experience working as a consultant with nonprofit service agencies. Her major work bas focused on agencies that provide supports to families of children with disabilities, ll}cludlllg evaluation of grants, staff development training, and site-based research projects. She bas also worked with nonprofit organizations mt he areas of alcohol and drug abuse, cornrnunitY counseling, and other services m both rural and urban areas. She served as project director and research director oftbe Beach Center on Families and Disabilities where she co-authored grants, condDcted research, and coordinated research and evaluarion acrivities for a large research cenrer focused on service provision to fumilies of children with disabilities. Dr. Akey bas extensive background m educational assessment, research evaluation, and analytic methods. She served as an assisrant professor mth e area of research and analytic methods at Auburn University for twO years, and mosr recently in the role of director of educational research, evaluation, and assessment m a J(mlsas Ciry area school district for the last four years. 38 I ~   '''- ..  .... \" ..     .... T. Akey (Yowh Policy Research Group. Jnc. J 2 RFQ23-0JO--Response of YouJh Policy Research Group, Jnc. CURRICULUM VITAE THERESA M. AKEY, PH.0. P.O. Box 4196 Kansas City, KS 66104-01% (816) 935-0852 (V) (816) 628-1927 (F) takey@YErg.org PROFESSIONAL STATEMENT A collaborative, innovative professional with interests in educational evaluation and assessment issues, including school reform, teacher professional devdopment and evaluation, insrructional strategies, standards-based education, and alternative educational environments. Seeks to promote continuous improvement of educational and youth-serving organizations through collaborative partnerships, action-oriented research, and application of theory to practice. AREAS OF PROFESSIONAL EXPERTISE  Research design and analysis including complex quantitative analyses (HLM, SEM), categorical madding, and qualitative design and analysis.  Development of educational assessment materials and psychometric validation of those materials. :::i Program evaluation in educational and community settings  Curriculum devdopment in K-12 and higher education settings  Professional devdopment in the use of data for organizational improvement, assessment devdopment, and program evaluation  Grant and proposal writing Information management development for educational information EDUCATIONAL HISTORY Ph.D. (1995). University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, Educational psychology and research ,vith emphases in devdopmental psychology and quantitative research methods  Ed.S. (1992). University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, School psychology  M.Ed. (191). Delta State University, Cleveland, MS, School psychology B.S. (1990). University of Arkansas, Little Rock. ~ Psychology and sociology 39 I   -t   I I  ' -        T. Ake\\ (Youih Policy kesearcn Group, inc.J J RFQ23-0JO-Response offouth Policy Research Group. Inc. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCES RESEARCH AND EVALUATION Youth Policy Research Group, Kansas City, Mo (June, 2002 to present). Senior Partner D Acting managing partner in research and evaluation corporation- administration and company  mInadniaagneam Teenatc hing ~ality Center (May 2002 to present). Evaluation project of best practices in teacher evaluation. ~alitative policy analysis of national standards in teacher evaluation and comparison of Indiana school districtS to those standards. D YDSI, Inc (May 2002 to present). Multivariate statistical analyses of instructional survey and observation data. including data display, technical assistance, and interrupted time-series analyses  o Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools (May 2002 to present). Development and implementation of case management system to display and organize student information o Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools Qune 2002 to present). Alignment and development of standards-based mathematics and language artS assessments  Pane Hill School District, Kansas City, MO (July 1998 to May, 2002), Director of Research Evaluation and Assessment  Oversight and coordination of all district assessment and program evaluation activities.  Preparation of short-term and long-range budget and operational plans\n Fiscal authority for budget of $200,000+ annually. D Responsibility for all personnel and resource utilization within the Department  Development and implementation of a comprehensive local curriculum-embedded assessment system integrated with the Missouri Standards  D Development and implementation of district-wide continuous improvement planning and D eDvoacluuamtieonnt ation and analysis of district performance on all state accreditation performance and D eDveavluealotipomn egnuti daenldin iems .p lementation of district-wide program evaluations of instructional practices, special education, professional development, assessment, supplemental instruction (Title 1, gifted, ESL), curriculum, and otha educational initiatives  D Served on regional and state committees related -to K-12 assessment and evaluation issues.  Led applied and theoretical research projecrs to address pressing educational issues relevant to  local policy and instructional practice  Collaborated with district stakeholders and school leadership to find innovative solutions to chronic educational problems in the District. Akey Consulting, Auburn, AL (June 1996 to July 1998) and Kansas City, MO. (Aug. 1999 to May, 2002), Founder .and owner O Online assessment and data information coordinating consultant for Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools. Design and implementation of online assessment and case management system for reporting assessment information to teachers and administrators  :J Assessment and data consultant for Kansas City, MO Regional Professional Development Center. Facilitated development of regional local assessments tied to state standards and benchmarks  D Statistical analysis consultant for Kansas City Kansas Public Schools. Systems reform data analysis 40 ~ ~  ' ' ' '         t t  T Akey (Yowh Policy Research Group, Im:. ) ./ RFQ23-0JO-Response of Youzh Policy Research Group, inc. D Educational consultant to Missouri school districtS- using data to make instructional decisions and best practices in standards-based assessment. Have consulted with approximately 10 different school districtS to do training and planning in this area. D Consultant to Kansas City, MO School District- review of performance indicators and data management system and statistical consultant for desegregation case. D Educational consultant to Alvin Nash, Kansas City, Missouri Mayor's office. Strategic planning. D Educational consultant for the West Alabama Learning Coalition of Schools. Program evaluation and grant/proposal writing on teacher professional development and collaboration. D Educational evaluation consultant for Celebration School and Disney Corporation. Evaluation of integrated assessment practices. D Consultant for Chambers County-Auburn University Partnership. Program evaluation of instructional effectiveness and professional development. Beach Center on Families and Disabilities (1993 to 1996), Lawrence, Kansas, Research coordinator (1995-1996) and Research project director (1993-1996). o Coordinated center research activities and data analysis as research coordinator D Provided technical assistance in instrument development  Developed instruments to measure constructS of psychological empowerment  Primary research investigator on two projectS (one qualitative and one quantitative) concerning responsive services and psychological empowerment in family members of a child with a disability.  Worked in collaborative manner with community-based family support programs in several states to evaluate responsiveness of services to families of a child with a disability   Grant and report writing Jones Research Consulting (1991-1996), Lawrence, Kansas, Founder and owner  Training consultant in empowering professionals and families. Beach Center on Families and  DRiessaebairlcihti easn, dU nstiavteisrtsiictsy coofn Ksualntsaanst.. Department of Educational Psychology and Research, University of D KFaamnsialsy support consultant to Wisconsin Family Support program. Program evaluation o lnscructional consultant to Douglas County Christian Schools, Lawrence, KS TEACHING AND ACADEMIC POSITIONS University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS (September 2001 to present). Psychology and Research in Education Department, Adjunct Professor, Educational Research, Statistics, and Classroom Assessment University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, MO Qanuary 2000 to present). Department of Educational Psychology and Research, Adjunct Professor, Classroom Assessment Park University, Parkville, MO Qanuary 2000 to present). Educacion Department, Adjunct Professor, SAtuanbduarrnd sU-Bniavseerds iAtys,s eAsusmbuernnt , AL (1996 to 1998). Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Foundations, Leadership and Technology, Educational Statistics (including suucrural equation modeling, hierarchical linear modeling, mulcivariate statiscics. and basic statistics), Research Methods, and pre-service classroom assessment University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS (1995-1996), Department of Educational Psychology and Research  Instructor, Basic educacional statistics  41        I    T. Akey (J\"outh Policy Research Group. JnC.) J RFQ13-0JO-Response offowh Policy Research Group, Jn:: University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS (1991-1995). Department of Educational Psychology and Research, Gradu~te Teaching Assistant, Developmental psychology, basic educational sratistics, and multiple regression. CLINICAL AND APPLIED PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCES Topeka Public Schools (1991-1993). Topeka, KS, School Psychologist Clarksdale Public Schools (1990-1991), Clarksdale, MS, School Psychologist Arkansas Children's Hospital (1989-1991), Little Rock, AR, Behavioral lntervention Unit, Classroom Teacher Arkansas Children's Hospital (1989-1991), Little Rock, AR, Counselor GRANT FUNDING St. Clair, MA, \u0026amp; M.ey, TM. (1999). Using Reflective Practice Groups to Improve Mathematics Instruction. Goals 2000 Grant, $40,000, Af.ey, T. M. (1993). Family support influences on the development of parental skill and efficacy. NIDRR Grant # H133330070, RTD-5. Funded June 1993 as part of )650,000 grant, $45,000 per year for 5 years. Af..ey, T. M. (1993). Validating the Psychological Empowerment Scale for parents of children with disabilities. NIDRR Grant t H133330070, RTD-7, Funded June 1993 as part of $650,000 grant, $35,000 for 5 years . PUBLICATIONS Af..ey, T. M. \u0026amp; Ares, N. M. (in press). Using a Learning Partnership to Teach Classroom-based Assessment in Context Conceptual and Belief Changes in Preservice Teachers. Teaching Education  Ares, N.M., \u0026amp; Af..ey, T. (2000/2001). Self-organization in educational systems. Louisiana Education Research 1ournal 25(1), 49-71  Af..ey, T. M., Marquis, J. M., \u0026amp; Ross, M. E. (2000). The development of the Psychological Empowerment Scale: Evidence of its construct validity. Educational and Psvcholorical Measurement. 60Q), 419-437  Jensen, C., Hansen, C., Green, S. B., \u0026amp; Af..ey, T. M. (1997). Ari investigation of item difficulty incorporating structure of listening tests: A hierarchical linear modeling analysis. Proceedings of the Language Testing Research Colloauium  Green, S.B., Salkind, N.J., \u0026amp; Af..ey, TM. (1999). Using SPSS for Windows: Analvzing and Understandin_g Data, 2nd Edition. New York: Prentice Hall. Green, S. B., Af..ey, T. M., Fleming, K. K., Hershberger, S. L.. \u0026amp; Marquis, J. G. (1997). The effects of the number of scale points on chi square fit indices in confirmatory factor analysis. Srrucrural Eauation Modeling, ~(2) . 42   t           I T. Akey ffouJh Policy Research Group, inc.) 6 RFQ:23-0 I a-Response of Youth Policy Research Group. Inc. Afcey, T. M. (1996). Empowering families of children with a disability: lmplicati.ons for professional educators and service providers from a family-centered program. Teacher Education Research and Practice, 12(2). Green, S.B., Salkind, N.]., \u0026amp; Mey, T.M. (1996). Using SPSS for Windows: Analvzing and Understanding Data, 1st Editi.on. New York: Prentice Hall. Jones (Akey), T. M., Garlow, J. G., Turnbull, H. R..., \u0026amp; Barber, P.A. (1995). Family empowerment in a family support setting. 1n G. Singer, LE. Powers, \u0026amp; Olson, A.L. (Eds.) Redefining farnilv support: Introduction to public-private partnerships. Jones (Akey), T. M. (1995). To hdp o\u0026lt; not to help, A ,o,dy of group and individual v,,iabks in a monl system. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Depanment of Educational Psychology and Research, University of Kansas Jones (Afcey), T. M. (1994). Development of the Psychological Empowerment Scale: Preliminary investigations. Unpublished master's thesis. Department of Educational Psychology and Research, University of Kansas. Frey, B., Jones (Afcey), T. M., \u0026amp; Saxon, T. F., (1993). Exoloring Research: Teacher's Manual (Teacher's Manual for N.J. Salkind's Exploring ResearchJ. New York MacMillan  CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS AND WORKSHOPS Akey, T. M. (2000). Using Dau to !mprnve lmtruction. Wo,kshop p,esenwl to tl Regional P,.ofcssioual Development Center, Kansas City, MO, April 16, 2001. Afcey, T. M. (2000). Using Data to lmprove lnstr11ction. Workshop presented to East Central Show-Me Curriculum Administrators Association, St Louis, MO, April 1, 2000  Afcey, T. M. (2000). Using Data to lmprove lnstr11ction. Workshop presented to West Central Show-Me Curriculum Administrators Association, Kansas City, MO, February 16, 2000  Pennell, J .. Eick, C., and Afcey, T. M. (2000). Teacher beliefs and grading practices. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, April 26-30, 2000  Afcey, T. M., Sanders, S., Boyd, P., Gorrell, J. J., Kamen, M., \u0026amp; Salisbury-Glennon, ). (1999). Assessment and evaluation .in the Celebration School: Links to learning and curriculum. Paper presented at the annual meeri.ng of the American Educational Research Association Montreal, Canada, April 19-23 , 1999  Ares, K \u0026amp; Akey, T. M. (April, 1999). Modeling and understanding of social interactions. Roundtable presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada, April 19-23, 1999 . Afcey, T. M. \u0026amp; Lawrence, F. (April, 1998). Understanding the effeccs of non-normal data on latent growth curve models. Violations of normaliry and influence of sample size. Paper accepted as pan of a \"\"\"posiuro (al.so chai, rnd o,gmiu\u0026lt; of smion) Modeling on-norm,! D,u fo, ,he rnnu,l ro~ring of the American Educaoonal Research Association, San Diego, CA. April 12-17, 1998  43 I  , t i ~  I 9 8  ~ ~ W!f ~ l.-il.t -- ~- T. Akey (foUih Policy Research Group, inc. , R.FQ23-0 Io-Response of Youih Policy Research Group. Jn::. /Cm, T. M, \u0026amp; A=, N. M. (Novanbe\u0026lt;, 1997). Conttpa\u0026gt;al and Bclicf ChanS\"' lmplicarions of, Socioculnml Apptn\u0026gt;ch to EducaUUg ps=,vicc Tcachm\n. Cl\u0026gt;,s,ooroB.scd Assessment P\u0026gt;pcr p,cscnd \u0026gt;t ili, mnual rowing of ,he MidSouili Eduational R,scatch Associ\u0026gt;rion. Memphis, TN, ovcnbet 12 14, 1997 /Cm, T. M., M\u0026gt;tqui,, J. G., \u0026amp; Tum bull, H R. (August. 1997). Effrro of f,mily Suppon Ptogr,uns on P\u0026gt;tcntal Eropow=ncnL P\u0026gt;pct P\"\"ntcd \" ,he ,nnual meeting of ,he Aroctiosn Psychological Associ,tion, Chicago, IL, August 1997. Lusti~ D., \u0026amp; /Cm, T. M. (Ap,il, 1997) f,mi\\y Adapurion\n. f,milics wiili Adult Cbildten wi,h Mental Rewdationc lmp\u0026gt;ct ofF.unily So-cngilis and Apprais\u0026gt;l PP'\" p,cscnusl \u0026gt;t m, ,nnual meeting of m, American Counseling Association, Orlando FL, April 10-13, 1997. Akey, T. M. \u0026amp; Gtccn, S. B. (M,tch, 1997). A Modd of Mo,al Deci,ionM,ltingc A Srody of Gwu p wd Individual Influcnw. P,pcr p,=ntcd \" ,he ,nnual mccUUg of ,he An,ctican Educational Rcs=ch Association, Chicago, IL March 24-28, 1997  Akey, T. M. \u0026amp; G,w,, S. B. (M=h, 1997). Tb\u0026lt; Rchuionsbip Jk,wccn Pomt md Intcnnrrdansl Dependent V,riablcs m MANOVA. Posre, p,,,,,ntcd \"m, ,nnual mcering of ,he An,ctiosn Educ\u0026gt;rional R,s=ch Association, Chicago, IL March 24-28, 1997  Akey, T. M. (FcbnW'/, 1997). Coofum\u0026gt;to,Y F,ctot Analysi, of, Moral Dilcnun Hdping Mcasut\u0026lt; P,p,s p,cscntI \u0026gt;t m, ,nnual mceUUg of m, E,w= Educ,rion\u0026gt;l R=ch A,soci,tion. Hilton Head, SC, February 19-22, 1997. Jensen, C., Hmscn, C., G=n, S. B., \u0026amp; Ny, T. M. (1996). An invarig,rion of i= difficuley inro,poraUUg srructut\u0026lt; of li,twing tcsuc A l,i,wchical lin\u0026lt;\u0026gt;t mod ding ,n,lysi.. P,pcr p,csW,I \u0026gt;t ili\u0026lt; Language Testing Research Colloquium, Tampere, Finland, July 31-August 3, 1996. Akey, T. M. (D=mbu, 1995). Effects of family support p,ogrnms on P\"'W ,mpow,nncnt. Wmkshnp presentation at the annual Empowering Families Conference, Chicago, IL. Jones (A'y), T. M. (August, 1994). Tb\u0026lt; dcodopmcnt of ,he Psychological EmpQWWO'' Sc,k Plimin,ry invcsrig,rions. Pom\u0026lt; p,cscnrarioo \u0026gt;t ,he ,nnual roceUUg of m, An,aican Psychological Association, Los Angeles, CA. Jones (Akey), T. M. Uun\u0026lt;, 1993). Roundublc discussioos on family cmpnwcnn\u0026lt;nt wd f=ily sctvises. Invited ,oundrabl\u0026lt; p,rticip\u0026gt;n\u0026lt; wd P\"''\"' ,t m, ,nnual f,mily Support ,nd f,mily Empowenn\u0026lt;n\u0026lt; Conference, Dartmouth, NH. RECENT TECHNICAL AND EVALUATION REPORTS /Cm, T.M. (2002). Effects of sw,dwl.s-b.a,d ,sscssmon\u0026lt; on insnuctional pnctiscs in middle school m\u0026gt;ili teachers. Technical report for the Park Hill School District, February 2002. Akey, T.M (2001). Using d,u ,s , method fo ,chool imp\"\"'\"'\"'' plannffig ,nd dctisionmkingc Administrators. Technical report for Park Hill School District, August 2001. Akey, T. M. (2000). 2000-2001 Diso-ict P,.fonnan Updac Asscssmcns of ili\u0026lt; Show-Mc Srand\u0026gt;tds Evaluation report prepared for Park Hill School District, October 12, 2000. 44 t ~ ~ t  t ~ I          .. T. Akey (YOUih Policy Research Group. inc) 8 RFQ23-0JO--Response of Youth Policy Research Group. Jnc. AJ\u0026lt;ey, T.M (2001). Using data as a method for insuuctional planning and decision-making: Teachers. Technical report for Park Hill School Disuict, August 2001. Akey, T.M. (200 l) V ,lidacion nf l,aming c\u0026lt;p\u0026lt;ctacinn, fo, , ,rand,uds-b,sol cuniculum in rommunicacinn ans. Technical report for Park Hill School Disuict, January, 2001 Akey, T. M. (2001). Effecrivon\u0026lt;Ss of th\u0026lt; Cl,ss-W\u0026gt;thin-,-Cl,,, Modd  .,..Ju,rion ,\u0026lt;port fo, Puk Hill School Disuict. February, 2001 Akey, T. M. (2001). Ev,lu,rion of cl,ss rank p,ocoluresc Ex,min,cion of ,!,en, m,thod,. Ev,lu,cion report for Park Hill School District. February, 2001 Akey, T. M (2001). Eff\u0026lt;ru nf Block Scboluling on !nsrrucrinnal P,wi= Ev,lu,cion ,\u0026lt;port p,opu,d fo, Park Hill School Disuict, February, 2001. ll\u0026lt;ey, T. M. (2000). Titl, l v,lu,rinn F,pnnc Ad\u0026lt;qu\u0026gt;. Y=ly P,ng,css ,nd F,cnmmondarions fa, Program Improvement. Evaluation report prepared for Park Hill School District, December 7, 2000. ll\u0026lt;,y, T. M. (2000). 1999-2000 District P\"fnnnmcr Upd,tt. Evalu,rinn report pp=d fo, Puk Hill School Disuict, October 12, 2000  Al=f, T. M. (2000). Eff,ru of Blnck Scboluling on Srod,nt Outt\u0026lt;\u0026gt;m\u0026lt;'' Man\u0026lt;,Y ,chi=\"'' uolin, ,nd test scores. Evaluation report prepared for Park Hill School Disuict, April, 2000. AJ\u0026lt;ey, T. M. (1999). Effectiveness of Full-Day Kindergarten: Third Year Evaluation. Evaluation report prepared for Park Hill School Disuict. N\u0026lt;ey, T. M. (1999). 199\u0026amp;-1999 District PWOnnancr Upd\"' v,lu,rion ,\u0026lt;port pel\"'ol fo, Puk Hill School Disuict, October 10, 1999  BOOKS Gmn, S. B., Salkind, N. J., \u0026amp; !1,_ey, T. M. (1997). Using SPSS fa, Windows, An,!yzing ,nd Undc\u0026gt;unding Data. New York: Prentice Hall  Green, S. B., Salkind, N. J., \u0026amp; AJ\u0026lt;ey, T. M. (1997). Using SPSS for the Macintosh: Analyzing and Understanding Data. New York: Prentice Hall  PROFESSIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE Kansas City, Kansas yWCA, (Dec 2001 to present), Board of Directors Heartland Student Achievement Gap Organization, (August 2001 to present). Board of Directors Park Hill Educational Foundation, (August 2000 to present), Advisory Board 45 I ~ ~ t   ~        ..    T. Akey (Youth Policy Research Group, Inc.) 9 RFQ23-0JO--Response of Youth Policy Research Group, Jru:. Auburn Universitv 1998: Undergraduate Core Curriculum Development Committee for Teacher Education 1997: Chair, Library Appeals Committee 1997: Reviewer. Professional Educator, College of Education Universitv of Kansas 1993: Representative to the Graduate Student Council Student representative for faculty meetings of Educational Psychology and 1993, 1995: Research Deparonent. RECENT HONORS Nomination for Dissertation of the Year: University of Kansas, School of Education, May 1996 Who's Who in College, 1987, 1991 President's List 1987-1991 Outstanding Psychology Student, 1990 PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZA TIONS Show-Me Curriculum Administrators Association 1998 to present ASCD National Organization, 1998 to present Missouri ASCD: 1998 to present American Psychological Association: 199~ 1998 Society for Research In Child Development 1992 to present American Educational Research Association: 1993 to present 1997: Reviewer for American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting MidSouth Educational Research Association: 1996-1998 1998: Graduate Student Involvement Committee 1997: Reviewer for MidSouth Educational Research Association Annual Meeting 1997: Graduate Student Involvement Committee Eastern Educational Research Association: 1996-1998 American Evaluation Association 1998-present 46 l I  -t              ,,  W. P. Moore (Youth J'ollcy J{esearcn uruu, \"\"-- '  RFQ23-0JO-Response ofl'OU1h Policy Research Group, Inc. WILLJAMP. MOORE, PH. D. BIOGRAHICAL SKETCH OCTOBER, 2002 Dr. Moore holds a doctorate in Educational Psychology from the University of Kansas and is a Senior Partner with Youth Policy Research Group, Inc. located in Kansas City, Kansas. Currently he is the co-investigator for the evaluation of a systemic change initiative (First Things First) in the Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools and just completed a .post-doctoral fellowship with Juniper Gardens Cbildrens Research Project exploring the dimensions of effective learning communities in schools. Dr. Moore serves also as a lecturer at the University of Kansas where he teaches Evaluating School Programs, a doctoral-level educational evaluation course. Dr. Moore has served as Research and Evaluation Director in two urban school districts\nSenior Research Associate with the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundatio~ and held faculty positions in research and measurement at the University of Kansas- Dr. Moore co-founded and directed the Dramatic AIDS Education Project, a collaborative AIDS education program for school-age youth and has spent the last 6 years conducting research and evaluation studies on the efficacy of this AIDS education program for youth. Two years ago, the Project received Kansas Ci-rys Ribbon of Hope Award for outstanding community service towards the elimination of HIV /AIDS  Previously, Dr. Moore was Senior Managing Consultant with GPR\u0026amp;E, a research and evaluation consulting furn. He has consulted with school districts, not-for-profits, health care institutions, national foundations, youth development intermediaries and universities. He is a past member of the Board of Directors of Kansas City Public Achievement, a Minnesota-based youth empowennent program\nand recently retired, after 6 years, from the Board of Directors of Sunflower House: A Child Abuse Prevention Center, where he was Vice-President of Education and a member of the agency's Executive Committee. He now serves as a member of the Advisory Board . Dr. Moore has served as an expert witness in Federal school desegregation litigation: was a member of the Panel of Writers for the development of the new Student Evaluation Standards coordinated by The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation\nand served a twoyear term as a member of the National Research Development Committee for the American Occupational Therapy Foundation  Dr. Moore s research and evaluation interests have focused on effectively documenting the success of educational reform initiatives\nthe impact of mandated assessment programs on teacher instructional practice\nand the impact of education on the HIV-related knowledge, anirudes and behavioral intentions of youth. Dr. Moore has published in Applied Measurement in Education, Educational Assessment, the Jnrernational Journal of Educarional Research, and The American Occupazional Therapy Journal. Dr. Moore served 4 years on the Editorial Board of the Occupational Therap} Journal of Research and is currently a grant reviewer for the W. T. Grant Foundation. 7 I  ~ ' ' '         W. P. Moore (}'ouzh Policy Research Group. inc.) 2 RFQ13-0JO-Response of You.th Policy Research Group, Inc. CURRICULUM VITAE WILLIAMP- MOORE, PH. D. OCTOBER, 2002 Home 11478 South Wilder Street Olathe, KS 66061 913. 829. 3077 gprekc@aol.com Office P. 0. Box 4196 l(ansas City, KS 66104-0196 816. s64. 0143 M 913. 390. 6162 (F) wrooore@YPrg.org Educational History 1991 Ph.D. 1984 M.A. 1981 B.S. University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS Educational Psychology Major: Evaluation, Research, and Measurement University ofl(ansas, Lawrence, KS Education Major: Secondary Curriculum and Instruction University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS Education Major: Secondary Social Sciences Emphasis: Psychology and Sociology Current Appointments and Positions Senior Partner, Youth Policy Research Group lnc., Kansas City, KS Lecturer, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS Grant Reviewer, William T. Grant Foundation, New York., NY Advisory Board, Sunflower Housec A Child Abuse Prevention Center, Overland j'ark, KS Advisory Boa,d, Communitl' Health Prornotion Program, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS 8 I  ~ , -' ---I I I ~ ~ ~     -- W. P. Moore (l'outh Poiicy Research Group, me.\n3 RFQ23-0JO-Response o_(Youth Policy Research Group, Inc. Professional Experience Consultation 2002-Present Senior Partner, Youth Policy Research Group, Inc., Kansas City, KS. Youth Policy Research Group is a corporate partnership formed by youth and education researchers located in the Kansas City metropolitan area. Toe mission ofthis firm is to engage in applied research and evaluation studies that will contribute to policy and practice decisions and dialogue about the necessary supports and resources youth require to achieve long-term developmental success both academically and behaviorally. Much of the work already completed by YPRG researchers is in the K-12 education arena. Acting mana::.aing partner in research and evaluation corporation- administration and company management. 1993-2002 Senior Mana...oin2: Consultant, Great Plains Research and Evaluarion, Olathe, KS. GPR\u0026amp;E was an education and youth development research and policy furn focused on improving the programming and organizations that children and youth experience. Overall responsibility for managing research and evaluation contractual work. Oversaw a staff of part-time consultants, managed resources and budget, negotiated contracts, oversaw project development, implementation, coordination of data collection, analysis, dissemination, and action planning for future decision-making with clients. Clients included:  Ewing Marion Kauffman. Foundation. Through contactual work awarded by EMKF we assisted the following clients:  State of Kansas, SRS, Alcohol \u0026amp; Drug Abuse Services  State of Missouri, Dept. of Mental Health. Div. of Alcohol \u0026amp; Drug Abuse  State of Colorado, Team Fort Collins  Kansas City-St. Joseph Diocese Sc\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_1046","title":"\"Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in the Little Rock School District\"","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":["Ross, Steven M."],"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","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["\"Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in the Little Rock School District\""],"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/1046"],"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\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nUSCHEL H FR10AY(lt22-1'94) JLLIAM H SUTTON, P.A iON M EISEMAN. JR, P.A  O BELL, PA JAMES A BUTTRY, PA FREDERICK. S URSERY,,. A. ,..SCARE DAVIS, JR, P.A MES C. CLARJC, JR , PA. OMAS p LEGGETT, P.A t{N DEWEY WATSON, PA PAUL B BENHAM Ill.PA LARRY W BUJlK.S, P A  WYCK.LIFP NISBET, JR..., P.A MES EDWARD HARRJS, P.A PHILLIP MALCOM, PA MES M SIMPSON, P A JAJllfES M SAXTON, PA J SHEPHERD RUSSELL Ill, PA DONALD H BACON. P.A ILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P A (HARD D TAYLOR.PA SEPH B HURST, JR.., PA ELIZABETH ROBBEN MUR.llAY, PA CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A LAUR.A HENSLEY SMITH, PA ROBERT S. SHAPER. P A WILLIAM M GRIFFIN Ill, P.A MICHAELS MOORE, P.A DIANE S MACKEY, PA WALTER M EBEL 111, P A KEVIN A CRASS, PA WILLIAM A WADDELL, JR., PA SCOTT J LANCASTER. P.A ROBERT 8 BEACH, JR . P A J LEE BROWN, P.A JAMES C. BAKER, JR.PA HAR.AV A LIGHT, PA SCOTT H TUCKER. PA GUY ALTON WADE, PA PRICE C. GARDNER.PA TONIA P JONES, P A DAVID D WILSON, PA JEFFREY H MOORE, P A DAVID M GRAF. P .A RECEIVED 1/'11/M DEC - 4 2002 j-/?Vid - Oc /,vu e cL OFFICE OF 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 Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 FRlDA Y ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 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 3'25 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE, SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703-41!111 TELEPHONE 479-l!llil5-2011 FAX 479-l!llil5-2147 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 1!170-7\u0026amp;2-2898 FAX 870-7152-2911!1 December 4, 2002 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol 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 RE: Compliance Remedy Dear Counsel \u0026amp; Ms. Marshall: CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P A JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR, PA JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO, P A R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON, P A FRAN C. HICK.MAN, P A BETTY J DEMORY, P.A LYNDA M JOHNSON, P A JAMES W SMITH, PA CLIFFORD W PLUNKETT, PA DANIEL L. HERRJNGTON, 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 Mr. Steve Jones BRYAN W DUKE JOSEPH G NICHOLS ROBERT T SMITH RYAN A BOWMAN TIMOTKY C. EZELl T MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M COTTON PHILIP B MONTGOMERY KJUSTEN S RIGGINS ALAN G. BRYAN LINDSEY MITCHAM SLOAN KHAYYAM M EDDINGS JOHN F PEISERICH AMANDA CAP'PS ROSE BRANDON 1. HARRISON OFCOUNS[L BS CLARK. WILLIAM L TERJt.Y WILLIAM L PATTON, JR H T LARZELERE, P A JOHN C. ECHOLS, P A A O MCALLISTER JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-l70ll23 FAX 5D1244-5341 f  ndl  yOftc.n  t Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Dennis Hansen Ofc of the Attorney qeneral 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Enclosed please find, \"Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in the Little Rock School District\" prepared by Dr. Steven M. Ross. The Little Rock School District intends to retain Dr. Ross, Dr. Larry McNeal and Dr. William Moore to complete the eight evaluations identified on page 148 of the Little Rock School District's March 15, 2001 compliance report that were not completed with the assistance of an outside expert. These were identified on page 12 of the Compliance Committee's proposed compliance plan previously provided to you. F \\HOME\\BBrown\\Fmdley\\LRSD\\dcseg\\counsel2 It. wpd n :o ro 0::, ~rt n\"\"\" ' ro l\"1 \u0026lt;  H'I tn 0 l\"1 l\"1 ro ~ en ro g~ ::, Cl C/l l\"1 ro n ::,' ,... = rt,, (I \u0026gt; Cl ~::r 00 n::, I\"\" Cl Qt All Counsel December 4, 2002 Page2 Little Rock School District hopes that its decision to follow the guidelines prepared by Dr. Ross will eleviate the Joshua Intervenors concerns about the preparation of these evaluations. If not, we respectfully request that ODM schedule facilitation related to the preparation of these evaluations as soon as possible so that the District may meet the court's March 15, 2003, deadline for Board approval and submission of the evaluations to the Court. Also enclosed for your reference are the responses to the RFQ submitted by the experts identified above. JCF/bgb enclosure(s) cc: Dr. Ken J arnes F:IHOME\\BBrownlfendleyll.RSDldcseg\\counscl2 h wpd Sincerely, John C. Fendley, Jr. () \"\"'1) 0 :, 1--' rt ~-Cl) n l'\"1 \u0026lt;  HI en o l'\"1 l'\"1 '1) ,:j en ro \"'Cl en 0 '1) :, Ill en l'\"1 ro n ::r 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 atrisk 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\n' 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 (') \"ti (I) 0:::, ~rt ~-(I) 0 l\"1 \u0026lt;  HI en o l\"1 l\"1 (I) !:C en ro -c, en 0 (I) :::, Ill en l\"1 (I) 0 ::r 2 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. Submit the current evaluation report as an attachment to a supplemental document as described in B-D. B. 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. C. 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. D. Finally, the supplement should present suggestions for conducting stronger studies of similar programs in future evaluation studies. 1. Middle School Transition (Moore) Thi/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 African 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. (') \"O Cl) 0::, .... rt\" I-'('!) n ~ '\u0026lt; t-'11 en o ~ ~ Cl)?:-' en m \"Cl en 0 Cl) ::, Ill en ~ m n ::r )\" en en 0 n I- Ill Q rt Cl) 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, suggestiJns 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 unlikely 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 (\") \"Cl ro 0 ::, ~M' n'\"'' lr'oi -\u0026lt;  1'11 en o l'i l'i ro ~ en ro ~ en o ro ::, QI en l'i ro n ::,' 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 ExceIJence 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 sti11 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. C\"l \"O Cl) 0::, ~ rt' ~-Cl) n l'1 ~ - H'I en o l'1 l'1 Cl) ,:I en m \"O en 0 Cl) ::, llJ en l'1 m n ::,' ~- ::, t:l .0, 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) 5 The EYE program is relevant to LRSD's 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 MANOV A) 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 from 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 CL Ts at the various schools. The aggregate survey results on the 24 combined items (14 in the team member survey\n10 in the certified/noncertified 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. C\"'l \"d Cl) 0::, r-' rt\" .... Cl) n l\"1 \u0026lt; - Hi tll 0 l\"1 l\"1 Cl) ~ Ill Cl) 'Cl Ill 0 Cl) ::, 0J Ill l\"1 ro n ::,\" .... ::, t'l .Q , ~The University of Memphis Memphis, Tennessee 38152-3340 A State of Tennessee Center of Excellence Center for Research in Educational Policy 325 Browning Hall October 28, 2002 Director of Procurement Little Rock School District 1800 East Sixth Street Little Rock, AR. 72202 Dear Mr. Paradis, RECEIVED 'j : I 2p rvJ DEC - 4 2002 I f.t,i,,J . /)C'l1 ~ ~~ c J., OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Local 901/678-2310 Toll 866/670-6147 FAX 901/678-4257 Enclosed are five copies of the Center for Research in Educational Policy's response to RFQ #23-010: Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Program Evaluation Consultant. If additional information is needed or ifl can be of further assistance, please contact the Center toll free at 1-866-670-6147. il~ Steven M. Ross Director A Tennessee Board of Regents Institution An Equal Opponunity/Afflrrnsliw Action University Response from the Center for Research in Educational Policy at the University of Memphis to: RFQ Number: 23-010 Title: Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Program Evaluation Consultant Opening date/time: ovember 6, 2002 (2:00 p.m.) CREP Response to RFQ23-010 1. Curriculum vitae with specific documentation of successful experience in education program evaluation. PERSONAL DATA Steven M. Ross 224 Eagle Spring Cove Cordova, TN 38018 Institution Pennsylvania State University Undergraduate Major: EDUCATION Psychology Home (901) 755-6654 Office (901) 678-3413 Degree-Year B.A. 1969 M.S. 1972 Ph.D. 1974 Graduate Major: Educational Psychology PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS American Psychological Association, Fellow American Educational Research Association, Member Mid-South Educational Research Association, Member Association for Educational Communications \u0026amp; Technology, Member International Congress for School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Member EXPERIENCE Instructor, Continuing Education, 1973-74, Pennsylvania State University Instructor, Psychology, Spring Semester, 1974, Lock Haven State College, Lock Haven, Pennsylvania Evaluator, Summer, 1974, Mitre Corporation, McLean, Virginia Assistant Professor, Educational Psychology, 197 4-79, University of Memphis Associate Professor, Educational Psychology, 1980-1985 Professor, Educational Psychology, 1985 - Present Senior Researcher, Center for Research in Education Policy, University of Memphis, 1995-2001 Director, Center for Research in Educational Policy, University of Memphis, 2001 - present COURSES RECENTLY TAUGHT Theories of Learning (undergraduate) Individual Differences and Learning (Graduate) Educational Statistics (Undergraduate and Graduate) Educational Research (Graduate) Computers in Education (Graduate and Undergraduate) Thesis Writing (Graduate) Educational Assessment (Graduate) CREP Response to RFQ23-010 2 HONORS AND DISTINCTIONS 1. NDEA Fellowship for graduate study at the Pennsylvania State University, 1971-1973. 2. Graduate Student Associate, Southwest Regional Laboratory, Summer, 1971. 3. Distinguished Teaching Service Award, University of Memphis, 1980. 4. Phi Delta Kappa Professional Research Award, Memphis Chapter, 1983. 5. Elected Fellow, Division 15, American Psychological Association, 1986. 6. Visiting Scholar, National Center for Research on Improving Postsecondary Teaching and Learning. University of Michigan, Summer 1987. 7. Distinguished Research Award, University of Memphis, 1987. 8. Distinguished Teacher Service Award, University of Memphis, 1988. (First eligibility since 1980\nno longer eligible) 9. Memphis State University nominee, CASE Professor of the Year Award, 1989 10. Superior Performance in University Research (SPUR) Award, University of Memphis, 1990, 1991, 1992 11. Distinguished Research Award, University of Memphis, 1993. 12. Board of Visitors Eminent Faculty Award, University of Memphis (first recipient), 1993 13. Editor, Educational Technology Research and Development, 1993-present 14. Editorial Board, Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk. 1995-present 15. Editorial Board, Computers and Human Behavior, 1994-present 16. Invited testimony, U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth, and Families, Committee on Education and the Workforce, June 26, 1998. 17. Invited panelist on comprehensive school reform, discussion with Secretary of Education Richard Riley, March 16. 1999. 18. Lillian and Morrie Moss Chair of Excellence in Urban Education, 2001 Publications in Refereed Journals Books Book Chapters SCHOLARSHIP Papers Presented at Professional Meetings 122 7 28 224 SELECTED RECENT PUBLICATIONS Ross, S. M., Henry, D., Phillipsen, L., Evans, K., Smith L., \u0026amp; Buggey, T. (1997). Matching restructuring programs to schools: Selection, negotiation, and preparation. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,~' 45-71. Ross, S. M., Troutman, A., Horgan, D., Maxwell, S., Laitinen, R., \u0026amp; Lowther, D. (1997). The success of schools in implementing eight restructuring designs: A synthesis of first-year evaluation outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8_, 95-124. Ross, S.M., Smith, L. J., \u0026amp; Casey, J. (1997). Preventing early school failure: Impacts of Success For All on standardized test outcomes, minority group performance, and school effectiveness. Journal for Research on Students Placed At Risk, i, 29-54. CREP Response to RFQ23-010 3 Stringfield, S., \u0026amp; Ross, S. M. (1997). A \"reflection\" at mile three of marathon: The Memphis restructuring initiative in mid-stride. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8, 151-161. Ross, S., \u0026amp; Smith, L. J. (1997). Improving the academic success of disadvantaged children: An examination of Success For All. Psychology in the Schools, ~..1, 171-180. Jayasinghe, M. G., Morrison, G. R., \u0026amp; Ross, S. M. (1997). The effect of distance learning classroom design on student perceptions. Educational Technology Research and Development,~ 5-20. Ross, S. M., \u0026amp; Smith, L. J. (1998). Improving school achievement and inter-group relations for children placed at risk. European Journal oflntercultural education, 9_(2), 141-154. Smith, L. J., Ross, S. M., McNelis, M, Squires, M., and others (1998), The Memphis restructuring initiative: Analysis of activities and outcomes that impact implementation success. Education and Urban Society, 30(3), 296-325. Stringfield, S., Datnow, A., Ross, S., \u0026amp; Snively, F. (1998). Scaling up school restructuring in multicultural multilingual contexts: Early observations from Sunland County. Education and Urban Society, 30(3), 326-357. Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., \u0026amp; Casey, J.P. (1999). \"Bridging the gap\": The effects of the Success For All Program on elementary school reading achievement as a function of student ethnicity and ability level. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, lQ(2), 129-150. Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., \u0026amp; Kemp, J.E. (2000). Designing effective instruction (3'd ed.). New York, tN: Macmillan College Publishing. Ross, S. M., Alberg, M., Smith. L., Anderson, R., Bol, L., Dietrich, A., Lowther, D., \u0026amp; Phillipsen, L. (2000). Using whole-school restructuring to improve educational outcomes: The Memphis story at year 3. Teaching and Change, 1(2), 111-126. Ross, S. M., \u0026amp; Seidel, S. (2000). The introduction to the NEA Teacher Education Initiative. Teaching and Change,~' 5-9. Nath, L.R., \u0026amp; Ross, S.M. (2001). The influence of a peer tutoring training model for implementing cooperative groupings with elementarJ students. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 49(2), 41-56. Ross, S. M., Sanders, W. L., Wright, S. P., Stringfield, S., Wang, L. W., \u0026amp; Alberg, M. (September 2001). Two- and three-year achievement results from the Memphis Restructuring Initiative. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 1]_, 323-346. CREP Response to RFQ23-010 4 Summary of Interests During the past ten years, I have worked extensively with school districts, both regionally and locally, to develop and evaluate programs for improving student achievement. The primary focus of these studies bas been schools predominantly serving disadvantaged inner-city minority children. Currently, I am working on the formative and sumrnative evaluation of Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) projects at schools in various states. Additional ongoing research projects are studies of school restructuring designs as they are implemented in Memphis City Schools and other school districts and of professional development schools in seven national sites as part of the NEA Teacher Education Initiative (NEA-TEI). 2. Capacity and capability to perform education program evaluations including a writing sample (see appendix for writing sample). The Center for Research in Educational Policy (referred to in this document as the Center or CREP) is funded by the State of Tennessee as one of five Centers of Excellence located at The University of Memphis. The mission of the Center is to implement a research agenda associated with educational policies and practices in the preK-12 public schools of Tennessee and the nation, and to disseminate research findings so that they inform decisions made by educational practitioners and policymakers. Since 19.89, the Center bas served as a mechanism for mobilizing community and university resources to address educational problems and to meet the I University's commitment to primary and secondary schools. Functioning as a part of the College of Education, the Center seeks to accomplish its mission through a series of investigations conducted by Center personnel, College and University faculty, and graduate students. The Center's research agenda is developed through analysis of persistent or emerging issues in schools and their communities, changes occurring in teacher education programs, and recommendations from educational authorities. In order to plan and conduct inquiries relevant to issues associated with public schools, the Center supports research reflecting the following characteristics: potential for contributing to the solution of educational policy and practice issues\nan applied research and development focus\ncollaborations and partnerships with schools and other external organizations\ninterdisciplinary research teams\nmultiple modes of inquiry\nCREP Response to RFQ23-010 5 immediate and long-range planning\nand creation of databases to foster secondary analyses. Research outcomes are intended to provide a knowledge base for use by educational practitioners and policymakers by providing insight into the complexities of educational phenomena and offering recommendations for action. Through work in schools for over a decade, the Center has contributed to Tennessee policy decisions regarding teacher preparation and licensure, school governance and site-based decision making, and public school reforms. Additionally, the Center has gained national recognition for its contribution to discussions of issues such as reform of teacher education, educational equity, educational technology, school reform and restructuring, urban and multicultural education, interventions for at-risk students, and using formative evaluation methods for school improvement decision-making. In summary, the Center for Research in Educational Policy has extensive experience in evaluating diverse educational programs. The Center has developed numerous valid and reliable evaluation tools that have been effectively used by hundreds of schools and districts to examine the extent to which programmatic goals are being realized, and also fotmaking data-based improvement decisions. The Center's professional expertise, available evaluation resources, and proximity to the Little Rock School District all make it likely that CREP can assist the District in complying with the court order related to its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 3. Indication of the amount of available time between November 11, 2002 and March 1, 2003 for consulting and active work on this project. Dr. Steven Ross and staff from the Center for Research in Educational Policy can initially commit to ten hours per week for this project. This commitment is flexible, however, and can be negotiated based on the needs of the Little Rock School District. CREP Response to RFQ23-010 6 4. Two professional references who can attest to quality of work and ability to meet schedules and deadlines. RickBasoin Deputy Executive Director of Planning and Development SERVE 915 Northridge St., 2nd floor Greensboro, NC. 27403-2112 (800) 755-3277 RBASOM@serve.org Doris Redfield Director of Research AEL P.O. Box 1348 Charleston, WV. 25325-1348 (800) 624-9120 redfield@ael.org 5. Pending Lawsuits. None. IC !3: C Ill ll ::, ~ Ill., ..a r ro ~ 5ro1 c, ::, C: rt i: r. I \u0026gt;en lrl en., 0 C n....: : Ill Q 1\nCREP Response to RFQ23-010 7 Appendix Writing Sample 1 1 The writing sample is an executive summary. The full report will be provided upon request. PROGRESS AND OPTIONS REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DIRECT INSTRUCTION AND SUCCESS FOR ALL IN TOLEDO PUBLIC SCHOOLS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Prepared by: Center for Research in Educational Policy (CREP) at the University of Memphis www .memphis.edu/crep July 30, 2002 :J:\u0026gt;'lll t/l rl t/l 0 C (l ::i I ~- Ill Q rt 1m Progress and Options Regarding the Implementation of Direct Instruction and Success for All in Toledo Public Schools EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Purpose and Background The major goals of this research study were to evaluate the outcomes and provide recommendations on the implementation of two improvement models being used by multiple schools in the Toledo Public School (TPS) district. The district has taken bold steps to turn around some of its lowest performing schools, including the investment of about $2 million over the past four years to adopt two research-based comprehensive school reform models with solid national track records of effectiveness. These models, Direct Instruction (DI) and Success for All (SF A), have been implemented in a total of nine Toledo elementary schools. The design and methodology of the study, to be described below, was oriented towards answering the following research questions.  How do \"program\" (i.e., DI and SFA) schools compare to \"control\" (i.e., similar) schools in student achievement outcomes over time?  How well are program schools implementing their chosen models?  How do program schools compare to control schools in measures of school climate that make a difference in program implementation or student achievement?  What are key stakeholder reactions (e.g., district leaders, principals and teachers) to the effectiveness of the programs and their schools' ability to fully implement the programs?  Which factors appear to differentiate between program schools that are most and least successful in raising student achievement? Study Design The design of this project relies on a number of different approaches to determine program implementation. The findings and options for action reported here draw on multiple data sources consisting of:  Comparisons of student achievement results at program schools against similar TPS schools\n Targeted observations of the extent and quality of DI and SPA implementation\no Interviews of district and union leadership\n School climate inventories administered to teachers at program and control schools\n Teacher questionnaires administered to teachers teaching reading at program and control schools\n Focus groups comprised of program teachers that explored issues related to program implementation\nand  Interviews of principal and building representative. Nine schools participated in the evaluation, including three DI schools that began implementation in 1997-1998\nthree DI schools that began implementation in 1999-2000, one that began in 2001-2002\nand two SFA schools that began implementation in 1999-2000. (Note: As data was not yet available, the DI school that began implementation this year was not considered in the analysis of student achievement.)  For the student achievement study, the comparison sample consisted of all other (not SF A and DI) schools in the District, the scores for which (as explained below) were adjusted for school and student characteristics.  For the implementation analyses, experts in the school district selected matched control schools for DI and SF A sites based on prior achievement, SES factors, and ethnicity. There were six DI control schools and two SF A control schools. Again, the DI school that began implementation this year did not have a control school. Results Achievement Analysis Student achievement data was gathered from all available sources, including the Ohio proficiency test and the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-9). Student results on these standardized tests in schools implementing DI and SF A were examined as well as results for all other (not DI and SFA) district schools. Results were compared for program and control schools and the analysis revealed the following. Overall Results. DI and SF A program schools included in the evaluation posted student achievement gains nearly equal to what would be expected of other Toledo schools serving similar student populations. DI Results.  Achievement gains tended to improve in DI schools from 1999 to 2001 in 2nd and 6th grade, but were still slightly below what would be expected given the pf)verty rate and pretest levels of the schools.  In 2001, DI schools as a whole produced a statistically significant negative effect for fourth grade.  Among the schools that implemented DI in 1997-1998, Mt. Vernon second grade students tended to post higher achievement gains than would be expected. Fourth and sixth grade achievement gains improved at Mt. Vernon from moderately below to roughly equal to the district average. Among 1999-2000 DI schools, student achievement improved substantially at King, particularly in 2nd and 6th grade. Second grade student performance declined precipitously at Warren from 1999 to 2001. 2 3: Ill ::, Ill IQ m 5l m ::, rt- ,~\u0026gt; 0 (') ~- Ill rtm SF A Results.  In both SF A schools, students at each grade level made achievement gains at a rate nearly equal to the district average for each year considered. School Climate Inventory (SCI) The main purpose of the School Climate Inventory (SCI) is to assess impacts of reform initiatives in relation to seven dimensions logically and empirically linked with factors associated with effective school organizational climates. 1 The inventory contains 49 items and responses are scored using a five-point scale ranging from strong disagreement (1) to strong agreement (5). Overall Results. SCI results showed no unusual positive or negative trends for any of the program or control groups, with the exception of one of the two SF A sites that had negative school climate results. DI Results. DI teachers reacted comparably to their control counterparts. SF A Results. SF A teachers reacted significantly more negatively than did the control teachers on three out of the seven dimensions (Environment, Leadership, and Order). One of the SF A schools bad very positive school climate results, while the other SF A site bad negative school climate results compared to both the controls and to national norms. Reading Teacher Survey (RTS) All teachers of reading at each DI, SF A, and control school were asked to complete the RTS, which contains 20 items teachers respond to using a five-point scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree ~). Items identified the specific program in the case of DI and SF A, but referred generically to the \"reading program\" for the control schools. Among the areas assessed were professional development, impacts on students, changes in teaching, support for the program, effects on technology use, and involvement of parents and the community. Overall Results. Findings for both DI and SF A sites indicated significant favorable teacher attitudes toward the DI and SF A reading programs relative to control group impressions of the district's general reading program. DI Results. DI teachers expressed more positive attitudes toward their reading program than did control teachers of their schools' approaches. Significant differences were obtained on 12 out of 20 items, with the largest effects indicated for: (1) external guidance and support\n(2) 1 The dimension on the Environment addresses pride in the school and caring about others\nthe Order dimension focuses on student behavior, discipline, and attendance\nthe Leadership dimension deals with the degree to which the administration is supportive, communicative, and effective\nInvolvement concerns the extent to which parents and the community are involved in the school\nthe dimension on Instruction considers the extent to which the instructional program is well developed and implemented\nthe Expectations dimension is the extent to which students are expected to learn and be responsible\nand the Collaboration dimension is the extent to which the administration, faculty, and students cooperate and participate in problem solving. 3 the reading program changing classroom learning activities a great deal\n(3) external professional development being valuable\nand, ( 4) student achievement being positively impacted. SF A Results. SF A teachers were significantly more positive than their control counterparts on 13 of the 20 items. The largest effects were obtained for items indicating a more positive teacher evaluation of: (1) the guidance provided by the school facilitator, support team, or others\n(2) changes in learning activities due to the reading program\n(3) the school's plan for evaluating the reading program\n( 4) the value of the professional development\nand, the involvement of parents. Interviews and Focus Groups Interviews were conducted with key stakeholders ( district leadership, union leadership, and a school board member), principals of schools implementing DI and SF A as well as Control schools, building level union representatives, and DI and SFA school facilitators. Teacher focus groups of about one-hour in length were held to provide background information about schools' usage of their selected programs to support more informed interpretations of outcome measures such as student achievement. Questions addressed teachers' experiences with and reactions to program implementation with regard to such areas as program appropriateness, resources, professional development, and outcomes. The principal at each of the nine schools participated in a one-hour, on-site interview. Interview questions addressed the principal's experiences and reactions to the program implementation and the associated outcomes for the school, students, faculty, and parents/community. Interviews with control school principals were conducted via telephone, using the same instruments. Results from DI Interviews and Focus Groups According to respondents (principals, teachers, and teacher union building representatives), the strengths of DI appear to be in the primary grades, especially with regard to phonics. The model also appears to them to be highly positive for special needs children, attributed to DI's structure, repetition, and appropriate ability grouping. Weaknesses in DI were perceived in the intermediate grades, including a lack of instruction in comprehension and higher-order thinking skills. Implementation, according to one teacher focus group, has gone well in the lower grades, but as reported by one building representative, the program lacks support among intermediate grade teachers. Almost all principals, building representatives, and teacher focus groups perceived a positive impact of DI on reading and interest in reading. High student mobility was identified as one of the biggest obstacles to DI implementation, since new students enter the school with no DI experience. Large class size was mentioned as another perceived impediment to implementation. A third impediment reported at some schools was high teacher turnover. In some schools, boredom and lack of interest during DI was identified as an issue, although others report increases in student motivation and enthusiasm about reading. 4 3: Ill ::, ill \"\" IQ (D s ~ g rt ~ :t\u0026gt;'P. tll \" ~ a n  I-' Ill ,~ Most respondents viewed initial DI training as positive. Several noted that training was inadequate for new/transfer teachers. Model developers appeared to have inconsistent contact with the schools. Across all schools, there appeared to be a need for improved district training and support, which was reported to be minimal and unspecific. In summary, teachers and principals in DI schools perceive the program to be very effective, especially in grades K-3, at teaching larger numbers of students to read. Teachers and principals indicate that students are more motivated and interested in reading and that they see progress in their classrooms on a regular basis. There appears to be a weakness in the training provided by model consultants and the district, particularly for new teachers entering the program buildings. Results from SFA Interviews and Focus Groups According to respondents, SF A implementation has been improving, but has been highly dependent on the rate of teacher turnover. The most effective elements of the SF A model were perceived to be the 90-minute block of reading time, ability grouping for reading, the use of phonics and tutoring at the primary levels, and program consistency from grade to grade. The least effective SFA elements were reported as the lack of nonfiction materials (an issue identified at both \"program\" and \"control\" schools), limited writing emphasis, time constraints, large class sizes, the scripted lessons, and the lack of alignment to Ohio standards. Focus groups in both schools perceived that SFA supports cooperative and team-based approaches. Other SF A classroom changes identified include smaller reading groups, flexible levels, individualized learning, interdisciplinary and project-based instruction, improved partnering, and more student enthusiasm for learning. Staff reported that special\"needs SF A students are ability-grouped according to reading level, and are given extra tutoring if necessary. I In summary, staff observed that students in both SF A schools appear to be more motivated to read. SF A schools reported that, according to SF A assessments, more students are reading on level, and students are reading more often. SF A principals reported increasing proficiency scores, although teachers in one school reported that test scores are down: One SF A school also noted improved communication, stronger student relationships, and fewer discipline problems during SF A implementation. In both SF A schools, teacher collaboration and teacher collegiality has reportedly improved, despite high teacher turnover in one of the schools. According to the focus groups, professional development and SF A training have been helpful overall at both schools. However, follow-up training and training for new teachers were viewed to be inadequate. Targeted Observations Independent, out-of-state consultants with expertise in the implementation of DI and SF A conducted site visits to the Toledo schools implementing these models. Targeted observations for each model follow. 5 IQ xi::: 0J 0J ::, 0J 1- -0 ro~I s ('I) ::, Cl rt C: 0 :x:,. 0J en rt en .... 00 0 ::i I-' 0J QI rt ('I) DI Targeted Observations In-depth observations of Toledo's DI schools by outside experts in the program indicate a rather inconsistent and incomplete level of implementation of the components of the DI model that are critical for accelerating student progress to reach grade-level performance. These expert observers noted that implementation is not yet geared to produce significantly more than a year's progress each year so that children can close the \"academic gap.\" On an encouraging note, the observers reported that school staff nearly unanimously identified a significant reduction in the number of children who are nonreaders, and a significant increase in the number of children who are encountering success during reading instruction. Specific recommendations to improve DI implementations are as follows: 1. Place more emphasis on accelerating student performance in kindergarten and first grade. 2. Increase reading instructional time to accelerate and expand student reading proficiency. 3. Provide children who are functioning below grade level with daily extra DI reading instruction. 4. Provide for structured reading in a wide variety of materials. 5. Place more emphasis on implementation of the DI language curricula. 6. Provide professional development to enable all teachers to reach high levels of proficiency in teaching DI. 7. Provide training and support for building principals to take a more active role in supporting implementation of DI model. 8. Provide more of a sense of urgency from the district level to ensure implementations are producing desired levels of student learning. This recommendation further stres,ses the need to establish a district-wide DI coordinator to monitor implementation and 'ensure consistency and quality in uses of DI across schools. 1 SF A Targeted Observations According to the SF A expert who visited the program schools, implementation in Toledo is uneven. While observations revealed that implementation of the SF A program is generally above average in curricular areas and both schools provided the requisite 90-minutes of reading instruction each day, several concerns exist. Implementation of the \"Reading Wings\" reading component in one school was below average. Both schools are below average in family support implementation and one school needs to improve in the area of teacher training. 6 ' tO 3:C:: Ill Ill ::, Ill 1- IO (I) I\u0026lt; El (I)~ ::, c:1 rt Cl \u0026gt;en r en 0 (\"l I-' Ill rt I (I) In terms of student performance, based on their analysis of SF A-provided student assessments, both schools report approximately 90% of first graders reading at or above grade level and close to 70% at or above grade in most second through sixth grades.2 According to the expert observer, teachers at each school appear to be working together to successfully implement the program in the face of implementation challenges. For instance, one site has been without a permanent facilitator for most of the 2001-2002 school year. The other SF A site has two facilitators, however, program implementation is challenging there as well due to the large student population and other conditions. The observer noted that the district appears to lack attention and focus to ensure that high quality program implementation is o.ccurring at each SF A site. Specific recommendations to improve SF A implementation are as follows: 1. Improve the alignment of SFA with the Ohio Proficiency Standards. 2. Ensure that adequate program facilitation is provided. 3. Improve the quality of professional training that SFA teachers receive. 4. Strengthen the implementation of SF A's writing component. 5. Implement fully the family support program component of the SFA model. Options for Action Our research team's goal in conducting this analysis was to support the ongoing efforts of all stakeholders in Toledo to engage in effective, evidence-based action to improve student achievement. We hope this report will provide the District the information it needs to weigh its options regarding the future implementation of two research-based, research-proven reading/school improvement programs. This report does not seek to promote or discredit either program or any alternative approach, or to call into question the well-intended and hard work of many district administrators and school staff. Rather, it lays out the available faqts, analyzes them and, on that basis, provides the following, forward-looking options. The District has several options regarding the future of Direct Instruction and Success for All in these schools. They range from the abandonment of the models entirely to their full, sustained, and potentially expanded implementation. At one end of this spectrum, before abandoning the models completely, the District would have to answer two key questions: 2 This statement on grade level performance refers to an SF A student assessment. This information contradicts other student assessment data provided by the Toledo Public Schools Office of Research showing that on the district assessment one SFA site has about 50% of its first graders and 60% of second graders performing on grade level while the other site has about 80% of first and second graders performing at grade level. 7 1. Have we done all that we could at the district and school level to fully implement these two programs in order to achieve successful student outcomes? 2. If we do decide to drop these programs, what do we have in hand, ready to go, that will produce better results? Given the observations detailed in our report, it would appear that the District could talce several more steps to assure high-quality implementations of these models. Furthermore, while the district may develop equally, or more effective, alternative approaches for raising reading achievement in these program schools, and perhaps across the entire district, no such option currently exists. Therefore, the district may wish to explore ways in which these programs could continue to operate-for a limited period of time, and with increased support and monitoring. The programs that the District has adopted have demonstrated success in many similar settings across the country. Therefore, given the right circumstances they may yet yield the desired-but as yet unattained---outcomes in Toledo. Based on the results of this study and our experiences as consultants and researchers in the area of comprehensive school reform, the following recommendations are offered for consideration by the TPS School Board and Superintendent. Improving Model Implementation this School Year. In the event the District decides to continue to operate these two models, for the 2002-2003 school year, there are a number of actions that should be considered in order to improve implementation. The District should:  Carefully review the detailed findings of the targeted observations provided in this report and make every possible suggested change in implementation. In the future, the district should monitor and act on the information provided by DI and SF A ongoing implementation checks and consider supplementing this data with other formative evaluation tools.  Establish a support, accountability and monitoring structure at the district level with one administrator charged with oversight of these models. This would ensure an ongoing focus on providing the support required for success. This individual-knowledgeable in the research-based programs and, preferably, about literacy instruction as well.-would oversee the quality of implementation across sites. The administrator would work closely with principals and school staff to meet their needs, and should have the authority and budgetary power to: a. Identify and oversee high quality providers of technical assistance, professional development, and supplies and materials\nb. Help identify and support school-based facilitators of the model\nc. Malce certain that materials and supplies are provided in a timely fashion to appropriate school staff\nd. Set and keep a master schedule for training new teachers, current teachers, and school-based program facilitators that complements District-provided training\nand 8 I-' 0J rt Cl) e. Increase principal involvement in and preparation for implementing models.  Negotiate and hold models and consultants to clear, transparent, performance-based agreements that specify what it is the District expects of the model provider(s), and consequences for success and failure. Improving Medium and Long Term Model Implementation. At the other end of the spectrum, indefinitely continuing and/or expanding implementation, would not appear to be a wise option given the limited academic success so far experienced, and the program implementation improvement needs noted in this report. Despite a national track record of success, unless a program can demonstrate substantial, long-term success in raising student achievement for Toledo's children, the program may not be the best option for meeting student needs. The District, and program advocates, must answer some tough questions before the programs are deemed worthy of long term support, including: 1. Why are we seeing less than adequate student progress in some of the program schools implementing these models? How can we track student achievement more accurately? 2. What is our capacity, interest, and commitment to fully implementing these models? Does the continuation of these models best serve the interest of Toledo's children? 3. How can we better monitor and assess the implementation of the models at the District level? 4. In the long term, what are the better solutions to meet the educational needs of Toledo's children? Other, intermediate and perhaps more viable choices exist for the District. For example, it might decide to choose a path of cautious optimism and allow the implementation of these models to continue for one or two more years-pending more results, and with additional supports. In our view, all schools wanting to continue their selected models should be given at least one year to show tangible progress. Presently, teacher support for the models being used is fairly strong at most schools. There are also community stakeholders who are both active and vocal in their advocacy of their chosen model. Using the present, third-party evaluation as a starting point for requiring tangible progress to be demonstrated within the next school year should present ostensibly a fair and reasonable plan to all stakeholder groups. The District should consider making subsequent policy decisions about model continuance on a case-by-case (school specific) basis. Even if, for example, the District chose to install a research-based, districtwide reading curriculum and approach, a decision could be made at that time whether the results at any given school were sufficient to justify allowing the particular school to continue with its current program. Some districts have chosen to allow schools to pursue individual program options, as long as they can demonstrate performance success, and prepare their students for further success in case they transfer, or when they graduate to their next grade level. 9 3: Ill ::, Ill IQ Cl) s Cl) ::, rt :i,,i tll tll .. 0 C C'l::, I-' Ill Ir 1~ Specific Options for DI Implementation. Although some DI schools have had sufficient time to achieve full implementation and raise student achievement, applications of DI still appear to be weak in many critical areas. Schools and the District need to show in the coming year that they are able and willing to achieve the effective program implementation required to significantly improve student achievement. Otherwise, there is little reason to believe that results will be more successful than shown in the present analysis. Over time the District might consider reducing the number of DI sites based on the different schools' performance and the quantity of teachers willing to make a long-term commitment to implementing the program. Creating more structures like the magnet schools reviewed in this study may be desirable both to promote greater teacher \"buy-in\" and reduce student mobility. Also, the District might consider whether to limit DI to the lower (preK-3) grades and phase out implementation in the intermediate grades ( 4-6). Alternatively, the District should provide substantially better and more consistent training to teachers working with the older primary students. The DI model has a track record of effectiveness in the intermediate grades, but only when proper, regular teacher training is conducted and a literature-rich student environment is cultivated. Specific Options for SF A Implementation. In the case of SF A, more time is needed for schools to gain experience in implementing the model. On the whole, SF A implementation is uneven and the district must pay more attention to implementing the model with fidelity. Before scaling up with any further SF A sites, the district should ensure full program implementation at both current sites. Particular attention must be paid to placing a trained SFA facilitator at each site, providi~g adequate professional development for all staff, and fully implementing the family support component of the model. Creating more structures like the magnet schools reviewed in this study may be desirable both to promote greater teacher \"buy-in\" and reduce student mobili~ The district should expect mixed student achievement results across SF A sites if implementation is not improved. Conclusion. Several years ago, the Toledo Public Schools initiated an exemplary pilot effort to implement two reading improvement programs that have among country's best track records of effectiveness in raising student achievement. The leadership of the District was to be commended then, for making the commitment to take on \"evidence-based\" reform. It has continued that commitment by commissioning this impartial, rigorous, and thorough examination of the results to date of those decisions. While there is room for disappointment that student outcomes are less than anticipated, and concern that program implementation needs to be improved, the District's reliance on following the trail of evidence to appropriate conclusions should provide hope that-whichever options are taken in the coming months and years-the result will be a better education for Toledo's children. 10 Quality Education and Management Associates A CONSULTANT COMPANY P.O. Box 26166 Little Rock, Arkansas 72221-6166 (501) 221-1178 or lxmcneal@netscape.net Dr. Kathy K. Franklin, Principal Consultant Dr. Larry McNeal, Principal Consultant Dr. Tom E. C. Smith, Principal Consultant Dr. Gordon E. Watts, Principal Consultant RECE:VED ./'/2pn7 DEC - 4 2002 / /,\n11/- /).:..I, 'v ( v, .f. OfACEOf DESEGREGATION IIONiTORJNG I \"For every complex problem there is a simple solution that is one hundred percent wrong. QEMA knows the right solution.\" cfQ...uahut cgdcawuv QM\n~ ~~ A CONSULTANT FIRM P. 0. Box 26166 Little Rock, Arkansas 72221-6166 (501) 221-1178 or lxmcneal@netscape.net November 4, 2002 Darral Paradis, CPPB, C.P.M. Director, Procurement and Materials Management Department Little Rock School District 1800 East 6th Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Dear Mr. Paradis: 1bis letter is to introduce the consulting finn of Quality Education \u0026amp; Management Associates (QEMA) of Little Rock, Arkansas. Members of the firm are university faculty with specialized expertise in educational issues, P-12, as well as postsecondary. Firm members have actively consulted with public school districts, private businesses, and institutions of higher education in a variety of areas. Members of the firm are offering their services to the Little Rock School District in the area of program evaluation. In particular, members of the firm are able and prepared to assist Little Rock School District personnel in evaluating the various programs outlined in the recent school desegregation court ruling. We are looking forward to assisting the Little Rock School District as it moves forward to address the program evaluation issue. Sincerely, r'..__ 'L~\\ ~ Dr. Larry McNeal Principal Consultant 2 1. Curriculum Vitae Quality Education and Management Associates (QEMA) Vitae A summary of Quality Education and Management Associates (QEMA) members' evaluation activities are listed below. Dr. Kathy K Franklin 2001 to 2004, Evaluator, Alternative Classroom Experience Project (Joseph Pfeifer Kiwanis Camp) 1998 to 2000, Evaluator, Freshman Year Experience program (University of Arkansas at Little Rock) 1998 to 1999, Evaluator, Adult First Year Experience course (University of Arkansas at Little Rock) 1998 to 1999, Evaluator, Learning Communities Program (University of Arkansas at Little Rock) 1997, Evaluator, Learning Community Experiment (University of Arkansas at Little Rock) Dr. Larry McN eal 2001 to 2004, Evaluator, Alternative Classroom Experience Project (Joseph Pfeifer Kiwanis Camp) 2000 to 2001, Evaluator, Little Rock Scliool District Charter Elementary School (Little Rock School District) 2001 to 2002, Evaluator, Little Rock School District Charter Elementary School 1998 to 2000, Chair, College of Education Assessment Committee (University of Arkansas at Little Rock) 1997 to 1998 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Elementary School, Gales Public School District (Galesburg, Illinois) 1997, Evaluator, Title 1: Summer School Evaluation - Peoria Public School District (Peoria, Illinois) 3 1995 to 1996, Evaluator, Illinois School for the Visually (Illinois Department of Rehabilitation Services) 1995 to 1996, Evaluator, Illinois Center for Rehabilitation and Education (Illinois Department of Rehabilitation Services) 1995 to 1996, Evaluator, Illinois School for the Deaf (Illinois Department of Rehabilitation Services) Dr. Tom E. C. Smith 2001 to 2004, Evaluator, Alternative Classroom Experience Project -Joseph Pfeifer Kiwanis Camp 1999 to Present, National Evaluation System 2001, Charlotte-Mecklenburg School District Dr. Gordon E. Watts 2002 to 2004, Evaluator, Alternative Classroom Experience Project (Joseph Pfeifer Kiwanis Camp) 2002, Program Evaluator, Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant (Delta Teacher Education Consortium) 2000, Program Evaluator, Higher Education Consortium for Careers in Early Childhood (University of Arkansas at Little Rock) 1992 to present, Consultant/Evaluator, Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools 1998 Program Reviewer (Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education) The curriculum vitae for individual QEMA members are in Appendix A 4 2. Capacity And Capability To Perform Program Evaluations. QEMA has both the capacity and capability to perform program evaluation within the timelines identified in the recent school desegregation court ruling. The capacity and capability of QEMA is imbedded in its structure as a research based consulting firm with specialized expertise in educational issues, P-12, as well as postsecondary. Principal Consultants of QEMA have conducted a variety of types of program evaluations at the public school, community college, and university levels. The unique backgrounds and experiences of the principals enable them to bring together a wide spectrum of program evaluation models and statistical methodologies in order to create a program evaluation that is specifically tailored to their client's needs. - Currently, firm members are engaged in conducting a multi-year evaluation of the Alternative Classroom Experience Project for the Joseph Pfeifer Kiwanis Camp in Little Rock, Arkansas. The project provides educational services to at-risk elementary children from the Little Rock School and the Pulaski County Special School Districts. The experience acquired from this venture enhances QEMA's understanding and ability to provide program evaluation services to public school districts in Central Arkansas. A copy of a program evaluation completed by a QEMA principal consultant in Appendix B 5 3. Time Available For Consultation In response to the timeline requirements, QEMA consultant principals can be available between November 11, 2002 and March 1, 2003 on the following dates. The actual dates are subjected to mutual agreement between Little Rock School District personnel and QEMA personnel. Dates after March 1, 2003 are also available upon request. November 11-15: November 18-22 November 25-29 Pecember 2-6 December 9-13 December 16-20 January 6-10 January 13-17 January 20-24 January 27-31 February 3-7 February 10-14 February 17-21 February 24-28 4. Professional References A. QEMAGroup: Sanford Tollette Director Joseph Pfeifer Camp 5512 Ferndale Co I Little Rock, AR 72208 501.821.3714 Sanford@pfeifercamp.com B. Dr. Kathy Franklin Dr. Thea Zidonowitz Hoeft Division Chief for University College Director of Academic Advising Coordinator of First Year Experience University of Arkansas at Little Rock 501.569.3386 tmhoeft@ualr.edu 6 C. Dr. Larry McNeal Dr. Jean Brown Principal Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Elementary School Galesburg, Illinois 309. 691.8023 343.0409 D. Dr. Tom Smith 5. Pending Lawsuits There are no lawsuits or any other legal actions pending on Quality Education and Management Associates as a.consulting company or any of its principal consultants as individuals. I 7 Appendix A Curriculum Vitaes For Dr. Kathy K. Franklin Dr. Larry McNeal Dr. Tom E.C. Smith Dr. Gordon E. Watts 8 I EDUCATION KATHY K. FRANKLIN, Ed.D. Department of Educational Leadership, Policy, and Technology Studies The University of Alabama Box 870302 Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0302 kfranldi@bamaed.ua.edu 205-348-2470 Kathy K. Franklin 1 Ed.D. Educational Leadership with a concentration in higher education. Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, Tennessee, 1996. Dissertation: Exploring the Congruency Between Student Satisfaction and Institutional Effectiveness in Higher Education. Utilized a qualitative research design with a focus group method of inquiry to explore the congruency between criteria used by students to determine satisfaction with the higher education experience and criteria used by administrators to evaluate institutional effectiveness. The purpose of this research was to investigate the validity of using student satisfaction assessment as a definition of institutional effectiveness. M.B.A. Concentration in marketing and economics. Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, 1991.  B.S. Commerce and Business Administration with a concentration in marketing. University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, 1977. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Associate Professor of Higher Education Administration, Department of Educational Leadership, Policy\nand Technology Studies, The University of Alabama, 2002 to present. Associate Professor of Higher Education Administration, Department of Educational Leadership, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, 1999 to 2002. Taught courses on the following topics: history and philosophy of higher education, governance and public policy in higher education, finance of higher education, leadership theories in higher education, and qualitative research methods. Chair, Department of Educational Leadership, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, 1999 to 2001. I Assistant Professor of Higher Education, Department of Educational Leadership, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, 1996 to 1999. Taught courses on the following topics: history and philosophy of higher education, overview of higher education in the United States, college teaching problems and issues, designing a college curricula, qualitative research methods, dissertation seminar\nand advanced research methods. Team Instructor, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis, East Tennessee State University, Spring 1996 and Summer 1996. Taught the following courses in collaboration with senior faculty from the ELP A department: Professional Needs of Individuals and Groups\nGraduate Internship Program\nand Theories of Educational Administration. Instructor, Kathy K. Franklin 2  East Tennessee State University, College of Business, Department of Management and Marketing, Johnson City, Tennessee\n1992 to 1996. Full-time Temporary faculty status -Taught Principles of Marketing, Sales Force Management, Retail Management, Introduction to Business, and Organizational Behavior to undergraduate students.  Milligan College, Adult Education Program, Johnson City, Tennessee\n1994 to 1996. Adjunct faculty status -- Taught Marketing Communications in the adult accelerated M.B.A. program.  Northeast State Technical Community College, Blountville, Tennessee\nJanuary 1992 to August 1992. Adjunct faculty status -- Taught courses in business economics, finance, and marketing.  Tusculum College, Greeneville, Tennessee\nJune 1992 to October 1992. Adjunct faculty status -Taught graduate courses in strategic marketing management to adult students in the accelerated M.B.A. program. Graduate Assistant, Office of the Dean, College of Education, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, Tennessee\nMay 1995 to August 1995. Worked with the Associate Dean to prepare for the 1995 NCATE visit. Assistant Director, Bell South Exemplary Superintendent Training (BEST) Program, East Tennessee State University, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis, Johnson City, Tennessee\nAugust 1994 to May 1995. Coordinated all activities related to the professional development of forty Tennessee educational leaders in preparation for a future superintendency position. The BEST program was a collaborative effort with the Bell South Foundation and East Tennessee State University. PUBLICATIONS Journal and Newsletter Publications Franklin, K.K. (2002). Qualitative coding: The allegory of the quilt. Research in the Schools 9(1 ), 65-71. Franklin, K.K. (2001, winter). The \"Mikey\" phenomenon: Reflections of a first year chair. The Department Chair 11(3), 26-28. Franklin, K.K., Chesser, J.S., Edleston, R.J., Edwards-Schafer, P., Marvin, S.R., \u0026amp; Satkowski, T. (2001). Faculty attitudes about instructional technology in a metropolitan university classroom. _Metropolitan Universities: An International Forum 12(1), 50-61. Franklin, K.K. \u0026amp; Lowry, C. (2001). Computer-mediated focus group sessions: Naturalistic inquiry in a networked environment. Qualitative Research 1 (2), i 169-184. Franklin, K.K. (2000). Shared and connected learning in a freshman learning community. Journal of the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition 12(2), 33-60. Conners, N.A. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (Spring, 2000). Using focus groups to evaluate client satisfaction in an alcohol and drug treatment program. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 18, 313-3\nW. Franklin, K.K. (1999). A theoretical framework for metropolitan student satisfaction. Metropolitan Universities: An International Forum 10(3), 81-88. Franklin, K.K. (1999). Forging the bonds: learning communities on an urban campus. The First-Year Experience Newsletter 11(3), 8.  Franklin, K.K. (1998). Looking in the looking glass: How administrators describe the effectiveness of the metropolitan university. Metropolitan Universities: An International Forum 9(3), 9-18. Manuscripts in Press Kathy K. Franklin 3 Franklin, K.K., Cranston, V., Perry, S.N., Purtle, D.K., \u0026amp; Robertson, B.E. (in press). Conversations with mTreatnrosiptioolnit.a n university freshmen. Journal of the Freshman Year Experience and Students in Manuscripts in Blind Review Perry, S.N. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (2002). I am not the Gingerbread Man! Exploring the Experiences 'of College Students Diagnosed with AD/HD. The Journal of Research on Learning Diabilities. Manuscripts in Progress Franklin, K.K. A Tale of Four Freshman Friends: The Urban University Experience. Trawick, K. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. Responsibilities for the Effective Metropolitan University Department Chair. Franklin, K.K. Assessing a Freshman Year Experience Program. Franklin, K.K. The Freshman Year Experience: Increasing Confidence in the Ability to Succeed Crum, C. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. Mentoring Female Graduate Students. Kondrick, L. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. Predicting Success for Female Graduate Students Enrolled in Math, Science, and Engineering Programs. Marvin, USn. i\u0026amp;ve rFsritayn. klin, K.K. Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences: Students in Transition at an Urban Franklin, K.K., Conners, N.A., \u0026amp; Perry, S.N. Teaching Naturalistic Inquiry: A Constructivist Approach. ERIC Publications Perry, S.N. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. An Analysis of College Students with AD/HD at a Private and Public Institution in Arkansas using a Grounded Theory Approach. (submitted, November 2002) Conners, N.A. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (November, 1999). Fostering research by female graduate students through mentoring. Washington, D.C.: Educational Resources Information Center (ERJC) Clearinghouse on Higher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 435 757). Lowry, C. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (November, 1999). Utilizing networked computer workstations to conduct electronic focus group sessions. Washington, D.C.: Educational Resources Information Center E(EDR I4C3)5 C7l6e2a)ri.n ghouse on Assessment and Evaluation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. Marvin, S., Franklin, K.K., Edleston, R., Oberste, C., Routen, I.J., \u0026amp; Satkowsk.i-Harper, T. (November, 1999). Faculty attitudes about the use of technology in the college classroom. Washington, D.C.: Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghouse on Higher Education. Reference number IRO 19901. Franklin, K.K., Boggs, K.J., Conners, N.A., Crum, C.B., Nawarat, P., Ramirez, C.T., \u0026amp; Trawick, K.C. (1997). Defining institutional effectiveness for a metropolitan university. (Report No. HE 030 940). Washington, D.C.: Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghouse on Higher Education. (ERJC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 416 747). Kathy K. Franklin 4 Chamberlin, G.D. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (November, 1997). Implications of the baby boom echo in arkansas. (Report No. HE 030 872). Washington, D.C.: Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghouse on Higher Education, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 418 610). Franklin, K.K. \u0026amp; Shemwell, D.W. {1995). Disconfirmation theory: An approach to student satisfaction assessment in higher education. Washington, D.C.: Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghouse on Higher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 388 199). Franklin, K.K. \u0026amp; Knight, W.H. (1995). Using focus groups to explore student opinion. Washington, D.C.: Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghouse on Higher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 388 200). Franklin, K.K., Shemwell, D.W., \u0026amp; Witta, E.L. (1994). Hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis of a student satisfaction survey. Washington, D.C.: Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 388 694). Franklin, K.K. (1994). Multivariate correlation analysis of a student satisfaction survey. Washington, D.C.: Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 388 695). Workbooks Published for Conference Workshops Franklin, K.K., (1999). The search for a needle in a haystack, Part II: The art of coding. Workbook published for the annual meeting of Mid-South Educational Research Association, Point Clear, AL. Franklin, K.K., Donaldson, C.W., Hoeft, T.M., \u0026amp; Chapman, C.A. (1999). Assessing the service-learning component in a freshman year experience course. Workbook published for the American Association for Higher Education Assessment Conference. Denver, CO. Franklin, K.K., Donaldson, C.W., \u0026amp; Hoeft, T.M. (1999). Inspiration and perspiration: Combining service-\nlearning with the freshman year experience. Workbook published for the annual meeting of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. New Orleans, LA. Franklin, K.K., \u0026amp; Nawarat, P. (1998). The search for a needle in a haystack: Qualitative data analysis. Workbook published for the annual meetipg of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA. i Franklin, K.K. \u0026amp; Hoeft, T.M. (1998) Assessing the learning community: A survival kit. Workbook pSupbrilnisghse, dA Rfo. r the annual meeting of the South Central Freshman Success Initiatives Association. Hot Franklin, K. K. \u0026amp; Donaldson, C.W. (June, 1998). Assessing the learning community: A survival kit. Workbook published for the American Association for Higher Education Assessment Conference. Cincinnati, OH. PRESENTATIONS International Kathy K. Franklin 5 Franklin, K.K. \u0026amp; Donaldson, C.W. (1999, April). An analysis of two postsecondary learning environments: Learning communities and freshmen year experience courses. Poster session at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. Franklin, K.K. \u0026amp; Conners, N.A. (1999, April). Mentoring female graduate students in a qualitative research methods course. Roundtable discussion at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. National Marvin, S., Franklin, K.K., Chesser, J.S., Edleston, R., Edwards-Sharer, P., Oberste, C., Routen, I.J., \u0026amp;  Satkowski-Harper, T. (2001, October), Traveling through the Land of Oz: Teaching Qualitative Research. Poster Session at the Nursing Research Conference sponsored by Gamma Xi Chapter, Beta Chi Chapter, Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing, the University of Arkansas for Medical Services College ofNursing, and the Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System. Nursing Service. Little Rock, AR. Franklin, K.K, Donaldson, C.W., Hoeft, T.M., \u0026amp; Chapman, C.A. (1999, October). Assessing the servicelearning component in a freshman year experience course. Presentation at the annual meeting of the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities. Boise, ID. Franklin, K.K., Donaldson, C.W., Hoeft, T.M., \u0026amp; Chapman, C.A. (1999, June). Assessing the servicelearning component in a freshman year experience course. Workshop presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Higher Education Conference on Assessment. Denver, CO. Franklin, K.K., Hoeft, T.M., \u0026amp; Donaldson, C.W. (1999, March). Inspiration and perspiration: _ Combining service-learning and the freshmen year experience. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. New Orleans, LA. Franklin, K.K. \u0026amp; Donaldson, C.W. (1998, November). Developing the assessment strategy for a linked course learning corf-zmunity. Poster session at the Assessment Institute Best Practices Fair, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis. Indianapolis, IN. Conners, N.A. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (1998, November). Using focus groups to evaluate client satisfaction in an alcohol and drug treatment program. Poster session at the annual meeting of the American Evaluation Association. Chicago, IL. Franklin, K.K. (1998, June). Assessing the learning community: A survival kit. Workshop conducted at the 1998 American Association for Higher Education Assessment Conference. Cincinnati, OH. Franklin, K.K. (1998, February). Explaining student satisfaction with a metropolitan university.  Grant funded research presented at the annual meeting of the Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities. San Antonio, TX. Franklin, K.K. (1996, April). Exploring the congruency between student satisfaction and institutional effectiveness in higher education. Dissertation research presented at the 17th annual National Graduate Student Research Seminar in Educational Administration sponsored by the University Council for Educational Administration. New York City, NY. Re~ional Perry, S.N. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (2002, November) .. College Students with AD/HD. Presentation made at the 2002 annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Chattanooga, TN. Kathy K. Franklin 6 Trawick, K. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (2002, November). Exploring Department Chair Roles in Metropolitan Universities. Presentation made at the 2002 annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Chattanooga, TN. Hoeft, T.M., Franklin, K.K., \u0026amp; Donaldson, C.W. (2002, April). Conversations with First Year Students: Implications for Teaching and Learning. Presentation made at the 2002 annual meeting of the Arkansas Academic Advising Network. Jonesboro, AR. Franklin, K.K., Cranston, V., Peny, S.N., Purtle, D.K., Roberston, B.E. (2001, November). Conversations with metropolitan freshmen. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Little Rock, AR. Franklin, K.K. (1999, November). The search for a needle-in-a-haystack, Part II: The art of coding. PWooinrkt sCholepa rp, rAesLe.n ted at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Conners, N. A. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (1999, November). Fostering research by female graduate students through mentoring. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Point Clear, AL. Lowry, C. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (1999, November). Utilizing networked computer workstations to conduct electronic focus group sessions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Point Clear, AL. Marvin, S., Franklin, K.K., Edleston, R., Oberste, C., Routen, I.J., \u0026amp; .Satkowski-Harper, T. (1999, November). Faculty attitudes about the use of technology in the college classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Point Clear, AL. Franklin, K.K., Conners, N. A., Edleston, R., Marvin, S., Oberste, C., Routen, I.I., \u0026amp; Satkowski-Harper (1999, November). Traveling through the Land of Oz: Teaching qualitative research. Poster pArLes. ented at the annual meeting of the Mid-Sotith Educational Research Association. Point Clear, Franklin, K.K. \u0026amp; Hoeft, T.M. (1998, October). Assessing a learning community: A survival kit. Workshop conducted at the South Central Freshman Success Initiatives Association. Hot Springs, AR. Franklin, K.K., Nawarat, P., \u0026amp; Ramirez, C. (1998,\nNovember). The search for a needle-in-a-haystack: Qualitative data analysis. Workshop conducted at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA. Franklin, K.K., Chamberlin, G.D., Kennedy, R.L., \u0026amp; Sewall, AM. (1997, November). A dissertation survival Mkite. mPpahpise,r TprNe.s ented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Franklin, K.K., Boggs, K.J., Conners, N.A., Crum, C.B., Nawarat, P., Ramirez, C.T., \u0026amp; Trawick, K.C. (1997, November). Defining institutional effectiveness for a metropolitan university. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Memphis, TN. Franklin, K.K., \u0026amp; Chamberlin, G.D. (1997, November). Implications of the baby boom echo in the midMsouemth. p hiPsa, pTeNr p. resented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Kathy K. Franklin 7 Chamberlin, G.D., \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (1997, November). The baby boom echo: Implications for two-year colleges in Arkansas. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Arkansas Association of Two- Y ear Colleges. Little Rock, AR. Franklin, K.K., \u0026amp; Knight, W.H. (1997, February). Exploring the congruency between student satisfaction and institutional effectiveness in higher education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Educational Research Association. Hilton Head, SC. Franklin, K.K., \u0026amp; Knight, W.H. (1996, November). Exploring the definition of institutional effectiveness in higher education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Tuscaloosa, AL. Franklin, K.K., \u0026amp; Bartell, N.O. (1996, November). How to survive a qualitative dissertation. Training session- for graduate students at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Tuscaloosa, AL. Franklin, K.K., \u0026amp; Shemwell, D.W. (1995, November). Disconfirmation theory: An approach to student satisfaction assessment in higher education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Biloxi, MS. Franklin, K.K. \u0026amp; Knight, W.H. (1995, November). Using focus groups to explore student opinion. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association. Biloxi, MS. Franklin, K.K., Shemwell, D.W., \u0026amp; Witta, E.L. (1995, March). Hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis of a student satisfaction survey. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Education Research Association. Hilton Head, SC. Franklin, K.K. (1995, March). Relationship between student satisfaction and assessing program effectiveness. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Education Research Association. Hilton Head, SC. I Franklin, K.K. (1994, November). Multivariate correlation analysis of a student satisfaction survey administered at East Tennessee State University. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the MidSouth Education Research Association. Nashville, TN. Local Franklin, K.K. (2000, January). Faculty attitudes about the use of instructional technology in the metropolitan. university classroom. Presentation of research findings to the University of Arkansas AatR L. ittle Rock (UALR) Strategic Planning Committee on Instructional Technology. Little Rock, Franklin, K.K. (1999, January). Explaining student satisfaction with a metropolitan university.\nPresentation of research findings to the UALR Retention Committee. Little Rock, AR. Conners, N.A. \u0026amp; Franklin, K.K. (1999, January). Using focus groups to evaluate client satisfaction in an alcohol and drug treatment program. Poster session at the University of Arkansas Medical School, Department of Psychiatry, Grand Rounds. Little Rock, AR. Franklin, K.K. (1998, August). Assessing learning communities. Faculty development workshop at UALR. Little Rock, AR. Franklin, K.K. (1998, April). Explaining student satisfaction with a metropolitan university. Presentation of research findings to the UALR Faculty Senate. Little Rock, AR. Kathy K. Franklin 8 Franklin, K.K. (1998, April). Explaining student satisfaction with a metropolitan university. Presentation of research findings to the staff of the UALR Office of Educational and Student Services. Little Rock, AR. SPONSORED RESEARCH Evaluator for the Freshman Year Experience program sponsored by a grant from the Office of Educational and Student Services at UALR. Completed a two-year student learning assessment for the PEA W 1300 courses based on the six learning objectives identified for the course by the PEAW 1300 Curriculum Committee. The assessment included a freshmen profile survey administered to approximately 1100 students, a freshman attitude survey administered to approximately 900 students, a service-learning evaluation, and course portfolio evaluation (n = 161). Data provided evidence to support that the six learning objectives were accomplished. 1998 to 2000. Evaluator for the Adult First Year Experience course sponsored by a UALR Curriculum Development Grant. 1998 to 1999.   Evaluator for the fall and spring, 1998-1999 learning communities sponsored by a UALR Curriculum Development Grant.. 1998 to 1999. Conducted four focus group sessions with administrators and four focus group sessions with students on the University of North Texas campus to explore student perception of educational satisfaction and administrator perception of institutional effectiveness. Purpose of research was to explore the congruency between the criteria used by students to determine student satisfaction and the criteria used by administrators to evaluate institutional effectiveness. Research sponsored by a Coalition of Metropolitan and Urban Universities. 1997. Conducted four focus group sessions with administrators and seven focus group sessions with students on the. University of Arkansas at Little Rock campus to explore student perception of educational satisfaction and administrator perception of institutional effectiveness. Purpose of research was to explore the congruency between the criteria used by students to determine student satisfaction ai\nid , the criteria used by administrators to evaluate institutional effectiveness. Research sponsored by a UALR Faculty Development Grant. 1997. Evaluator for a learning community experiment, conducted during the 1997 fall semester, linking three freshmen core courses: speech communication, rhetoric and writing, and anthropology sponsored by an UALR Assessment Grant. 1997. ' PROFESSIONAL SERVICE Service to the Profession Continuous Service Member, Editorial Board, Research in the Schools, Mid-Sou.th Educational Research Association. 2002 to present. Member, Editorial Board, Journal of the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition, University of South Carolina Press. 1999 to present Member, Editorial Board, The Qualitative Report. http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QRJindex.html. 2001 to present. Referee, Qualitative Research, Sage Publications. 2001 to present. Research Coordinator, Coalition for Urban and Metropolitan Universities. Responsible for managing the Ernest Lynton Research Grant Program and Paige E. Mulhollan Dissertation Award Program. 1999 to 2002 2001 Kathy K. Franklin 9 Panel Member, Plenary Session, Developmental Education - Issues and Expectations, Arkansas Association for Developmental Education 2001 Fall Conference. Hot Springs, AR: October, 2001. 2000 Accepted an invitation to serve on the Strategic Study Committee for Roanoke College, Roanoke Virginia as a member of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) Visiting Team. November, 2000 . Mid-South Educational Research Association - 2003 President Mid-South Educational Research Association - 2002 Vice-President and President-Elect, 2002 Chair, Outstanding Paper and Dissertation Awards Committee Mid-South Educational Research Association - 2001 Site Coordinator, 2001 Annual Meeting, Little Rock Arkansas Member, Program Review Committee for the 2001 annual meeting Representative-at-Large, Board of Directors Mid-South Educational Research Association - 2000 Nominated by Board of Directors to serve as Secretary/Treasurer for MSERA. 2000 Site coordinator for the 2001 annual meeting to be held in Little Rock, Arkansas. Member, Program Review Committee for the 2000 annual meeting. Mid-South Educational Research Association - 1999 Elected by members of the Board of Directors to serve as a Representative-at-Large for MSERA. Member, Program Review Committee for the 1999 annual meeting. Mid-South Educational Research Association - 1998 Chair, Graduate Student Advisory Committee. Member, Program Review Committee for the 1998 annual meeting. Discussant, Mid-South Educational Research Association Conference, Discussion on Teaching and Learning. November, 1998. Session chair, Mid-South Educational Research Association Conference. Discussion on Early Childhood Education. November 1998. Session chair, Mid-South Educational Research Association Conference. Discussion on Teaching and Leaming. November, 1998. Mid-South Educational Research Association - 1997 Chair, Graduate Student Advisory Committee. .. Member, Program Review Committee for the 1997 annual meeting. Panel member, Mid-South Educational Research Association. Training session for graduate students titled: Life After Graduation: More Things You Need to Know About the Job Market. November 1997. Panel member, Mid-South Educational Research Association Conference. Training session for doctoral candidates titled: Dissertation Survival Kit. November 1997. g r. i ~ rt 01 .r.t. g Kathy K. Franklin I 0 Session chair, Mid-South Educational Research Association Conference, presentation of the 1997 Outstanding Paper awards. November 1997. Mid-South Educational Research Association - 1995 to 1996 Member, Graduate Student Advisory Committee. Session chair, Mid-South Educational Research Association Conference. Discussion on Higher Education. November, 1996. Session chair, Mid-South Educational Research Association Conference. Discussion on Test-Ta.long. November, 1996. Session chair, Mid-South Educational Research Association Conference. November, 1995. Service to The University of Alabama Member, Department of Educational Leadership, Technology, and Policy Studies Assessment Committee. 2002 to present. Service to the University of Arkansas at Little Rock Service to 2002 Member, UALR Department of Excellence Selection Committee. Jan. 2002 to April 2002 Service to 2001 Completed a two-year assessment of the PEA W 1300 courses at UALR for the Office of Educational and Student Services. The final assessment report included a detailed profile of approximately 1100 UALR freshmen emolled from the fall 1998 to spring 2000. The report also included the findings from a pre- and post-administered attitude survey, evaluation of course portfolios, and evaluation of service-learning activities. Data were analyzed using SPSS-PC v.9. Vice-Chair, UALR Graduate Council. 2000 to 2001 Chair, UALR Graduate Council Personnel Advisory Committee. 2000 to 2001 Evaluator, Freshman Year Experience Program at UALR. Responsible for developing and implementing an assessment strategy for all PEA W 1300 courses taught as a component of the Freshman Year Experience Program at UALR. 1998 to 2001 Member, Advisory Committee to the UALR Chancellor.  Serving on a committee of approximately 25 UALR faculty and administrators providing the Chancellor with feedback on proposed policies designed to enhance the metropolitan mission of the university. 1997 to 2001 Member, UALR Graduate Council. 1996 to 2001 Service to 2000 Member, elected by the Faculty Senate to serve 3$ a member of the UALR Research Committee. Responsibilities of the committee include  reviewing grant proposals written by UALR faculty for funding by the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs. 1998 to 2000. Chair, UALR Graduate Council Curriculum Subcommittee. 1998 to 2000. Evaluator, Service-Learning component of the Freshman Year Experience Program at UALR. Responsible for developing and implementing an assessment strategy for the service-learning component of PEAW 1300 courses. Member, UALR Faculty Appeals Committee. 1998 to 2000. Member, UALR Retention Committee. 1998 to 2000. Member, UALR Graduate Council Subcommittee on Graduate Curriculum. 1996 to 2000. Service to 1999 Member, Freshman Year Experience Brochure Development Committee. Spring, 1999. Member, First-Year Experience Curriculum Committee. 1998 to 1999. Member, UALR Academic Appeals Committee. September 1997 to 1999. Service to 1998 Member, Grant writing team to develop a grant proposal for the Kellogg Foundation visit. April 1998. Kathy K. Franklin 11 Member, UALR World Humanities Core Assessment Group. Served as the Core Assessment Committee liaison on this committee. Responsibility of the committee was to develop a core assessment strategy. March 1997 to 1998. Member, Advisory Subcommittee to the UALR Chancellor. Purpose of subcommittee was to provide s1u9p9p8o. rt for the development of a grant proposal for a 1997 Kellogg Foundation grant. 1997 to Member, UALR Core Assessment Committee. 1996 to 1998. Member, UALR Core Assessment Subcommittee on Implementing the University Core Assessment Plan. 1996 to 1998.  Co-authored the nomination packet for the John Templeton Award for the Freshman Year Experience Program at UALR. December, 1998. Attended the First-Year Experience Seminar hosted by the National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition and the University of South Carolina held in Little Rock, AR. April 6 - 7, 1998 Attended the Developing Larning Communities conference sponsored by the University of Miami in Miami, Florida. January 1998. Service to 1997 Developed and implemented an assessment strategy for a learning community experience at UALR at the request of the Office of the Provost and sponsored by a UALR assessment grant. The learning community linked three freshmen courses: Anthropology, Rhetoric and Writing, and Speech Communications. This course was designed based on the research of Vincent Tinto. Summer 1997 Conducted a focus group session of student leaders at UALR, analyzed the data, and drafted an executive summary of the findings for UALR administrators at the request' of the Office of the Provost. The purpose of the focus group session was to explore student leader attitudes concerning the strengths and weaknesses of UALR. The information was used to develop a SWOT analysis for the UALR five-year strategic plan. July 1997 Attended the 1997 Service Learning retreat sponsored by the Office of the Chancellor and the Office of the Provost. Invited by the Chancellor to join 65 UALR faculty and administrators in a daylong retreat discussing service-learning strategies for UALR. Attended the Critical Thinking Weekend Workshop, featuring Dr. Stanley Paul, at the request of the Office of the Provost in Seattle, Washington. May 1997. Visited with key change agents at Portland State University at the request of the Chancellor for the purpose of \"bridge-building\" between the two metropolitan campuses. May 1997. Service to 1996 Attended the Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis Assessment Conference~ held in Indianapolis, Indiana, at the request of the Office of the Provost. November 1996. Service to the College of Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Service to 2002 Chair, Department of Educational Leadership Annual Review Committee. Spring, 2002. Service to 2001 Department Chair. 1999 - 2001 Attended the annual conference for the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education. Dallas, Texas. 2001. Member, Annual Peer Review Committee. 2001 Member2, 0F0a0c.u lty Search Committee to select an Associate Professor of Higher Education Administration. Member, Faculty Search Committee to select an Assistant Professor of Higher Education Administration. 1999 to 2001. a ( E g r: Q Service to 2000 Member, Faculty Search Committee for the Vision Education Program. Spring, 2000. Member, Admissions, Retention, and Exit Committee. 1998 to 2000. Service to 1999 Kathy K. Franklin 12 Discussant, Millennium Forum, Metropolitan Focus Lecture on Instructional Technology, Dr. James In.man, featured speaker. September 30, 1999 Chair, UALR, College of Education Assessment Committee. Responsible for the on-going assessment of ANuCgAuTstE 1 s9t9a7n dtaor d1s9 9a9n.d the implementation of continuous-improvement strategies for the college. Chair, College of Education Assessment Readers Team to critique the college 1999 assessment reports. 1999 Elected by faculty in the Department of Educational Leadership to serve as the faculty reporter for all faculty meetings and to serve as acting chair for the department during the absence of the department chair. 1998 to 1999. Service to 1998 Chair, College of Education NCATE Readers Team. Responsible for reviewing and critiquing the NCATE report for the 1998 spring visit. August 1997 to April 1998. Member, Readers Team for the 1997-98 UALR Annual Assessment Progress Report. May, 1998 Member, College of Education NCATE Steering Committee. Coordination of the preparation for the NCATE 1998 spring visit. August 1997 to April 1998. Guided College of Education faculty through a S.W.O.T. analysis to develop the five-year strategic plan. September 1998. Service to 1997 Chair, Department of Educational Leadership Assessment Coordination Committee. 1996 to 1997. Submitted an application to serve as a Research Mentor for the McNair Scholars Program. FebI1\n1ary 1997. PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS Member, Arkansas Academic Advising Network. 2002 to present. Member, American Association of University Women. 2000 to present. Member, Mid-South Educational Research Association. 1994 to present. Member, The American Educational Research Association. 1999 to present. Member, The American Association of Higher Education. 1997 to 2001. Member, Eastern Educational Research Association. 1995 to 1997. PROFESSIONAL HONORS Kathy K. Franklin 13 Nominated for the 2001 Faculty Excellence Award in Research for the College of Education at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. December, 2001 A warded the 1999 Faculty Excellence Award in Service for the College of Education at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. April, 1999. Nominated by students in the Higher Education Administration program for the 1997-1998 Faculty Excellence Award in Teaching. December 1997. Awarded the East Tennessee State University, College of Education, 1997 Outstanding Dissertation Award. Nominated by Dr. Hal W. Knight, Associate Dean, College of Education. Selected by the University Council for Educational. Administration to attend the 17th annual National Graduate Student Research Seminar in Educational Administration held in New York City, 1996. I CURRICULUM LIST East Tennessee State University Higher Education Administration ELPA 6581 Internship with the Office of Enrollment Management ELPA 7820 Administration in Higher Education ELP A 68 80 Higher Education Finance and Law ELP A 6810 Theory of Educational Admjnistration ELP A 6010 Seminar in Education Administration and Organizations HDAL 5720 Student Personnel Services ELPA 6957 ELPA 6957 ELPA 6957 ELPA 6957 ELPA 6957 Special Topics - \"Leadership in Professional Development Centers.\" Special Topics - \"Program Planning in Continuing Education.\" Special Topics - \"Proposal and Grant Development.\" Special Topics - \"Politics of Higher Education.\" Special Topics - ''Leadership Studies.\" Education Foundations ELPA 6730 History and Philosophical Foundations of Education ELP A 6906 History and Philosophical Issues in Higher Education HDAL 5200 Human Relations and Group Processes Education Statistics Advanced Research and Analysis Kathy K. Franklin 14 Research ELPA 7810 ELPA 6950 ELPA 6901 MKTG5900 MKTG 5900 Independent Study - \"Multivariate Correlation Analysis\" Independent Study - \"Hierarchical Confirmatory Factor Analysis using LISREL 7.0\" Independent Study - \"Investigating the Use of Disconfirmation Theory to Measure College Student Satisfaction\" Middle-Tennessee State University Management and Marketing MGMT0660 Study of Organizations MGMT0665 Seminar in Operations Management BAD 0698 Business Policy MKT MKT MKT MKT 0680 0683 0685 0682 . Marketing Strategy Marketing Systems International Marketing Seminar Marketing Behavior General Business Theory ECON 5110 Economics and Business Decisions (East Tennessee State University) ECON 5240 Applied Macro Economic Theory (East Tennessee State University) FIN 0671 Advanced Financial Analysis lNFS 0671 Systems Analysis ACTG 0691 Accounting and Business Decisions REFERENCES Dr. Candace W. Burns, Chair Department of Educational Leadership University of Arkansas at Little Rock 2801 South University Ave. Little Rock, Arkansas 72204-1099 Phone: 501-569-3367 E-mail: cwbums@ualr edu Dr. Larry McNeal, Professor Department of Educational Leadership University of Arkansas at Little Rock 2801 South University Ave. Little Rock, Arkansas 72204-1099 Phone: 501-569-3552 E-mail: lxmcneal@ualr.edu Dr. Gordon E. Watts, Professor Department of Educational Leadership University of Arkansas at Little Rock 2801 South University Ave. Little Rock, Arkansas 72204-1099 Phone: 501-569-3267 E-mail: gewatts@ualr.edu Kathy K. Franklin 15 DR. LARRY MCNEAL BUSINESS ADDRESS University of Arkansas at Little Rock 2801 S. University Avenue Department of Educational Leadership Little Rock, Arkansas 72204-1099 Office 501-569-3552 Fax 501-569-3547 lxmcneal@ualr.edu HOME ADDRESS 15806 Patriot Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72212-2606 501-221-1178 lxmcneal@netscape.net or 1.mcneal59@hotmail.com PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION Ph.D. Educational Administration, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (1990) Emphasis: Fiscal and Community Support for Public Education Concentrations: Educational Finance, School-Co=nity Relations, and Public School\\ Administration M. S. Educational Administration, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (1989) Emphasis: Administration and Organization of Public Education Concentration: Educational Administration (Public School) M. A. Public Affairs. University oflowa, Iowa City (1976) Emphasis: Public Administration Concentration: Urban Administration B. A. Business Administration and Political Science, Dakota Wesleyan University, Mitchell, SD {1975) Emphasis: Political Economics Concentrations: Business Administration, Political Science and Economics Licensure: School Business Management (No longer active) Insurance Agent (No longer active) Entrepreneurship: Quality Education and Management Associates, President PROFESSIONAL WORK EXPERIENCE Professor, Department of Educational Leadership, Graduate School of Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, Arkansas, 1998 to the present Visiting Professor, Department of Educational Management \u0026amp; Development, Graduate School of  Education, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Summer 2000 Educational Administration and Supervision Program Coordinator, Department of Educational Leadership, Graduate School of Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, Arkansas, 1998 to 2001 Visiting Professor, Department of Educational Management \u0026amp; Development, Graduate School of Education, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, Summer 1998 Associate Professor, Department of Educational Administration and Foundations, Graduate School of Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1995 to 1998 Visiting Professor, Bellver International College, Trenton State College (now College of New Jersey), Graduate School of Education, Palma de Mallorca, Baleares, Spain, Summer 1996 Associate Director, Office of Educational Finance, Center For Higher Education and Educational Finance, qraduate School of.Education, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1995-1997 State Coordinator, Illinois Education Policy Fellow Program, Institute for Educatio~ Leadership, Graduate School of Education, lliinois State University, Normal, lliinois 1994-1996 Research Associate, Center for the Study of Educational Finance, Graduate School of Education, lliinois State University, Normal, lliinois, 1993-1995 Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Administration and Foundations, Graduate School of Education, lliinois State University, Normal, Illinois, 1993-1995- Visiting Professor, Department of Educational Administration and Foundations, Graduate School of Education, University ofNorthern Iowa, Cedar Falls, Iowa, Summer 1993 Research Associate, Center for the Study of Small/Rural Schools, Graduate School of Education, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 1992-1994 Adjunct Fellow, Center for Research on Multi-Ethnic Education, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 1991-1992 Danforth Principal Preparation Program Co-Facilitator, Graduate School of Education, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, 1991-1993 Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, Graduate School of Education, University of Oklahoma, Normal, Oklahoma, 1991-1993 Coordinator of Multicultural Affairs, Wisconsin Alumni Association, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, 1990-1991 Budget Analyst Intern, University of Wisconsin System Administration, Madison, Wisconsin, 1989-90 Equal Rights Officer, Division of Care and Treatment Facilities, Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services, Madison, Wisconsin, Fall/Spring, 1988/1989 Budget and Management Analyst Intern, Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Madison, Wisconsin, Summer, 1988 Marketing Manager, WarBuc Educultural Publications, Madison, Wisconsin, 1985-1987 Business Mathematics Instructor, Business Department, Madison Area Technical College, Madison, Wisconsin, Fall 1985 and Spring 1987 Finance Marketing Representative, John Deere \u0026amp; Company, Moline, lliinois, based in Madison, Wisconsin, 1978-1984 Commercial Service Representative, Honeywell, Incorporated, Minneapolis, Minnesota, based in Des Moines, Iowa, 1977-1978 Public Administration Intern, Mayor's Office, City of Davenport, Davenport, Iowa, 1976 2 DISSERTATION McNeal, L. (1990). The role of education for employment councils in education for employment programs. University of Wisconsin-Madison. RESEARCH INTERESTS School Cornrnunitarianism (the fundamental relationship between schools and their co=unities) Organizational Change (change processes and organizational effectiveness) Educational Finance ( adequacy and equity of funding for public education) Program Assessment and Evaluation GRADUATE COURSES TAUGHT Administration and Organization of Schools Advanced Administrative Theory and Behavior Administrative Problem Solving Organizational Change Educational Politics and Policy Dissertation Proposal Development Educational Finance School Business Administration Human and Fiscal Resources Management Educational Public Relations Introduction to Doctoral Studies Organizational Development PUBLICATIONS: REFERRED McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Christy, W.K. (In Press, 2003). The locus of control issue in standard-based accountability. Educational Considerations. Christy, W .K. \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2002). Influence of school board members on state legislation in Arkansas. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EA 031517. McNeal, L. (2002). The school-community relations profile model: Combining school district and community-based data. In J. Thomas Owens and Jan C. Simmons (Eds.), In creating quality reform: Programs, communities, and governance (67-81). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Chesser, J.S., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2001). Educational community study circles: How superintendents can enhance school improvement through community dialogue. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 446 370. Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2000). Implications oflegislative policy development for public school districts. F. Kochan (Ed~). Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Yearbook Chesser, J.S., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (1999). School improvement through community dialogue: The first community study circles on education in Arkansas and Oklahoma. ERIC Document Re:production Service No. ED 436 694..  Mogilka, J, Ashby, D.E, \u0026amp; McNeal, L., (Eds.). (1996). Planning \u0026amp; Changing, 27(1\u0026amp;2). McNeal, L. (1995). Fulfilling promises in the land of Will Rogers: A look at performance indicators in selected school districts since the enactment of Oklahoma house bill 1017. School Finance Policy Issues in the States and Provinces: Annual Update 1995 (135-138), C. Edlefson (Ed). The Ohio State University: Policy Research for Ohio-Based Education. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Reed, R. (1995). Building a school-community relations profile through sociological inventorying. People \u0026amp; Education: The Human Side of Schools, 3(3), 371-386. 3 McNeal L., et al. (1994). National Sallie Mae winners and their principals. National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal, 11(3), 3-10. McNeal, L. (1994). Focusing on at-risk students: Case study of John Wilkinson Elementary School. Illinois School Research and Development Journal, 31(1), 7-10. McNeal L., \u0026amp; Ashby, D. (1993). Site-based management and changing relationships. Illinois School Research and Development Journal, 31(1), 7-10. McNeal L., \u0026amp; Lehman, B. J. (1993). A vision of the future: The full-service school. Planning and Changing, 24(3/4), 140-154. BOOK PROPOSAL IN PROGRESS Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2001). Working Title: The Superintendency: Theory to reflective practice. To be submitted to Wadsworth. Belmont, CA. MANUSCRIPTS IN PROGRESS McNeal, L. (2001). The contextual world of education for children and the school-co=unity: James coleman and the effective schools movement. To be submitted to Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development. McNeal, L., \u0026amp; Christy, W.K. (2001). Rethinking the school district model of funding for individual schools: Co=ents about site-based management of resources. To be submitted to Planning and Change. Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (2001). Implications of charter schools and home schooling for the funding of public schools. To be submitted to Journal of School Leadership. PUBLICATIONS: MONOGRAPHS , McNeal, L., et al. (1993). Common sense: Plain talk to legislators about school finance. Center For the Study of Educational Finance. Illinois State University. PUBLICATIONS: NON-REFERRED McNeal, L. (December, 1990). The role of education for employment councils in education for employment programs. Dissertation. McNeal L. (1993). The education of African-American children in Oklahoma. State of Oklahoma: Annual Report. Urban League of Greater Oklahoma City, Inc., 36-45. McNeal, L., First, P. F., \u0026amp; Knudson, D. P. (1993). Evaluating the University of Oklahoma Danforth Principal Preparation Program. Connections. 1 (2), 3. McNeal, L. (1992). University of Oklahoma report. Danforth Programs for the Preparation of School Principals Newsletter, 1 (2). 3.  McNeal, L. (1987). From the desk of. National Multicultural Banner, 5 (6), 2. McNeal, L. (1986). From the desk of: Literacy, who's problem is it anyway? National Multicultural Banner, 5 (3), 2. 4 McNeal, L. (1986). The Black collegians guide to graduate fellowships for minority students. National Multicultural Banner, 5 (2), 9. CITED IN EDUCATION WEEK In the area of educational finance, Education Week has quoted me on several occasions. I have been quoted in the following articles: 11/26/97 in News ILL. Lawmakers Get One More Try To Pass School Funding Reforms 6/11/97 in News ILL. Lawmakers Duck Vow To Revamp Funding 3/26/97 in News ILL. Audit Questions Oversight of ILL. Education Agency 2/5/97 in News ILL. Odds Seen Better for F1.lllding Reform in ILL. REPORTS McNeal, L. Little Rock school district charter elementary school evaluation report for the 2001- 2002 school year. Prepared for the Little Rock School District, November, 2002. McNeal, L., et. al. The college of education assessment report: 2000-2001: University. of Arkansas at Little Rock. Prepared for the Provost's Advisory Group on Assessment, June, 2001.  McNeal, L. Little Rock school district charter elementary school evaluation report for the 2000- 2001 school year. Prepared for the Little Rock School District, June, 2001. McNeal, L. Projected student enrollment for the 2000-2001 school year: 6th and 7th grade student racial make up report. Prepared for Pulaski County Charter School Inc., April, 2001. McNeal, L. Enrollment trends in the Little Rock, North Little, and Pulaski County Special school districts: 1995-1996 to 1999-2000. Prepared for Pulaski County Charter School Inc., November, 2000. Coleen, B.C., Driskill, G., Leslie, S., McNeal, L., Mitchell, W., Taylor, C., \u0026amp; Webb, R. Provost's advisory group on assessment: University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Summer 2000 report, July, 2000. I McNeal, L., et. al. The college of education assessment report: 1999-2000: University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Prepared for the Provost's Advisory Group on Assessment, June, 2000. McNeal, L. Student enrollment needs assessment study of the Illinois school for the visually impaired, Illinois Center for Rehabilitation and Education and Illinois School for the Deaf. Prepared for the Illinois Department of Rehabilitation Services, Odober, 1995. McNeal, L, First, P., Walker, V., \u0026amp; Hobson, B. An inquiry into alleged cultural insensitivity at Capitol Hill High School. Prepared for Oklahoma City Public School District, March, 1993. McNeal, L, et al. School choice: Open enrollment and post secondary options. Prepared for the Association of Wisconsin School Administrators, March, 1990. McNeal, L. County veterans service officer training manual. Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, June, 1990. McNeal, L. A Review of health care and medical services provided by the United States department of veterans affairs. Prepared for the Division of Veterans Programs, Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, August, 1989. McNeal, L. A review of health care grants and the Wisconsin Veterans Home in King, Wisconsin. Prepared for the Division of Veterans Programs, Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, August, 1989. 5 McNeal, L. Mendota mental health institute: An analysis of an organization in crisis. Prepared for the Division of Care and Treatment Facilities of the Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services, December 1988. PRESENTATIONS: REFERRED McNeal, L., Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; Lewis, R. (2002). New leaders and new implications for educational administration. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Kansas City, MO. Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (November, 2001). Mid-South Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Little Rock, AR. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Christy, W .K. (November, 2001 ). A discussion of change theory, systems theory, and state designed standards and accountability initiatives. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Jackspnville, FL. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Christy, W.K. (November, 2001). State designed standards and accountability initiatives in the southwestern regional educational development laboratory service area. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Jacksonville, FL. McNeal, L. (2001, July). The institutionalization of the assessment process: One story in one college of education. The Consortium for Assessment \u0026amp; Planning Support. San Juan, PR. MeNeal, L. (2001, July). Faculty perceptions of their involvement in the assessment (evaluation) process. The Consortium for Assessment \u0026amp; Planning Support. San Juan, PR. Chesser, J., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (November, 2000). The use of the study circle in school reform: Bringing all the voices to the table. Mid-South Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Bowling Green, KY. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Christy, W.K. (November, 2000). Charter schools under construction: An analysis of a charter school evaluation plan. Southern- Regionaf Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Nashville, TN. Christy, W.K., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (November, 2000). Implications of charter schools and home schooling. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Nashville, TN. I Christy, W.K. \u0026amp; McNeal. L. (November, 2000). The process of making sausage in the factory of program reform. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Nashville, TN. Michaelis, K, \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (April, 2000). From indifference to injustice: The politics of teen violence. American Educational Research Association for the Spring 2000 Conference in New Orleans, LA.  Caram, C. A., Christy, W. K., Altom, B, \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (April, 2000). The sausage factory: The process of planning for accountability. Arkansas Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, Little Rock, AR. Caram, C. A., Christy, W. K., Altom, B., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (April, 2000). Responding to the call for accountability of a school leader preparation program Arkansas Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, Little Rock, AR. Chesser, J. S., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (March, 2000). Educational community study circles in Arkansas: How superintendents can enhance school improvement through community dialogue. American Association of School Administrators 11 th Annual Conference Within A Conference, San Francisco, CA. 6 Chesser, J. S., \u0026amp; McNeal, L. {November, 1999). School improvement through connnunity dialogue: The first community study circles on education in Arkansas and Oklahoma. Mid-South Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Clear Point, AL. McNeal, L., \u0026amp; Christy, W. K. (November, 1999). From preparation to practice in Arkansas: The relationship between program preparation standards and entry-level administrators' success. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Charlotte, NC.  Christy, W. K., McNeal, L. (November, 1999). Implications oflegislative policy development for public school districts. Southern Regional Council on Educational Administration Annual Conference, Charlotte, NC. McNeal, L., Gonzalez, M. L., \u0026amp; Noley, Grayson. (October, 1999). The ethics of silencing in school accountability: Listening to the voices of Hispanic, Native American, and African-American Researchers. University Council for Educational Administration Convention, Minneapolis, MN. Christy, W. K. \u0026amp; McNeal, L. (March, 1999). Future policy implications of an Arkansas referendum initiative. American Education Finance Association, Seattle, WA. McNeal, L. (March, 1998). The link between quality and school cormnunitarianism. Creating the Quality School: 7th Annual National Conference, Arlington, VA. McNeal, L., Place, A. W., Tilbnan, L.C., Beaumont, J. J. \u0026amp; Sanders, E. T. W. (October, 1997). A cross-cultural discussion of the 1997 UCEA conference theme. University Council for Educational Administration Convention, Orlando, FL. McNeal, L. (October, 1997). The contextual world of education for children and the schoolconnnunity: James Coleman and the effective schools movement. MidW estem Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL. McNeal, L. (March, 1997). Influencing instructional strategies. to enhance leartti.ng by using the school-connnunity relations profile model. Creating the Quality School: 6th Annual National Conference, Oklahoma City, OK. McNeai L. (1996, March). The implications of community based information for caring schools: SCRPING along. Creating the Quality School: 5$ Annual National Conference, Oklahoma City, OK. McNe~ L. \u0026amp; Chi, J. (1996, March). Performance indicators and curriculum offerings: Is there a connection in Oklahoma? American Education Finance Association Conference, Salt Lake City, UT. McNeai L., Parks, J., Watson, L., Jackson, D., Midgette, T., \u0026amp; Glenn, E. (1996, March). Our pedagogy: Culture as a major variable. Pedagogy of the Oppressed Conference, Omaha, NE. McNeal, L. \u0026amp; Ashby, D. (1995, October). School-community relations profiling: Re examining leadership for community. University Council for Educational Administration, Salt Lake City, UT. McNeal, L. (1995, April). Fulfilling promises in the land of Will togers: A look at performance indicators in selected school districts since the enactment of Oklahoma house bill IO 17. Sponsored by the Special Interest Group on Fiscal Issues, Policy, and Educational Finance (FIPEF). American Educational Research Association Conference, San Francisco, CA. McNeal, L. (1995, March). Promoting quality in education through the SCRPING of schools. Creating the Quality School: 4th Annual National Conference, Oklahoma City, OK. 7 McNeal, L., Higham, R, \u0026amp; Boyd, M.A. (1994, October). Establishing community between higher education, public education, and self:. An effort of compromise in infusing multiculturalism. Midwestern Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. McNeal, L. (1994, April). The state of educational finance in Oklahoma. American Educational Research Association Conference, New Orleans, LA. McNeal, L. (1994, March). Governance structures in decentralized schools and school improvement: Lessons from Chicago school reform. Creating the Quality School: 3rd Annual National Conference, Oklahoma City, OK. McNeal, L. (1994, March).\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\u003eRoss, Steven M.\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 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_527","title":"Little Rock School District Professional Teacher Appraisal System (PTAS), revised draft","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"],"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","Educational planning","Education--Evaluation","Teachers"],"dcterms_title":["Little Rock School District Professional Teacher Appraisal System (PTAS), revised draft"],"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/527"],"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\nDRAFT Little Rock School District Professional Teacher Appraisal System(PTAS) Revised Edition 2002 In Pursuit of Excellence for Teaching and Learning Board of Directors H. Baker Kurrus, President Judy Magness, Vice-President Tony Rose, Secretary Larry Berkley R. Micheal Daugherty Dr. Katherine Mitchell Sue H. Strickland Dr. T. Kenneth Janies, Superintendent 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 501-447-1000 1 FOREWORD The Professional Teacher Appraisal System (PTAS) is the result of the collaboration, consultation, and cooperation of the Little Rock School District classroom teachers, principals, central office administrators, and nationally recognized authorities in the field of effective teaching research. In a single document, we have expressed what we believe effective teachers do in their classrooms and what the most recent research reflects on effective teaching and learning. The Professional Teacher Appraisal System consists of four domains via Core Teaching Standards, four levels of performance, and three professional tracks of development. The ultimate aim is to increase student achievement as exhibited through quality and accountable teaching and learning. As research in the area of effective teaching continues to be examined, professional will continue to learn more about teaching and its relationship to student learning. We have done our best to capture the dynamic and interactive processes of teaching as found within this document. We expect our teaching professionals to incorporate the four domains with their cunent and successful practices. As with any effort of this scope, this document will be reviewed and modified to ensure that it continues to reflect our best and most current thinking. It is with pride and pleasure that the Professional Teacher Appraisal System (PTAS) is presented to the teachers of the Little Rock School District. This document is an example of the commitment that the Districts educators, administrators. Board, and association have to the improvement of public education and teacher performance in our community. All of those professionals involved in the development of the Professional Teacher Appraisal System (PTAS) hope it will serve as a valuable tool in our continuous pursuit of excellence for teaching and learning. H. Baker Kurrus LRSD Board of Director President Date Clementine Kelley Classroom Teacher Association President Date T. Kenneth James Superintendent DateThe Little Rock School District Professional Teacher Appraisal System (PTAS) is the result of collaboration and cooperation of our teachers, central office administrators, principals, and recognized authorities in the field of teacher evaluation systems and teaching. The committee respectfully submits this appraisal system with the purpose of creating excellence in teaching and learning in our school district for all teachers while building a community of learners for these professionals. Committee Co-Chairperson Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent Dr. Lloyd Sain, Jr., Principal, ALC Kay Gunter, Administrative Assistant Committee Members Dr. T. Kenneth James, Superintendent Tami Bennett, Teacher Karen Broadnax, ESL Supervisor Dr. Linda Brown, Principal Susan Colford, Teacher Suzi Davis, Director, Secondary English/Foreign Languages Mable Donaldson, Director, Gifted \u0026amp; Talented Frederick Fields, Principal Dennis Glasgow, Director, Math \u0026amp; Science Susan Bestir, Teacher Dr. Richard Hurley, Director, Human Resources Mayrean Johnson, Teacher Frances Cawthon-Jones, Assistant Superintendent, Elementary Schools Clementine Kelley, CTA President Dr. Marian Lacey, Assistant Superintendent, Secondaiy Schools Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent Victor McMurray, Teacher Marie McNeal, Director, Social Studies Ann Mangan, Principal Patricia Price, Director, Early Childhood Marion Woods, Coordinator, Staff Development Educational Consultant Dr.Thomas L. McGreal 3Little Rock School District Professional Teacher Appraisal System(PTAS) Mission Statement The Little Rock School District is committed to the pursuit of excellence in teaching and learning. We further believe that teaching and learning must be supported by a comprehensive appraisal system that identifies clear, rigorous, and measurable standards and that allows for individualized professional growth opportunities for its teachers. We believe that evaluation must be embedded in a collegial, collaborative, reflective, and supportive atmosphere where individual goal setting, continuous improvement, quality professional development, positive reinforcement, and ongoing dialogue are sustained practices and behaviors of the teachers and administrators. Designed to enhance the highest standards of excellence and professional expertise, the LRSD Professional Teacher Appraisal System provides a comprehensive process for providing success for all teachers while ensuring quality performance and accountability in the classroom. The Professional Teacher Appraisal System requires commitment, trust, and support from all members of the school community with the ultimate goal of improving and enhancing classroom instruction and student achievement. 4Little Rock School District Professional Teacher Appraisal System(PTAS) I. Evaluation Overview A. Purpose of Evaluation The Little Rock School District believes that the principle responsibility of the certified teacher is to direct and assess teaching and learning experiences of students. The District places high regard on the quality of teaching and learning in each classroom with high expectations for improved student outcomes. In order to ensure such expectations are met, this appraisal system has been designed. The purposes of this evaluation system are: 1) to enhance the quality of instruction, 2) to provide a basis for professional development, 3) to encourage collegiality and professionalism, and 4) to serve as the basis for sound and defensible employment decisions. B. Goals of Evaluation The Little Rock School District has established the following goals for the teacher evaluation process: 1. 2. 3. To aim for excellence in the educational curriculum through improving teaching techniques and providing opportunities for professional staff development and growth for every teacher. To improve instruction by collecting specific data and by analyzing the individual teaching performance for each certified person. To improve teaching and learning by cooperatively developing a professional growth plan for each certified person in the career track. 4. To identify for the teacher the critical skills and expectations that are essential and clear indicators for effective teaching performance. 55. To offer a supportive process/track to any teacher who warrants additional assistance when further preparation and refining of skills are needed in meeting the expectations. 6. To offer feedback to the individual being evaluated in expressing the extent in which his/her performance or undertaking has met the District's expectations or school improvement initiatives. 7. To provide accountability for the District's decision to continue employment. C. Review of the evaluation The appraisal system shall be reviewed every three years by the Classroom Teacher Association and the Little Rock School District. Any necessary proposed changes or clarifications will be recommended to the Little Rock School District Board of Directors for review and approval. D. Training of the evaluators To ensure that evaluators are prepared to implement the Professional Teacher Appraisal System, the Little Rock School District shall: 1. Train evaluators and administrators in observation techniques that will enable them to identify and to describe teaching behavior in alignment with the established teaching competencies as found in the Professional Teacher Appraisal System. 2. Offer training to evaluators to assist them in developing and assessing professional growth plans. 3. Ensure that a district appraisal training program is established and completed by all pertinent evaluators and administrators. 4. Train yearly new principals and vice-principals on the expectations and procedures for the district's revised teacher appraisal system. 6E. Orientation of Program Appraisal System The following steps will be implemented to familiarize teachers of the District's appraisal system\n1. 2. 3. To acquaint Track 1 and Track II certified teachers to the LRSD evaluation process, policy, procedures, and forms\nTo explain and discuss the core teaching standards and coordinating rubrics for each domain\nTo assign Track I teachers to an assigned evaluator at the building level\n4. To link the state's mandated Pathwise processes to the Little Rock School District Appraisal System\n5. To outline and explain the scope and importance of Professional Growth Plan\nand 6. To acquire the teacher's signed acknowledgment of the training and the receipt of the new appraisal booklet. F. Evaluation of Certified Teachers All certified teachers will be evaluated on the Core Teaching Standards as outlined on pages 12-39. These standards have been established as the core and essential skills that all certified teachers must master in the Little Rock School District. Teachers will be evaluated on five major categorical areas with each area containing specific expectations\nDomain I\nPlanning and Preparation\nDomain II\nThe Classroom Environment\nDomain III\nInstruction\nand Domain IV\nProfessional Responsibilities. The level of performance descriptors are Below Basic, Basic, Proficient and Distinguished. Track 1: Beginning/Non-Traditional Teachers Teachers in Track 1 will be provided with several opportunities to exhibit competency in the four domains and their related and identifiable skills. Any teacher who has less than 3 years of experience in the District will be placed in Track 1. Any teacher who has more than three years of experience but new to the 7District will be placed in year two of Track 1. Any teacher who receives an unsatisfactory or below basic mark in the weighted component must show improvement for continued employment in the Little Rock School District. Track II: Non-Probationary Teachers A certified teacher who has successfully completed Track I shall be placed in Track II: Professional Growth. While still expected to meet the Core Teaching Expectations on a daily basis, a teacher in Track II will concentrate on the development of professional growth plan and will identify the coordinated goals and activities needed to achieve the plan. A teacher in Track II will be evaluated yearly on Domain IV: Professional Responsibilities. Effective implementation of the plan is based on the dialogue between the teacher and evaluator and self-reflection of the teacher. In fulfilling the Professional Growth Plan, a teacher may choose to work independently or with a team or another colleague in establishing and achieving the plan. Plans will be developed collaboratively with the supervising principal/evaluator and must reflect District and/or building goals or objectives. Components of the Professional Growth Plan will include the Following (see page 45):  Goals and/or objectives  Activities  Outcomes  Resources  Time Frame  List of participants There are no regular or assigned number of observations for a teacher in Track II. However, an evaluator can observe a teachers classroom at any given time. If a teacher's performance becomes less than acceptable during the Track II phase, the teacher will be placed in the Awareness Phase or the Assistance Phase of Track III pending the degree of the deficiency or problem. 8Track III: Professional Support Track III is designed to offer technical and supportive assistance to any experienced or non-probationary teacher who may exhibit deficiency in a particular domain or competency. This track is intended to offer specific strategies or intervention that will alleviate or improve the teachers area of weakness and allow the teacher to return to Track II with mastery of the area(s) of improvement. This track is also designed to provide the teacher with due process while the teacher undertakes and implements plan of action in addressing the identifiable areas of deficiency. a The Awareness Phase of Track III will alert the teacher to a particular problem and will offer a solution for correction. A specific time line and plan of action will be established between the teacher and the evaluator in rectifying the problem. If the problem is not corrected at this phase, the evaluator will then place the teacher in the Professional Support Phase. The Professional Support Phase will be more intense and will require other personnel in supporting and assisting the teacher in meeting the district's expectations. A specific plan and time line will be established in assisting the teacher in meeting the expectations and returning to Track II. If the evaluator determines that the teacher has failed to meet the expectations, then the evaluator may recommend non-renewal or termination of contract. 9Track One: Probationary Teacher 10 G, Observation of the Teacher In Track I, a teacher will be observed and evaluated for three consecutive years (see page 10). During year one, the teacher will receive two formal observations and four informal observations. A portfolio will be required yearly and a mid year and summative appraisal will be done yearly by the evaluator. While the teacher in Track I will receive two observations during year one by an assigned Pathwise mentor, these two observations will not be included or used in the evaluators collection of data or evaluation of the teacher's summative appraisal. During the second year, the teacher will receive the same number of formal and informal observation as year one and will be required to maintain a portfolio. The requirements for the portfolio is further discussed and outlined on pages 49-51 of this handbook. The teacher will receive a mid year and summative appraisal. During the third year, the teacher will receive one formal, four documented walk-through observations, and a mid year and summative appraisal. The teacher will also be required to maintain a portfolio. Both formal and informal observations will be a minimum of thirty minutes in length. The formal observations will require a pre-conference, a scheduled or announced observation, and a reflection/post conference between the teacher and the evaluator. The informal or unannounced observation will require the evaluator to offer a written summation or notation to the teacher describing the observation experience. A post conference following the informal observation will be held between the teacher and the administrator to reflect on the observation. A walk-through observation may be done at any time as deemed necessary by the evaluator. A walk-through observation is an unannounced, non-timed visit to the classroom that will result in a written summation of the evaluators observation being placed in the teachers mailbox or given to the teacher. 11CORE TEACHING STANDARDS The Core Teaching Standards consist of four primary focuses: Domain I: Planning and Preparation\nDomain II: The Classroom Environment\nDomain III: Instruction\nand Domain IV: Professional Responsibilities. Each of the four domains of this document refers to a distinct aspect of teaching. To some extent, the defined components within each domain form a coherent body of knowledge and skill, which can be the subject of focus independent of the other domains. The common thread that links all four of these domains is that they all engage students in learning important knowledge( Danielson, 1996). There are four levels of performance: unsatisfactory, basic, proficient, and distinguished. The levels range from describing teachers who are still attempting to master the fundamentals of teaching (unsatisfactory) to highly successful professionals who are able to communicate their expertise to other professionals (distinguished). Each component of a particular domain defines what is an unacceptable to highly acceptable performance level for each component. 12' Ay' V J lA. IB IC. ID. IE. IF. PLANNING AND PREPARATION Demonstrating Knowledge of content and Pedagogy Knowledge of content Knowledge of prerequisite relationships Knowledge of content-related pedagogy Demonstrating Knowledge of Students Knowledge of characteristics of age group Knowledge of students' varied approaches to learning Knowledge of students' skills and knowledge Knowledge of students' interest and cultural heritage Selecting Instructional Goals Value Clarity Suitability for diverse students Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources Resources for teaching Resources of students Designing Coherent Instruction Learning activities Instructional materials and resources Instructional groups Lesson and unit structure Assessing Student Learning Alignment with instructional goals, standards and benchmarks Criteria and standards Use for planning Variety of strategies 130) 0) C 0) Z o \u0026lt; Q. lU 0. o z \u0026lt; 13 Z 1-4 z z Q. \u0026gt; Ol o cn re D U 0. o c re c 0) c o u XJ CD V) CT E 4-* \\fi b C y y p S  o-g  0) O -k: ST'S - J9 5 Q. O O Kf} c \\z V) \u0026gt; /,.  QJ CT U o 0) x: c 0) *_ c O (U O .-t! -03^0 2^004-'=. -  \u0026gt; t) i2  p 3 o XJ . B CT u 3 (/) c o 0) *J m ^ \u0026gt; $ 8 :y -=5 3 O. E u) .c \u0026lt;u *- (U o c -^ _ o 2 0^ u E \"CT 5 o c (D g. o X3 O 2  \"^ i: ro to \u0026lt;u JZ in 1- to **- _ -.9- Ui U) \u0026gt; *\n.C C 0) jj O U)  U! 2 \u0026lt;u 5 cn 01.2 .2 3 i2 0) S CT .2 . 5 2 z \u0026lt; z o o O V 01 ? 5 o c cn c s re u W c o E V Q 0) u c TO E u t V a. o U 0) TH to CD re c V c a E o u  o y \u0026gt;2  g c: H Z UJ Z UJ lU ui  E E -2 jn u ID T3 ID 2 S' i_ \u0026lt;U .2 u \u0026lt;U -H C 5 gE 8 x: c \u0026lt;0 .- Q. w .0 3 = 3 \u0026gt;- \"O  j_i  (u UJ J2 ~ o) .u\u0026gt; F \u0026gt; 2 -S E 2 S ' UI 2^ 5 2 \u0026lt;u m  c\nH .1^: -S $ CT o V) Q. i/\u0026gt; I- C c 8 c o E 8 cn c 3 in  O K X) \u0026gt; CT ^^2 21.^ -C T-l C XJ lO (O tj O c c oi 01.2 F. *- ! o 3 5 S CL~  s 2 to  0.10 TO c.Q g g-^o s 'oi S\nS' (u 4-. 01 S h: S o c o in c CT C to  8 =5 .8  \u0026gt; g 2i  S fl) TO H * * (U c to liini u- o CT y CT O \u0026gt; U 4- .S5 c to (P x: \u0026lt;1^ -i tj ^ ._ u  g TO c c i2 o h- u \u0026lt;u c x: o u -  g . o 4_\u0026gt; ~ ~ UI a o 5 Q. 2 c C o E o 8 8 S .2   tJ 0) .2 t 8  \"' .g 5 S.5 O 3 i_ TO C U fl) O .id  - ^   n p o x: (V O 1- 0)  _ t  o to o o 2 tn O sB  . u 2 c 2 5 o c u c C o u in \u0026lt;u (U t (/ JS o \"2 g y _ o O C x: (O .\u0026lt;1^ H in s X3 O ) c u 0) t\n= c 3 4- in 5 o o c 8 -S o 'B  c 8 u 2 CT 3 O 2 o. U c U (D U \u0026lt;u c O  =3 a? TO  ex o .-t\nx: E y D \u0026lt;U 2 o S. o CT \u0026gt;, y S 2 'p ? TO o O ^ - W X5 3 CTl (U Q. o .y ^-c o - s J E P C E .s 5 S 8 (D (U 5  TO c y 5 3  t s  =? w c *- Q i/\u0026gt; a\u0026gt;  C Q. c ID o g g -C 2 5 O u o O) (u . U TO S S2 \"ct H O O ? 5 -  g E n to o  Q. H-l 2r m 3 C o a\u0026gt; 22 c Q. 0) 0^ -\"Isf 2 o. E O tJ E .y w \u0026lt;u C XJ JO CT (TJ c \"O u. V) O \" if} c 5. g o ^ 01 H- \"O \"5 to CT C SE  g TO (U XJ 4-t o tn u Q. tn o o'-E i_ .2 \"o c q\u0026gt; c o \u0026lt;u O) TJ 0) y B o o H \u0026lt;u  \"CT to c o 3 trt in O -o n 5* = o Ql 4J  0) w re \u0026gt; C fli at re 5 o \"o o 5 at  C Q.ro ifl .y -CT ID QJ CT ID 0) P w o   to $ c \u0026lt;/) Q. \u0026lt;U Z O s \u0026lt; 0. lU 0^ 0. o z \u0026lt; t9 z z z ^5 0. fl C QI D 3 (/) O QI CT o QI s o CT C fU I Z h4 \u0026lt; z o o vt c o E V o .fi V o Q. E o u fl u_ 2 o to QJ \u0026lt;v S .2 ro c j_ CT-q fl fl - fl iC ro ro p S  S *J  Ui p o o c ~ \"2 ro5 ro\n8 5    CT CT ro P P c p -52 'I E ^ro 5 si 6 c = s  ro o y \"ro \"5 tj 5 E s 2 S 5 (- C CL     i's I s-Bb-S CT g'O S B \u0026gt;^ g \" ro 5 -g 2 5s \u0026lt;-. ^ ro c O to QI c 5^ ? EB 0) (U Q. CT C in b c S \"S S c S 3 P 'r Q. ' in Q. c ro 3 ti Q -C S'  u e g .y CT ID -5 Q. 5 c fO 0) CT P Jr. P S \u0026lt;1^ ID tn OJ i*_ ID 3 O = OJ -- Q\u0026gt; CT   ro K! i? i2 \u0026gt; CT P  ^ P F ID \u0026lt;- 5 4- . - 0^ 2  . o IX 4= c QI o 3 (D Oro*\" 5 QI F u! 5 0 ID Wl * P to X? QI ' O  to o -E C -3 Jr O  S  a F a' 3 = cn 5 u ru u a = ro tz 8 - .\u0026lt;1^ Q) O O 3 U u c n E u t V Q. O g u r\u0026gt; tn ,. ^xi o 'c ro g Ji  c ro ro Q. o S js \u0026gt; 6 = -p  ir. iO QI ID pool \"O *- hx QI Q) ID CT u tJ O s5 S 2 - -5 55 \u0026gt; o ro -  l-s XI c fo  3  ro fl U -O ID 3 ,0) 3 2 *0 0) \u0026lt;U S m c CT S (D 3 (D CT O *5 X \u0026lt;u to o t: (U 9- c a 05 -2 _ S 9^ F  -S   c fc   X *- 3 CT QI ? c \"D D QI J\nro - ro D X)  CD CT ID O 'I \u0026gt; \u0026lt;11 J'l \u0026gt;* S p fl Q- ro 2 F -b! = QI to iw = *- -# -J ro Q. 5 S- -2 P CO o-C 2 \"o S \u0026gt; -S \u0026lt;Tt /. = Jr 2 fl  3 o u ID x: D ID J= fD JZ (J ID Q. ID 3 5 E ro g  E CT J-L o p flj t5 ,p s 3 : i/i tu O1 0) ID f? 0^ O o O ex .i2 O J \u0026lt;U 5 Os CD J 2 O ID 3 x: u F O Ifi ro ro ^   Xz to c ro Z B -g Oo u B O 3 \u0026lt;D 5- O' o t?! *j Js -- 15 P ID -*- X \u0026lt;U C ? ro ro g  O^S U .\u0026lt;1^ O  CT QI 3 to  3 o 3 ID  5S .ti QI 3 QI flJ \u0026gt; \" lO -m I) O to u 3 .2 ID (U to -D O1 :c g = E u X E ro fl ID QI *. S^ 9- C S,\" * 3 c \"5, -\u0026gt; in Q. 0 c  m Tn m fl)  ID \"D to p ro c -2 ro Z Q ro 0) ro t l5^it S \"O  F *o z UI z UJ -J UJ o-^ = st o CT Z 2'^ g * St ? P 2* ra Q. O G 4- o c U o mroroinO^ro\"^ \u0026gt;- 0)43 n, -F o\u0026gt; ro ro^BOroro-oro ^^QI(U-^\u0026lt;UQ|C 5 \"O \u0026gt; H 5 \"a P. ft fl 0) ^ogBroojO-- ro ro^ rof'g O S   ro-^rowNSro^ HginO-cPro-St O = 3 to5.i2~  P R xj .X CT u ro cji = a ro w ro ro  o \"S  \"5 ' \u0026gt; c (U \u0026lt;u x: Q  -S c ~ 3 QI n CT 5^ QI 3 CT f/k 8 -TO \" \u0026lt;V  to fl) -is j\nO .i2 !C fl fl o - c ro S 5 -2 ro   ID CT \u0026gt; S Jr. ? iSsS^I ( . u ID .\u0026lt;1^ ctB  oJ 5 \u0026lt;U I -S 3 tt-F o o 2 8 5 o 2 CT . r-  A -c C o 3 (U \u0026lt;U CT n V 0) -S ~ OT 5 ^t! '  So^'Sco^S\n'S^SS'^inSjS 3 3 P .0^ ID u HI 01 CT CT :s^ u 3 to \u0026lt;u 5 5 m ro  c^ jii  !S  QI *0 in 25 ? ~ ^?S  QI ro xj CT  'S2 3 (D =6^ 3 Vi 5 Si-S u 3 ro m ro u_ H o O O O 3  XJ 3 ID u- fl O S.a -n S ? gi  |35 eSsS5 o (/) \u0026amp; \"J o C (/) Q.-I o. \u0026lt; O = 4-1 C 10 ro .p ID CT m O W ro tn 0) ro  tFi !  o ro J-- -c 8 ? . Qj O) E .c (V N \"D W) 3 s\n' 5 \u0026gt; . B S o -E  .- ^ F O Q .E 0) to to \u0026gt;- c ro 5 J2 5 ro -S 3 S, \u0026lt;U ID S P 3 ID 4= ID to Q. fj} m \u0026lt;p ID roi ro  3-  3.5 ro 3 _ -O ~ -X O 3 5 3 \u0026lt;u ai S B tn O - = p c 0) sc. S tfi CT g'S __\"TO 5 UJ  -a o o c c c ro ro 2^ ro \"o ro j: B Di u ex- ro2 = |5^ o ID 3 .fcj t/\u0026gt; o-  g^a s ro g, 2a O Oga 5 -S S S t\n5 3 1-30) qK 2UX 5 2 c V) W) *\nc Mc 5 I z o 2 \u0026lt; 0. IIJ Of 0. o z \u0026lt; o z z z 3 Q. (/) 75 o u m c o  3 u W c 3) C U Z \u0026lt; Z O Q c V c E o u S S? *3 CT in Q c 'y p u) 2 o ro -c o CD GJ GJ F, \u0026lt;2 p \u0026lt;u V u c TO E L. t V Q. o  V u TO CO s   s c z Uj z UJ lU J J. o e-  io O \"O UJ GJ E S E O s 3 GJ 3 ^.c  g\n c aJ c = = si ft 1 O \u0026lt;U c U a (o 02 oj y _c   S 3  \"o 51 .y = c UI nj t (O \"P p m ro . _ ~  P JS TO GJ TO ro ja w (D  XI \u0026gt;~ UI c XI \u0026lt;-\u0026gt; \u0026gt;~ \u0026lt;u o ir .2 c c C GJ TO in g TO * O TO IS in w TO \u0026lt;-\u0026gt; O y O = 2 - o fl-i O O\u0026gt; (O J2 \u0026gt; TO d X GJ gj CT (/) - . - -B  3 C 2 i5 S \"O ai E a ^Bs-g C \u0026gt; GJ  GJ GJ a o 3 :z S o ~ O u c TO C TO 13 3 c in S  u) (D U  X3 12 GJ GJ o *^ - - -A y i fc. TO TO B5 t! - E '1' o 0,0 01 a UJ    -3^ .2 TO p E X L\u0026gt; c c X  \u0026lt;u Q c -S  i jri \u0026lt;5 0) \"o 2 S t\n! c - 3  \u0026lt;S 5 B-S X c GJ 3 a c TO TO GJ \u0026lt;0 \u0026lt;u c  s U ui .2 \"R O .E  -g GJ ~ g .2 vy E \u0026gt; TO E o-^ 3 in o. w 5 c t _ p CT ro GJ O c p B P P !5 u) ? TO 3 TO c 2 2 .2 = \" S = \" p y\u0026gt; o \u0026lt;U \"O c  X \"2 jn -D 2 3 5 c 3 Q nj 3 P sr O TO O in p re L S ui c Q. ui 4 7= 01 re a 2 UI u c o 0 re c re re GJ 43 3 re \u0026gt; ft in \u0026lt;U \u0026lt;U 01 ' 5 t! -O .ti - I S E \u0026lt; 5 o5 TO u  E P o. !\n: re re IT'S c Ji! -D u! o  re 3 o 3 c EXi\u0026gt; JO TO \u0026gt; TO o GJ Q. W 3' o (O z GJ S GJ in J2 5 OJ . -g 0, 10 o c ti XI o o\u0026gt; t E c a O' 0) \u0026lt;u = y \u0026gt;5 ES O TO in C 1_ c (/) \u0026gt; GJ O O P Jg 2^ TO TO  E  -g '5 B o tj u TO c TO O 05 S 2 TO .2 O \u0026lt;n O *E flj 2 c J :\u0026gt; = -g 5 c \"J -9 E I. 4J .2 w S C \u0026gt; UI X \u0026lt;u 2 C -S -5 n !\n] i F 3  2 TO in in TO TO o c sB 5 s  in u \u0026lt;0 u OJ GJ 3 .X  c CT IS \u0026gt; a  5 o in O E w TO .P-S U 01 01 S  . S 3 GJ C E TO \"O jn 5 TO V) O o TO in - TO  \"o GJ 5^ XJ -C A in a S nj \"O u, 3 O TO O P tn in TO u GJ o GJ XJ S 3 UI o c GJ TO tn TO O CJ ,o u 5** c n= u \u0026gt; .So 3 W  XJ 3z o 1-4 s \u0026lt; Q. lU Of 0. Q z \u0026lt; O z 1-4 z z Q. tf) 0^ H 3 SI V Q O V Ot T3 tt) s o c tn c s 2  c o E V o D (D 52 3 O' c 52 b K y p z hH \u0026lt; z o o c V c a E o u 8 i'C n :E V a. Q $  U in Q CD p Id 5 tS \u0026gt; *2 o 2 J oiw e s t \" -5 c 5  Q   . 2 0 o 9  0, o p cn 3 \u0026lt;v cn w 3 E o p i/TS \u0026lt;u'*'S S -g g  \u0026lt;i5-.S V c X o p fc c n 3 o\u0026gt;.i2 O (U c c \"O u .g s? 5 I c o ro Il u Q i/i \"O M- ru o c fD i'^ 'te \u0026lt;U O 2 3 O tn \u0026lt;P  k 0) 3 o 5  o 5 ro o ' \u0026gt; \"5 \u0026gt;- \u0026lt;0 w .i2 3 O o s -P  52 cn 3 Qj tn -c P o u E = .JZ P fD \"O W P \u0026lt;1^ \u0026lt;U E 3 y -c 5-? J- V) O) p J2 u_ 2 Q. O -c 1. .52 V) O C in p TT . \u0026lt;U r? Q 22 J3 P = ru O U in (D 5 \u0026gt; .01 S ro H ro Ife 2:^  (Q s y I tn c Z) w H Z\nlU Z LU LU tn 2 3 O o 8 tn p u o in OJ \u0026lt;u \u0026lt;D 5 (O c s 3 in 2 3 .C .52 0) aj -S j:  y 'm 3 o \u0026lt;D \u0026lt;D sl I\" 8^2  oi 2^ =-\u0026lt;= 5 8 5 Si 2 $ \u0026lt;U tD \u0026lt;1^ i::: o JO 2^ -g 2  S \u0026lt;5 O .C \"D  5 w S ^^5 5 - \u0026gt;. 5 S JJ .S2 O ) P 2 3 in ai 8 \u0026gt; \u0026gt; 8 g Si 8 tt  oj = .c *3 . p Q .55 tn (U (U y -c s = i'= (rt in O) p p 3 w JS M_ 2 Q. O ^ \u0026gt;- .52 O KTi '*'  2 = -5 y ro (? in m (D 5 \u0026gt; QJ \u0026gt; (U H in 3 o .c $ 8 a 2!  I*- *o O 5 0) V)  \u0026lt;p tn $ tn 52 c \u0026lt;0 3 .52 D \u0026lt;V \u0026lt;U Q c 0) \u0026lt;y .O jc 25 fD P (U \u0026gt; H p U 0^ 3 o 3 O w M Vi   O\n5' kn *3 CT .C in Q \u0026lt;u  c O  = o o E 5 S y s fl 2 85= ^2 \n-u- 0 c c 2: tj C p 10 TO 2 CT \u0026lt;u c c (D g.3  Ci C O) 3 CT S^SiCTinc.Stn E-g 2fl^^ fl) p P 3 0? C \u0026lt;1\nVi ffi 3 H E 5 oJ c 2 rti O- 9 3 IQ xn  STS  O) ID 2 x: F o- o P \"J Q. o O ID 8  - \"O .-hi c 3 V) 0) (O S  2 (0 ~ P fl S^ -n -E  - -1 ID  c 13 . c -2  fet^cE^-Sa s ? E ^o3 - -^ - = TO \u0026lt; Q. o . E CT a\u0026gt; c O' to r\u0026gt; to Io tj P 9- Q c g is. P CT   3 \u0026gt; .9 o  p \u0026lt;D W O\u0026gt; S2 S O S fl 2  3 c (0 c \u0026lt;u S  o t/, o jc tn 0 tj fl   tj 3 \"O E - E P H 0 XJ jn o  fl) r2 C (0 Ji o M- O c Q..b to \u0026lt;v \u0026gt;  CTO - s E o) 3 J 2 .S i/i ID \"D \"O o fl O g jn 'J -o o - ~ O _ 0) M- in o  m '^'D 55- O \u0026gt; c .! o , in ! U c C 0 3^^ i5  (o *' H kn to Q. 3 V) Z o IH 2 \u0026lt; Q. UJ Q Q. O Z \u0026lt; 0 Z z z 0. c o 0 3 u tt \u0026gt;* ^- c u P n ID i_ in ID S o i^ -m fl c g* 0) -2 O fl  O = S ti c in .\u0026gt; in C 9 rt  +\u0026gt;* t to 3 .2 4- u 0) to := B lA = to 'fe fl =  S 3  2  tn c 2: tn Q.  2^ S\nto o o .c U _ 2 S.3 3 -2 a (U O o c \u0026lt;0 o o g g Z \u0026lt; z o o  V  o u Ot g g 3) 55 u o s c (0 E . k. t V Q. o u in nj ca qj g  g a E o u f I i J ' ! ti'  E -o in 3 to -  \"(1)0 tn -ti '+- 9*   tj Ji H c - 2  S   s i_ 3 ' CT c 8 tJ \u0026gt;_ .^ 0 3 0 3 c c o E fl -D  fe ID  c in a, '8 t\n c Id afl'-g E g-SS = 8 cn c JZ 3 P S--H CT O \"tn Q..E  . . (P 3 \u0026gt; 2 O 5 \u0026amp;! \" Si  ID 3  O m   . 2 fl fl  L- 2 g .-t: -g fl ^  - O \u0026gt; rt) 10 'J Q fi S o 5 S p 8 3 in c Q V) t) S O to \u0026lt; to o. C fU c 0 in 2 ti fl 3 T3 E  .9 \"CT io o C O CT C  cc-e zit Z s-g SS _ o S ~ .2 c (V fO o = to 9  IQ u- tn \u0026lt;1^ . flo'^2 ffi . 5) ti - P - \"D to O o  c to O O CT C 'S 2 ~ S e'g 2 ? In'^nl'''n-2 E fl . -2 c'fl iJ! O 4- c tn 'x \u0026lt;u fl) in '5 lU -S \u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt; fl p   -y 2 t) 2 o c .0 fl o c to c jn 3 ID fl .2 t in fl c fl S.  3 \u0026lt;5 g o. Q, in fl E m = \u0026lt;U \"5  8 -2 o 3 3 O \u0026lt;u  fl   E P S2 2 E 00 in o .ti \u0026lt;u -P 5 CT c  y --  \u0026lt;0 \u0026lt;v ro to pi *- '* V) O O to  O 3 CT io  in S '^ 3 JS g, ID 2 '5 \u0026gt; O) m ID \"(5 \"id -2 o E o ti .2 fl 2 E fl g eg e o i o c u '9 C .9 5 tn \"CT  9 E o :5   o - 2 i S B c P to (/i to c Si 3 Es: O fl 0) 3 1E^ S .p 2 jn c o)Jis CTO Ji CT 3 C 3 S \u0026lt;u 8 i = P p i5 2 H ID ro c 8 =s 00 r  45 in 4- to (n c O  O O o O 2   o Td ID 2 ~ - 5 ? :i ? I 2 7 fl  S Sos' C Cn Q. C tn J. C7J QJ .2 p c I3  tx  2 8 tj to p |5 o. 5^ z \u0026gt; Ui LU O) fli c. C  \u0026gt; IQ 'iS Of U -J \u0026lt; O CT C tn  1^ OJ to O ^0^  O -3 ? 2 2 fl c Ct lA T ?.-S $ to O 3 _tn -C tn .9 t: Ji, t_ t. CT \u0026lt;U Q  Sc Z 3 O to CT V) = \"O 5 S (A \u0026lt;0 u A *** MZ s22 E U (0 3  co \"So  z V) \u0026gt; g'Sjn 2 -  ID O 01 Q-fl ? o 5 .2 o ? O in O c o (ft .c to *-' u \u0026gt;c 4 O to 2 3 sT M 5 C o tj c to .= 2 g V) \"O c c - to (0 P \u0026lt;5 fS Q. tJ 3 2 P w c L  i - O tJt-  3 O -b y tn tn -y -i-t O fl   li 'J lE .2 O c 3 3 C 3 k. = s o t3 \u0026lt;*\u0026gt; 3  u o 4^ -J V)X\u0026gt; TO J3 .iG 5 7^ -L o C TO SB in *3 a c !5 to lA c Q o c TO 2 5 0 . E W ID iS B B C E \u0026lt;u B  B JC Q.  F E oj C XJ c TO C U TO to c -e o 85 O u XJ -o c c TO TO a c OJ TO ~ ro i6 S oj  IH LA fl \u0026lt;U TO TO --* TO -r^ u O) \u0026lt;U \"O TO Ji  O C (J P C _, u - s \u0026lt;u  -Q ro .. .c 5 *-' \u0026lt;^ c 7 P B TO c U -S -Q TO O E B 0) .2 -^2 u in ID \u0026gt; c 01 u)  c E Qj o O aS El^-S 5' \u0026lt; to E ' 3 El^ O U $ O -C \u0026lt;u TO o p o (U c -A (/) Xp E is c tn TO in D c TO to .Si in M_ XJ TO O C TO z o h4 c TO E o. B vy o c TO 5 O' E -S V ro o B E  . \" fl) JI J i- TO B is \u0026lt;1' B TO Q. = TO \u0026lt;D W *0 a\nrti TO Si -Q .y XJ 5    3 K c \u0026lt;n  TO s -t in ID (U Q. c ID TO \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Al P I 2 lU 0^ Q. o z \u0026lt; 13 z I-I z z Ol g c k. m 0) 4 S Si u e \"S  m O o C ID . p JZ 0) O E in  in  O ro E t  2 4^ 8 a c w !\u0026lt;! c ID  2 (0 .R* c p E E ID -2 ID -g -d -o 8 c - 8 B ~ \u0026lt;V to in to to \"J in o C Di a -o c c TO TO .JS c \u0026lt;1^ ^\"3 3 \u0026lt;0 (D -S -) l/l u 2 = U p C TO S TO m EB . to TO \u0026gt; c 5n (S 3 c TO E V)  V) o in o. 3 O \u0026lt;U C - in o a ID Q.T3 c tA o E Ji TO *5 3 T \u0026lt;'1 JS -is 3 Q. c  D 3 M O1 C '35 V) V M w \u0026lt; ra E u 2 TO a o V u 'to TO CD c o (J c 8 SJ *- iw C JZ C to m C ^3 B 2 \u0026lt; to o u \u0026lt;U Vi 3 3 O x: TO .= TO o c ID E o E u? O t :S ID p . g 5 S oi ID o E ? o $ $ cn XJ c C TO TO S-S tH Z i-i \u0026lt; z o o C  c a s o u Si 4'^ 2: .p to 4-* TO to c O .7^ lU Z UJ lU E - . B c a - o -B S ?  s 2 8 TO 4- TO \u0026gt; C to iv t- o 5 c a- ID C ? O ~ Q. \u0026gt; TO JZ u TO VI  TO  TO I/) o to C \u0026lt;D w- \"O o c \u0026gt;, \"J gj -u m _ CZ \u0026lt;1^ TO 3 !\u0026gt; 'C  c m 3J TO P  TO TO 0^ c TO 2 E .Si 'K S B in *J in ID O E O i_ 2 -O c \u0026lt;u E \u0026gt; \u0026lt;u in \"O ii? U 3 ^0 P TO TO m P. V) TO in in D TO C c TO E ? 8 TO -IH z I I TO 0) S ill TO TO 3 u w Ji tn .c s. TO E \u0026lt;u rti in I- Ji c 2 f- tn .2 -8 - B s s^:g g-o E O C  o CD ^  E jT ? IV F c Q to TO E c c E = h u) u) (/) c TO X\u0026gt; u c 2 3 j: TO (O TO TO 8^ XZ C TO O tn O to TO c O to x: 4-* tn J'S -n .. TO TO TO in 2*  s E o a\nO' C o i5_^ C c C D s 3i.R S W w 3 in in in c TO  o C U) (0 'M. - g-sbI = o (0 -5 i= w-g c E V B co E c m \u0026lt;A S c \u0026lt; V) * X5 g o .^  \u0026gt;8 in c 5 TOTO Ch E 45 5. -y io p 8 ? o o 4-\u0026lt; TO ra c- CJ to jS TO in to TO \u0026lt;  a TO C TO .ti TO TO X3 I - R ra TO 5 a ,S 3 E 5 w -1-1 !  m to .-t\np \u0026lt;TJ TO TO U O C in S ^s = C S jg c in O U O C .2 TO t_ E B tn 'z tn u TO in o ra o B TO CZ SB (J U)  a o -g a 3 3 to 4_ TO O O 3 c 2 \"o x: 3 Si c O\u0026gt; c TO 4 c c E S 25 9! in TO t5 TO t 15 \"\u0026gt; O) .E c c TO 0. p a\nV)  O1 Sfs = E 3 to in J3 o C TO in ID -= - 4) H) C c I\" P O S ID E 8 S -- ^ 8 1 B iS o 0) j: U !? TO ro l/l .I u. Vi O V \u0026gt;\u0026amp; Al V B 'Z m m h \u0026gt; wre? THECLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT 2A\nEstablishing a Culture for Learning Importance of content Expectations for learning and achievement Teacher interaction with students Physical Environment 2B: Managing Classroom Procedures Management of instructional groups Management of transitions Management of materials and supplies Performance of noninstructional duties 2C: Managing Student Behavior Expectations Monitoring of student behavior Response to student misbehavior 2D. Organizing Physical Space Safety and arrangement of furniture Accessibility to learning and use of physical resources 20Z lU Z z o fi O) c 'E u ra u O a \u0026lt;u 5G 3 cr c 4~\u0026gt; in b c p 2 o. \u0026gt; Z lU Z o o Qi (/) in u lU z ro u 3 3 u n ot c Z .!2 Z 5 (A UJ s c R3 E u  V Q. O  ro u in ro co ri z \u0026lt; Z o o n N 4-\u0026gt; c u c a E o u z UJ Z UJ UJ p C c g CUJO)  2 m  m \u0026gt; G m 8 13  3 Ci  tn P - c i_ ro P s ^13 S O \"O 5 \"o o \" 5s I  I 8:5 o G p 5 C ro P s -'P 5 y .E m  8   t -jj O1 ro p C CL 0) w At c ro in fD * Mi 01 c i3 ttJ  rtJ TX C ro X) P E 5 5  o I ro ro 8 E I S P c m 3 -g E II o 5 ro O i! m p c ro ro X3 c c \u0026lt;u  i_ ro in ro X3 5 5  S \u0026lt;u -  ^-g o 8 H 3 in -Q c o c O c ro o A .E o G c Prob 13 jz g- S O .!\u0026gt; OJ ~ '3 \"9 3 S CTl W K) XJ c in c c o b Qj .b ro IS ro E ro E s O 8 G ^ 6  8.-2 ro ro \u0026gt; X  C C fli u O P tj ~ E .S' c 3 - o ro B Jft P in 2' O TO r: tn \u0026lt;u H .2 ro c , tj u o o ro '- b -3 ro m TJ g \u0026gt;- -. o ro G 5 2 E ro E OJ ro 2: 2 S S  -8 S y ro 3\ng 13 u ro \"C iu _-t= ro ro g E o ro .E ~ -8  S c  -  ro u cn in D c \u0026gt;2 ro 4_, C 1- .tz = O \u0026lt;U 3 X3 ro-appi~ .j -'-EE rou-i-'zi-Eaj E^rT.roEoroJjz ?roEiD2'' mu! G-g Q.S^ ro c c _-- :3 O c 5 .2 2  E \u0026lt; x: ro c a\u0026gt; 5 ro in tJ .is e Qj c  .5 \u0026lt;u a? c E \u0026gt; ro  u (Z rt ro jL t-i 2 2? c  \u0026lt;u oT 5 \"s\n I' .3 ro in \u0026gt;  \u0026gt;. o ro  c q= o- c ro \u0026lt;u u .1^ iiiih Il eI c 8^ d\u0026gt; - 'o t! 5) ro c ro Vi rotj^E .SE .9^.y ro\u0026lt;oroi-+JroQ.\u0026lt;nin HlL'oroy?.ocw\u0026gt; H S-'oro^ oc^ ?58.a^-^ai \"  5^5 S 8 c c ro P \"O ID .2 S 2- W  m E o  i ro ro = \u0026gt;-is  8 -y g \u0026gt;* P u O c R X ro XJ C 4- ro c ro = P ro ifi o c 8  m S ro  S' P x: u ro - E  ro $ o .iG \"5 s = 8 ? y 8  ___ .E o 13 x: c 0) _ ,  c p 2 8 o c 5 .2 Q. c V) in 5 c E E  ro 3 ? 2G g- Ef-g E A P c c ro o \"D o n cn C c Q. ro ti r= Et3 ro c 3 3 P ro c X in t o ro ^.3 0. g 3 ro Qj TJ o .y c c u ' P 2 .. _ ro 2 \u0026gt;   E o S S g g G. E-\n..o.2 .SG in K_ c ro 3 si \u0026lt;u c  8 '- o ,3 - 8 -E g 3 fO 1= P o 3 X3 G  E ro in X3 E u ro .P ro 2 I O c c o 0) \u0026gt; c .S2 9 P \u0026amp; o tJ 15 vt s-\u0026gt; 3 c 3 ro S ro in ro c o u c lU 19 c a\u0026gt; E \"O 4J O O . U -- ro !2 lU cz c o u ro ,p 5 2 c O  (0 \u0026lt;u S' o o .E S. g -3 m E S.' O) 3 in I ID o w c S  c c o a E 2 uf 8 G s  x in c ro c P I U ro i CM ij \u0026gt; iS u s- *-\u0026lt; \"n iS ro ro tn c S  5 5 p 6 g ~ - \u0026gt;-2 ^,11 ro 8  E a ro 8 .2 .2 in in 3 rti I c S E ti Ic o .2 c 5 G e 3 S \u0026gt; u ro H ro c X K -g P P (A C ot c o .t  = E -r. 5 ro? u v re ro -I Q. I. X O UJ M- c V E u \u0026gt; V U \u0026lt; SsSslsS i Ta ' fe o - 5 g. 5  - g- o  ro '* *5:^ E = J p \"S o ro ro P ro SJ 3 lo \u0026gt; o 3  .y o 13 ! \u0026lt;u E y ro 5 S\u0026gt; s ? 2 3.^ wp c .iG c O'S 13 tj - o 8. o 8- ro ro \"01 E m S .2 2 g ro E w .8 E p p \" -o g c 0^ J d) O) .b c \u0026gt; ro C -=5 .b  c E 3 .E in in iX 4- c ro g c 3-2 c \"O Q- 2 S  5 P c 5^ n ro  9--C CL -M ro M- c o (U 3 \"S '5) O ^.S2 x: -a Q. J3 .2 ro = y  i u u I- ti = C 4J V) '! 5 c 8 E W 5 V* A \u0026gt; 9  .h Q. \u0026gt; c UJfD ,o S in '3 CT C SQ b CT c 9 c 5 CL 3 O re^  S? S CT t! J2 \u0026amp; nj S  s -j S 9i re -H i Q-tj  V) 5\n2 -o r _ p c o TO .2 S re 83 2 a3 S re c Q o  re a\ncn re .2 g] lu =5:2-0 rest C Q. S C TO TO Q. in O i_ j: .0 0 13 c c 2 u c .ti Cn P TO c in = CT 5 o E .P 5 c w -.3 t/) ,p =\u0026gt; ? Le = E -5 = E 4s: O ( P z= 3 o TO Vi TO in c  = E.2 ifi 0) 25 u E 01  -o \u0026gt; c re S3 tn- 11 B g ? E 9 TO re 2 E CL (A TO o t -o  TO _  CL TO . c 5 P  5 o '  in 3 Q. tn in c 2^ TO s in \u0026lt;u o t  o .9 -Q in   tJ S s .2 E 2 S3 -g ? r n +z _ (U c in EJ w{ u./ *w 1= \"a oi E in = c -Q TO in .9 TO tn 'Co -. c \u0026gt; O cE c 8 z lU z z o of M \u0026gt; z 111 z o o Of in in u lU z re 2^ TO TO ifi ID o Cl in 0) O TO O 3 O cn (N Z h4 \u0026lt; z o Q W re u 3 o re u s a. E o o L. w M (0 u 01 c '5t ID C ID z\n c P y e CL 5 2 E a . cn r\u0026gt; d CT) o c 0) E u 3 43 re c _ r-\\  ^ TO * g:2^E 9-4: p _ Q) 3 -O TO P P C \"D TO = 01 re lU g\n--' c\" cn re = o = TO m JZ c c .2 2 s B :t^ .. TO U C re E 0 t 0) Q. o  \u0026gt;  in TO cn   2 13 re 5\nS  -s S. TO CT O in TO re  ^ H 8E E o in a? TO in tn  in  TO Q. 3 .c 2 O o 2 o CL TO P' P O 2 2 TO E c - sis C O p .2 cn k $ $ .tx 01 s \"O S  w = 2 .re in TO 5 o TO c 2^ d .t \u0026lt;u.2Sg C TO in U E 2 = -  2 .2  o  S -E  c CT P T7 P s\ni=\u0026gt; H Se 8. in t/1 i/i C P CM C re c E o u Z UI Z UJ UJ o o\u0026gt; c c 2 lU c re re i_ re e:  .TO '4-1 5! c Z) ti _ c o u ~ c TO P P S Cl re TO re O ? 10 5 re re re '6 cn r S re -o c 2 LO o c TO 3 TO Q- re c c g .2 g. E C 3 Si 3 O \" \"S c w re Z c l-l o 3 c 4^ in 55 c O p .55 TO E in c TO z o 4iJ W c c u o E 5 V M a\u0026gt; c (0 10 re Z E re aj \u0026lt;u .2 E re -E E-S in re 's c in *  2 \" 0 Sis? 5ii 3   O O 3 in .E = 5 T3 s = s J5 i^ . \"O p c TO E 01 a o in in c c i4 re o o to tj E c p TO E C TO O 3 \u0026lt;1^ H in c Se . =5 o re c in fc re w *3 -cP P c TO CT Ji! c .2 E TO in ID z P O -o C 0^ E 22 = re Q. V 01 C m s w u Q. U 3 o in f Cj 'J  E C .TO O) c c o . -D g tJ re i! P 7 c 3 .2 -2 . re 0) Tj   CL o -S re a v 1 ,r o LU a\u0026gt; c TO in O Cl  O' in 1 re . E re o E tn -r-.  = = = 'J  B E .E t TO 4- 'JI = TO C 55 C .2 5. O in s -H .fe R  2 a\nc P TO CT S 3 u in i= . E c 2 T - in 5 re \u0026gt;- O P C TO o in c  Vi .z tn E 8 TO  fN CM 10 Z Z .22 TO E t o . Jn \u0026lt;n C C -2 o  tJ CT c a a c S TO c in  c TO \"D in w O c \u0026lt;3 re o c V .2 t3 - re 3.2 c S * a p C Q t: i c 0-  z\u0026lt;1^ \"D X3 di 52 3 CT C tn b ra o c o ra o\u0026gt; o di y Xi t5 3 3 tn ? di o X3 \u0026gt; X3 S .2 tn O . O 2S o 5 .9 2-D.y I- 2 t fa Q- ro nj ii 0) Q Q. 0) 3 \u0026gt;- tr MJ C ID O. \u0026gt; ra (U TO (U (/5 (D E 0, 4 QJ .hl .\u0026gt; di Vi CJ di O tn Z Ul Z Z o D IH \u0026gt; z Ul z o o Q (Z) Vi 3 u Ul Z o \u0026gt; re  V m c o 3 (A O1 c O1 re c re Z .\u0026lt;\u0026lt;' c d) y 2 Q. ID  X3 tJ c c 3 ID .2 S - X3 C 8 3 tn .52 = o Xi UI IS ID p 8 c ra E u Oi o. o  \u0026gt; V u *U) ID CO ID C Hi u ID tn Ui S ID o c JS Ui c di X3 3 \u0026lt;u c p uy o  O : (N Z \u0026lt; z o Q u CM c V c E o u I  .p .52 c Z3 z UJ Z UJ UJ M_ X3 tn O c O) 5 8 4-?^ C 9 tJ c  -2 -S Ui c := O li -Q tJ XJ =- - c ID ^o c ID s. Q. 5 u\u0026gt; UJ O 3 s .a !:\nQj (C Je ID s. o 3 0) tn nJ k. 2  '5 a\n \"n P ra O'S C f- tn 8\n iS'2  -n u\u0026gt;  x: u- Xi o IS Ui tn D Oi c X3 C I 3 IS c 8 01 U) B Ui di ID O S Z .c Vt c .2 *3 dJ Q. X UJ XJ 5  di r -c s Ji UI $ .i2 di Oi 3 .2 ID C Ui 75 \u0026gt; hr C 2 ID Q. 9 .a S -2 -c o S di  di o -o .\u0026gt; - *- 5Z r= *a U' S c - 2 t o S $ i \" E S o E  I I c S a\nX) CL O U) CL  0)  c c Z ID C (O O  O S ID U \u0026lt;u 0) \u0026lt;u F s \"S 5 fo 9 X di . O tn 3 di U) p E \u0026gt; c-o ~ *- ID ID C di jc L. .2 a a ID -^.\u0026gt;252 ^eO\n di tn \u0026lt;D Qj .2 o (D O 'S *\u0026gt; t (U ID (T5 ro .52 .2 ro H E ID 3 o 5^ }\u0026lt;J ro t. -2 E ro tJ S 2 -S o -a cu -S C 3 di 5 tn --gS E 2 5 E 8 (J U) '3 ')=: 2   E ID ID P -E a g g O di C Oi c 5 s  .52 ID p c 3 ID 2 W i9 ro x: di x c _ s C -3 0) o 3 (U \"o to x\u0026gt; c ID o ?c.2 z 0) \u0026gt; o \"o ra  3   co z -c 5 .2 g ra'ft tn c g .12 S -S ra 5 -t^ g ra ID p tn 0} a\na Xi 3 XJ c a \"s\nP O (U o -E 51 52 E E (D 5 5 3 tn t{ P ID u. XJ tn *_ P .2 ID x: c \u0026lt;1^ E _ \"5 ._g S p -52 E .52  2 \u0026lt;U (U s 2^ .52 t:  S! \u0026lt;u c 3 xJ c a .g $ tn Ui C di Q. P *- q\ndi 0) o  m CM C U) (U o .2 o (n X3 U-E c XJ fc ro o g O o 8 = r*  O-S5 S w .2 Z c 0^* z UI z z o Q 7?i\u0026amp; 8 (Q Ct (0 a 4) .55 *3 O' E 4- 55 b c 'u a. o c CD \u0026lt;U (S^  CD \u0026lt;u cr c 'c 8 fe in tn C .32 .12 -5, \u0026gt;  E S'^i p s S V) a fl) 3 W -I (U I^ 3 Q 3 Q. \u0026lt;/\u0026gt; c c a  C c OT CD \u0026lt;U S c  .S2 p k. (Z t .o 4) ID '*- S J2 c UI i3 5 . 4) 4) c J=  y S 5 3 \"S ? = o 3 .E . -D 35 *0 V) .V} tQ (/\u0026gt; c nj -= c A XJ .55 i= r-  V) . O' V) S i5 . g ai  \u0026gt;:S c  4 - ID SL ID S  E  .32 \u0026lt;u Z3 x:  CD  ns fft u u ID id c g X CD S=^' Q.= O- I/) \u0026gt; z UJ Z O o Q (/) (fl u UJ z 8 M \u0026gt; Q. O) c 'c re S' o 8 c n E P t QI O. o s u V) CD CO C\n= 8 Si  P 2 P = in .-ti o 4J ifl w J2 t 4J U  - p \u0026lt;1^ = S = v\u0026gt; 2  O V) S' ^ cy  u in .S 42 5E5 ci ID Ul 0) \u0026lt;u I^ ns  - (0 3 4, UI O ~ ?2 I w H VI ' /Il (D U ID D p c ID .2 di\" gj \"S S .3 ? .12  ^   CD O \u0026gt; in E ,3 O C 33 41 O 5  81 C  nj o\u0026gt; ns .3 ^iz = V) CD O   ro  i3 \"c 5 s 33 4\nin XJ \"J !8 S 3 (U V) 3 rsl (N Z hM z o o D fS c  c a E o (J SS\u0026lt; a I x i I 9  .p .SQ a 3 1-i z.\u0026lt; UJ Z -4 UJ * ? u ro c 92 \u0026lt;-\u0026gt; 8 (5 c  \u0026lt;1' K  U E VI u lU CD ID V) '\" O  - H V) fU o 4, S  5 , in 5  O r\n\u0026lt;u c O .S? = C\n= 4) \u0026gt; i2 E  EOT 8 c c ID O t Vi V\u0026gt; m V) V) ns oi JS cu 4J .-L  '^.1^ o = c Oj c ra S 3 E . 8.E ro (n C 3 fD IL \u0026lt; a\u0026gt; E ! 3 \u0026lt;1\u0026gt; o H V) y s 2-s 'ui -- O) w Q..S 41 V) C  ^S O \u0026lt;U O y \u0026gt; CD \"C /ii t .\u0026lt;U 2 -o g g li** s ffx i: XJ C  3 8b 8 S v i U Jl w \u0026lt; D 3 V) 0)3A: 3B: 3C: 3D: 3E: 3F: aasESsgR INSTRUCTION Communicating Clearly and Accurately Directions and procedures Oral and written language Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques Quality of questions Discussion techniques Quality of discussion Engaging Students in Learning Presentation of content Activities and assignments Grouping of students Instructional materials and resources Structure and pacing Providing Feedback to Students Quality Timeliness Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness Lesson Adjustment Response to Students Persistence Utilizing Technology Curriculum Resource Communication Instruction Student Use 255 C CT C D CT 4^ E 3 s -C .52 '3 CT C in b C CT y p TO -F, XI E w _2 J----- o '- 5j g - ti a\ng- P CT Js *o CT CT c in \u0026lt;U o C in TO CT :_, CT .52 g s s S (^ Q.  C (D re B re (0 - \"O in Qj TO 2 'J  -5 tj a\nre re GJ TO P m u D \u0026lt;U C tj = \u0026lt;u a) fc S (D x: 3 8 -C o c .-y CT  $ JU \u0026lt;p o CT ^3  S. S' S - P  r 5  =  s  ^V) CTl I/)  y) \u0026gt;- c p \u0026gt; (U -2 a c -5 tj (- X 0) S S  S c 0) V) D C x: 5 TO O u ro O .S2 c Z o 1^ b 3 Ct 8 \u0026lt; o c re \u0026gt; (/) z l-l re re u O) _c s V U c re E u t re a. Q OJ S y 'in TO CD ~ in c  T3 J) (D re re a ? y re g- re X xj P -tn CL TO a c /\u0026gt; \u0026lt;U \u0026lt;P i_ g. in in re gtt a? 3 :\u0026gt; -a . KTt o 0^ CT C J -a ro CT E CT  CT C CT 5 c t g- re y re o P 01 S e re g. ro l~ 9- 5 c ro H TO Q .ifi a\u0026gt; m z \u0026lt; z o Q c 3 E E o u rihi F  S p a\n2 o 5 ~ ro ~ g p a? \u0026gt; I .a g '^-2 O . tn Q. m k 51 }= J2 S 5fi . (V E -g -T S  - -g S s (5? g E u TO X r\u0026gt; CT \u0026lt;u (0 m c re c a E o u 'A \u0026amp;  .p s ^\" c z LU Z  LU LU in 3 \"S a p s Q. o CT 3 4- in p in CT o . '6 p 3 c x: u TO o u P H TO c U) re o Vi c 3 T3 .2 re tJ ' U re S .b Q. O C CT CT -5 2 CT y? 15 a S'? '52 c re S -g g S I E s ro W S -jj tn TO in  in P fN -C+jPJ-.- y -z CT t  - 8 TO .\u0026lt;y H P TO X E E (P in -u in S? 2r 3 CT c 0) - i,' \"o \u0026lt;n E CT __ TO 3 CT  ~ E re S - ffi C CT \u0026gt; ftf S re I * S a P .(s 8 o ro . -^ c E i2  E 0) _ o \u0026amp; o -X . i- ? re ri /T. : ro *- P O B 2 c  u o c 0) c on  S 3 Sg ? o \u0026gt; *5XJ \u0026lt;U xz b ex c b CD JZ g - te J3 g.^ \"O i- co  3 C ' to -C CD 4-\u0026gt; (XJ Z3 o O (U c TJ 0) CD \u0026amp; yj E c fU XJ x: 3 CO = .-^QJ fo  !5 E =5 43 CT o o to fO tU 0) nj S OJ x: oi c S TJ 0) QJ O (XJ Xj C Ol -hi O (D JP Q- i:\n3 CO 5 \u0026lt;u o *- u c CD E i_ p in \u0026lt;D CT Z O IM b 3 Of (A 0) 3 C  U c S y o L. Q. V) z m z IH \u0026lt; z o Q c o '55 in 3 U in Q D C re O) c 'c V u c m E u t V Q. o s V r- cn lo ? F a? .g XJ r p Q cn co x cn -r CD .VJ  0. - 2  3 to (O \u0026lt;U o In  3 O 3) C 'in O A M 4\u0026gt;* e  c a E o u u 'co (XJ CQ ?  .p 4-t (XJ CO c I-  Z UJ 2 \" UI UJ c -g  10 UJ ._ f= re 2^ 3 X3 (0 yj C c E S .2 O = tn _'-S 5 \u0026lt;u =3-^0 D CO XI O g CJ (XJ ' c o g 43 c  :  ^co5SSGu3 O QJ U 2 3 3  -= Q. in o Q.  tn O 1= fD O .\u0026lt;1^ =3 H to m OJ XJ m c o cj \u0026lt;u  ij o a c T1 co CD U_ ? I 3 c g're s c CO O\" o  P S\u0026lt;U-53~^a3ErnC*^tnC 2^Srea-in\u0026amp;ocrreCreaj\"g u- , 0) u_ re tt) ^-ojrtntn'rooS' Sc*-  ^.^1'2  re 5- n--\u0026gt;.-^^reg'5 5E^ - J. .-^.g -gEti^-^-gSSre CT si 4J *- \u0026gt; CT fA m cu o %i y XJ 5 XJ CD  vm -S CT CD C 2 XJ O co ro OJ (q m c._____ o o (XJ c o .   s  CJit! Q. M -f^ p3 C := O t  co CD 3 IW V-* *- .\u0026amp;_ = O V, - E O -ti  c -S 5 S -5 15 E =\u0026gt; a- n r- in c 3 4- CD -C CJ (XJ ru O c xz  .  cu \"O E-2 o (J (D (XJ u (XJ .03 H .E o o ki c CD 3 \u0026lt;D 2 XJ  = \u0026lt;U in  C -ri 3 fe g -F E o :p c c Q. tn O C T.E O c i- (q co OJ Q- O\u0026gt; gj 43 C 5 = S tj oj x: T .2 CT ? a S CD H . _H H\" CD I t XO c -X 03 \u0026gt; 2. ti = tz in c o \u0026lt;U o C ** (A c C 9- CL OQ (Q 01 3 3 O'O' in (U (XJ 0) e g s 2 cy (q CD ' -B  s c g 42 S c E u) c S 2? o  Q. 'in S co co fq U 3 u i/i fO tJ CO (XJ QJ C E S^.2 a o -  in S O) :: '015 cn 3 if! if! c E \u0026lt;u if (D O E t: i_ Q. C OJ c \u0026gt;  CD E  -H ro E t3 -' (^\"3 5 OJ -= (fi (N 0) c \u0026lt;u o 5-5g Sc'-' 2 = re ?i-s Q. \u0026gt; c \u0026lt;u (U c -S \u0026lt;U S '1 - -^ 2- (Zi -2^ iJ 01 = c (D OJ 5 co c (D B -g -S ? iJ rtJ Xj (XJ CD 4^ c C co rn XJ X3 P -\"S c c c (XJ (A (A m .zz w  3 C U  W U oc o u w V 3 O c  U .V H O \u0026lt;u -C i/i Z3 O' c 4- b C y e Q. r- c cn -f-5 Q r* V)  r^  S 5 In '3 = cn \u0026lt;=: ^  I- m fO -J S in i2 =  S' -b! ? \n .2 \u0026gt; ^ .2 CD \u0026lt;D C \u0026lt;U ^ \u0026lt; 3 C CT\u0026gt;^ B 2 =\u0026gt; 2 \u0026gt; dj 5 Xi 3\n\u0026lt;u U -o \u0026gt; C ro 3 .-2 \u0026lt;s t -C t?! ro w a 5 cr g Q TJ c c (D  in 13 \u0026lt;u c TJ c c o . c o d3 5 \"O \"O CTl 0) 03 W L. \u0026lt;u Z o 6 3 Q V) z M Z \u0026lt; z o Q c o '35 (A 3 u M Q o c re ) c 'E 0 ! V 3 (y Ot g '35 3  M C  c o Q. E o u 03 U C: (0 E U'   a. - o s V U {ft 03 (3 i^ ?:i 2?  i2 4-J (O v\u0026gt; c Z) fe z lu UJ UJ _ _. 2 \u0026gt; u in id .2 g  -M ? c 8 g js !S (1) me  ro 3 m V) 2^ 5 -o (U \u0026lt;U -S^ h- o c -C te } \"O 03 5 in - S (-) ro Q.  3 - !={ S oin b5 _ LV 2 =6 -s -a .2 g- a -c  S -F 3 E  b! 2 Bq TO (U C -Si C := O 3 o O Sts (D \u0026lt;U fU O ZJ fU O\" c (/\u0026gt; \u0026lt;u .2 O -Ci C in (5 42 B   in 03 v\u0026gt; C X .y 00 fN Ifc. c o o \u0026gt; 'u! is ra u 3 M 05\"O re JZ .!2  .SC re fl D 9J Di c .2 \u0026gt; \"o re -t\nin re -D re a fl c o ~ o Si c p u D OJ O fl c (D O' c *4-' l/t a O C 03 C ? k- 03 CL (U ro lo u  fl is S 8 Sil 8.^0 re 2 \u0026lt;\" o  re 9-5 -D c IX  5 g 8 Q. 03 !2 re re C31 5 -o 3 c z o b 3 O) c 'E u re re 2 *u 2 Q. co . 5 03 0.^0^ U  C S u \"D ^ .=  (- .. fl c U OS'! (O z M c M Z HH \u0026lt; z o Q 33 c  o 3 4.\u0026gt; U) O) c 5\u0026gt; ra oi c 111 8 c (0 E u t 03 \u0026amp;: o  10 03 CO u fO c re c E o u  .p (/) 4-1 u? c Z) Z lU Z Ul UJ 03 c -2 .2 fl 5 g fl -Z \"S - S re re 9-^ IX (D 5 03 3 o c .52 03 c \u0026gt;-\u0026gt;= *=^0 4.. P 3 4- rD ' C 3 = to p O-jji -2 (3  ifi CLfe S - re E -re 5 e: c o X 2 :2 O 3 \"o (p 03 u lo .52 W -o J2 Jj V3 O 5 c c 03 o .2 5i 8 E  t 2 . \u0026lt;S  . o. 10 03 lO 52 =* - (0 C O U 10 .03 03 c 03 O c -u M- 3 C o o 03 C C in o re \" E (D o X  9- 03 03 O ID C .2 ID lO s 03 C o c 2^ 4.* U re \u0026lt; _l_l c u w Q. c o u re o s \"c o _____2 c c re D _ \"E__-S? re O - tn g c\nra 2 .2\u0026gt; re tn D 9 c oSsSc.-^cia '-LfSore.\u0026gt;rec 2 ofl X fl ID in  X3 re )=! re tn ^, E c CD cn 2 \u0026lt;U S .re p 03 O 03 c-o 03 - C ^\u0026lt;utn.= mo\ni= e = K 5 tJ  -  D 3 03 O O O - 44 re -S c nj \u0026lt;u 2-.hz ci 2 c  g,fl \"I ^ ejinj \u0026lt;u ejiQ.s oi*^ c \"iu P.re'i6-Sfl'i5 ufl c.\u0026amp;recy-'-'cecin o-HQ-oflreoro^ 6 1 2 tJ '.g tj-g -re  S  P . 10 .= v\u0026gt; Q. c 3 T) O i  ,03 .2=S 03 \u0026gt; \u0026gt; fl g c re 2 cn -1 ?  2 ? rr m -\n\u0026gt; s re re \u0026amp;fl D 03 03 E S -iS S 03 o \u0026gt; S S S 5 re 03 a\u0026gt; 03 \u0026lt;U *0 .4. U/ ^*5   j\n3 o \"o P o 2 h: c o 03 03 03 C _ .M O  O s L= fl 2 p ? 2 S S - llal? O. c 03 V) \"O C \u0026lt;13 -S fO *3 03 in l\nI A c O D .re j3 in c .-tiCOtu- \u0026gt; ID *- ^ p d 2 fl ij *- xJ  03 re  re re c SiJ o ? ti .2 re .g Ul Q. 03 T3 C 03 fJl E \u0026lt;u *- fe s ^.S 1 re fl S DI c re 5* re .2' g VI j-i J3 ~ in tn 03 D c o c: iS a\nre \"3 fl g*^ in (D  c \u0026lt;13 X3 Q. a\n\"o \u0026gt; o  5 \u0026lt; a? D C 03 E 03 c 33 I re E 'iS c \u0026gt; .S tj v\u0026gt; \u0026lt; \u0026lt; 03 C o 2^ S \u0026gt;, .2 ! re .2  -= .2 Q. re I*- \"tj c 9- P 9  re o o O oj H to 2 2- tn O In y? !=h re- fl y c re Oi Q c c 3  ^^-g !? 03 c  3 \u0026gt;..c -i- O .2 fl -5  :p -H to 03 jn y 03 03 S .- 2  ^-g S g, c I ? -' O c -D \u0026lt;D Q. 3 p o p  E 9v 3 03 P 03 .2 03 3 oS - ti fl tn 2 .re .2 -, a 2  2  ex ex re c o o\u0026gt; c 33 c .h  3 3 o A! O W) 03 rslk C o u \"O S to 3 O1 c 4-t w b .3? e Q. Z o b O) C c u re re -J c (A Z M M Z i-i \u0026lt; z o o 1 c re D 3 4U V) 31 C 51 re 31 c UJ u M c 0) c a E o u 8 c ro E u c V Q. o \"i 5 O in re CQ t s ro .52 3 z\u0026gt; Z UJ Z UJ UJ .in 8 *0  a? s s ro-S O \"O 3 i_ O (U ro is $.c- 5 S ro J3 5 8 -S fe.-^oiS'SoSEro x^3 rOJ-^t.ro^ tx rz -= y rx I 1 n ii n fO \u0026lt;D u to E ai o tn o ro n K. c Cl 3 2 i o\u0026lt;uE5S.-^t4py,i- n u CD.-ti .2 s $ ti S2 ro c ..^ ro .2 o C if} p Q.  -n 'ro  a  i- -o Q- Q. i CL c S CU ro rj u i\n2.-L..-: O to 3 3 3 o .E C \u0026lt;U 8 to 01 X '-' u .c O. Q\u0026gt; ro -ti D ro ro E c flj sy JO 2: 3 -jf* to c 1) o .2   O 'S o o to U \u0026lt;U P to ro '..'TO in ~ -S' ro Q-ro re -c I- 3 \u0026lt;V XJ 3 to tJ O ro fD QJ -C U- fO 4-' o c Q C Q ro g ro  . 5 rz y A] 5 \u0026gt;\" ro ro ro E g) c to 'r re ro -S re c c m Tj P\u0026gt; O w, W SL' o ro 3 ro p  u \u0026gt; cn ro tJ 3 3 c o 6 . to 0) (U a 0) . c \u0026gt; tu P ti = O fO -i2 3 .2 t ro J2 S -o ro S.5  g re re  2*2  ro \u0026lt;u 55 Q\u0026gt; J. -= 3 ** *: O ? ro  ro \u0026gt;w u/ rutOeOofli  O .-2 '-g r  ti g  2 ro to p 3 3 a 3 3 to o 3 (U x: *- ? CD to (U ro c -D O) 3 c reS *= 9\u0026gt; O \u0026lt;o QJ tn t= -= '^ C .IS -Q I- ro \u0026lt;L\u0026gt; .-fci ro = O S in u E s ro = 3 ro TO .o io 5 3 P .2 - re tj ro t I PWS c 5 tu U cu E y 3 cn tn 55. uy a i: 3 O to - to 3 cu  cn c \u0026lt;D to (U re c \"O c M n V .2 (fl y tj re 3 3 'Z O   !G 4^ re re (t 4^ (/) c A z S P  ro 3 -Si C in o ro ro re - ro re -5 c -Si! re ro  ti28 S 3 \u0026lt;U  .52 w *  re ro \u0026gt; \" So = to to ro w *0 rti y - ^ro g a\nro \u0026lt;v  t E^- H X3 o D E p ro 5 to Q) p 3 0) 4J 3 Q\u0026gt;  E .2 o - ro 2 3 3 i/i C 3 O O .C O O \u0026lt;U C u u  s .in  ro ro ro ro .w -o .Qi  \u0026lt;u 5^ o Q.  .52 O m \u0026lt;U 3 C C C   g S 8 .g .E ro *- 5 ro---------- ro E XJ c Q\u0026gt; O J2 Q, M_ XJ O *0 0^ \u0026gt;- cn in  ro 3 n ro u CL O o Qj 5  C O Q in .Q to ro    81\nA  ?  \u0026lt;U P to to 0) H  o D C re  O\u0026gt; c  U tt 3 4Ju c srs  5 s s r.  (/) c c \u0026lt;U \"S ? c 11 'lit 5^ z o b I (A Z m z a c 0) o 3 4.) M O 4.1 .i U re J3 o 8 u. O) c \u0026gt; o u CU s c m E . u   Q. o 5 .ff\".'- \u0026lt; z o o o n c V c a E o u 1^. 2 3 O' c b 0^ p u s t! .n\u0026gt; tn o SI c 3 H Z  UJ Z \u0026lt; UJ UI S- \"a 5, .  \"7 c gj Qj  in re - c tn \"S ? z n o C F 03 fn 2 - -- gT 'c O .h: g .= 2 \" a) io re ij u) i3 D u ij o 03 .2 a\no 2 fT \u0026lt;u nj g Q- 3 8 U c \u0026lt;1^ s o 3  vj Q \u0026lt;5  u 3 fu S2 (V 0? .\u0026gt; fO (0 -O 3 O u  gj o w o 5 ti- P 3 u  L a gj- S 5 tJ E S = 'in re *3 c D 3 S . E re  tt .!2 w o fj IZ) C it E cn c I' E  (6 c o C O ,_ \"g gJ $ c  w __ 4-  T3 to (D 35 c ^i= y p s  g *  O. a fc! .8 o. c (TJ  \"O u CD F \u0026gt; \"O O c o O (D XT u. nj 5 = o -h* S TO 3 (/) 0) O' o \u0026gt; Q O 3 o O ex o c I v (/) it  c 3 (TJ X5 o 1'^ 15 3 O' 3 ro c 1) .2 E s C O o oi - C C c  \"O IXJ (U E y \"O S \u0026gt; e Q. XJ I .52 u fC X3 o ai F. D 5J .52 O *52 c Vi O (/) u . E gj E \"8 p o P O ex o c C (XJ  .52 \u0026lt;U  U XJ (D XJ I tf) VI 0) c 0^ E ro6 z o b I M Z M Vi TO C TO M C o Q. (A TO D C re r A X TO Ik DI C w- S ,A c o in in  3 CT C S .3^ P -c re s w 0. O  \u0026gt; u 'w s tn O TO m'  3 fO in \u0026lt;n o I. 03 TO 2 -C TO E u c   TO t .\u0026lt;v o C \u0026lt;u 3 TO C O   0) \u0026gt; *- ni \u0026lt;  tu w  E Z s TO to in o 3 O E ID V) S a) S2 TO J 5 1 ID .\n,TO XJ H TO tn *0 3 c Q 3 U 8 2 5^ J3 5 \"5 Q. S s S C TO CO z l-H Z o Q (0 M c o E  Q 1^  -2 c TO TO c TO cn C V c E o u \u0026amp;  J tzi c 03 03 fi -C \u0026gt; \u0026gt;S :o s s e CL E 03 \u0026gt;  \u0026lt;y ^   9 c ro D g  Q.U x: -ri V3 O. U (X3 \"S 2 *5 TO  TO CT 03 y 3 c ID  \" C TO C c  o E (A 35 !fl J \u0026lt; in c o k TO O U K   s :^p3 \u0026lt;u 3 5 'S S \"'c ?o nj ^  a) c t E S Illg H o c O J a  C i3 -= \u0026lt;U to i5 \"a P in 3 03 w p c H \u0026lt;/ - 3 JM Vi fO O t. \"O \u0026lt;n C3 O C x: E P u E  jn ,TO o 9} H \u0026lt;-3 2. u CT TO Q. in o 5 o S c in in 2-3 2 \u0026lt;u E 05 -E ro - = ID \u0026lt;5 O iiy sIS\" lZ U in TO y \u0026lt;13 :p TO 3 S 1/5 CT X) 1- in TO TO CT 1- i_ O O m {fl C. TO O 3 CT TO 03 XJ TO .C in TO 3 D* 13 tj \u0026lt;13 TO \"O \u0026lt;13 5 H O in CT  M M  - Vi c o Q. V) V Ct C 0) o 3 E c TO cn ,- - O E 2 - TO TO .-ti '*- {fl \u0026gt; P .E .hz \u0026lt;-3 ifi .^utns-esy-^c -TO^38 ^TO** 0) 03 C i/i^ c 0) O) __ TO TO  in u i_Oiin^*-vTOin \u0026lt;13cJ3 ^jn_(y g \"u TO TO ETOtoTOJGCTC-^ Si 2 = S S .2 I- Q. Q -H TO S 0) CX-C nJ S c cu \u0026gt; cn 03 TO .. S' 2 .E CT  P *5  C O TO TO E O \u0026lt;1^  m CL Q. \u0026gt;  *- CL in 03 \u0026lt;1^ C 3 E Si 5 O  u  O ro . y it 01 -t .01 2 ~ in '\"\" al in O (D \u0026lt;u  -a p u 3 .E u  = ID \u0026amp;  in c p ro - V) \u0026lt;V TO O : 3^ cn 5 *5 o 2 S' \u0026lt;u S. S o p I-  5 \"t !\nSi 8^ \\n 03 U TO \u0026lt;*^\nsi Zr \u0026gt;   5 Ol U I. in O * c in -ti TO \u0026lt;13 \"D 5 J2 in 03 in c y a* 3 I S i. u 3 3 in _ OJ 0) 4J o ^   O  ID js 2 o y-o 5 \u0026lt;U O , c  E o .2 \u0026gt; ID D. \u0026gt; TO 3 C  TO  u c  V) '55 u U Q. (N CQ\u0026gt;-? \u0026gt; iO g x= .15 '3 CJ c i2 Q c Ji u o 2 = g C in (U \u0026gt;S J- o  c \u0026lt;U IO x: C CT y  C ^\"S  ID _ !y R  s jv ifi u 3 0)  tu E o 3 S2 O 3 u (U D x: oj U c- !G 2 8 S ID :-y I- W .E nj 0^ p 3 C (D .15 Ji v\u0026gt; \u0026lt;7 E 3 ? =\n3 IO S  8  y (U *- V) 3 3 fc nj u lO O) U ID ID .^J3 (U ^ . . s*^ g 5 2 UJ F U .UJ d) in 3 10 O c in i=- o. \u0026lt;n V) - (7 t \"a - S'^ O g S o 2 JO : = 3 E W 8  S \u0026gt;-E3a'-=222 J? o CT c 2 = o e c u nj 0^ c _ -. s 2=  n \u0026lt;* ro 03 I/) ^.6^ 2 0 is p u c D E XJ \u0026amp; p C no O = u 3 S o 3 ID g 5 -C (U E .3 dJ D 3 10 c \"go u) 5 S s \u0026lt;U \u0026gt; s- g \"5 .n I' CT 5i 5 \u0026lt;u S9 to c  V) - Sl^ S'  2 d) dJ  ss^S ro  c \u0026gt;.  o t m 3 h c z o l-l b o c s ^5 C Q. in z l-l o\u0026gt; c ' c (0 E u V Q. 3 in p o   a? I g S. in g 3 OJ o CT -F U ID g R m -' O H U \u0026lt;u . y CT  P m z hH \u0026lt; z o o 3 o s 3 u 'in (7 CD  = .e Q c c E to c  E IS  CL HE in \u0026lt;7 8 s S  (0 3 3 \u0026lt;D u  p c a\n\u0026lt;u M 4.1 C u c a E o u t5 3^\" g e \u0026gt; 3 g-y C H :u w 0^ .p  E 2 3 c to {7 to 5^ c c 3 o 3 \u0026lt;J C go\" S 8 E H 2 (7 OJ o v\u0026gt; (U 3  .p in 4-\u0026gt; 5! c 3 1 3 dJ u 7 3 o V) d C .p .5 c E S s s P (J t7  3 Q. \u0026lt;U (7 u in (G \u0026lt;7 1- Z '. UJ Z lu  3 y R 3 W O I. w lu : b 3 u  J 2 S 5:8 QJ O U (U (/\u0026gt; 3 : 5 c 2 o 2 \u0026lt;D E E tj A (7 ,\u0026lt;1^ p c o Io u = 3 E E o u 2 CT - . 216 g \u0026lt;D O 3 t)  E o \u0026lt;u QJ ID ID U .-' to -S \"S So a\n3 Ji \u0026gt;. c ro 2 8 If O) 0^ fc * X3 c XJ \u0026lt;U OJ \u0026lt;7 MJ \u0026lt;/) = -F F o dJ w S ID 2 S^.2 H CT g \u0026lt;u JZ u c o a 3 tn c .c in \u0026lt;U u. XJ O X3 c o o =1\"'^ \u0026gt;2 \u0026gt; n ** S \u0026lt;u \u0026lt; p w Q. 3 S C C O S Sis i3 Oi in  C -J U) w VI q\n\u0026gt; S 2 g p c E Q- XZ .'=^  tj c gj c o tJ t o  a.E 3 H d) CL to - c 3 O c .= -^ d) dJ dJ 5 \"S  --g Lj  \u0026lt;Z) O c I o c x: in U dJ dJ o *' 0 ct8 c = p 2 to C C 3 t c o 7 3 i_ 4J W c l-l o a. Q. o \u0026lt;7 dJ X nJ OJcoo-E,- P  c o E 3 10 -fi E C Q o c (y V) -A 2 u dJ .2\u0026gt; Q. 2 tn c fl) P S \u0026lt;U 3 Ji  77 ^7 a) r\njp - -Q -C m I* JP \u0026lt;0 S S u 5 0) 3 'a ID \u0026gt; I- CT 0) 17 H 10 in 'x (U o o c o 'U:g o in O D p dJ -  t! O C  0) _ = t\nt\ny  H C 3 c 55 \u0026lt;u _o k Q -g E S. 3 S S Q. 4-\u0026gt; CT 3 CT O I'l CT ID c  C 5 g R S' (7 o c OJ u O) o o = 8 P =3 r7 ,o J? o C 3 2 t - V w 3 4.) c OJ o 3 4.1 n u (U u c dJ co co . Q. Os iSSRHiatlSiR A PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES 4A: Reflecting on Teaching Accuracy Use in future teaching 4B: Maintaining Accurate Records Student completion of assignments Student progress in learning Noninstructional records 4C: Communicating with Families Information about the instructional program Information about individual students Engagement of families in the instructional program 4D: Contributing to the School and District Relationships with colleagues Service to the school Participation in school and district projects Collaborative pedagogy and assessment 4E: Growing and Developing Professionally Enhancement of content knowledge and pedagogical skill Service to the profession 4F\nShowing Professionalism Service to students Advocacy Decision Making 34fD \u0026lt;u  in D resH S re re \u0026gt; c O .X 0, in m cn -I- Q_ (P -2 -C Q. (V rf cj TTr  \u0026lt;U 4^ \u0026lt;u (/) lU I-I (U x: VA O\u0026gt; c b  nj re .t\nW S \u0026lt;D c u- m 4Z re i = E o if! u E E , I- re re o re c S \u0026gt; Pl  .! p 2 re Sf 5 c re St c .S rit CD tz 4- O TT uz oj m m u CJ iz S in 0^ XJ y* Itz c jn E O in A   in *-* (D XJ o c iff 0) re nj ID \"o o X  0) Di 01 re in c s TO .ti u \u0026lt;D 2 c y p cn -C *2 IM \u0026lt;p cn u c y c y CP fo E tz CP C c -g P Ol in p \u0026gt; -i2 Jr, \"O re if! \u0026gt; o re \u0026gt;Si = c S! P 2 o o) '^ = if! tJ t\ncnj- g, fl) co St x: 01 01 (P c .^ E : CP .-2 lii \u0026gt; re u 01  \u0026lt;*- 2 o? re 5 45 5 . X = 9- = P St ui re 4,c tJ re _ oi in (D rei-iD QJ c c (D c n -Q in fU c S\u0026gt; 5 re o  o co p O 2 Q. 5 CP E S |^S\"8g 5 o  O re o E (f! SJ . (U res s? E -J CD . 3 - in E u CO 1-4 (Z) z o CL V) UJ O) c Z u re  c o O1 c u c (0 E u t 0) o. g n\u0026gt; 'c a\nre s. o re 5 cn a s's  re y -n co \u0026lt;U u its CD y u_. H \u0026amp; in (D 5 \u0026lt; Z o I-I (A W lU 'B c  0 o  \u0026gt; V y 'in (O CD O 0^ CL z IH z o o re \"t c  c a E o u B  u\n' .p .12 c: Z) o 4Z g re c S .y 5 \u0026gt;- \u0026lt;D p o P C O OJ -g 01 o  ro E -2 is cn re c: H---- tn Q. u ii 5= CP 0^ X .2 re -M 01 re ti y r^ g u in * CJ in (U \u0026lt;v  (D ru O) c c o V) l/i in j3 \u0026lt;U = \"Z \"O  CO CP M (V o\u0026gt; X5 - o u- \u0026gt; w in \" \u0026lt;P F cn 52^2 re re\u0026lt;re o c tfi CP  sS i  re 2 v\u0026gt; e s o - \u0026lt;1^ (P (/) in (U 5 ?5 (D .\u0026lt;1^ ir lu $ O O  -a 2 5 re re re gr 2 3 U U \u0026lt; Q. O) 01 t 1- O g -1 p 3 u 0) S  S ? iS H = (U in -iii o \"P P vi c \u0026lt;u p O Q. SE . g^.E =3 X cn ro 1-. 2 !^ C o c !5 6 '5 in i\n-c in re i_ a\u0026gt; CP  -c nj c-\u0026gt; \u0026gt; CD \u0026gt; OJ o h- -c  P O) c  .5 U. J= .E re n. . V) 3 tn mi:: O  o cn UJ h4 h4 i-i EQ Z o Q. (O LU Q \u0026lt; z o l-l tZ) V) UJ u. O Q Q. w o u O u s 3 U u \u0026lt; Ot c c 5 c re Z .o t 8 c ro E u c V Q. o s u D ro x: '3 CT C ifi b c S u e Q. u in ro co \u0026gt;2^0 = ro .y = c P  - 3  (V cn w S c E E ro o -c u 4-/ (U (/) (p . (D 0) Q. o ro u - .y ro tj ro -a .S\u0026gt; t ro  3 K it g.^ \" ro ro ro Eg E ro .\u0026lt;1^ = H E o c \u0026gt;. ro .9 -5 E E tJ  fe-5..2 aj c E \u0026lt;3 \u0026gt; in  O c +{ 9 S cn J S ro c E  q5 c ro \" (U Q CT .t in iZ Q ID I- 2 E o c o  n (D .9 E E  P  in E in  O y\u0026gt; cn ro c ro \u0026gt; ro xt P c \u0026lt;u - ro \u0026gt; c C .S C 7= ro in ro .2 lU UI UI  ro 2  !fl E t\nro \"c 2 ro ,0)  to Ct H ?9 s  (p in 3 p S3 c Dl c .9  (P in C \"2 ro - 3 \u0026lt;u ro CT^ in -n \u0026lt;V CT 2 E 0 O Q. u ro ro ro 1^ lU H -o |- E E \u0026lt; c R g\u0026gt; E 8 E o ro .o in \u0026gt;* c in \" (J Z Hl \u0026lt; z o o c w c a E o u -\"A 2? I in cn o c = t: c E ro ro E O .S2 T3 e-g \" a? 55 E Vi i3 c 1 .-r. C Z) \u0026gt;* o E '\u0026gt; c c yi O Oi i_ T. rz Ju W 4- VJ ro ro in ro .\u0026lt;1^ E J! P O . \u0026gt; O J3 C C COO) ro  E 9 ro c  -s Q. W w E 5 5\u0026lt; I- o  -ro - \u0026gt;2 B S E E B   oi ^? 8 SB 8 \u0026gt; c _H ro b cz (2 tn  c ro \" o,.2 3^5 5  c ro ro' u  ^rog^f^^E S 5 E 1= \u0026gt; Q. c - ~ - 0) H ro o ro 8 p -B ro f, E E   'p^ D 3 to 3 3 u u s in 2 ro-o \u0026gt;\u0026gt; c in  Q. O o Cl .2 c c ?  ro cn ro l-S 5  E S ro   ro t 1 ID C 01 3  o ~ u in cn^-i2 ro c r in i_ I m ro c c ro P? -c = o ro y s c \u0026gt; Q. S . c -K E 8 c o uO 4 .9 -E = ti i/\u0026gt; ro in ro ro c o c E ro in o E E 3 55^ S E S' c c lu y\u0026gt; CT   -  c C c: . O ro  -S .i2 xJ ro JS 2 w S ro c to c SJ \u0026lt;p = fc I (D c t  ' 3 E O ro tJ c o  o cn \u0026gt;. c  ro o E != \"' ro g ro ~ \u0026gt; E - y c o  - - p . = . SS .i^ ro (S CT - f-E B ro -i F, ro g -S  Vi ro ro ro O S n '*- -ti *-* QJ  V\u0026gt; \u0026gt; -t! 3 o P i-! 3 P \u0026gt; tJ (u ro o ro ro ro ro p c ro .b o jn p 3 3 c S tj o -c ? *o KJ x3 - o c c p ro c o E p M M C xi ro ti ro ro o KO m E ro D c ro e ro o .Si \u0026lt;1^ S ? -S 5 9't! g ro   ro 5 (- in rs zu 12  9 B6 \u0026lt; U D ro H lE V) = H\" c  .S2 re c o 3 O Vi h P M C U ro .E 0^ C O Z c o uc Sfl - ID (A UJ IH hH s l-l (A z o a. w UI Bi Vi .2 1 (0 LL X I V u o ID tn 'zi CT C n b c jj 2 ID 3 CT ID 2 C 4^) -- ^ Al C = 2 S Id ID p CT re c g re 2--S _ o S .51 E S re ID ID * - - - C ex CT a 0) in ID ex 2 g Q. O u, C CL .2 o P  3 E Be -S \u0026amp; u ID E 9- P C P - c \u0026lt;u 3 in ID .. \u0026lt;1^ c E p it P 3 5^ tn ID 2 p P c C .ID 5  B q. '6 oi 2 2 ? -c E CL *5 \u0026lt; z o l-l (A lA UJ O Bi 0. c o s s E 3 E E o u R) E u t V 0. o Z \u0026gt; y in ID co se E 1^  ID 3 i_ -Cl  .  c 2 tn tn '3  ro .y\n o V Q-.\u0026gt; c ^ '! = S tj ID ID 2 tn E .5 o   i2 ~ cxL' .\u0026lt;1^ H ID ex z IH \u0026lt; z o o 4.1 c V c o Q. E o u ?  .p .52 Z) c o o '-  E 2 I .E ex ai (D 2 S tn tj ID 3 E D \u0026gt; in o c Q. (U \u0026lt;D *-* U 3 ID O P XJ H ID c   p J3  O c E u O 3 3 O C p C \u0026lt; 1-4 .a 4J \u0026gt; - w C 0\u0026gt; . in ID ID qj re \u0026gt; ID P c = S   C ID = F - \u0026gt; p 5 E . otncnc^*-''Eo  .2 e c  \u0026gt;.B \u0026lt;u^ q.~E-Q S tnE_'gCin-Q.\u0026amp; 'i_iDn3oMy Qj't-c'auUgp \u0026lt;u .g -M .P, c \" 'G S 23 S s ID .! in g  -3 g m S aj ai ? S\u0026gt;3 o t cn Oo^inin(j--= M_ re c *5 ^c^cocjeo\u0026gt;.-fc! re.o-giDj .^Pc yregi!tiffi?:ire e Q. C c in c \u0026lt;U 3 in o E Q. ID 52 ID E O) ID o -E ID u tn E D--.3 K \" i  in S' .P C a ID S \u0026lt;u -o c u re 0) c g 0^ CT p 3 \u0026lt;v ex c H C *3 CTCT i_ 0) O l/\u0026gt; P 5 o ID (D c: co tn Q) ID 4- c in p P oi is *1^ O .\u0026gt; E -6 E ID E a OT-S2 E g S e sn 2 p 2  !g.g Qi   E B-a  2 S 0) S P U _ re \"Q S ^/^ *- ID c o B g aj OT:= aJ 5 ai ID 2 ai ^ = '- \u0026gt; u C u .y^ o OJ .O .y  t c. 9tj 2. y \u0026lt;y S cn 2 S- IZL \u0026lt; H CT H in ID H c h er ' /II \u0026gt;n ni (V m p c ID  O P is o t_ \" 5i ro  .E  cn p tn g. tn ~ O E fc p 2 s x: - 3 .y o t -J ex o ID ) P 0) c .2 Q in -CT c Qi o c m 3 /I JJ 3 P 5 , O U c . XJ S P 2 c c 4= -g Q. E c ai tn O ID is /n \u0026lt; \u0026gt; t. ID ID ex ID in u ex tn _ g tn 2 2\n a VI c \u0026lt;u \u0026lt;u 3 \u0026lt;6  aS .2 5 ? in in ID ID \"CT CTl ro 2 re ID E gS S' !^! \u0026lt;^ c Q cn ID ID u ID tJ ID in c o m c 8 J3 01 c c *- 0) ID o S.B D C O in 3 .Sep I- P C in c ID in n 3 llg re X fc .= T3  c M 3 3 (A O \u0026lt; p- ai E  E p p -^ B* Al T ID O .P Q. c j= in P ID O c CT i_ ID d (U cn -c K tn c u \u0026lt;u . ID  _ 5 .E .2 E  D 2 O E  .2 3 2* h 2 \u0026amp;E c re LU LUtJ (A .y LU IH M o s \"O c re 8 iG o ? O O -c  J o \u0026lt; *- ? o ~ .l_l c re E u c 0. Q s s l-H LZ) 3 .O (/) :3 LU t C O o Of U Q\u0026gt; .. z F, hH Ci c z a 2 s O O u ii CT q\u0026gt; SQ 3 O' c b c p u p u 'in \u0026lt;D CD tJ 45 5 :i ti 5? c O Jr 6 .9-^ s -c u . . re jG TO c jz flj E .re - c Ct 8 re 0 O (TJ . ~ \"O JO re E re -2 S QJ c P Olli cn t re :i re 'I g 8. re 8  5 E  16  - in -5 '5 c o .9- CT CT qj tn c in 7ti 8.S o re Di P. '53 re u P D C ru qj \u0026lt;D O KI X ti o !l  t s 5  2 3 to {J 2 CT o  \u0026lt;u o (U = 8 ui .= in 3 S .\u0026amp;p - in c C -c \n(fl 2 c E O q\nCT x: p (U in q\u0026gt; 3 CT fO s in lu  rv (ft .x: CT gJ CT q3 O [QJ u u D o _ Ct c IF o _ '3 S2 c ,re (fl o re 0, t fc re  cnxj \"o p__  c o -ore ^.e-i_ o c oi c o re c .2 !2 n C ft 12 3 re o  \u0026lt;u  re \"o -(j S -5 E  S bi .re Q. CT CT C T3 4- ru c o c a I E trr 3  \"o  ^ B B S S U in c 3 w tn CT Ct ro S C c o a, 4_ (U (D O) tn *- \u0026lt;u 3 CT S re 8 [(Ij re * Q. 13's E re o Si 're S c D c tj 5  5! S [2  re y t \u0026gt;  u! (u 2 9 Bl -o  3 -a I- ro C 8 8 -2, \u0026gt;  t re I i S I  -c  \" 2 s 'fl (U t i: _ u/ I re .ifl 3 re -= V) o . Ct^Q S Q (fi in c -Q in qj I/) \u0026lt;u C P \u0026lt; uofa.9-\u0026lt;uc^c5(D flj= u c 5 ..x: qj = J F  o .w  0- ro u -o g-o J- . q^ qj \u0026gt; \u0026lt;u CT U in c ru O . H E \u0026gt;3  S a) Q. p 2 \u0026lt;-\u0026gt; Q. in V s y =\nru O' p c 8 p *= .K b! in .  - a H in c P 0) c (U }n -P- (U . \u0026lt;y c \u0026lt;u c re w re  tj - 8 Si, .y o' tut (TJ CtCT tj I- q^ -c q) .b CT 3 .iG Q. nj ._ A -y q3  .re g. H c CT c nj Ct . :y 40 t^ c ro p Ct 0) tn  s o 9 3 CD u tfi Id CT :g-S c ~ sIS 0) (D ..=is S'? c U Q. - s s q\u0026gt; O t? CT Q. in ro :y i5? ti H q3 Ct c rti (V S. ' O Q. q) Ct b tn  u \u0026lt;0 .\u0026lt;v \"2 O CT \u0026gt; c qj qj q^ \"o CT O (0 u 0) tn \"3 M M V a. 3 Z O' Is 2 o u  2 Q re u flj =  0 : s .y u 01 V) C c  O C B  2 :11s o t ro Q.  C L-. ei5?sI^ C 3 C 0) E \u0026gt; 13 5 CT \u0026lt;5 CT  CT CT c in 5 (x\u0026gt; ID (D C r- O O E I'' -M  10 c (u y CT c 0) = D c (U js .y \u0026lt;/\u0026gt; in S 2 -o re 5 3 CT Q. *- q\u0026gt; tn 03 3 c qj ti = C u := in c tJ  rr. Ct 55 55 ? u \"CJ .- re . re 3 2  9-13 ~  o \n- 8 -s 2 c re re re g 8-o  C u c c c o c 0) F top T5 CT E C.  = '- y 2 .8^=2 8 =\nS qj c c \" c 9 c CT .E CT (S :i : 2  E re I y i E tn Q. O re o S= -2 8| S y P S  (D in in c o X 23 *-* O u :9 C c q^ c  '2 o -   re re 2  ifl Xi c  tn .9- qj c - E tn in q? 00 m E CT 2 ~ a  re -Jg =2 o E  U c \u0026gt;1 73 re XJ c f \u0026gt; 0) E Vi 5 ft uS\u0026lt;XJ c ID c E Vi lU 1-4 CO (Z) z o Q. lU \u0026lt; Z o tn (n lU u. O CL re c o w tf) o u Q. O) c 'E o V \u0026gt; V o o c re oi c s o u U Z \u0026lt; z o o c V c E o u XJ 0 in ' CT .C E? b 3 -is \u0026gt;_ E -55  P E^ - P 2 S .2 p -S \u0026lt;u S 'c o s QJ S. C XJ S OJ 3  := tn y 4_ nj Q. . S r\u0026gt; TO - t: o 5 = OJ (5 S. .2 ro - U ID .\u0026lt;1^ o \u0026gt; - Q. a \u0026lt;u ID ID c o tn CT C  tn GJ .= tn tn GJ ID -C Q GJ GJ -C _e- y u:- ID S? O y S tn c : \"  \u0026gt; -O -2 GJ *~ E ID -t* C GJ tZ ID w ? O CZ ID ID C ID tn P \u0026lt;u  -Q -2  C E n) oi cn o CJ ID is cn c c S s t\nC -c . re - E -s  Q. Q. C (U E c y p 8 c lU E u 2 V Q. O s u 'cn ID co   45 .i2 s c Z\u0026gt; 4-. P .5 Q. S XJ S ID _ P \"c Q. GJ GJ O O^sSft Q. gj re fc 5 o -c CT cn (J GJ cn tn ID \u0026lt;U tn : ID c (U ,p o 2 Q. ID E o S 2 ID iJ S ii=: = Cl \u0026gt; Qj ^2 -F t B 5  \"o Q- ID lU .2 p F. - u tn  ID 4) 2 Q. .C GJ 4-* OJ CT S S. g 5 s t o S \u0026lt;1^ n O' \u0026gt; u : 4J \u0026lt;U C ~  IP c p E  o P o -C cn cn in (U -C o I/) E 2 S o Ip c I u ID \u0026gt; tJ ID OJ M- O)~ o *o s .y ?? s S o - U E o\u0026gt; = V u * J? -5 o .X re  43 1) C 0. V \"O  g g u (Z) a o Q. S . 2 s E! t: .sc o 3 GJ .E XJ r: \" GJ S S' ID -C ro .-y 5 5 2 a o) 2 .a\u0026gt; CT S \"O \u0026lt;/\u0026gt; 5 -Si c E  ni 5 = = S Q ui S VI in cn o w, c k tE c c O - (U ID  u tn 0) 12 (V e S. O Vi \u0026lt;1^ O ID 1^ O O E ID  in o 2 o -s\ni2 = .   \u0026lt; j: in .2 kC 4-^ GJ O GJ = o x: *0 -9 ^  UI 5 S t .p in -S' g . t: in 3 \u0026lt;U tn *- i-J E ID OJ  :  GJ OJ u 5 O  OJ (/) Q.b* (A UI E M CO -l (/) z o Q. V) UI Q \u0026lt; Z o V) V) UJ u. O of Q. E .2 re c o 'm M o k. Q. O) c 5 o  W 8 c ro E u t V Q. O 5 V   o c O c \u0026lt;c I \\Z) OJ 5  c  \u0026gt; OJ GJ 2 -g -i \u0026gt;. x: S' s . -C \u0026lt; 5) 5 c S2 . 8 w 5? 8 Si \" 8 -5  ,$ 1 E Q. 3 to c 2 3 p o S \u0026gt; c \u0026lt;u c - = S 8 GJ O y GJ E i*' a c ft C O) P C (J .55 \u0026amp; \u0026lt;u l_ \u0026lt;/) (U c ro (U .\u0026gt; H tj ro o GJ s ro D .i2 ti  GJ (V w o u ro GJ -S \u0026lt;V t/i Z \u0026lt; Z o Q c V c o Q. E o u W -V\n\u0026amp; te 33 : ,  iS fl I. 'U a c GJ o in p ui vj GJ -Q ro $ 4_, GJ o c c V) GJ U ro .\u0026lt;y Q J3 V C U V  n '5 \"O  S a S  ro  c ? 2 p O) Q. GJ  GJ rot GJ 05 tL \"D i_mGJ*o^ro^ OJ J2 OJ c = =\n\u0026gt;**0 3C(Xjrou^P u GJ ?.  I/) GJ c ti . 53 2\n-y ro 2 t: ro 2 2 ro 2 3 (Z) .! nj \u0026gt; V) C \u0026lt;U \u0026lt;V o .-^ o c: H in C -o Xj 3 OJ l: S ti ft 1 \u0026gt;30. h  \u0026lt;u  \"5 j? TO -M * (V (D H  O GJ C 5 c 3 ti 2 Q. Vi GJ 8 3 IZ) Q.^ O ft  -c ,ro 3 o U) (fi GJ ro o GJ 3 ft -C \u0026lt;/\u0026gt; \u0026gt; U C OJ ro GJ u .\u0026lt;1^ I- p P fu 3  V) .ro c ** GJ ro p GJ s \u0026gt; 8 S 8 8 3 2  p J3 5 \"al o O c 8 a CL \u0026lt;u ro Q. P -hi o u ro ro x: (U 4-\u0026lt; B-  \u0026gt; o \u0026lt;  c i 2 4- tn .2  \"J \"2 S 52 S tn -c itJ tn S O c cn-O tu a 2 'F o Q- 5i N  GJ 'u 2 VJ GJ (v V' v.* -S-  ro ~  2 -a -a c S u .2- S -5 o 0 ,GJ (/) t: o\u0026gt; S. - -t^ .c F \"a K \" 2  5.2 F p v5 cP ro D c t\n5 c g : \u0026gt; 23 E S U o 3 ro ~ \u0026lt;u S ro c c 2 ra .2 .2 GJ TO \u0026lt;0 - in -=1^ 8.E 8 2 Q. o   1- OJ ro ro 3 c w ?. 4= ( o ^-gtS-S 8 E g f5 o 5 jn  m X. C OJ Xj GJ O C t'J ^1 F 5 -5 3 O 0) (/) L. i/\u0026gt; 2-^ in OJ I ro GJ E c tu x: u O ro V} ,GJ ro H -Q o\u0026gt; c IS re Z c o \"C! u 01 O D CProfessional Teacher Appraisal System Forms The Little Rock School District believes that teaching and learning are the most critical aspects of the teacher's responsibilities but while still holding that the professional responsibilities of the teacher are essential to the development of the school's culture, climate, programs, and in meeting necessary building or/and district goals. To ensure this goal, several forms have been developed for this process: PTAS-1 PTAS-2 PTAS-3 PTAS-4 PTAS-5 PTAS-6 Classroom Observation Professional Growth Plan Instruction and Reflection Profile Teacher Summative Appraisal Instructional Unit Developed for Portfolio Professional Development Log The asterisk (*) components on the LRSD Summative Appraisal form (see page 51-52) have been identified as critical and are reviewed to be important skills of a successful teachers repertoire. Thus, if a teacher receives an unsatisfactory or below basic marking in one of these critical components, the teacher will be placed in Track III and placed in the appropriate phase as deemed necessary by the evaluator in accordance to the degree of assistance needed to improve the teachers deficiency. The summative appraisal form also offers an overall review of the teacher's ability to have met the district established expectations that all teachers will have to meet in offering a quality education to all children of the district. When assessing the skills of the non-probationaiy teacher in Domain IV, the evaluator will only assess components 4a thru 4f. The Professional Tools in this section are not apart of the non-probationary teachers expectations. Lastly, because Professional Development will be a critical part of the teachers experience, a list of necessary and meaningful workshops have been identified in enhancing the teaching components identified within this document (see pages 58-70 ). 42PROFESSIONAL TEACHER APPRAISAL FORMSLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CLASSROOM OBSERVATION PTAS-1 FORMAL INFORMAL WALK-THROUGH Name: School: Grade Level: Subject: School Year: Observer Name: Position: Domain 2: Classroom Environment Component 2a: Establishing a Culture for Learning Domain 3: Instruction_________ Component 3a: Communicating Clearly and Accurately Component 2b: Managing Classroom Procedures Component 3b: Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques Component 2c: Managing Student Behavior Component 3c: Engaging Students in Learning Component 2d: Organizing Physical Space Component 3d: Providing Feedback to Students General Comments: Component 3e: Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness Component 3f: Utilizing Technology 44Name LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PROFESSIONAL GROWTH PLAN: TRACK II PTAS-2 School Year Participants Growth Goal(s): The goal addresses components in (check all that apply) ___Domain 1 ___Domain 2 ______DDoomaaiinn 33 ___Domain 4 Activities and Steps To be Taken Persons/Resources Needed Documentation Timeline and Deadlines Expected Outcome(s): Evaluator Date 45 1/if\n= 5?^ 5s: 'Ki S CSJ no  s: .\u0026lt;0 -tS CJ 3 IO s: '4^41 \" '-k A (Z) \u0026lt; H u X co H co co a V Q O 43 CJ CZD s c o co 3 (9 \u0026gt; tu o u co Q o eg' e . .2 ZS K i-1 u W-5 U  55 a o ft.  0\u0026gt;  fe 'J  '5 .o I o  \u0026lt; - \"ss ca X O 5 3 Q Q -O OX \"O V TJ C VC 3 O^ n E co o o S co CO o CQ 3 \u0026gt;W V T3 CO  o 3 c/:) CZ3 I Ip 3 o 73 5 co o c a I \u0026lt;u o CJ co 8 X 1\u0026gt; co 43 O H ^o e ^15 sJI Z\" S' E-i y| P?l ZiS \u0026gt;4 o c 1^ c 3 O o no co 43 cz\u0026gt; CO eS e o co co u CO5 ,o CxO c E co u c o o 2V] co r- 00  1\u0026gt;  5 O 4u\u0026gt;. *c*o 2 c c o CO  o Ofl 1\u0026gt; co 1\u0026gt; J= C U to O 43 3 o o \u0026gt;  43 s\nB g :P' S o s ,3 u 5 3 3 O Q s C/3 S 1 (/3 ,O C/1 3 0) *3 a CZ) ex. 3 O \u0026amp; 3 2 *3 O o X 3 Q O 3 H g (CO c 2 o (/) S ,o -J2 c u o 2 W5 O. 3 s 00 3 O o X 00 S 3 g \u0026amp; 2 C o Vi O X 3 O^ V c f o o TJ O u fa 4\u0026gt; WJ TJ O a u E bO c C4 V 3 C^ 2 V C/3 (9 J3 C c o (/) o V)  S u 3 Q Vi O o e OD C LS u \u0026lt;9 V eS TJ O O s o)  c o V) o -C o 3 O^ 4\u0026gt; \u0026gt; e J=o' t/5 O) p H CQ s o 3 O^ o 3 o as \u0026gt; o \u0026gt; 1? Q \u0026lt;U (O Si \u0026gt; u eq o o t/5 eq 1q c TJ 1\u0026gt; eS u o \u0026lt; o E P c/i s i 1/5 ,o O W) 73 O O s 3 LS 4\u0026gt; 3 O (Z3 c o I \u0026gt; u c ,eq *5. G .2 W 3 \"eq \u0026gt; o o *3 V G 15 3 G C G Q co to qj\u0026gt; to 00 G  3 c^. 15 \"5 G Cl. S eq w .^2 TJ w 15 2  c eq 00 .c S C (Q cj M 5 o S 43 00 \u0026gt; \u0026lt; TJ 1\u0026gt;  'S. 3 o^ V \u0026gt; e f/i V \u0026gt; R} o O O \u0026lt; o E H C CQ V c/) S 3 O {/5 a\u0026gt; w s c o 1 co .s  Wi o eS E u VJ V s o OT o 3 o o \u0026gt; {Q X t/5 Q C C O 1\u0026gt; -S c o 00 .s E (Q O G O T) 5 vi \u0026lt;lj W 3 \u0026lt;3 u o c eq o. 3 O^ O 3 C o u= 3 c e\u0026lt;3 O CZ500 B 2 3 2 00 cn 2 B \u0026lt;u tn O 3 u \u0026gt; eg 43 f o 1) ?2 o \u0026amp;  o^ 4\u0026gt;4 u eg \u0026lt; 1\u0026gt; ,o u o 3 *0 . o c eg cn cn eg S C^ . eg cn C V o 2 i/i O U S eg 2 o 43 u o G u 2 o Vi O cn fS c V I op cn cn eg cn 2 c o o c V XJ 2 in O f/i o a  o- c 5 (/) CL  2 Q -5 \u0026gt; o cn o c o t/1 :2 5= \u0026gt; p o s Cl c/\u0026gt; z o p ca n o I 0^ o R 'I. 43 o' cn -3 o 2 73 o g eg 5- O \u0026gt;. 00 c 2 c* eg s p ts eg CL \u0026lt;U o\n3 XJ q o E eg cn t\u0026gt; 2 o o 3 o 2 o c u .V TJ a o 2 3 Q US czT C V T3 I CJ w o 2 O C 00 CQ M tn eg \"o tn eg o 2 00 .S o 00 2 u o 00 cn cn eg \"q cn 2 i X o 3 O X3 2 B eg *2. 3 O^ O O (4 2 XJ Q c: a\u0026gt; CL CL CQ t c o *0 m c\u0026gt;V Q 3 CO g ,o o ex CA \"ex 3 O \u0026amp; o co 3 3 CA .o c  o CO 3 Q O ffi c o (A (A o CO *3 O .g 2 o X CA 3 O *3 2 CA o o. 3 g W) o co 3 3 .3 3 co c o o o 3 CO g ,p o ex ex 3 2 0/) o CO 3 3 CA Lc ,o C 3 O o o co CO 42 c o (A CA o CA Ck. *3 CA o c 3 o  co o bo bO .3 2 co o OJ 3 -5 co ** US 4\u0026gt; o \u0026gt; -3 -g wj co 3 \u0026lt;U 3 2 c o o 3 CA o, S O p (A V o (A  3 g o. C 3 S o 3 \u0026gt;'  = 53 '5 3 S: Q O T3 X o o o bO CQ 3 o ' co ex ,u s o co J3 bO -S 3 co u V 4= V) QJ K E CO X o o Um c o (A CA 5 3 o x* co CA 3 .2 CA O g- o CA 3 .2 o co 0) CA 3 1) I 3 Q 43 O nJ -O U  5 3 O 3 co 8 o  'O *0 co Q CO g !5 ,2 (N o tnlittle rock school district TEACHER SUMMATIVE APPRAISAL PTAS-4 Teacher School Year Mark One\nMark One: Mid-year Track I Summative Track II Track III U=Unsatisfactory B=Basic P=Proflcient denotes heavily weighted components D=Distinguished DOMAIN 1: PLANNING AND PREPARATION Component Level of Performance U B P D la. Demonstrating Knowledge of Content and Pedagogy* 1b. Demonstrating Knowledge of Students*_____________ 1c. Selecting Instructional Goals*_______________________ Id. Demonstrating Knowledge of Resources_____________ Ie. Designing Coherent Instruction*_____________________ If. Assessing Student Learning* Strengths DOMAIN 2: THE CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT Component 2a. Establishing a Culture for Learning* 2b. Managing Classroom Procedure* 2c. Managing Student Behavior*_______ 2d. Organizing Physical Space Strengths 51 Areas to Address Level of Performance U B P D Areas to AddressDOMAIN 3: INSTRUCTION Component Level of Performance U B P D 3a. Communicating Clearly and Accurately*________ 3b. Using Questioning and Discussion Techniques* 3c. Engaging Students in Learning*_______________ 3d. Providing Feedback to Students*_______________ 3e. Demonstrating Flexibility and Responsiveness* 3f. Utilizing Technology Strengths Areas to Address DOMAIN 4: PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES Component Level of Performance U B P 0 4a. Reflecting on Teaching_________________ 4b. Maintaining Accurate Records*_________ 4c. Communication with Families___________ 4d. Contributing to the School and District 4e. Growing and Developing Professionally* 4f. Showing Professionalism PROFESSIONAL TOOLS Professional Development Log Portfolio Strengths Areas to Address (If the teacher disagrees with a part of the appraisal or with a recommendation made by the prindpal, the teacher may elect to attach a written response to the appraisal instrument. Both documents shall then be placed in the teachers personnel file.) Principals Signature Teacher's Signature (Indicates that the teacher has read the report but does not necessarily indicate agreement with it.) Recommended for re-election Yes No (To be completed at the end of the school year.) 52PROFESSIONAL TEACHER APPRAISAL TOOLSPortfolio Requirement  J. Track 1 W' ' ackground Information: Resume (Profile Sheet) Individual Improvement Plan/Professional Growth Plan ^assroomManagen^^ Class Schedule Sample of units developed in support of the curriculum Sample of modifications made for identified students Daily/Weekly Schedule Sample of weekly lesson plans Collaborative Skills: Log of Parent Contact Samples of colleagues collaboration ssessment Information' Sample of Assessment Student Achievement Data Student Academic Improvement Plan Professional Development Documents^ Professional Growth Reading List of Professional Journals/Materials 54REQUIREMENTS FOR TRACK 1 TEACHERS/SPECIALISTS A Portfolio will be required with the following included:  Resume Provide a summary of previous employment experiences, education, and extra-curricular activities.  Sample of weekly lesson plans A copy of lesson plans for each subject taught. This should include standards and benchmarks, materials, activities, and assessments.  Sample of units developed in support of the curriculum This unit should include objectives, materials, activities, and assessments. The unit objectives must be aligned to the core curriculum of your subject area.  Sample of modifications made for identified students Identify students with Individual Education Plan (lEP) and provide written evidence in the plan book of modifications by subject area.  Log of Parent Contact This should include phone, conferences, notes, open house, and any other form of parent communication.  Professional Growth Provide documented evidence of professional training (A list of required staff development will be provided.  Sample of Assessment Provide samples of various ways in which students have been assessed to determine academic achievement. These should include teacher developed or modified forms of assessment. (Teacher-made tests, activities for students portfolio, projects, etc.)  Student Achievement Data Provide data indicating academic achievement forthose students for whom the teacher is responsible for teaching. The teacher should indicate that data has been evaluated to help improve instruction. Example: Documentation showing that the teacher is aware of strengths and concerns of students in class or classes.) The grading outline should be included to show point system for various types of assessment done throughout the year. Grade Distribution sheets can be included under this section. The information should demonstrate that the teacher has evaluated the data as indicated by notes, graphs, or narratives.  Individual Improvement Plan/Professional Growth Plan This plan is developed around the components of professional practice. The teacher and the evaluator/administrator collaborate on the plan. The teacher takes the lead in determining the particular component that will be developed. Class Schedule Documentation shows the daily and weekly scheduled activities for which the teacher is responsible. This should include the times each subject area is being taught. An elementary class schedule will look different than a secondary class schedule. Student Academic Improvement Plan A sample of the plan or plans that have been developed for the student(s) that require additional academic support in order to meet the state guidelines for achievement. (The name of the student(s) should not be on the sample(s). Reading List of Professional Joumals/Materials A listing of professional journals and/or reading materials that the teacher has experienced during the year. The format may follow the APA or MLA style. A new portfolio will be developed each year. The portfolio will be reviewed midyear and at the end of each school year by the administrator. 55PTAS -5 INSTRUCTIONAL UNIT DEVELOPED BY TRACK 1 TEACHER FOR PORTFOLIO The teacher is to provide an instructional unit of at least one week in length, artifacts from that unit, and the following information prior to established date set by the administrator. This evidence will be submitted in the portfolio in preparation for the final summative conference. Name Subject of Unit Grade/Subject Taught Dates of the Unit Unit Concept/Topic: Objectives/Goals for the Assignment/Student Artifacts Attached: Attach a copy of a unit that you have used in your classroom this year. The unit can be in any format you wish and taken from any point during the year. Attach an activity or assignment directions that engaged students in authentic work related to the concept or topic cited above, (e.g. project guidelines, problems, homework assignment, center activity) Provide some evidence of student learning. This should reflect the full range of student achievement levels in your class and should include feedback you provided to your students on their work. (e.g. samples of student work, photographs, audio or video tapes) Be prepared to reflect on the artifacts and the unit in your final summative conference. 56\u0026lt; (00) \u0026gt;o oo w D a\u0026gt; \u0026gt; 0) Q cV 0) mo oc 3 XI O q: O) O co o 5o2 oo oI oo 0^ J c o E Q. O 0) \u0026gt; o Q ro c o w w .Q 1O-Q. o o u (n i0n) L. 3 O U d o  m - k. c p P 5 \u0026gt; III \u0026lt;u  o c  p c o o 0) LO o RJ O V Enj Z -o 4^ 8 a-  E fa CM \u0026gt;\u0026gt; a a CM cm a   43 Vi E ti 3  OX) 8 o = J3 a T O + u  -o 3 R a 3 CM \u0026gt; a a  E 4\u0026gt; JS 3 O JS s 3  .8 \u0026lt;*\u0026gt; a sT a \"O a \u0026gt; a -a XjM 3 O  4) IM) o CM a m C s ex o \u0026gt; 1  -I Q -I o ,o a XI a *-w a 0 ^a LE  a   c Q o  O ( 4m (J  co Cm   O S   W u   CM   5   E a *   Vi * 4S 3 fa a t. tS U a\u0026gt; a .S2  H 43 w a Cm  43 \u0026lt; a 4^ \u0026gt; a SB a  a  a ox .E a  .a 5 o o CA a 4\u0026gt; OX a a r\nw ti a O o I V) a\u0026gt; 4\u0026gt; JB 2 a u o I o O U \u0026gt;.5 R ( a o 5 O k. s o .S a\u0026gt; fa o 3 O o x: a  O a a a  u .1^ a a u a o fa v V u 43 . **  5 'S  e*  V) O 0^ V) u .9  (/3 43 H e#  a  H '5i^^ (2 gj OJD a 8 o a IZ5 E   u 1^ 4\u0026gt; 3 V t/i \u0026gt;  fa a  E  ox a a a E a  E  OX) a   o S \u0026lt; E Q  (/3 a *  43 ,o a 4) w a o u V a Z a X S    \u0026gt; .M U ?* U) a\u0026gt; a\u0026gt; a Si E IXI 3  w 8 MM i  ti   a s  E a    ox a a a CM   2 P a fas \"W S II   OS \u0026lt; \u0026lt; es E I  ox . *3 3 oi . 's a 8  a ti *8 i OX) 8 2  a  .a  c a ja p a  E CM  CM  M ** a ,o Q\u0026gt; V3 a 5 .2 -2 a CQ  OX) a 3 OX) a a 4\u0026gt; a o d a a\u0026gt; \"o ^a *a a 4^   z Cl 03 Cli 1-3 w a 2 a 43   H \u0026lt;   M -o a 3 .0 R .0 '5 3 E E rP M V \u0026lt;! 3 CA u a O) I. s 3 O  fa \u0026gt; a a  s  \u0026gt; 0^ o a  \u0026gt; a \u0026lt; o in a V) O CX) B - \"S  S 2 o 85 w A y- -5 4\u0026gt; CO a Q 2 .S  ' -w U 3 fl s Vi O a s o r: CM \"O a a S3 CM -  a \"O ti a    o (A 'L 'E^   \u0026gt; a o V CA a o a ox a .2f M 7\nfa O \u0026lt; a 2 5 \u0026lt;M .S  i S S s - g 3 2 \"O ja E  .ts  -S 5 .2 XI  a a S'\" XJ 4\u0026gt; u -o -a o a: 5  M E V3 a u 0^ a\u0026gt; o x3 o'\" E  CM  8  \u0026amp; S 5 \"E  5 5  *- . CM o - 2f  a .E i\nB a .2 s a S: a i  -2 fa  \"0 a  E U CM   O V5 3 a R V vi 4\u0026gt; f/3 s a  1  CM OX .SS o S SoS  \u0026lt;-  E  0 B o -a o a U o B  43 o 2  * S E S ti ti 3  fa fa R 00 D a  a a *3 s? U S .a) u U A I ^  a js -C a  as V3 5 5 \u0026lt; .B*  U R .! 3 Q  Q ti co ti CM 11 CO ti V3 \u0026lt; o a  -a  U 4 5 ti \u0026gt;fl  a  V33 fl GJ (Z3 tS = 3 CT fl Pi fl E a o o u 43 fl S ox CT .5 a ,2 \u0026gt;\u0026gt; B 3 - a 3 fl O' E f/i fl 3 3 fl fl 9 OX *8 CA CA fl fl o 4^: fi. G 4) -fl O cu a OX) :9 B fl fl \u0026gt; 69 fl \u0026amp; O o fl fl V) fl Q B Q, 'F \"O o 2 \u0026gt;-r s I 2  \nE CA fl fl fl P c fl q\u0026lt;5 O OX fl 0. E a 8 'b -b H a fl S o H CA \" fl O a o E fl 2 \u0026gt; 2 Q a C 43 .S fl a Ct o C\u0026lt;3 -S fl 6M B JS fl \"g fl a a a B fl B CA CA fl fl fl a \u0026lt;A \"3 B fl ea C B fl B O 43 CA fl 43 fl B fl .2 a u fl fl t \u0026gt; S' 3 a B fl 'F ,o \"3 fl B CA B fl CA 3 O fl E M M * \"p (J ** B 3 H V3 fl \u0026gt; 3 3* fl Vi OX ,a  u B 2 CA 18 J3 o H a ox .5 B . a u 2 e9 0 fl U J o  fl 3 fl V} r4 fl  T3 ti B B CA \u0026gt;\u0026gt; B 3 fl 43 fl oe at a C9 fl ,2 fl 3 h \u0026lt; .S a \" K a Cm fl - fl O a s \u0026gt; .2 5 Vi fl CA A fl a fl E fl CA B 3 \\O fl 43 ,o CA fl 'a fl B B a ,2 3 h \u0026lt; 2 J .S J  ? CA CA a  Cm - fl fl a a at .2 5 2 a \u0026lt; E CA fl CA CA fl a fl E fl CA \u0026gt;\u0026gt; B -3 00 fl X fl 'a fl B Vi B a a fl 3 CA a J a \u0026gt; w (tJ (m f 1 fl fl fl a a  .2 5 S a \u0026lt; E CA \u0026gt;\u0026gt; B *3 fl J3 ,o fl fl 3 a CA fl E 3 3 fl 3 fl fl fl Ct ti 43 fl (/i fl CA A fl 8 fl E fl 2 a \u0026lt; S CA \u0026gt;\u0026gt; B 3 fl A p \u0026lt;M OX a S B fl M O OJ * I a B N fl fl 3 O A fl E a a u 3 fl E fl Ct ti 43 fl CA \u0026gt;\u0026gt; B 3 B o 00 CA \u0026gt;\u0026gt; B -3 CA B 3 ifi \u0026gt; B -3 *B 43 iJ fl H a a B ti ,fl 3 fl \"P 2 fl a (J B fl ti ti I fl a fl 43 fl B fl fl a kJ U I fl a \u0026lt; ti ti ti fl 43 fl B fl fl a B fl Zl B OX fl 3 fl 43 fl B a 2 fl a s \u0026lt; u 2 at Ml B M E .2 fl o fl CA Cm 1 O J 4\u0026gt; V) fl O 'F s g a U fl 43 .P CA fl a fl B a at \u0026gt; 2 \u0026gt; at .a  2 0 2 B fl *a fl V3 B a o fl 3 fl J3 .o V) fl fl 3 C CA fl E 3 3 fl fl 43 \u0026lt;0 V) fl 3 O CA fl E 3 3 fl .M OJ \"E ox V) fl U3 a . ^ti fl ti % ti at fl - fl fl :S \u0026lt; fl 2 fl Q-E o ti a  E .2 B O at (B fl \" J A fl fl fl 'E fl 2 fl B E fl CL \u0026gt; 2 a E w B fl M O fl a  M I r\" E-i w CA a a E S fl E ja fl B wS a fl CA fl CA OX g B \u0026gt; o fl B OX fl -3 fl 43 fl B a 2 2 a b M r\" H w fl 1 Ij o I B a fl fl fl P  fl fl fl .3 ti a fl CA B OX fl \"3 fl 43 fl B a 2 2 O 3 3 fl o B a fl  .2 5 ^5 V) E fl VJ fl CA CA fl T \"O a fl E fl a fl E fl a ti V) 43 O OX 43 fl *- B fl M 0 fl 3 fl fl E fl Ct \"W CA .8 at  \u0026gt; at J3 o 020 a  ua fl fl  \u0026lt;2 .S S o. \u0026lt; S OX a \u0026gt; fl  I fl U \"2 .fl fl \"2 ox E ** B fl z 0 fl  I i H (/) fl ja S fl\u0026lt; lA OX B -- u 5 B ! P J O 3 3 fl t o , *fl Ct  a E fl T \"O H 5k H M  \u0026lt;2 .E Ch in CA .2 -3 3 (Z! S *fl o Zl \u0026lt; u ti fl M fl fl ** Ifl u -O 5k s ox fl V3 fl 43 fl B fl 43 fl B fl a a a fl E E fl 43 B a at O) (J 8 ti fl a fl -w 2 O A fl -3 B O at 3 2 S E  E  a\u0026gt; \u0026gt; M U EiJ 02 f/i 3 IZ5 .S fl o fl 43 fl B fl fl -3 B O fl 43 fl B fl fl -3 B O fl fK -3 fl fl fl -3 B f/i O -5 X fl B fl fl ** O CAa 4J 3 C a a 2 H CA \u0026gt;\u0026gt; B a B a V) \u0026gt;\u0026gt; B a n CA \u0026gt;\u0026gt; B a B a 00 CA \u0026gt;\u0026gt; B a CA \u0026gt;\u0026gt; B \"a CA \u0026gt;\u0026gt; B a cs \u0026gt;\u0026gt; B a 00 CA B a CA \u0026gt;\u0026gt; B a CA B a n 4\u0026gt; X CA a 'ox a B V3 4\u0026gt; a 4^ .O CA 4^ 3 O 4^ B .2 a* a B a o Q s 2 3 3 a u 4^ Q CA B \" \u0026lt; L\" J f/i 4\u0026gt; U 4^ ti ti Cm 3 a a g a a Q- a a 3  .2 5 CA 4\u0026gt; CA f/i 4^ B a 2 4\u0026gt; ox -B 5 W  s a a OX) B \u0026gt; 4\u0026gt; o  I B  S \u0026lt; . a (3 S \"O n H 5k O a a H \u0026lt; ti ti ti Vi a a 4^ a B 4) fM 4\u0026gt; a B B 4.\u0026gt; \u0026gt; CA ?-s B B 2 fl - a 2 J3 4^ B 5 S CA 4\u0026gt; ja u B 4\u0026gt; fS o a B i.5 \u0026lt;2 a a 3 O 4) 2 3 3 a 3 U U a  a, CA a Q CA a s s \u0026lt; a B \u0026lt;/i b. a .l B M 2 .2 B o a CA fl   -Si B g \u0026gt; E  u a 4\u0026gt; A CA a 'OJD a B (/3 R R fl ba o a a *-w .ta 4\u0026gt; \u0026gt;  \u0026gt; \u0026lt;U J3  S a o o B W J3 o B U S  -a 2 M a 2 8 2^ O Si  I   CS 4^ ja ,o f/i 4^ 3 O CA 4\u0026gt;  ti 3 2 3 a 0^ *- \u0026gt; ts 4\u0026gt; 5 ti 4\u0026gt; a CA 4\u0026gt; U B O CA O 2 5 3 U 4^ s *- CA f/i CA ox -o - u a R T\" 0.) 4^ o H M L* B B 4\u0026gt; V u E  a a a fl - a ti c/:) CA a a B a 4^ -a B O a 3 o Q. E \u0026gt; .! o O B O I a 2 'W fl a 4^ l/i CA a 2 T \"O Si \" I-  o  o a Ba \u0026lt;3 .3 CA .2 a 3 CO .2 *a a co f/i a a 3 CA a a __ a B a u s -a B O CA V) 4^ fl C \u0026lt; a B u a fits o S 2 .s CA B  2 .2 a o a CA ( fl  - B a a B \u0026gt; E  4) X3 4\u0026gt; J3 4\u0026gt; ja .o .o ,o a 'ox a B \u0026lt;/) V3 4\u0026gt; U 3 O 4) CA 4\u0026gt; o 3 O f/i 4\u0026gt; a s s \u0026lt; a B CA u a  o '* Vi 3 _ 2 .2 a o V W V) 3 a *a  a vs a ox a a B a S B \u0026lt; . O ... o a  M I fl  5 * 2 B H w 3 a a E 'a a \u0026amp; ti CA a  ox -fi S s 2^ o a a a \u0026gt;  \u0026gt; a a   ja OJ'-S 2 fl u o a I-] 3 2 3 3 a 2 3 3 \u0026lt;M I  'J ca  .s u 3 u a\u0026gt; V R \u0026gt; E  1) a \u0026gt; .u \u0026gt; a V U aij 4^ a u B 4\u0026gt; \u0026lt;*) 4\u0026gt; -a B B B a a 2 2 a a 4\u0026gt; B 3 S 4^ a o B 4\u0026gt; \u0026lt;*) 4^ B  0 2  R ** \u0026gt; V3 tS ua a\u0026gt; .s M .. 0) \"2 4\u0026gt; 4\u0026gt; ,4\u0026gt; CA a\u0026gt; 4S S CA OX) -o -- a B B T- O \u0026gt;) a 3 B ti V) CA - 0^ o  fl a o B .S ox .5 b i a B E-i w B fl a a a 2 g a U co CA 4\u0026gt; a u B 4\u0026gt; 4\u0026gt; -a B \u0026lt;u O O o  h -^ s 5? a V3 CA  7 TJ u a 2 U 4 o a \u0026lt;S .S .2 -a 3 'W CC .2 a o f/i a cn a 3 -a B U-0 w 4\u0026gt; a u B 4^ o CA 3 a a E a  B. ti V) a OX 3 a a E a  . O. ti M a \u0026amp; g Si \u0026gt;  \u0026gt; U 3  s c:  2 o R R X3 o a J h \"S .a J= 2 w B o 2^ o a 8 \" I a  B \u0026lt; . B Si 'r a 0) OX V) 4) \u0026gt; \u0026gt;. -w B V M -- CA 4\u0026gt; a B 4) a a B B 2 ** B o 2^  8  * I a V 3 \"O a a 0) OX g a a ! 1 4\u0026gt; T3 E-I M CA ^.2 B B 2 B - o a 2 ja 4.\u0026gt; B 3 S (/i 4\u0026gt; a w B 4\u0026gt; a a B  O \u0026gt;) a .S S o S S ^a \u0026gt; .! o fi. 4^ T T? r *\" f-i w L* B -w fl a a a fl a a a a fl - a ti Vi 4\u0026gt; ja Q B 4) a a B   \u0026lt;2 .2 .2 3 55 S *S a co 2 -S V S o -o B f/i B u -g JB U B 4\u0026gt; Q ** O CA o MO3 4) 3 O' o Qi 4\u0026gt; E H CM \u0026gt;\u0026gt; a 3 X CM \u0026gt;% a 3 c/i \u0026gt;\u0026gt; a 3 V3 \u0026gt; a 3 CM \u0026gt;\u0026gt; a 3 a 3 a   -o a a C -3 N V3 \u0026gt; a 3 CM w s/1 a a P  = S CM O) 3 CM T CM 3 'x a 3 CM \u0026gt;\u0026gt; a 3 CM 3 4^ a O E 4^ a. \u0026lt; B R X3 4) a o X3 CM O Sd 4^ w a 4) 43 fl a a u .2 S \" o- r \"1 (J CM O s 4^ \u0026gt;   ^a u 4\u0026gt; a W V) 4\u0026gt; u O S.2 (/i (/i 4\u0026gt; 4\u0026gt; E o 2  S . CM 4\u0026gt; U 3 O CM 4) E 3 3 O 4\u0026gt; 4a c2 CM 4) U 3 O CM 4^ E 3 3 U o a CM u 4\u0026gt; a-3 2 a M E .2 a o   4- a V 'E 4\u0026gt; a 4\u0026gt; E 4\u0026gt; 3 4\u0026gt; CM 4\u0026gt; U U a o o o O \u0026gt; u o ja a 4\u0026gt; \u0026gt; Q 1/3 R BC .S B. V) 4) 3 V) *O .2  -22 u .2^4) 5 -fl a a a .S x) ..s \" SV) rt r fl 4\u0026gt; o 3 O CM 4^ CM Q u \u0026lt;w 4\u0026gt; 3 U o a CM X3 \u0026lt;u OX = s ** a c 2^ Q 4^ a   t S V 3 \"fl a a 3 E *s Q. 'U 43 \u0026gt; - a S a o V XI  2 fl a fl ua o Q Q .- (V \"S 0 J3 3 \u0026lt; -fl 2 ** a fl 4\u0026gt; H M t-C a a 0^ CM OX) g a fl OX) a \u0026gt; o (J a E 4^ E ja u \u0026lt;-i 4\u0026gt; a V3 4 X u a 4^ m 4) \"O a u 4^ A U a 4^ 3 a  c \u0026gt;4 B _ S? .r. fl     c  U 4) O -C E 3 3 Q  3 CM U Q 0 4\u0026gt; a \"O a \u0026gt;\u0026gt; 3 3 O S a a  .5 fl 5 c w a 4\u0026gt;  S fl F- ' B E *\nCM a a Q 3 U E 4\u0026gt; V) 3 OX) .a a 'fl 2 \"b H M L- a w B 4^ 4^ Zi E a  4\u0026gt; 4) \u0026gt;3 1 a U o X (J a 4\u0026gt; 4\u0026gt; 3 a o 4\u0026gt; 2 -fl O. ' ' E \u0026gt; J o fl .2 3 a 'W fj fl. X 4\u0026gt; E c o a ^2 *-w a a o E 4\u0026gt; \"S- E ,o OX) .2 *S *a CM CM a U 4a CM 1  S M - a 5 fl Q. XT .3 *^*3 3 OX) S u fl 5r fl f\" C \u0026gt; \"a do X w** E o o 't** S u fl \u0026gt; OX) Vi \u0026amp;( 4\u0026gt; O .S o  o y o OJD o eu CM O ja u J3 O \" U o 4\u0026gt; W)  a a. .3 o 7 \"fl a-  .S .2 3 3 .2 S o Oi CM 2 IX) (A V 3 Q\u0026gt; 3 a CM a  -3 ua a 4^ o ** c CM T3 I 5 - .\"E 5 ? E E s - R H E 5 Q a J B .s R 2  a u a * R \"     h 5 - \"o T a F -a ati S 4 \"O R a't\" o a 2 a u a B H mu ft. u a E a a o .2 *CM a 23 00 a W 4\u0026gt; ja 'O ^a -C a 4\u0026gt; 4\u0026gt; 0^ a o JS u ZT) 4) 3 3  QQ I 'O va V3 4\u0026gt; 0^ 3 a o a OX) 4^ \u0026lt; i/i B B a a 4^ 5 -a O w o a 4^ s ri u fl E CA V) 4^ \"O a -w Q a m U ja R u s 'Sb a a o OX) 4a fl 2 4a U -2  B C O a 4) CM o (A /iK -fl MO y CM a 4) -5 O a X3 CM U \"oi) fl 4) ua .2 \"El S 'fl fl \u0026gt;fl CM td y 4^ 3 au 2 \u0026lt; R lU-3  3 O'  4\u0026gt; E H \u0026gt; fl 3 3 fl BL (A 4^ Q o *a H a 4 s 4\u0026gt; E 3 3 no V u 3 \u0026gt; S  U .S U fl  E (A 4\u0026gt; (A M \u0026lt; r\u0026lt; O I O 'C fl 3 JH a .2  OX) fl Ca^ \u0026lt;Z) fl fA .o \u0026gt; fl T5  I \u0026gt; fl S OX S .S 3 CO \u0026gt; fl 3  -C .o u S O (A  E 3 3 tJ 3 Q Q E u - a  a a \"a 3 -3 fl fl CZ)  O a. (Z) fl 3 (M CA \u0026gt;\u0026gt; fl 3 n V) 4\u0026gt; fl 3 \u0026lt; fl Vi U 4^ ^3 i: 3 O *\nV3 U .o 3 OX) .E  L CZ} s  a -w n h-l u ox .5 3 62 ^B fl ! fl M S .2 u a  4^ -  J a B g \u0026gt; s u  lU \u0026gt; V)  Q fl \u0026gt;\u0026gt; fl 3 a tA w '5d a -2 gj 3 g M o a  (A 3 3 OX) cr a  B ja 3 3   -M \u0026gt;  B  *3 *- 4J 3 fl 4Z s v u a .5  t=\n-a ft- Q\u0026lt; v O \u0026gt; ua (Z3 4^ \u0026gt; 3 - fj a fl - .E ^25   \u0026gt; o fl 4\u0026gt; U fl o o ja u fl 3 43 a .2 u 43 I  fl (A  4\u0026gt; 3 .B a .2 OX fl Cs^  fl  \u0026gt; o o o -- - OX) Jl\u0026gt;  ki* \" ka  B OX) fl fl fl 3 fl 3 ( a 0 o a 3 V 43 3 J3 'a  CT u a -w   - \u0026gt;. . a M M t a u (/i u fl fl 'W Q fl cx^ o 4\u0026gt;  .2 u ex 5 .fl a iZ u **  fl 3 U 33 .\u0026lt;s e - a. -w .2  s \"IS w  flw43 M ja 4^ OX) \u0026lt;/3 j a .S 5s S s 0^ *2 -C 0) fl V) S S jMfc a -w J\" fl (N \\O 3 fl B  (/i O o 3 3 a  3 3 o o OX)  V)  3 u 4Z OX) u fl s T _  **  * u fl .2 3 M^XpauMM a *T fl f\" .S .S 'fl 4Z^ Q a B fl S 5 g a' fl V \u0026gt; -5! SJ -w fl  fl o Q.-a  'o ka^33fl^aZ H mU a\u0026lt; U K bcH o a o fl OJ o lA i: -fi 3. *\nE \u0026gt; .i o a r 3  \u0026lt;2 .5  V5  fl u  fl fl  M fl U O u \"O fl a a y \u0026lt; (/} fl  2 \u0026lt;Z3 OX) fl ft- C \u0026lt; u  -. A \"B ft\u0026lt; ^-  3 u -O eui \u0026lt; n, (Z)  o u fl 3 B 3  fl  u .fl fM 4Z i-f 43 \\o cz\u0026gt; 4.\u0026gt; fl o 0 fl 3 4\u0026gt; fl  k. fl U .2 Q W3 (Z9 .M 3 3 -w CZ3 .2 '3 o CZ5 (Z) .M -o (/i O 3 a  fl fl .2 U o V5 .fl (J fl  fl \"    -3 , o -3 s  -w u a g 3 W =  J  - -S 5 O \"   fl 3 3  w r O H W r4 u fl i/i u 8 s u (A  s 3 - H S ft-  CU \u0026lt; 3  - -2 B = -2 5 -So a wi g g \"  I   -   * fl cc  V3 3 fl X3 a 3 Aj c W s . .2 43 ft, a 2 a g  ^ S  S fl 4^ K  CO 3 O u E e9 \"O 4^ 3 O' V v E \u0026gt;\u0026gt; B \"B \u0026gt;\u0026gt; 5 *-   a E  Qi va ^S  3 T3 a \u0026gt;\u0026gt; B -3 \u0026gt;\u0026gt; a -o 9D fl O a  vi Q  Q  H  43 \u0026gt;\u0026gt; B 3 (za 3 CU  E  Ct in B 3 V \u0026lt;U B fl n V3 \u0026gt;\u0026gt; B \"O \u0026gt;* B - 3  43 s E 3 3   (J B 43 OX) s u .a 'o B a\u0026gt; 2 va  A  B  va U O -w B 3 fl   ya  \u0026gt; a a Q (Z5 V J3 43 'W B E .S OX) B E    CQ E 3 3  3 u va fl .2 (/i \u0026lt;X w '^   \u0026lt;za *3 w 3  2  (3 E o B U va  CQ  OX) B 3 OX) fl B fl .2f *  Cbi  va w fl  fl  Qi E o U a\u0026gt; u  B CU  CQ a M 52 OX) W Q I 2 1-5  g S r  J *- OJD 3  M {S \u0026gt;g  B 3 12  B \u0026gt; 2 o E o Ct B S \u0026amp;.S E o ,o 3  \u0026lt;U \"O  2S E O (za . 3  za * '^  B B 43  B cza cza  3 -g \u0026lt; (41 (za O  E  \u0026gt; o .2  B O Ui g J3 .2f B s 43 cK (A cza  \"fl B OX)  43 u B  \u0026lt; B E  -fl w B E  43 3 -fl     pfl  c/i 43 .Sf Ifl  B CU O fl  2 =3 B OX) B B E 4\u0026gt; .o   .C OX) ,a b  CQ \u0026gt;\u0026gt;  a  3 -O a ua 3 0^  c/:)  B cu l-J *0 in -w a V a o a. E o U (e w B B (za i^ fl  -o 3 \u0026amp;  *3 *B fl (za I. 3 B -S a-   B in Ji 2 4 \"O O \"O B \u0026gt; 3 u O .a i .B ja .f\u0026gt;  ffi S * B  (N o Cs B E  cza  43   ^ _ _ S -O  B -w  B ** o E va  3 (za u  43  B  -B 3 .2 va  B \" va -  a E -  o B a BLi o   'Sa cza 3 V9 Qi   ^ c 2 B a ya g \u0026lt; b (Z) 9 a\u0026gt; 43 .a  fl  'W B \u0026gt; ja ?  B  \u0026gt; OX) .2 va 3 E   (A va B \"  43 ** o \u0026gt; 5 \"O (2 A \u0026lt;u r JS a\u0026gt; M Cd e B Q  v i\u0026gt;   S H B S  o -  1-1 g in 3 B -S b  B B \"O 3 B S B .12 =  O \" P o Bi - o S- I- M za w A J3  U S 1_ rt 1 **  43 ox 4^ O B u  s Su u iO Vi  JS  u a\u0026gt; o o J3 o OX) J3 a\u0026gt; O u \u0026amp; o 3 Si .2 E S I-  H  u H  \u0026gt; tb va  fj fl o E  \u0026gt;  * S A\u0026gt; .B U a u  -a S B H OJ .2 \"B B O \u0026gt;  s CU M r\u0026lt;a O  o Ct .S \u0026amp;JD b- va va va B u va   fl  E  va B B  E   ~   s-s   ^ J Q  u = 1 cu fl o B cu \u0026gt; fl OX)  \"S B 43   H \u0026lt; \u0026lt; \u0026lt; \u0026lt; r U a u n i B  \u0026gt;-a  ) s 3 3 O'  Qj  E H a \u0026gt; a a xT* a V) 3  \u0026gt;\u0026gt;  4= J3 M S OX) O E S fl u u -*  a Q ft 3  \u0026gt;\u0026gt; a a a a CM a -a cn ja u a  \u0026gt; a a .a a  O' E CM \u0026gt;\u0026gt; a -a CM a ja a  a a -w M   M . fl   E   o a , *a a    Q a CM a Q a  a  E CM CM  t/3 (A a a a a CM V3 a OJD ^B a  ja .2 'O o - O) 69 \"o 2 a a \u0026lt; ^  ^ U -s ts Q w .a fl aa   2 S .-S 4\u0026gt; C *\u0026gt; u ua  S - OS 0  ft O H a ,2 *- a a w   riJ O X3 \u0026lt; a*   5 Q a 'ox B  o ts 69  a CM \u0026gt;M \"a M a a Qj a ' 'L 2 fl S s .-s -fl  o* a a CM a 12  t_ u ja 2 -fl  - *- \u0026lt;  5 S 2 (A a u v \u0026gt; \"S  .2 3 CS -a \" -3  a a a fl ri is V3 (5 S \u0026lt; V) a  \u0026gt; E a's v \u0026amp; ? UD V es a \"O a a a 4\u0026gt; a a \"Q  ri a E Vi 'W  M  ft a  a a G. a  \"O  00 \"O a a   \u0026gt; e   w a  a  a U w .a a -a cn \u0026amp; o A o CM \u0026gt; a a c\u0026lt;^   a  \u0026gt;\u0026gt; a U o .a Vi \u0026gt; a -a CM a   Sd m P 4 a *- S *5 M ft .S M 3 O o CM V3 a  S 2 .2 M.2 .S \u0026gt; fe a .2 ja  t a  a *- \"7 fl 3 CM ft 8 3 2 O n\" 9i := .-o 2 -a  -K a \"fl s ' R \u0026lt;  .s  V) Q \u0026lt; 2 H O .2 o (/3 r*  ft w O s U o ft  \"a ua B ** a a CM \u0026amp; s a S TS a o a 5  H Q,  o Ck a  2 ft 2 fl Q Ck a 3 \u0026lt; ft o C co a  a   ii 2  \" 3 a V eu  ft o o   t-C \u0026lt; w  G. I  ST dj w h \u0026gt; E* a a a a a Vi a Q  CM  a  (/i  a a ,2 *-w 3 a .S ox .S 's a VS a J a riiJ )S U r \u0026gt;  o  a OX ,a *V3 3 CM  a OX) ,a (/3 3 2 w ja   a a a. s I o a a  .2 3 t: *- a a v E u M a *a 4^ a VI u 2  a  fi H 4^ \u0026gt; (/3  M a 2 . |s 2 fl c  u w 4\u0026gt; 3 -3 aSri U S 3 4)  cm CM ** 2 \u0026lt; 2 -o Ori 3 W  CM  a  E  8 u 3 \u0026gt; a E a V 2 ft 5 E  a   fl ft u \u0026lt; u I  a \u0026lt; a a E S V E J3  a 5 S CM  X  a   04 \u0026lt;s a  a ac u  a Vi u  JS  a a 2 fM a  a 0  a u  A  a a  2 6S .a riri a. riri 4\u0026gt; a -a a a 3 a \u0026gt; a M u 5 -ft o 1 \u0026amp; E .S .Q C3 w .\nCA 0^  u *3 (M 3 u  2 U 3  us  *0X1  w a M a a ,2 *a  3 CZ) B V3  a ox .S *VJ 3 - .S-5 V) \u0026lt;Z5 J  a 43 U ox 2 fl a  8  3 \u0026gt; a *- a  ja 3 ri M 2 2 3 I ft o   o   - .* ft U H a a   E a    .3  U tn a  a ox  a u  X  a B a 2 a  t fl a-s a  o ua U  *-  CM M 3 E    L* J f 1 u  u  a a  9^ .2 a  B OX M B V5 *2  B V3 U 2 fl a  a   E -fl a *- a S 8  .2 S \u0026gt;\u0026gt; r-g^ ft a a CM  CM  o a  E  a o a \u0026lt; .1 V 3 \u0026gt; a \"W E a Lri 41 .o a. t: o S o 0- U .2 \"a 3 w .s ' a co \u0026lt; a (/)  .2 I- T) a a f ii __ \"O .2 CM  ja  a Vi  ja  a  .J  Bq*- 2 CM  a a O \u0026lt;S CM V) L-g a a E Q  E A  a 5 S V)    a   -a a o CM3 3 3 3 3 06 E H  3 a 3 \u0026gt; M Ba O o 3 \u0026gt; a 3 ro CA \u0026gt; a 3 \u0026lt;*) ua 3 a 3 \u0026gt;  a O 3 \u0026gt; a 3 n CA 3 a ,3 M Q A 3 Q 4\u0026gt; Q OX) ^a K 3 a 4a 3 a 3 \u0026gt;\u0026gt; a a .2 CA \u0026gt; a 3 f*) a. 3 a 3 \u0026gt;\u0026gt; a 3 4a 3 a 3 \u0026gt; a o .a a. o 4a 3 C9 3 \u0026gt; :? a a\u0026lt; O o \u0026gt; a 3 vs \u0026gt; a 3 vs \u0026gt; a 3 vs \u0026gt; a 3 \u0026lt;*) 4a M fia 'W 3 a 3 S.S 5 3 OXI at .2 .\"o o o S' Q. E .S \"o s .O V3 CA vs 3 .2 3 ua 3 'ei 3 M a a a o Q 3 (A 3 -a 3 CA 3 .a 3 A B. w at a -e a \u0026gt; a S Ig OX) at .s  m '\u0026gt; 2 a S' O. a\u0026gt; ja ,o CA 3 *0X1 3 -M a CA u vs u 43 a* O. at B \"O a .2 5 B 03 OX) at .E \"O \u0026gt; \u0026gt; a 5 o o ja .o \u0026amp; 3 a 2  a u o 3 S' o-  3 a * a La a E-a . B \"O , a o v OXI a 5 a ex a a ,O OX ,a *5 a 3 s y CA B vs 3 3 a vs La 2 a a 3 OX) ^a vs 3 a 9 A CA V3 3 3 Cm Cm vs 3 3 3 f/i 3 .2 0^ 03 B 4^ CA ., S '-I *5 \"S S  s o M5 U E o CA H '* ! M _ U B 4a ex 2  3 A at S at a \u0026gt; o ua a 'W E 2 .2 S S a a ,P Gg 2  3 3 a\u0026gt; -  C4 U H ^3 3 H a M a 3 3 3 E g at -B u u a CA t a O.-5 \u0026amp; 4^ U J3 u  *- 3 CA cM a E '2 3 3 3 B i: a S 43 E 3 ua CA 3 .a 3 a 3 3 3 a a 4\u0026gt; \u0026gt; rq B ti S ti 3 3 3 9 a 3  .2 a ts w A a 3 E M a CA 3 3 a CA La CA a a 3 a at .r. E s V 'a 43 va  = -s 2  S Q \u0026lt; Ib W a vs La bX 2 a a 3 U (A a M b B a-S a. 4\u0026gt; u ja *3 \u0026gt; a u a U g  .2 S \u0026gt;3 \u0026gt;22 K A a VS vs 4^ CA CA 4\u0026gt; a 3 E 3 o 3 B \u0026gt; a -w S a 2 a 2 A 3 3 3 U y a a 'S E a ox a U 3 *- 3 vs cM a^ B E 2 o 4\u0026gt; 4\u0026gt; B h g s 4a s Sc: M (m VS 4^ Q 4^ o a O B -a  A 5 B u 3 B \u0026gt; \"o a \u0026lt; 2 o at O Bt U S: 2 r al U X B a r2 t Bu U H J! o .2  \u0026gt;\u0026gt; K A a CA CA vs 4^ 2- 3 E E a 3 a CA a M eM .X 3 5 I 2 CA 3  3 a 4a CA La ej[ 2 B s a 3 - g at a \u0026gt; a w U M a M U CQ ej o xa ,a a 4) u u 43 U o ** 3 CA Cm O E.m 4) a td CA Cm CA - 4\u0026gt; u o o a a .2 cn o 2  \u0026lt; E u at 2 o- u a 5 o 04 U ii M w E 2 s i \" 2 2 5-u at o at CLt U H a a 4\n3 4a E si  o 3 2 \u0026gt;S-g V \u0026gt;1 K A vs vs 4.) 3 E 3 2 a \u0026lt; E f/i .2 3 3 M CO .2 *3 3 co \u0026lt; U S A E a   3 E 43 \u0026lt;u a 5 S a w a 3 3 9 Sa 3 3 M 3 ti CO vs ^3 3 3 w CO .2 *3 3 CO 3 \u0026gt; \u0026gt;1 a a .M W w a 3 U 2  U -] vs 2 3 05 v a V 3 a 4a _ 3 ea a 0 -S S O vs a 3 E E 3 .a a a 3 a (J 4\u0026gt; a E g 3 .M \"\" 3 ti CO .M 3 3 M .2 3 3 3 \u0026gt; u \u0026gt;s 3 a at ti ti 4\u0026gt; U a 4^ (M 3 3 a e\u0026gt; yi 4\u0026gt; A U a 4^ \u0026lt;s 3 3 a VS 3 ja u a 4^ es o *3 a o \u0026lt;s f/i 3 M 0) 3 4^ -3 a 4a __ fj a B o s n O vs u 3 ja 3 a 3 \u0026lt;*) 4\u0026gt; *3 a o \u0026lt;s 3 ja 3 a 3 4\u0026gt; 3 a CA 3 4a 3 a 3 M 9 3 a  r4 vs .2 fO 3 3 -3 a CA O -3 y\u0026gt; 3 ja 3 a 3 CA 3 ja a 3 o vs 3 3 a u n73 o 3 3 o o E H 45 O a o a .a 45 O a o \u0026gt;\u0026gt; a a. o T3 .Si Ct o \u0026gt;\u0026gt; a 3 M \u0026gt;\u0026gt; a *3 45 O a o \u0026gt; a 45 O a o JS V3 o .a a o a o M a 3 (A \u0026gt; a *3 \u0026lt;*) M \u0026gt;\u0026gt; a \"3 \u0026lt;S M o M O 45 3 a o M o Q ex ^a M 3 a o 45 3 ex) .a m 3 a E at .S *! V .fl M M a a 0^ u V a \u0026gt; a E a ta O 2 a o o o - U M L-s a a O E S o E 4a o a s s M o 45 O 45 O a o o 3 a O a o \u0026gt; \u0026lt;s .ex fl ex - fl M M ' -S.a ft O o (/3 \u0026gt; a 3 \u0026lt;*) a 3 \u0026gt;\u0026gt; a 3 fl E 0 .2 Em M M 3 o Vi a. a 3 ^5^\no M a 3 XN ca' ,fi \u0026gt; a 3 s 3 a I \u0026gt; a J3 'W ex w O fl 3 O I \"o .S g ex \u0026lt;u .E -a 2 o S- s. E .S  a n M M M O o *3 .M fc S -g t = ^3 5 fl 3 O M u a a M i: fl o 4a .o V3 *ex o -w a M M o M O 45 a o fl 3 a .E  a ex u .S -a 2 o Oi .S J - a n 3 L. .S 2 W .* 3 u \u0026gt; M  ,a  3 3 s- O. V 3 J3 S i: -5 a a o a o T s \u0026gt; =? a *'C E a ex a  \" 2 \u0026lt;2 g\u0026lt; o S 0) 3 u SU U H a w fl o o E g O .fl o U 05 Vi o o a o o -O a u a-n a o b O O J3 a U u o *- O M Oa 5? fl E Z a o fl o o o o ua E 5: O \u0026gt; 2 \"S' K a M 3 w 05 .s *0 3 (7) M o o u a v \u0026gt;\u0026gt; M o o E o 3 M M o rr -3 V 3 73 a 51 M o 4a o a o o -w O M rM ex) .S *M 3 ex .S M 3 \"O . 3 .0 a M M M o .9 a o a E at  .S *: F M ta 2 fl a o u V 3 \u0026gt; a 'W E a 2 a \u0026lt; S I\"  2 ft U O S o SU U O \u0026gt; M a a u a 3 9 9 o a o E E o .a (13 i_l o a ss 3 .r. 3 ex K 3 S 3 43 *3 .M Za 3 5 I 2 a V) ex 2 fl 3 a o - s  a \u0026gt; a 'W E a O M a M fl fl-S o 4a ex a a \" 2 2 Su ^23 V O e\u0026gt; SU U H a 3 O o o s g -S U co a o a *0 a MO.: M o 3 (/3 M V} w .M H .2 U .2 \"O  \"fl n o \"W -o a o 3 .-o Em M JT H 11  5 O 3 o o 'S o a o o ja U 0 *- O M Oa a^ fl E Z o o o fl h g S 2 \" E:: S! o fli ?\nB S fl 5 a w 3 a E\u0026gt;  M o E o a -  3 E s\nM a J _ fl ex S o o ** .2 u 3 M fi. 0 M 4^ o 45 \"ex fl tE] o 45 ex) a \" ft a \u0026amp; o o y 0 .E o S -ft s O ~ U ^ = 5 Li rtJ M o O *0 o ex M a a a c o VO VO - .2 3 S \u0026gt; 'S \"O K a 3 M Is - S 5 ? E s a -3 3 H S 2 3 a a ex .S .E o M .Sa \"3 3 O) .S o o CZ5 o o 45 o O) o 3 3  ox .E 3 o -C o\u0026lt; fl C 0! fl o E M M O M M o ex st^ s I E -S a 2 ! -S M O ja o a o M o 45 o a o M O 45 O a o Vi O m \"3 O 3 o 73 a 73 a o 3 a -o a M 51 M o .a o a o 00 I VO M (/3 O *- M u O o 3 45 a o ta a ex o ja 'o y M a o -3 M 1-H afl I o VO a 73 a 4a M o o  g-H 45 I O VO a o o o M \u0026lt; O w a \u0026lt;s fS rs \"O 4a fl .2 rq O o ex a 3 45 fl .2\"O 4\u0026gt; 3  06 4\u0026gt; E H 69 -o o ja ,o V3 O U 3 O (A o \u0026gt;\u0026gt; a 3 -5 -o \u0026gt;\u0026gt; 69 o O ua (A o 3 O (A 4) fl .2 *'W a E 3 3 U w i/) 4^ Q 3 U u  *E a a 2 a  -s ja e9 S ir a Ci.  V3 ja S? a c9 -fl N \u0026gt;\u0026gt; 69 -o 4a w fl. 4) fl \"fl 3 .S 3 3 a 0 u .s  2 o \u0026gt;\u0026gt; fl fl \u0026gt; fl o CO Qi CL\u0026lt; H fl o \u0026gt;\u0026gt; 69 \"fl OXI s 4\u0026gt; 4a *s a 1 g c fl 'fl E 3 3 U s u U  tS e\u0026gt;j 2 W o fi o 2 o  Sb5 o 2 = ^ 0 o o Maa S  'a _ o u u *3 fit S T a -7  IM  =\u0026gt; a n a a u 5 o a 4\u0026gt; -w o 4a F* mU S .w *5. o E-I V3 2 c? a a g \"  a g  co U 2* S. 2t. , a .o a fl .2 u 3 u s fl a \u0026gt; 2 a E S Ci. 4? U \u0026amp; .S u Im VI a\u0026gt; \"\u0026gt; - .2 W eM _ S -g t 3^ I 2 U M u B .,. a  T- 69 . i: a a-s Ja 2  a 2 *3 * 0 2 .5 5  *fl 5 O 4) U ** \u0026gt; Si 9^ *- a .E T a = a i  XI a  5 a j_ ? a a\u0026gt; -w O 0^ H mU H fl T3 fl O 4) B u .2 o u fl OJD B Q. - u J3 u o *- O V3 .M 3^ a E.M B o o a i: 0^ ja s S!  .2 I u  CB a fl \u0026lt;fl 4\u0026gt; Qtf \"fl fl fl OXI fl  \u0026gt;\u0026gt; .2 (va s \u0026gt; 4\u0026gt; C^ tf3 fl o U) fl 3 u fl fl fl .2? 'S o Exm OXI ^fl *fl 4^ Qii o 4a I -w a h SO) ja V3 a _ _ \"2  69 -w 4) U fl *- u U E (S 4\u0026gt; i\"( 4a SO (A O Q fl Q \"fl 4\u0026gt; 69 U fl U .2 U 69 4\u0026gt; \u0026gt; (A \u0026gt;\u0026gt; 69 T3 (S o 0) o S 73 .f 2 a 'C CLi W5 a -\u0026lt;j fl V) 4a tS .2 a oe Q .fl hi*l WAI ii o a 2  M 5 r S o O 4\u0026gt; O M  ** .S E3 S? \"3 \u0026gt; fl \"O Q u Q fl SLi 3 O ja 'C M .2 -S 3 w CO .S 'o o co fl .2 *-w Q 3 a .2 *-w U 3 \u0026lt;s .2  \"fl so c/s 3  ?? ts - \"a a U o wi \u0026lt;S B fl fl .2 ja u 69 4^ u **  J 69 U V) a\u0026gt; lu a 2 2 S U S o fl *a - o U o iM V ' a M 2 'a M a 5 *a u s\nM\"g 2  S a a r^ B O) \u0026gt; * J * ?? S a_  \u0026lt;S UI 4\u0026gt; CQ \u0026gt; u fl o E 4) E o o o -a * u V3 0) ja E o\u0026lt;.E s o fl a\u0026gt; o -O o  S u V) O 3 o  fl fl M iQ 4\u0026gt; 4\u0026gt; w r o Vi E Y \u0026lt;.1 o \"O o  -o \u0026lt; iZi a M a i\nu o A M 5 cK M 4^ V o ifl a y U) \u0026lt; r\u0026lt; a o fj B o B o  \"O B O B B 69  a. 4\u0026gt; 69 CL. Q a\u0026gt; W E w 3 S a E -a o H n R cu u a\u0026gt; \"O 5 o u fl fl (A o Q. 69 a S  S 4\u0026gt; fl O 69 B o 4) o tf) fl 4) fl O o. E o 4\u0026gt; 4a\n V) 69 73 4\u0026gt; 4a B .fl  0^ 'sO a )2 a S a cr 3 B s E  fl -a M Si Clm \u0026lt; a V \u0026lt; 69 X o OXI fl  M V3 \u0026gt; 4\u0026gt; Di o a cu ox ^H *3 9.\u0026gt; U fl s fl E fl 4\u0026gt; \u0026gt; Si a ,2 \u0026lt; eu -o 4) V3 Q S O u Su a 2 1^ S \u0026lt; u 69 S 4\u0026gt; ja u 69 4\u0026gt; OS C4 u fl V CQ \u0026lt;s 4\u0026gt; 7 J3 6 y V5 o T3 69 O 4a a :2 ox o \"o fl .fl o 4) \u0026lt; r h U a a r\u0026lt; \u0026lt;*)o  3 3  Qj  E H fl 3 CA fl 3 n (/S fl 3 (/i fl 3 S.N CA \u0026gt;\u0026gt; fl 3 \u0026gt;\u0026gt; fl -o CA \u0026gt; fl 3 fS CA \u0026gt;\u0026gt; fl 3 xT* fl 3 fl *3 fl 3 rs \u0026gt; fl 3 xT* fl 3 SN \u0026gt;% fl 3  x: .O CA  '3d  fl fl . tf3  3 3 fl fl  .2 a   Q .fl   0\u0026lt; .a IE fl  \u0026lt; h-] I   3 CA fl Z.\u0026lt;  43 a. M  B 3  I * .s a 2 ts = 00 o .S -o o P  a- Q, S X) a  . .2 3d  M fl CA 43 M \u0026amp;  a 3  I -o fl I A 00 o .S -s  43  3d  M fl 43 M \u0026amp; M  B 3  I .E Ss   *  I V \u0026gt; o .fl 01 .5 .'s fl J a U % EaJ Cm * k o 4^ o S fl   .2 a. 3 I   tbi B t\n** fl fl E  43 fl E .fl .fl ^fl fl ,o fl fl o M  3 V) Ii S 5, E CA CA  CA CA  u fl  E 2 \u0026lt; e fl  fl  u . *\u0026amp; Q H 0\u0026lt; .B la fl H I  U \u0026lt; I  \u0026lt; V3  43 \u0026lt;  43  fl  5^ \nu fl  W fl 00  o  X  fl fl S 2 fl  \u0026gt; f*) t/i fl fl E a Z7 Q  E ja  fl 5S fl  CA fl fli W\u0026gt; d  \"3  fl a S 2  B .2  (/i .S 00 .B ^E fl fl  fl  U t* fl M a     .M \"*  w fl  V) fl 00  \"O  Ji  fl a S 2 00 CJ a \"S ri fl fl  2- 5- E fl fl fl  \"o   3 a C9 . fl E  JH fl E .E 00 .E 'e fl fl E  xa M fl E fl 00 .a '5 w CA o CA .2 2 9 73 * u s  Vi fl  t a a.-s  fl fii  u J3 u  *- O CA CM fl a E 3 fl  a    xa a S: gj O fli T. fl J a % U   o fl fl a CA  CA CA M a\u0026gt;    fl .  .a 00 .2 ^E fl ) .2 2 S \" M CA  fl  fl t  cu-r fl.  U JS u o *- O V3 Cm W a  S\u0026gt;M 4)  .2 5  T3 CC fl 3 M  fl  E 2 a \u0026lt; s fl  w fl O U fl  w fl  u a h a  43 E V3 a J a (/i CA ( y  o fl fl  .5  -a tl M CQ   fl .2 * .s 00 .fl\ne fl M   .2 . \u0026gt;o 3 V3 u 9 fl i:  a  u ja u o ** O CA Cm a a E r a    00 o .2 5 M 03 .2  o 03 w CA B '    CA ox 5   izi =  43  fl  fl .2  fl  w  o fl b-c a a E E A  fl w S fl 'M fl    E g  .2  M cn  .fl  fl   .fl  fl   -o fl  -o fl S\no .2  i* K fl s  CA  fl  E 2 a \u0026lt; S fl  M fl  u fl  M fl  u a  .a  -H a:: S!  .2 S \u0026gt; \"S = A fl Vi M .2 -3 3 M 03 .2  03 \u0026lt; fl fl E a ZT  E ja  fl s s fl M fl    E fl \"   .M  1^ 03 .2 3 3 M 05 2 * o 03 V) .2 3 M  s  \"2 c -fi * fl  O.\n\u0026lt;*) fl  03  43  fl   43  fl  u  43  fl  V3 \u0026lt;M 3   s   \" fl  -o fl  o fl \"S -E fl  fl o  fl   cn  -w-o 4.\u0026gt; 3 C 4\u0026gt; 4\u0026gt; E H vs \u0026gt;\u0026gt; fl 3 CM CA fl 3 (A fl *0 xT* \u0026gt;\u0026gt; fl 3 \u0026gt; fl \"3 fS VS fl 3 vs \u0026gt; fl xT* \u0026gt; fl 3 vs \u0026gt; fl TS CM CA \u0026gt;\u0026gt; fl -3 XM fl T3 \u0026gt; fl -o 4^ X] P  53d  w fl CA fl ^2 5 a fl U .2 JS \u0026amp; -S *? 4\u0026gt; (A 4\u0026gt; Q 3 u ** \u0026gt; VS ,C u a U CA Cm V) - Q U 4) o fl a .2 K a 5 a fl E 4^ ja fl E .S on .S ^8 fl 4^ U a .2 3 vs .s 00 ,3 'a fl f/) vs 4\u0026gt; 4\u0026gt; E 4\u0026gt; 2 a \u0026lt; s 3 4\u0026gt; 8 O U fl 4^ fl a U ^ fl ^3 4\u0026gt; \u0026gt; u fl  u 3 U f/i 3 X3 4\u0026gt; 43 Q fl 4\u0026gt; \u0026lt;*) *3 fl o vs a a 8 4\u0026gt; E E 4\u0026gt; JS 0^ fl vs V J3 U fl 4) rn 4\u0026gt; 3 fl o t* fl fl 4i\u0026gt; a\u0026gt; u E ' \"   .. fl 4^ \" u U CA 4^ 43 u fl 4^ 4\u0026gt; \"3 fl  fl \u0026gt; fn *) 43 a -w  3 *3  I \"o S I an 4) .E XJ 2 o E .5 \"O a .0 03 A VS  .2 a\u0026gt; \u0026lt;B -w .y w s  vs fl ..IM Q.-S fl 4^ 43 53d 4\u0026gt; fl fl \u0026gt;5 a u .2 a a 3 *3 \u0026gt; CA  fl  M a o u ,4J u A a W VS 4\u0026gt; U  *- 0 VS  9 o E.m q Q fl 4)  43 E Si  fl_i ?. .Si 5 \u0026gt;5 \" \"a OS a vs 3 w (/:i .2 *s o co (A V3 .2 m 3 2 s O CO fl ^  U-3 3 CO vs Cm (/i 4\u0026gt; U O S.2 vs vs 0^ 4\u0026gt; E u V fl 43 w a  8 -3 o .S 2 a CA flXl oj .E -a 2 o 03 a Stj fl 4\u0026gt; .0 Vi .2 53d 4^ fl 2 a a u 43 -w a 3  I o a 3 = CQ at 4, .S -s 2 o \u0026amp; fl E 4\u0026gt; 43 w fl E 8 .0 03 VS V \u0026amp; ,fl  *fl 2 a \u0026lt; s fl 4) w fl O U \u0026gt; \u0026gt;) U vs fl fl t 2   4) u _) (A 4^ 43 u fl 4^ Tf 4^ \"3 fl u *) g S 2 ja O fl w S VS O 43 U fl 4\u0026gt; w 3 fl e\u0026gt; 4^ U a 3 M 3 \u0026amp; ^3 *3 'fl fl V fl o U fl fl 4^ V (J E a    .3 M Q U co VS 4^ 43 U fl 4^ 4\u0026gt; 3 fl  .2 .Si T3 y s W :S Z .2 5 W 3 2 W \u0026gt; *2 u E fl  gr  ^fl a L* u .4^ U X! a U u  *-  vs Cm o   - E.m \u0026lt;M  H i: B S ua 4) '= E vs Cm rx CA O fl o I J  a 5 fl E 4^ 43 w fl E ,3 OD ^8 's fl 8 .2 3 ,8 W\u0026gt; ,3 fl CS -3 3 fl  - VS  .2  V \"B a .y o U fl 3 fl O--3 a U X3 u o *- O vs tM o a  S*\"*   s h Cs o   \u0026gt;1 \u0026gt; 2 \"2 K a .2 \"3 8 S *3 o vs .2 4\u0026gt; 3 VS CO -S fl _  fl w-S fl 4.) Q ** O 05 vs vi 4^ E 4^ 2 a S fl o fl Q u s 4\u0026gt; s o U 4\u0026gt; \u0026gt; U *-* fl  U ,4\u0026gt;  W vs 4^ 43 Q 03 4\u0026gt; 4^ 3 fl g fl s c: o flj tt .2 5 I'-sl 05 fl CA CA fl fl E g o E ja a\u0026gt; fl u S 4^ 43 u fl 4\u0026gt; 4^ *3 fl \u0026lt;*\u0026gt; t* fl w 8    9  B   .3 U vs .2 \"S s co .2 *3 3 co 4\u0026gt; 43 U fl 4^ IO o 3 fl o CA .2 IO *3 0) 3 a\u0026gt; fl 12 fl  -2 o a CZ3 \u0026lt;*) fl 4\u0026gt;3 fl 'a c w u E P \u0026gt;\u0026gt; 3 3 Q t* Cf) 3 Oi .E fl fl \"fl a. CA fl 3 CA V3 o .2 a 2 sS  M .2 o 03 V T3 ca o 3 fl a fl fl Q a .3 -a  .M a E -S   E  .M H o 3 a '5 o \"a 4\u0026gt; - r fl fl fl fl E fl  5 B -w Qm o  E  cza 3 fl E fl 3 3 43 w 3 3 CA fl fl fi. w) \"o S Pm O  - 3 OD U fl ,3 S \u0026amp; fl 3  ^  fl va fl fl fl 43 (J va u V v W \u0026lt;*5 3 S 2:S -3 I 2 a T3 3 = H E 4\u0026gt; O a. (O fl O *\u0026gt; fl fl *a 3 o o J3 u c aj O i fl fl fl 3 f/i fl 3 3 QC  (za fl cza fl \"3 3 3 fl u es bX) fl \u0026lt; 3 fl\nza fl ,O '5 va fl va V3 fl -a i u 'fl cza 3  u V -w 3 3 43 (/3 cza 3 \u0026gt;\u0026gt; 3 a  a \u0026gt; 3 3 3 o I (S \u0026gt; 3 fl fl .= \u0026gt;\u0026gt; 3 3 r4 u ex 2-5 S I cc i: va L* a a 2 g \"  5 a S V3 k. 2 T-M \u0026gt;3 I u 'O a U \"u a U e*) (/3 tJ (/a fl fl 3 K fl fl *3 fl ' \" . s g tm fl .E  s: \u0026gt; ? P \u0026amp; a. .2^ r a .2 s o a a  PM fl  J3 ,o fl V) o M .2 o rtJ  v3 .H  ! ex a a B S a 5 ** W fl .E fl 3 1 3 fl U H S' 3 3 3 O fl fl fl fl fl .fl fl (J fl cza 3 M ft-r fl 3 .3 OX) 5 fl 3 tM o fl fl S B O W 2 2 o 43 \u0026lt; 3 S a 11  - fl CA t\n4* B \u0026gt; E  S 3\u0026lt; 43 fl Q P, o \u0026amp; MW t. 3 fl fl fl ** o fl \u0026gt;J 08 fl fl ti 3 o fl fl  a.E s ja u o . (m X3 S. fl u ja U o *- O va M es a E 3 fl fl fl g 5 -B E c:  \"O flj 0.) a iS  V CA fl 3 va 3 CA -W *2 -* 3 fl s?  .2  \u0026gt; \u0026gt;58 - a ja OS 3 w A V v t: a V3 B S 4\u0026gt; 4\u0026gt; O \u0026gt; o fl fl o .2 fl -fl 4) 4* \u0026lt; (Z3 a M s -M Vi .s fl o c Vi O 4^ -a b u fl 43 .f  s 43 S \"S B O .S \u0026amp; fl M  I \u0026gt; a 11\" Q E v\u0026gt; = r: 3 \u0026lt; 5  . 9 fl a. -w   a i   -w 2  B a \u0026gt; 1 g .a o) s s   ! E A 3 \" \u0026lt;R1 va CS a = -a V O o S 3 3 Q. a 4) 3 a a E a V \u0026gt; 2 \"8 3 \u0026lt; 0 fl 3 fl fl \u0026gt; fl -3 fl fl (/) .E T \"3 CM fl 3 S3 fl 3 /S 3 fl 3 fl U 3 U .SJ fl va fl V3 fl 3 M fl u Vi  -B .2 4^ 4 3 -B a 3 -w fl - fl *- \\fl 69 a .a B .SS E5 u 6*^ E O E \u0026lt;*) \u0026lt;*) \\fl 3 (za fl fl a  a .2 -g 3 fl fl 3 3 CJ 3 CZ) fl ** fl 43 fl 3 fl B e \u0026lt; (M fl fl 3 fl 43 fj a fl f*) \u0026lt; \u0026lt;*\u0026gt; fl\\Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY \u0026lt;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. 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 HI. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANES. 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. 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. JEFFREY H. MOORE, P.A DAVID M. GRAF, P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR, 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 479-695-2011 FAX 479-695-2147 JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR., P.A. JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO, 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 W. PLUNKETT. P.A. DANIEL L. HERRINGTON, P.A. MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR., P.A. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS. P.A. 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. ROWLANDS ALAN G. BRYAN LINDSEY MITCHAM KHAYYAM M. EDDINGS JOHN F. PEISERICH AMANDA CAPPS ROSE BRANDON J. HARRISON OF COUNSEL B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2898 FAX 870-762-2918 March 4, 2003 JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501**70-3323 FAX 501-244-5341 fendleyQfeC.nt Ms. Joy Springer John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RECEIVED MAR - 5 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING RE: Professional Teacher Appraisal System Dear Ms. Springer: Enclosed please find a May 2002 draft of the Little Rock School Districts Professional Teacher Appraisal System. This is the background information on the new teacher appraisal system which I agreed to provide to you during our facilitation with ODM on February 28,2003. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, John C. rendley, Jr. f JCF/bgb cc: IxNJs. Ann Marshall (w/enclosure(s)) Dr. Ken James (w/o enclosure(s)) F:\\HOME\\BBrown\\Pendlcy\\l-RSD\\deseg\\springer2 h wpd\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\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_730","title":"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":["2002/2007"],"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","Educational law and legislation","School management and organization","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["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/730"],"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\nr 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. received DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. MAY 3 0 2002 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors' Opposition to the LRSD's Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status This memorandum responds to the LRSD's \"Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status,\" filed on March 15, 2001. Introduction During the 1997-98 school year, representatives of the Joshua Intervenors and the LRSD completed the proposed \"[LRSD] Revised Desegregation and Education Plan.\" They then filed a joint motion seeking its approval by the court on January 21, 1998. On April 10, 1998, the court (Judge Susan Webber Wright) approved the revised plan. The plan provided for three-year term assuming a substantial_and good faith compliance with its terms. [Sections 2.1, 9, and 11] The plan further provided for \"[t]he 1997-98 school year and the first semester of the 199899 school year [to] E^, 977 Ark E.^, Sturgis v. Skosos, ,977 S.W.2d 217, 223 (Ark. 1998) (interpret contract not by emphasizing one clause to the exclusion of others, \"but from the entire context of the agreement\"). 1 ibe a transition period in preparation for implementation of [the] Revised plan.\" [Section 10] Section 11 of the revised plan provides, in part: \"In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 indicating_the state of LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan\" (emphasis added). The LRSD submitted an Interim Compliance Report on March 15, 2000 (cited as March 2000 report at ) and a Compliance Report on March 15, 2001 (cited as March 2001 report at ), On June 25, 2001, the Joshua Intervenors filed n an [OJpposition to [the] Little Rock School District's Compliance Report. II The court (Judge Wright) conducted 5 1-2 days of hearings concerning the LRSD's effort to secure release from court supervision [i.e. . on July 5-6, 2001, August 1-2, 2001, and November 19-20, 2001). Thereafter, on March 15, 2002, the LRSD filed its motion for an immediate declaration of unitary status. This memorandum responds to the LRSD motion, with regard to the subjects addressed in the hearings conducted by Judge Wright: Revised Plan Sections 2.1 (general requirement of good faith compliance)\n2.5-2.5.4 (student discipline)\n2.7 (academic achievement)\n2.7.1 (program evaluation)\n2.12.2 (general 3 2 See Tr., 8-2-01, at 890, 3-9 (comment by Judge Wright on the limited information on student discipline set forth in the March 2001 report). 3 While Section 2.7.1 refers to program assessment. assessment and evaluation the terms at times, used interchangeably. [Tr. , 11-19-01, 13-17 (Associate Superintendent Bonnie Lesley)] This memorandum shows, in detail, that LRSD acted on the premise that Section 2.7.1 addressed program evaluation. until. at 242, are, in 2requirement of activities \"for investigating the cause of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing remedies where appropriate\")\nto 6.7 (generally applicable LRSD 6.0 Compliance program). This memorandum also addresses the obligation of the LRSD to narrow the racial achievement gap, as required by the \"Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989.\" See revised plan, Section l(a.)\nTr., 7-6-01, at 378, 21-24 (recognition of obligation by former Superintendent Les Gamine)\nTr. , 11-20-01, at 564, 1-4 (recognition of obligation by Associate Superintendent Leslie). It is necessary to consider in connection with the LRSD motion and this response that the Joshua Intervenors' have the opportunity to submit some additional evidence. See Order by Judge William R. Wilson, May 9, 2002 at 13 (30 minutes of rebuttal), at 14 (during additional hearings, Joshua Intervenors may offer certain evidence bearing upon \"good faith obligations\" and \"the academic achievement of African-American students\"). Subsequent to the filing of the LRSD motion. this court scheduled a hearing in July 2002 on several issues. Order, May 9, 2002, at 14. Intervenors, therefore. do not respond to LRSD's argument that as to issues other than those addressed here, \"the LRSD should be granted unitary status and released from court supervision without further evidentiary hearings.\" [LRSD Mem.- the hearings, it faced the task of defending its performance in this sphere. See, e^^, Sturgis v. Skokos, supra. 977 S.W.2d at 223 (\"If there is an ambiguity, a court will accord considerable weight to the construction the parties themselves give to it, evidenced by subsequent statements, acts and conduct.\" [citation omitted]) 3Brief, at 34] This memorandum begins with a summary of the evidence. The summary, in the form of proposed findings of fact, encompasses the issues addressed here by the Joshua Intervenors: Student Discipline (at 4-19), Improving and Remediating Academic Achievement of African-American Students (at 19-36), Racial Disparities in Achievement (at 37-40), and Program Evaluation (at 40-46). An argument relying upon the factual summaries follows (at 47). The argument is not lengthy, the court's principal task seemingly being the examination of the facts in the light of concept of \"substantial compliance. Intervenors' factual presentation shows in each instance why substantial compliance is lacking, in the light of the concept of substantial compliance advanced. Results on the Arkansas Benchmark Examinations are set forth as an appendix. Summary of the Evidence I Student Discipline A- The Relevant Provisions of the Revised Plan (1.) The provisions of the revised plan relevant to the matter of student discipline are the following. 2.5. LRSD shall implement programs, procedures designed to ensure that there is discrimination with regard to school discipline. policies and \\or no racial a 2.5.1. The LRSD shall strictly adhere to the policies set 4 Intervenors dispute, in the argument, suggestion [e.,^, Mem.-Brief at 2, 34] that termination of jurisdiction would be appropriate if this court found substantial noncompliance, but somehow also was without doubt as to the system's intent to comply with the Constitution absent court supervision. Substantial compliance and future fealty to the Constitution are, in fact, separate components of the exit formula. 2, LRSD's repetitive termination as 4forth in the Student Rights and responsibilities Handbook to ensure that all equitable manner. students are disciplined in fair and 2.5.2. LRSD shall purge students' discipline records after the fifth and eighth grades 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. 2.5.3. LRSD shall establish the position of \"ombudsman\" the job description for which shall include the following responsibilities: ensuring that students are aware of their rights pursuant to the Student rights and Responsibilities Handbook, acting as an advocate on behalf of students involved in discipline process, investigating parent and student complaints of race based mistreatment achieve equitable solutions. and attempting to 2.5.4 LRSD shall work with students and their parents to develop behavior modification plans for students who exhibit frequent misbehavior. 2.12.2. LRSD shall implement policies and procedures for investigating the cause of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing remedies where appropriate. SECTION 6: LRSD Compliance Program. LRSD shall implement a desegregation compliance program which shall include the following components: 6.1. Compliance standards and procedures reasonably capable of reducing the prospect of noncompliance\n6.2. Oversight of compliance with such standards and procedures by the superintendent\na * * *  * * 6.3. Communication of compliance standards and procedures to employees\n6.4. Utilization of monitoring and auditing systems reasonably designed to detect noncompliance\n.... 6.6. Enforcement of compliance standards and procedures through appropriate- disciplinary mechanisms, including the discipline of individuals responsible for compliance and individuals responsible for any failure to report noncompliance\nand for compliance failure to 5 I\u0026amp;.1. After has been detected, implementation of all reasonable steps to correct past noncompliance and to prevent further noncompliance, including modification of the compliance program as necessary to prevent and detect further similar noncompliance. noncompliance B. The LRSD Interim Compliance Report (March 15, 20001 (2.) The LRSD \"Interim Compliance Report\" (March 15, 2000) discusses the five sections of the revised plan, which focus on student discipline, at pages 13-17. (a) The text concerning Section 2.5 addresses: adoption of policies (a general policy on non-discrimination and policies on discipline records)\nrevision of student handbooks\ncreation of \"an online student discipline reporting system for each school building . . .\"\nstaff development\na decrease in suspensions and expulsions in the LRSD\nthe sampling of parent, student, community and teacher attitudes on safety and order in the schools\nand expansion of the number of alternative learning sites, [at 13-15] (b) The text concerning Section 2.5.1 (on the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook) addresses: the adoption of general district standards on racial disparities in programs and activities and student rights and responsibilities\ndirecting principals to comply with the handbook\ninforming students and parents of standards\nand employing the ombudsman, [at 15] (c) The text concerning Section 2.5.2 (purging students' discipline records) addresses: adoption of standards\nin-service training\nand implementation by the Assistant Superintendent for School Discipline (Dr. Linda Watson), [at 15] (d) the text concerning Section 2.5.3 (the ombudsman) 6addresses: the filling of the position in February 1999 (half-way through the first year of the plan)\nestablishment of goals for the ombudsman's work, including \"[i]nvestigat[ing] parent and student complaints of alleged race-based mistreatment and . . . work[ing] to achieve equitable solutions\"\nincreasing community awareness of the ombudsman and monthly reports on his work, [at 15-16] (e) the text concerning Section 2.5.4 (behavior modification plans for students) addresses: the general process for developing such plans and an exit process for students eligible to return to a home school from the ft Alternative Learning Center.\" [at 16-17] The totality of the text on behavior modification plans is follows: as Students who exhibit frequent misbehavior have their cases refereed to the schools' Pupil Services Team. The team is comprised of the building administration, the students' teacher, the counselor, the parents and any specialists deemed necessary. The team develops a behavior modification plan warranted, [at 16] as (3.) The March 2000 Interim Compliance Report omits coverage of Section 2.12.2 (investigating causes of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing remedies). [See report at 82-86] (4.) The portion of the March 2000 Interim Compliance Report concerning Plan Sections 6.0 through 6.7 (general desegregation compliance program) does not discuss school discipline, [at 127-29] C. The LRSD \"Compliance Report\" (March 15, 2001] (5.) The LRSD \"Compliance Report\" (March 15, 2001) discusses the five sections of the revised plan, discipline, at pages 24-26. which focus on school 7(a) The text concerning Section 2.5 addresses: decreases in the numbers of suspensions and expulsion system-wide and for black and white students\nthe decrease in the number of students committing offenses\nthe sampling of community and teacher attitudes on school issues (positive views on safety and pupils' feelings on \"belonging at schools\"), [at 24-25] The report also includes this text [at 24]: The number of African-American students suspended decreased 20 percent consistent with the overall reduction in disciplinary sanctions. The proportion of suspensions issued to African- American students remained in the neighborhood of 85 percent. The Report describes no particular action directed at the continuing racial disparity. (b) The text concerning Section 2.5.1 (on the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook) addresses: school board approval of general district standards on racial disparities in programs and activities and student rights and responsibilities. [at 25] (c) The text concerning Section 2.5.2 (purging students' discipline records) addresses: asserted compliance with this provision by school principals and the \"Student Hearing Office.\" [at 25] (d) The text concerning Section 2.5.3 (the ombudsman) addresses [at 25-26]: training received by the ombudsman\nsteps taken to increase public awareness of the ombudsman's services\na and description of the ombudsman's activities, which reads as follows: Efforts to raise public awareness of the ombudsman appear to have been successful. In the last year, the ombudsman has been contacted by over 250 parents or students and provided 8services related to over 450 incidents. the In addition, ombudsman has implemented intervention activities at Badgett Elementary and McClellan High School designed to assist African-American males who demonstrate unacceptable behavior. Efforts are underway to expand these activities to include other schools. (e) The text concerning Section 2.5.4 (behavior modification plans for students) contains only a general description of the asserted process for developing such plans. Contrary to other instances, there is no reference to a school board policy or the numbers of students and schools involved, [at 26] (6.) The part of the March 2001 Compliance Report addressing Section 2.12.2 (investigating causes of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing needed remedies) contains only six lines of text. This text cites the school board's adoption of the general policy on racial disparities in programs and activities and then provides in part: \"In implementing its obligations under the revised plan, the District has addressed racial disparities in . . . discipline (Section 2.5) . . 165] (7.) The March 2001 Compliance Report omits mention of Plan . \" [at Sections 6.0 through 6.7 (general desegregation compliance program), which had been discussed in only a cursory fashion in the March 2000 report (see paragraph 4 above), [at i-iii] 5 Section 11 of the revised plan for the LRSD provided for release of court jurisdiction \"provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in [the] Revised plan, added: \"In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001 indicating the state of LRSD's compliance with Fthel It It [thel Revised Plan\" (emphasis added). 9D. The Evidence Presented to the Court (8.) The LRSD March 2000 and March 2001 reports and Dr. Linda Watson's testimony stressed reduction in the overall number of suspensions and expulsions. [March 2000, at 13-14\nMarch 2001, at 24\nTr., 11-19-01, at 48, 13-21\nat 55, 22 to 56, 15\nat 83, 14-21 (Dr. Watson)] 6 However, the data set forth in CX 743, introduced by LRSD, revealed that in 2000-2001, the third year of the plan, while white student suspensions\\expulsions continued to drop (69 fewer. 11.2 percent lower than 1999-2000), black student suspensions\\expulsions increased in that school year (496 more. 12.3 percent higher than 1999-2000). [CX 743 (\"Discipline Suspension Index by Year\")] (9.) While asserting that suspensions and expulsions decreased in number, the LRSD acknowledged that racial disparity continued. [March 2001 report, at 24)\nWatson testimony, 11-19-01, at 83, 21\nat 113, 14 to 114, 1\nCX 743] 14- (10.) The LRSD reports in March of 2000 [at 13-15] and 2001 [at 24-25] presented no data showing discipline by school. The 6 In LRSD's affirmative presentation in presentation, LRSD identified Dr. Linda Watson as responsible for implementation of Sections 2.5, 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5.3, and 2.5.4 of the revised plan. [Tr. at 25, 16-19] 11-19-01, 2000, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) issued a report titled Disciplinary Sanctions in the Little Rock School District, it sets forth data by school, by sex and race, on the students subjected to one or suspensions. This allowed the LRSD to identify the extent of representation of black students in discipline in a meaningful manner, and to single out schools with atypical disparities. See Appendix at 5. The LRSD chose to ignore the ODM report. See para. 19, infra. On June 14, number of more over- 10reports set forth no data by sex and race [id.], with the omission of data on disciplining of black males being particularly significant [Tr., 8-2-01, at 892, 5-9 (Associate Superintendent Sadie Mitchell)\nTr., 11-19-01, at 124, 4-14\nat 132, 12-24 (Dr. Watson)\nCX 583, at 125 (ODM report noting black males' being suspended \"at significantly higher rates than any other subgroup\")\nsee also Tr., 8-2-01, at 890, 23 to 891, 13 (Judge Wright)] (11.) The discipline process at the school level involves referrals of students by teachers and imposition of sanctions by administrators. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 151, 155] (12.) The March 2000 and 2001 LRSD reports show no evidence of the development of criteria to identify schools, teachers or administrators involved in atypical racial disparities in discipline [e^^, departing from system averages, or in the case of a teacher or administrator in a particular school, departing from the pattern for colleagues in that school). [March 2000 report, at 13-15\nMarch 2001 report, at 24-25] Assistant Superintendent Watson identified no such criteria in her testimony on November 19, 2001. (13.) The LRSD has the ability, by computer, to identify particular teachers, vice principals, and principals. whose referrals or sanctions evidence atypical racial disparities. This has not been done systematically, if at all. [Tr. , 11-19-01, at 123, 7-16\n128, 6-18\n149, 10 to 150, 25\n155, 7-12\n161, 4-13]] (14.) After acknowledging the absence of such disaggregation of data. Dr. Linda Watson testified as follows: Q Okay. So, it wouldn't be possible to correct it, if it was not disaggregated and in writing, would it? 11A. I guess not sir. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 149, 23-25] (15.) Dr. Watson testified as follows: that are helping Q. All right. Is there a group within the District or made up teachers, administrators, support staff, liiaL aj-t\niifcij.pj.ng to identify and to be responsible for correcting the disparate impact, discipline in the District? A. Not to my knowledge. [Tr. 11-19-01, at 162, 18-23] (16. ) Dr. Watson agreed that she \"[has] not prepared a monitoring report with respect to disparities in discipline.\" [Tr., 11-19-01, at 114, 4-7] Asked \"[d]id you make a written analysis of discipline data to reveal any potentially systemic problems,\" Dr. Watson testified, \"No sir.\" [Tr. , 11-19-01, at 142, 8-10] Asked whether former Superintendent Les Carnine or Associate Superintendent Junious Babbs had II prepare[d] a causation analysis of discipline disparities,\" Dr. Watson testified. II Not to my knowledge no, sir.\" [Tr., 11-19-01, at 130, 1-4] Faced with the question, \"[s]o, there are no plans by which to reduce disparate impact of black students?,\" Dr. Watson, the person responsible for implementation of the discipline sections of the revised plan, testified: \"Not, to my knowledge.\" [Tr., 11-19-01, 135, 6-8\nsee also id. at 112, 9-17] (17.) Dr. Watson testified as follows: Q. Have you made any recommendations regarding how to address the gross over representation of black boys, in the disciplinary process? A. No, I have not. Q. Have you not publicly stated that there needs to be some because more attention devoted to dealing with this problem, apparently there is a fear factor associated with black boys? A. Yes. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 132, 12-20] 12(18.) The following testimony of Dr. Watson is particularly significant in view of LRSD's acknowledgement of continuing racial disparities in school discipline and her own recognition of the particular issue regarding black male students. Q. Other than what you have told me, what is the Little Rock School district doing to  and what you told Mr. Walker, what is the Little Rock School District doing, in addition, to correct the disparity based upon race? A. I can't say that we are looking at it based on race. We are looking at the number of suspensions. We are trying to offer programs that African-American students, as well as other students, to participate in. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 163, emphasis added] 16-25\n(19.) The Office of Desegregation Monitoring distributed on June 14, 2000 a report titled Disciplinary Sanctions in the Little Rock School District. [CX 583] This report set forth discipline statistics by race, by school, for the school years 1993-94 through 1998-99, including the numbers of student in each school receiving one or more sanctions. The report also contained seven recommendations. [CX 583, at 127] Dr. Watson testified as follows regarding the ODM report. Q. Now, did you ever meet with the ODM after the ODM issued its report for the purpose of either better understanding their recommendations or for seeking ways to implement their recommendations? A. No, I did not, but I sure wanted to. Q. Why didn't you? 8 The data by student, by race, allows a comparison of the proportions of black and white students in a school receiving suspension or expulsion as a form of discipline. The comparisons in the individual schools can then be compared to those of other schools, allowing identification of schools with atypical disparities. of 13we A- Because I took  once the report came out, we discussed it in the cabinet, and it was the decision at that time that would not respond or do anything. Q. That's right. Dr. Carnine told you not to meet with them didn't he. A. At that time, yes he did. Q. I see. A. That was the decision that came from cabinet, going to address the issues. we were not emphasis added] [Tr., 11-19-01, at 177, 11-25\n(20. ) Dr. Watson testified as follows regarding behavior modification plans. Q. [Y]ou have indicated that you have responsibility under 2.5.4 for creating Behavior Modification Plans, is that correct? 2.5.4 is A. Yes, I did say that. Q. How many such plans did you develop each year? A. I couldn't say how many I developed. Q. You never had  you do not have a report, which documents the number you have developed? A. No sir, I do not. Q. What is the evidence to show that it was actually done? A. In cases that I heard in student hearings, when we needed to do Behavior Modification Plans, there were times that we stopped and did the plans there in the office. Q. I see. A. There were times that I referred them back to the schools. Pupil Services Team, to do Behavior Modification Plans. Q. I see. Do you agree with this statement? The district does not have any document compiling the total number of Behavior Modification Plans or the race or gender of students for whom Behavior Modification Plans have been prepared? A. I agree. I do not have the numbers. 14Q. All right. Do you agree with this statement? The District does not have nay document entitled, \"Monitoring Report of Behavior Modification Plans.\" A. I would agree.[Tr., 11-19-01, at 135, 9 to 136, 12] (21.) The testimony revealed that Dr. Watson had a vast array of responsibilities, more than one person could reasonably be expected to accomplish. The evidence also reveals that Dr. Watson, an \"assistant superintendent,\" sought additional personnel, that her plea did not bear fruit, and that additional personnel were needed to address racial disparity in discipline in individual schools. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 114, 4 to 119, 8\nsee also id. at 142, 25 to 146, 23 (example of type of effort needed to work with one school)]. E. Findings Concerning Overall Compliance with the Plan (22. ) Section 2.5 of the revised plan is devoid of any statement that the reguisite \"programs, policies and\\or procedures\" to be \"implement[ed]\" pursuant to this section are limited to those set forth in Sections 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5.3, and 2.5.4. of the plan. Ms. Linda Watson's affirmative testimony presented by LRSD was not limited to the subject matter of these four sections. [jELSi, Tr. , 11-19-01, at 27-30] The text of Sections 2.12.2, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.6, and 6.7 of the revised plan show that these sections are relevant to the subject of racial disparities in school discipline. Moreover, the text of these sections contains no indication that their content as to the discipline sphere can be satisfied merely by the fulfillment of the reguirements of Sections 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5.3 , and 2.5.4. of the plan (assuming that LRSD substantially 15complied with each of these sections). (23.) There is no predicate for the court to find a lack of substantial compliance with Sections 2.5.1, 2.5.2, and 2.5.3 of the revised plan. However, the record does establish lack of a substantial compliance with Sections 2.5 and 2.5.4. (24.) The record establishes a lack of substantial compliance with Section 2.5 for the following reasons. (a) The LRSD report of March 2000 [at 13, 15] and the testimony of Dr. Linda Watson [Tr., 11-91-01, at 27-28] identified LRSD Policies AC, ACB, JB and JBA as steps implementing Section 2.5 of the revised plan. [CX 719 (cited standards)] However, these standards merely restate the LRSD's existing obligation to comply with the Egual Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000d- d(4)(a) (barring racial discrimination in programs receiving federal financial assistance). Moreover, these standards do not even mention disciplining of students. [CX 719] (b) Dr. Watson's outlines for training of principals omitted the matter of disparate discipline generally and discipline of black males [CX 672-76\nTr. , 11-19-01 at 122, 14 to 123, 6], despite awareness of these issues. See paras. 9, 10. (c) The LRSD was aware of continuing racial disparities in the imposition of school discipline generally and in particular with  LRSD regulation JBA-R implements policy JBA. It is noteworthy that this regulation addresses explicitly each school's obligations to insure nondiscrimination in \"programs and activities,\" ..... JBA. __ with three required strategies, but does not mention discipline. [CX 719] 16regard to black male students. See paras. 9, 10. The system had the capability by computer of identifying schools with atypical racial disparities in discipline\nthe system also had the capability of identifying teachers whose referrals and administrators whose discipline actions were marked by atypical racial disparity. See paras. 9 \u0026amp; n. 6, 13. The LRSD did not implement any programs, policies and\\or procedures geared specifically to such schools personnel. See paras. 12-18. or (25.) The LRSD's discussions of \"behavior modification plans for students who exhibit frequent misbehavior\" [Section 2.5.4], and other evidence on this topic, show mere lip service to the concept, rather than \"work[ing] with students and their parents to develop\" such plans. See paras. 2(e), 5(e), 20\ncompare paras. 5(d) and 5(e) (in the March 2001 report, discussion of the ombudsman contains statistics on parent contacts and matters worked on, while coverage of behavior modification plans is limited to general description of process for developing plans). (26.) LRSD's failure to comply with Section 2.12.2 as applied to discipline is obvious. The system was aware of racial disparity and had the capability of isolating schools and staff with atypical problems. The system did not investigate the matter\nand, therefore, could not develop remedies. The system did not commit sufficient personnel to the issue. See paras. 9, 10, 12-18. Indeed, Dr. Linda Watson, the official responsible for compliance with the discipline sections of the plan [Tr., 11-19-01, at 25, the system's major witness on the topic, testified: ' 16-19], and \"I can't say 17 that we are looking at it [discipline issue] based on race.\" [Tr., 11-19-01 at 163, 21-25] (27.) Similarly, LRSD's failure to comply with Part 6 of the revised plan (\"LRSD Compliance Program\"), as applied to discipline. is obvious. Again, LRSD was aware of the general pattern of discipline disparity, and the particular issue about black male students. The system did not adopt standards to identify schools and staff with atypical discipline patterns. It did not analyze available data based upon such standards. It did not inform staff of such standards and procedures. It did not enforce such standards, or require remedial actions to address problems identified. Neither the superintendent, nor his designees oversaw compliance with any such standards and procedures. See Sections 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.6, and 6.7 and paras. 9, 10, 12-18, 21. (28.) Finally, LRSD's performance with respect to student discipline does not evidence substantial compliance with its agreement to \"in good faith exercise its best efforts . . to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of the LRSD. . It [Section 2.1] The evidence supporting this conclusion includes the following, [i] The district did not commit adequate personnel to the issue of discipline. See para. 21. [ii] Despite knowledge of the continuing racial disparity in discipline, the system, did not study the causes, or identify and follow-up on schools and personnel with atypical disparate patterns. See paras. 9, 10, 12- 18. [iii] Dr. Watson testified, as noted, that \"I can't say that we 18 Iare looking at it [discipline issue] based on race.\" See para. 18. [iv] Upon receipt of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring report on school discipline in June 2000, the decision of the superintendent and his cabinet was \"at that time . . . we would not respond or do anything\"\n\" . . we were not going to address the issues. II See para. 19. II. Improving and Remediating Academic Achievement of African- American Students_________ A. The Relevant Provisions of the Revised Plan (29.) The provisions of the revised plan relevant to the subject of improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students are the following. 2.7. 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. 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 implemented or replacing the program. program is * * * 2.12.2. LRSD shall implement policies and procedures for investigating the cause of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing remedies where appropriate. ft ft ft SECTION 6: LRSD Compliance Program. LRSD shall implement a desegregation compliance which shall include the following components: program 196.1. Compliance and procedures capable of reducing the prospect of noncompliance\nstandards reasonably 6.2. Oversight of compliance with such standards procedures by the superintendent\nand 6.3. Communication of compliance standards and procedures to employees\n6.4. Utilization of monitoring and auditing systems reasonably designed to detect noncompliance\n.... 6.6. Enforcement of compliance standards and procedures through appropriate disciplinary mechanisms, including the individuals responsible for compliance individuals responsible for any failure to report noncompliance\nand discipline of any to and 6.7. After has been detected, implementation of all reasonable steps to correct past noncompliance and to prevent further noncompliance, including modification of the compliance program as necessary to prevent and detect further similar noncompliance. noncompliance been to B. The Shortcomings in the Educations Afforded Black Students and the Standards Adopted to Address the Problem______ (30.) Two aspects of Section 2.7 of the revised plan are particularly noteworthy. First. The LRSD obligation is not limited to \"design[ing]\" programs and other initiatives\nrather, the initiatives must also be implementPed.\" [See Tr., 8-1-01, at 686- 87 (Leslie)] Second. The programs and other initiatives \"[include] but [are] not limited to [those in] Section 5 of [the] revised plan.\" (31.) Dr. Leslie Carnine became Superintendent of the LRSD effective with the 1997-98 school year. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 341-42] During testimony on November 19, 2001, when he had served for four years. Dr. Carnine provided the following overview. if you and Mr. Walker, when we put the new plan together, if will_remember, and in fact  if i can find the document, L.d I think we might be able to present it, but I said at the time 20that it was my statement to you that I firmly believed that if we remediated the education of black students and made a real effort,where I_felt that it had been missing, that by that very remediation effort of increasing their achievement, we would help to, in fact minimize the disparity between black and white achievement. Now, that statement is the one that I have made continuously over the past four years, I have said nothing f erent, not that I am not  I am certainly concerned about that disparity issue. It has been my life's work. But my point is the only way you can do it is not worry about the disparity, but let's just teach kids. And I didn't feel that we were doing that good a job. I think we are doing a better job now. Are we where we need to be? Not absolutely, but we are getting there. . 51\nemphasis added] . . [At 450- (32.) During the 1998-99 school year, year one of the new plan, LRSD staff under the direction of Associate Superintendent Bonnie Lesley, who joined the staff at the end of June 1998 [Tr. 8- 1-01, at 670, 18-19], undertook a comprehensive review of the educational program, including students' test scores. This review yielded, ultimately, the view that the curriculum for grades K-12 in language arts (including literacy), mathematics, science and social studies needed to be replaced. [March 2000 report, Tr., 11-20-01, at 550, 10-14] at 45\n(33. ) The review of programs during 1998-99 examined the development of early literacy skills in the light of results for LRSD students on the Arkansas Grade 4 Benchmark Examination (Spring 1998 and Spring 1999)^ and the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT 9) 10 Arkansas has adopted curriculum frameworks for language arts, mathematics and other subjects. For each framework, there are benchmarks, identifying, in grade level bands, knowledge and skills which it is hoped students will master. districts mathematics to give benchmark in grades four and examinations The State requires local eight. in These literacy and instruments are 21(Grade 3, Fall 1998). 11 On the state-mandated examination, 42 percent of LRSD students performed at the lowest level (\"Below Basic\") and only 30 percent of students at the levels deemed acceptable. Significantly, \"[f]ifty-three percent of African- American grade 4 students performed at the 'Below Basic' level, compared to 20 percent of white students.\" The results for grade 3 on the nationally normed SAT 9 reading test were consistent. \"In both cases only approximately 30 percent of LRSD students performed at the 'Proficient' or 'Advanced' levels . . , again indicating that far too few students are becoming good readers by grade 3.\" [CX 703, Doc. 1 at 12-13] (34.) The federal educational program known as tl Title I\" originated in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. It provides financial assistance to local school districts to support help for low achieving students. The March 2000 report noted LRSD's receipt of $4.2 million in Title I funds, annually. designed to show a student's level of mastery of benchmarks appropriate to the students' grade level. The results are reported in terms of four levels (below basic, basic, proficient, and advanced). The State's goal is that all students reach at least the level of proficient. [March 2001 report, at 56\nTr. , 8-1-01, at 692, 18 to 694, 9\n\"[LRSD] Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitary Status, Tab 5, at 9] basic, proficient II March 15, 2002, at 56. For a description of the SAT 9, see the March 2001 report. The exhibit did not discuss SAT 9 scores by race. The record contains SAT 9 reading scores by race for grade 5 for 1998-99 (but not grade 3 scores). On \"total reading\" the average percentile score for black LRSD fifth grade students was 27 and that for LRSD white students 69. [CX 741] 22Almost all LRSD schools received some Title I funds in recent years. \"The goal of Title I is to provide supports so that all children can achieve the rigorous curriculum content standards established by the State and the [local] District.\" [March 2000 report at 47, 68\nsee 20 U.S.C. Sec. 2701] (35.) The review of instructional programs during 1998-99 encompassed Title programs. The March 2000 interim report I described some of the findings as follows: An analysis of performance data found that most Title I schools had not been meeting their improvement goals. The stafffound_that part of the problem was the absence of or lack of consistent delivery of District-established literacy and math curriculum. These problems were corrected through the new Pre-K Literacy Plan and the new NSF mathematics curriculum. Another part of the problem was the lack of alignmentbetween the Title I programs and the regular curricula in literacy and mathematics. [At 68\nemphasis added] Dr. Leslie provided consistent testimony about the findings of the review. [Tr. , 81-01-01, at 700-02 (noting use of \"pull out programs\" which \"even result in the child missing the instruction on the things that are going to be tested\")] (36.) Testimony by Dr. Lesley revealed the consequences for Title I participants, disproportionately black youth [Tr., 8-1-01, at 702], of the lack of alignment of the content of the Title I program \"and the regular curricula in literacy and mathematics.\" are  . . . Alignment is absolutely critical, particularly in an urban school district, because alignment means that you are going to test kids over, that you have given them a chance to learn that, that you have got that included in the curriculum. And so without alignment, poor kids in particular suffer the most, because there may not be an opportunity for them to get that knowledge and skill anywhere else. . . . [Tr. 11-19-01 at 199-200] ' (37.) The perverse and ironic impact of the content of the 23 ITitle I program on LRSD's black students has been substantial. The program is longstanding f i.e . . originated in 1965) and in the relevant time frame has supported activities in almost all Little Rock schools. The low scores of LRSD's black middle school and high school students on the state benchmark and the SAT 9 tests are no doubt due, in part, to their isolation from important parts of the curriculum by Title I programs (which were supposed to help them attain the knowledge and skills which LRSD identified as important for all students). (38.) Dr. Lesley also identified general problems in the math curriculum, prior to its revision. \"The old curriculum really focused on two strands of the [State] standards, and now we have a curriculum that encompasses all six strands, which include such things like statistics and problem solving and geometry and algebra, even for young children. So, that has been a big change for teachers.\" [Tr., 11-19-01, at 272, 6-11] (39.) The information gleaned about the content of the educational program and student outcomes on standardized tests led the LRSD leadership to conclude that a complete overhaul of the educational program was necessary. [CX 703, Doc.l at 12-13] This overhaul involved many areas. For example, the March 2000 report described the changes needed to implement the PreK-3 literacy plan. alone, as follows: \"The plan required restructured schools and school days, alignment of special programs with general education, new standards-based curriculum, appropriate pedagogy (instruction) , materials, and assessments, high-quality and intensive professional 24development, effective interventions, and parent involvement.\" [At 97] The restructuring also involved mathematics, science and social studies curricula. See para. 32\nsee also Dr. Leslie's testimony regarding the magnitude of the attempt to completely overhaul the educational program. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 198, 23 to 207,12] (40.) In the March 2000 and March 2001 reports, the LRSD identified many policies, practices and procedures. some general and some specific, as designed to fulfill the obligation which it assumed in Section 2.7 of the revised plan. Sub-paragraphs (a)-(e) describe central elements of the LRSD commitments. (a) \"The District developed in 1997-98 and 1998-99 comprehensive curriculum content standards, plus grade-level and course benchmarks in K-12 English language arts. mathematics, science, and social studies. In addition. curriculum maps were constructed for each area to ensure that the LRSD standards were aligned with the state's curriculum frameworks and assessments.\" [March 2000 report, at 45\nTr., 11-20-01, at 513, 17-21] (b) Staff members developed during 1998-99 and the directors approved in June 1999 a PreK-3 literacy plan. Board of The March 2000 report stated that II PreK-3 literacy is a major, if not the major priority of LRSD.\" \"The plan required restructured schools and school days, alignment of special programs with general education, new standard based curriculum, appropriate pedagogy (instruction), materials, and assessments, high-quality and intensive professional development. effective interventions, and parent involvement. [March 2000 report, at 96-99\nsee also id. at 2590 [assessment to \"[identify] [students] for early interventions\"] (c) The March 2001 report states: ..... Implementation of standards-based, instruction in mathematics and science, intensive and sustained professional development for teachers, and multiple assessment measures have been put in place to ensure improvement. New standards-based curricula in mathematics in grades K-8 and in science for grades 1-9 have been adopted. The curricula for other grade levels are being adapted locally to reflect a standards-based, inquiry-centered approach. The number of K-12 mathematics teachers who received training and materials to fully implement the new mathematics program increased from 215 teachers in the 1999-2000 school year to 515 teachers during the 2000-2001 school year. The number of K-12 science teachers who received training and materials to fully implement the new science program increased from 50 teachers in the 1999-2000 school year to 243 teachers during the 2000-2001 school year. Another 108 mathematics teachers inquiry-based intensive and 453 science teachers began implementing part of the standards-based program during 2000-2001. All teachers in mathematics and science are scheduled to fully implement the standards-based program during the 2001-02 school year. [At 115] 453 (d) Dr. Leslie testified that \"interventions\" for students whose achievement is not at the standards deemed desirable is vitally important part of the new literacy proqram. [Tr., 8-1-01, at 679,14 to 681, 15] Interventions (and remediation) are a point of emphasis in the LRSD reports of March 2000 and 2001 and in policies adopted by the LRSD Board of Directors to which they refer (summarized in next paragraph). This emphasis is in keeping with Section 2.7 of the revised plan which requires designing and implementing actions \"to improve and remediate the academic a achievement of African-American students. . . \" (emphasis added). (e) The LRSD adopted the following relevant standards. X3 See March 2000 report at 43, report at 51-52, 62, 64, 125-26. 44, 47, 48, 49\nMarch 2001 26(i) The Board of Education adopted Policy IHBDA (\"Remedial Instruction\") on July 22, 1999, after year one of the plan. It requires \"the district and each school\" to make \"comprehensive and aggressive early intervention efforts, especially in PreK-3 reading and mathematics, with continuing support through complementary remediation efforts on an as-needed basis to promote and sustain the standard levels of achievement.\" \"Intervention\\remediation efforts of the Little Rock School District will be comprised of a broad range of alternatives . . I* [CX 719, Policy IHBA] ( ii) The Board approved Regulation IHBDA-R tl Intervention\\remediation\") on October 21, 1999, after the start of year two of the plan. It provides, in part: Assistance will be provided for any student who is performing below the standard levels of achievement in the areas of mathematics and reading\\language arts. Intervention\\remedial programs include reteaching, tutoring, extended-day programs, Saturday programs, summer school, and special courses offered within the school day in addition to the core instruction. Program designs may differ from school to school, depending upon funding sources, needs of students, and decisions made by the Campus Leadership Team. [CX 719, Reg. IHBDA-R] (iii) The School Board approved Regulation IHBDA-R2 (\"Student Academic Improvement Plan\" (SAIP)) on August 24, 2000, after year two of the plan, in compliance with Act 999 of 1999. It requires teachers tl of English language arts and mathematics\" at each level to prepare individual SAIPs for \"each student who [i] is not performing on grade level (K-4)\n[ii] is not 'proficient' on any part of the state's benchmark examinations - primary (grade 4), intermediate (grade 6), middle school (grade 8)\nand [iii] is not scoring 'proficient' on End-of-Course examinations in literacy. 27geometry, and\\or algebra.\" IV School and individual teachers are encouraged to develop plans for additional students who, in their judgment, reguire remediation or intervention.\" The regulation further provides: student's The Student Academic Improvement Plan (SAIP) will document a student's achievement through District-adopted assessment tools, consideration of personalized education services (special education, English-as a- Second language. Title I, gifted_ programs, etc.) identification of areas of need^ specific skills to improve, strategies that will be implemented (see IHBDA-R), and progress. [CX 719, Reg. IHBDA-R] etc. ) C. Deficiencies in Implementation Establishing a Lack of Substantial Compliance with Secs. 2.7.1, 2.12.2 \u0026amp; Part 6.0 (41.) The content of paragraphs (42) through (57) supra shows that the deficiencies in implementation of the Section 2.7 activities identified by the LRSD are such that a finding of substantial compliance with Section 2.7 is not warranted. The LRSD's failure to substantially comply with Section 2.12.2 and Part 6 of the revised plan, as to the area of academic achievement, also apparent. is (42.) The LRSD Board of Directors approved the PreK-3 Literacy plan in June 1999, after year one of the revised plan. [March 2000 report, at 99] (43.) Teachers did not receive \"their copies of the new curriculum documents\" until \"August 1999\" the start of the school year (and the start of the second year of the revised plan). [March 2000 report at 45] \"All teachers did not begin the [1999- 2000] year with the training to implement the new curriculum, teaching strategies, and materials. Training occurred throughout 28 the year, and some teachers were not trained at all in 1999-2000.\" [March 2001 report, at 91] (44.) LRSD has emphasized that the training and retaining of teachers is a vitally important component of the new educational programs. (a) Dr. Leslie testified as follows: It [professional development] is probably the most important thing that we have done, and we've spent all of our treasury on that. A great deal of time, a great deal of energy, a great deal of money, trying to be sure that every teacher has at least a minimum level of training in several areas, because one of the things that was overwhelming about the plan and its implementation is that  particularly for elementary teachers, is that they had to learn new curriculum, they had to learn new materials, they had to learn new instructional strategies, and many of them had to change some belief systems, in order to make it work. over, much. And so, it takes more than a one workshop approach to get 311 that done. It has to be followed up over and over and And so, that is one reason we have emphasized it so The Board has allocated every dime they could to that effort over the last three years. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 207 13 to 208, 8] (b) The importance of teacher training was described as follows in the \"Year 2 Evaluation: The Effectiveness of the PreK-2 Literacy Program in the Little Rock School District 1999-2000 and 2000-2001\" (October 2001) by Dr. Lesley and other LRSD staff. The most expensive - and the most important - piece of the cost of any program implementation designed to improve student achievement is always the cost of professional development. . . . 'In study after study, it is the quality o: . , it is the quality of the teacher not variation in curriculum materials that is identified as the critical factor in effective instruction. That is not to say that materials are wholly unimportant, but that investing in teacher development has a better result than 14 This document appears at Tab 4 of the \"[LRSD] Memorandum Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of Unitarv Status.\" 29investing in curriculum materials.'. . . [At 96] (45.) Nevertheless, the II Year 2 Evaluation\" above identified serious shortcomings in the teacher training needed to implement the Pre-K-3 literacy program. The report states that 12 days of \"Ella training\"have been offered to K-2 teachers during the last two years. [At 97] It then sets forth a table, by school, showing the amounts of training for K-2 teachers. The average number of days per school is 4.65 across all levels. Moreover, in 15 of the 35 schools listed, the average number of days is 2.4 or fewer days. [At 98] The report states: From the table above, one can infer that implementation is, in general still at a low level since the number of days of ELLA training experienced by teachers is 4.65 of the 12 possible days available. Kindergarten teachers have the highest level participation, then grade 1 and then grade 2. Kindergarten, probably not coincidentally, is the highest performing grade level. [At 98] (46.) The LRSD employed lead teachers in the areas of math and science to promote the change from the traditional math and science curriculum to the new curriculum. Among other things, the lead teachers used an observation form to assess \"the implementation level and quality of implementation of the teachers\\schools in their cluster.\" LRSD reported the survey results for 1999-2000 in the March 2001 report. The report explains implementation codes as follows: \"3 - fully implementing standards-based\n2 - partially implementing standards based\n1 - minimally implementing standards based, 0 - not implementing standards based.\" The average score for 33 sites was 2.2. However, there were 10 scores of 1.8 or lower. The report explains scores for quality of implementation as 30follows: II 4 - excellent\n3 - good\n2 - fair\n1 - poor.\" The average score for quality of implementation was 2.6 for 3 2 sites. The report characterizes the results as follows: The District's average implementation score was 2.2, which represents a beginning shift from partial implementation to full implementation of a standards-based curriculum. The District's average quality score was 2.6, which represents trend toward quality instruction in math and science. Based on a the data provided, the District is in an active transition and the quality from the traditional curriculum to standards-based curriculum in both quality of implementation and the quality of implementation. See March 15, 2001 report at 122-24 (reports for elementary schools and middle schools only). (47.) The LRSD has also reported on the implementation of the new math and science curricula for the 2000-01 school year. Based upon reports by lead teachers, the average implementation score was 2.4 (on a scale of 0 to 3) and the average quality of implementation score 2.7 (on a scale of 1 to 4). Unlike 1999-2000, in 2000 01 LRSD reported only district averages and not scores by school. [ See \"Little Rock Comprehensive Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement - Annual Progress Report for 2000-2001,\" Tab 5 to LRSD memorandum brief previously cited] (48.) The LRSD did not implement the new social studies curriculum until 2001-02, after year three of the plan. [Tr., 11-20-01, at 427, 2-3\ncompare para. 40(a) above] Indeed, Dr. Leslie seemingly testified at one point that the entire new curriculum was implemented for the first time in the \"Fall of 2000\" [Tr., 11-20-01, at 518, 22-25], rather than in the Fall of 1999. Compare para. 43. 31 I(49.) The October 2001 report on the Pre-K-3 literacy program after year two, previously cited, states that the study \"does not include  32examination of the different forms of interventions . II [Tab 4, at 83] Paralleling this admission, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Lesley, and Ms. Sadie Mitchell, Associate Superintendent for School Services, could not provide concrete information on the implementation of SAIPs, or other interventions for students requiring additional assistance to satisfy learning standards (see para. 40(e)). [Tr., 8-1-01, at 609, 18 to 611, 23 (Mitchell)\nat 679, 18 to 684, 4 and 736, 17 to 739, 18 (Dr. Lesley)] It is obvious from test results that black students are more likely to need interventions. See para. 33. (50.) As part of the new Pre-K-3 literacy curriculum. LRSD teachers have administered in the Fall and the Spring in grades K-2 the tl Developmental Reading Assessment.\" The results have varied sharply from school to school and even within the same school from year to year. Dr. Leslie attributed these variations to \"the degree to which teachers had implemented the new curriculum.\" [Tr., 8-1-01, at 731, 21 to 732, 2] (51. ) LRSD staff have recognized that there has been insufficient monitoring of classrooms to evaluate whether PreK-3 literacy curriculum is actually being implemented. the new Lack of a monitoring plan through classroom observations document the level of implementation is a problem, weakness not only resulted in a late identification of implementation in some cases, but it was also a weakness in evaluating the consistency of program implementation. to This poor See Mem. Brief in Support of Motion for an Immediate Declaration of 32Unitary Status (March 15, 2002), Tab 4, at 105. (52.) As noted, the LRSD is required to administer, each year in April, state Benchmark Examinations in literacy and mathematics to fourth and eighth graders. The State's goal is that all students reach the levels of proficient or advanced on each examination. which measure mastery of knowledge and skills. identified as important for each student to master. Results by race for the school years 1998-1999, 1999-2000, and 2000-2001 appear in the appendix, infra\nsee also note 10, para. 33, supra (description of Benchmark Examinations). (53.) On August 1, 2001, Dr. Lesley testified, in part, about the 1998-99 benchmark results in math and literacy for black fourth graders (administered in April 1999). Only 8 percent of these black youth attained the levels of proficient\\advanced in math and only 20 percent in literacy. Dr. Lesley's testimony included the following content. Q. Now, in terms of the 1998-'99 results for Little Rock black students in the fourth grade on math, proficient or advanced, is that right? eight percent were A. Let me look, check for sure. In '98-99, American students were eight proficient. yes. African- Q. Eight percent, okay, proficient. A. At or above proficient. Q. Correct. So that's basically one out of 12 of the students who have been tested, is that right, roughly? A. Eight percent, uh-huh. Q. Now, you regarded that as a serious problem, correct? A. Certainly. 33Q.-.An\u0026lt;^ a maior part of your explanation for that result is fcb.at thosestpdentg,__in terms of the curriculum they had received,had not_ been exposed to what you call many of the strands of the benchmarks for math, right? A. Yes. Q. For students to show mastery on a test like that, they need to be exposed to the material, right? A. Absolutely. Q. Now, in terms of black fourth graders in the literacy, percent were proficient or advanced, is that right? 20 A. I want to check and make sure I don't misrepresent. In '98- '99, yes, 20 percent. Q. Did you see that as a serious problem? A. Of course. Q, And do you think that, again, that part of the reason for that_was that the curriculum those students had coveredmany_of the strands in the state benchmarks literacy? had not for A. Yes. added] J_ [Tr., 9-1-01, at 694, 8 to 695, 21\nemphasis (54.) As noted, state benchmark exam results are also available for 1999-00 and 2000-01 (year three of the new plan). The results for 1999-2000 show some improvement. However, in 2000-01 (April 2001 test), the proportions of LRSD black youth attaining the levels of proficient\\advanced were  4th grade literacy 19%\n4th grade math 14%\n8th grade literacy 18%\nand 8th grade math only 4%! See tables infra in appendix. These results are on a par with the results for 1998-99, which evidenced to Dr. Lesley that black youth had not been exposed to curricula covering all of the grade- appropriate strands in the state curriculum frameworks. To be fair to the LRSD, no child will have had five years of exposure to the 34new curricula (if it is implemented) until those children tested in 2003-04 (April 2004).^ (55.) The results on the April 2001 State Benchmark Examinations and the other evidence reveal that LRSD had not implemented for the black students tested: (a) a curriculum marked by alignment with the state benchmarks\n(b) teaching by teachers with the training which LRSD identified as an essential part of its program pursuant to Section 2.7\nor (c) the interventions for students experiencing difficulties, also identified by LRSD as an essential facet of its program for compliance with Section 2.7. (56.) Scores on State Benchmark Examinations as of April 1999 for African-American students evidenced a situation where they had not been exposed to the content of the curriculum. See para. 53. The longstanding, massive Title I program was organized in a manner detracting from, rather than. as required by federal law, contributing to low-achieving students (disproportionately black) mastery of system instructional goals for all pupils. See paras. 34-37. The LRSD identified the need for a complete overhaul of the K-12 educational program in core courses, with implementation not commencing until year two of the plan. See paras. 32, 39, 40(a). The overhaul required change in many aspects of system operation. There were shortcomings in teacher in-service training, a pivotal area, as well as in implementation of the new math and science curricula. See paras. 43-47. There was admittedly no systematic 15 A student in kindergarten in 1999-2000, who makes normal progress, will reach the fourth grade and take the grade four benchmark examinations in April of the 2003-04 school year. 35 review of actual implementation of interventions for those students not doing well, another area of high importance, particularly for African-American youth given their achievement levels. See para. 49. Results of State Benchmark Examinations administered in April 2001 again established the lack of delivery of curriculum to African-American students. See para. 54. Finally, the SAT 9 tests for 2001 evidenced some backsliding in terms of addressing racial disparities in achievement. See para. 61(b), infra (SAT 9 results). (57. ) In light of the condition of education for black students in the LRSD at the outset of the revised plan, the program changes which the LRSD identified as necessary, and the lack of implementation of key facets of those changes (as shown by evidence about those initiatives and test results), the court finds that the LRSD did not substantially comply with the obligation which it assumed in Section 2.7 of the revised plan to implement certain programs, policies and\\or procedures. (58.) There was also a lack of substantial compliance in this area with Sections 2.12.2 and Sections 6.1 6.7, generally applicable elements of the revised plan. The LRSD did not adopt, and therefore could not follow-up on. \"compliance standards\" [Section 6.1]. [Tr., 8-1-01, at 671, 21 to 675, 6 (Dr. Lesley)] The LRSD was of the view that it need not address the racial gap in achievement, as such\nthe staff therefore did not seek to devise a remedy directed to decreasing this \"racial [disparity]\" as such. violating Section 2.12.2 of the revised plan. See Part III of this memorandum, infra. 36Ill Racial Disparities in Achievement (59.) The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan provides for the continuation in force of \"The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989.\" [Section l(a.)] Testifying after being superintendent of schools for four years. Dr. Les Carnine agreed that he understood that the agreement with the State required the LRSD to narrow the achievement gap between black and white students. [Tr., 7-6-01, at 378, 21-24] See also at 378, 2-7 [\"Mr. Walker: Well, Your Honor, let me say this. We have the State agreement - The Court (Judge Wright) That's a settlement agreement, that's correct. about the achievement disparities, about reducing that, that's true.\"]\nTr., 11-20-01, at 564, 1-4 (Dr. Leslie).^ (60.) The LRSD did not II [develop] any particular program by which to remediate achievement disparity between African-American students and other students. . . \" during Dr. Carnine's tenure as superintendent. [Tr., 7-6-01, at 374, 25 to 375, 1-4 (Dr. Carnine)\nTr. , 8-1-01, at 622, 18 to 623, 9 (Associate Superintendent Mitchell)\nsee also Tr. 7-6-01, at 375, 14 to 379, 18 (Dr. Carnine)] (61.) The results of the State Benchmark Examinations and the Stanford Achievement Test show. at best. continuing massive disparities in achievement between black and white students and, at See also CX 594, at 11 [\"The achievement gap between African American and other students is always an issue of concern in the Little Rock School District. A major emphasis in the PreK-3 Literacy Plan is the significant narrowing and eventual elimination of that gap.\"] 37 worst, increasing disparities during the term of the revised plan. (a) On the Benchmark Examinations: [i] the proportion of fourth grade white students attaining the proficient or advanced levels in literacy has exceeded the like proportions for black students by 3.1 times (1998-99), 2.2 times (1999-2000), and 3.3 times (2000-01)\n[ii] the proportion of fourth grade white students attaining the proficient or advanced levels in mathematics has exceeded the like proportions for black students by 6.6 times (1998-99), 4.1 times (1999-2000), and 3.7 times (2000-01)\n[iii] the proportion of eighth grade white students attaining the proficient or advanced levels in literacy exceeded the like proportion for black students by 4.1 times (2000-01)\nand [iv] the proportion of eighth grade white students attaining the proficient advanced levels in mathematics exceeded the like proportion for black students by 10.3 times (2000-01). See appendix infra. (b) Results on the nationally normed SAT 9 test for LRSD students for the period 199697 through 200102 seemingly reflect an increase in the achievement gap. Twenty-one comparisons are possible in the data which covers grades 5, 7, and 10. The following comparisons are for the first (1996-97) and last (2001- 02) years of the six year period, [i] The gap between the average percentile scores of black and white youth increased in 20 of 21 instances\n[ii] over the six years, the average percentile scores for black students increased in 6 instances, remained the same in 6 instances, and declined in 9 instances\n[iii] over the six years, the average percentile scores for white students increased in 17 38 I iinstances, remained the same in 2 instances, and declined in 2 instances. [C 741, at 1] (62.) The LRSD has administered the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) in the Fall and Spring in grades K-2 beginning in 1999-2000. The LRSD maintains that the results show a narrowing of the achievement gap in reading.[E.g. . Tr., 11-20-01, at 409, 21 to 410, 4] However, test results on the DRA depend on a classroom teacher's judgments on his\\her students' abilities to read and to comprehend a series of progressively more difficult reading selections. In the spring, the teacher is in part judging her\\his own performance. The LRSD has recognized this issue: \"One caution, therefore, interpreting the data is that the teacher has scored his\\her own students' performance, and bias may be possible.\" [Year Two Report on the PreK-3 reading program. Tab 4 at 21] There is yet to be like progress, if any progress, on either the State Benchmark Examination or the SAT 9. See also Tr., 8-1-01, at 721, 12 to 726, 12 (lack of a predicate for LRSD to use DRA to evaluate achievement gap by race)] (63.) The LRSD has acknowledged problems prior to the effort to completely overhaul the K-12 program, which would harm black students disproportionately and exacerbate the achievement gap. The LRSD curriculum did not cover various strands of the State benchmarks. The Title I program emphasized \"pull out programs\" which isolated participants, disproportionately black. from the mainstream curriculum. See paragraphs 31, 34-38, 53-54. (64.) The LRSD has not substantially complied with its 39 iobligation under Section 2.7 of the revised plan to implement the activities which it identified \"to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students . , II See paragraphs 41-55. (65.) The LRSD has not provided a predicate to end court jurisdiction with regard to its voluntary undertaking \"to narrow\" the achievement gap between black and white students. IV. Program Evaluation (66.) Three aspects of Section 2.7.1 (quoted above at page 19) are noteworthy. First. In the first sentence and the second sentence, the words \"assess\" and \"assessment\" refer to programs (rather than to assessment of students). Second. The assessment obligation is not limited to the programs described in Part 5 of the revised plan, but instead pertains to those \"implemented n pursuant to Section 2.7 . .  which as noted is not confined to the programs in Part of the plan. Third. The assessment 5 obligation is annual in nature. (67.) Asked during the hearing on November 19, 2001, \"to discuss the difference between an assessment and an evaluation,\" Associate Superintendent Bonnie Lesley began by testifying \"[w]ell, I think part of the confusion has been that we have sometimes used those terms interchangeably . . .\" [Tr., at 242, 13-17] The evidence shows that prior to the hearings on whether or not LRSD had attained unitary status, the LRSD had indicated repeatedly, by its actions. that compliance with Section 2.7.1 required the carrying out of program evaluations. Indeed, Dr. Lesley agreed with 40this proposition, when called as witness by the Joshua a Intervenors. The relevant evidence is summarized in sub-paragraphs (a) to (e). (a) LRSD issued a \"Compliance Plan for the LRSD Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\" on June 10, 1999. The text concerning Section 2.7.1. identified relevant \"Board Policies\" to include those on \"Testing Programs\" and \"Program Evaluation.\" The text on \"Procedures (Regulations, Administrative Directives, Handbooks, etc.\") relevant to Section 2.7.1 provided as follows: 1. Program Evaluation Agenda - in progress 2. Title I Restructuring Plan provides for Title I evaluation 3. National Science Foundation Project provides for program evaluation 4. Application for waiver includes an evaluation design from State or District rules 5. In progress: second-year evaluation of Success for All Thus, as seen, every sub-paragraph referred to \"evaluation.\" [See CX 544, at 11-12] (b) In a June 1999 position paper on the PreK-3 literacy program LRSD staff wrote: PreK-3 Literacy Program evaluation. ----------------------- In keeping with the obligations in the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, the District shall employ with Title I funding a program evaluator, who shall annually report on the level of effectiveness of the innovations in this PreK-3 Literacy Plan. [CX 703, Doc. 1, at 44\nemphasis added] See also Tr., 11-19-01, at 278, 19-21 (Dr. Leslie). (c) The material in the March 2000 interim compliance report addressing Section 2.7.1 refers to \"[i]mprovements in the assessment of academic programs.\" [At 51] It also cites. inter 41alia, the \"Program Evaluation Plan\" [at 51], a draft policy on \"Curriculum Evaluation\" [at 52], and \"[t]he 1999-2000 program evaluation agenda . ,  approved by the Board of Education in August 1999.\" [At 53] (d) The material in the March 2001 compliance report addressing Section 2.7.1 is headed \"Program Evaluation\" which is repeated at a later point in the discussion.  a title The text (page 148 of the report) includes at least nine other references to fl evaluation.\" (e) During her testimony on August 1, 2001, Dr. Leslie agreed that the District had interpreted 2.7.1, which does not use the word evaluation. as nevertheless raising the topic of program evaluation. [Tr., 8-1-01, at 705, 24 to 707, 12\nsee also Tr. , 8-2-01, at 843 , 7-15 (Judge Wright noting that LRSD voluntarily undertook . . . obligation to have program evaluations of the programs that are designed to enhance African-American achievement\"] (68.) The LRSD took a different tact in seeking to defend its implementation of Section 2.7.1, at the hearing on November 19, 2001. Dr. Lesley cited testing of students and other \" assessment\" activities as satisfying Section 2.7.1. [Tr., 11-19-01, at 242, 18- 22\n243 , 6 to 249, 14\nsee also at 253, 22 to 254, 6 (colloquy between Judge Wright and LRSD counsel)]^ The content of paragraphs Dr. Lesley distinguished such assessment a \"proqram evaluation.\" [Tr., 11-19-01, at 242, 23 to 243, 5] She described a program evaluation as \"more long term\" [at 242, 23]  a feature congruent with the reference in Section 2.7.1 to an activity \"after each year . . . .\"in contrast, her discussion of \"assessment\" as from 23] fl In contrast, her discussion of \"assessment\" 42(a) through (h) supra provide the likely explanation for the LRSD's seeking to defend its performance by discussion of assessment rather than evaluation. The deficiencies in evaluation activities have been such that a finding of substantial compliance with Section 2.7.1 is not warranted. (a) The LRSD Board of Directors did not \"[adopt\"] its Policy IL on \"Evaluation of Instructional Programs\" until March 22, 2001 near the end of year three of plan implementation. [CX 575] As noted, Section 2.7.1 refers to assessments (evaluations) \"after each year.\" The LRSD \"voluntarily undertook [this] obligation.\" (b) The LRSD Planning, Research and Evaluation unit (PRE) presented evaluation documents covering four areas to the Board of Education in August 2000. The documents concerned the PreK-3 literacy program, the implementation of middle schools (including the effectiveness of new curriculum in English language arts and science), the effectiveness of the ESL program and the national Science Foundation project components. The Board of Education tabled the consideration of these documents because they were incomplete and there were no recommendations. [Tr., 7-6-01, at 362, 24 to 365, at 389, 18 to 392, 18\nat 400, 16 to 401, 22 23\n(Superintendent Carnine)] During the three year period of the plan, the LRSD recognized that it did not have the capability, interencompassing teachers \"us[ing] the data that they have available on a daily basis to decide what to do next for one chid, for a group of children or for the whole class\" [at 245, 12-20] was incongruent with the provision in 2.7.1. 43nally, to prepare the required evaluations. [Tr., 7-6-01, at 400, 2-19 (Dr. Carnine)\nTr. , 8-2-01, at 710, 3 to 713, 21 (Dr. Lesley)\nat 829, 20 to 831, 6\nTr., 11-20-01, at 334, 496, 3 (Dr. Lesley)] 5-14\nat 495, 16 to (c) The versions of the evaluation of the implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program prepared during the three-year period were drafts. [CX 577, Tr. , 7-6-01, at 418, 17-23 (Dr. at 1\nCarnine)\nTr., 8-1-01, at 709, 3 to 710, 8 (Dr. Lesley)\nTr., li20 01, at 321, 21 to 322, 22\nat 472, 25 to 473, 8 (Dr. Lesley)] (d) The versions of the evaluation of the implementation of the new mathematics and science curricula prepared during the three-year period were drafts. [CX 577, at 1\nTr. , 7-6-01, at 398, 1 to 399, 9\nat 418, 17-23 (Dr. Carnine)\nTr., 8-2-01, at 829, 20 to 831, 6\nTr., 11-20-01, at 473, 25 to 476, 14 (Dr. Lesley)] (e) The version of the evaluation of the implementation of the new middle school program prepared during the three-year period was a draft. [CX 577, at 1] (f) The LRSD did not conduct during the three-year period an evaluation of the implementation of the several policies requiring interventions\\remediation for students performing below para. 49. par. See (g) The LRSD identified the summer school program as an important component of its effort \"to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students\" [Section 2.7]. [March 2000 report, at 47\nMarch 2001 report, at 62, 125-26] In its March 2001 report, LRSD asserted that \"PRE has evaluated\" the 44\"Summer School [Program].\" [At 148] However, the evaluation of the summer school program for \"Summer School 2000\" was only in draft form as of April 5, 2001 and July 17, 2001. [CX 721\nTr., 8-1-01, at 645, 12 to 652, 12 (Assoc. Superintendent Mitchell)\nTr., 11-20-01, at 357, 1 to 358, 8] (h) In the March 15, 2001 report the LRSD asserted that \"PRE has evaluated . . . [11] programs . . II [At 148] This assertion is misleading. [aa] The \"Extended Years Report\" existed in draft form as of July 13, 2001\nthere is a version of the report dated September 28, 2001. [CX 720] [bb] The LRSD presented only drafts of the \"Summer School\" report. [CX 721] [cc] There is an evaluation of the \"Hippy Program\" dated July 1999. [CX 722] [dd] The report on the \"Charter School\" is dated June 25, 2001\nit was written by an external consultant. [CX 723] [ee] The report on \"Campus Leadership Teams\" contains survey data dated May 11, 2001 and lists of participants, without further discussion. [CX 724] [ff ] There is an evaluation of the ESL program dated * October 30, 2000. [CX 725] [gg] There is a draft evaluation on the \"Lyceum Scholars Program at Philander Smith College\" dated September 22, 2000. [CX 726] 45[hh] With regard to the \"Southwest Middle School's SEDL Program,\" there is a request for data from an external source and some data, not an evaluation. [CX 727\nTr., 11-20-01, at 361, 17 to 362, 5] [ii] With regard to \"Onward to Excellence (Watson Elementary),\" there is collection of information provided by the \"Site Facilitator\" on November 1, 2001, not an evaluation. [CX 728\nTr., 11-20-01, at 362, 7-17] [jj] With regard to \"Collaborative Action Team (CAT),\" there is a collection of survey data and some comments, of anonymous authorship. dated November 6, 2001. [CX 729\nTr., 11-20-01, at 363, 10-24] [kk] Regarding \"Vital Link,\" there is a brief. a undated evaluation of anonymous authorship. [CX 730] (67.) The LRSD did not substantially comply with the program evaluation obligation which it voluntarily assumed by virtue of Section 2.7.1. The LRSD did not evaluate the academic programs which it implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 after each year to determine their effectiveness in improving African-American achievement and to use the results to make program changes. Indeed, it has not fulfilled this agreement after three years. In fact, the LRSD tacitly acknowledged its failure by seeking to recast the nature of its obligation during the hearings. 46Argument A. Introduction and the Standard for Substantial Compliance In this matter, the court is called upon to \"[apply] the terms of a contract between [two of] the parties ...\" [LRSD v, PCSSD, 11, 83 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Sth Cir. 1996)]  the LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors. \"Because this case has been settled, the settlement agreement becomes, in a sense, a particularization of federal law applicable to these parties.\" Knight v. Pulaski County Special School District. 112 F.3d 953, 955 (Sth Cir. 1997). Put another way, \"the terms of the settlement agreement became the law of the case.\" Little Rock School District V. Pulaskui County Special School District. No. 96-2047, Slip Opinion, Dec. 15, 1997, at 6. In sum. this court is called upon to apply the parties' agreement in the form of the revised plan, which left in place among other things \"The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989.\" [Section l(a.)] The revised plan identifies the standards which this court is to apply to determine, for example, whether the LRSD fulfilled its obligations regarding student discipline and program evaluation. and whether it is entitled to a \"release from court supervision.\" That other systems face less onerous criteria^ is irrelevant. LRSD is held to the obligations which it \"voluntarily undertook\" [see Tr., 8-2-01, at 843, 7-15 (Judge Wright referring to \"obligation to have program evaluations\")\nthey form \"the law of [this] case.\" 18 See LRSD Me.-Brief, at 18-19, 28. 47Construed as an entirety [see n. 1 at 1, supra 1 . the terms of the agreement support the construction that the court's jurisdiction continues as to an area in which a party meets its burden of proof of showing \"that LRSD has [not] substantially complied with its obligations set forth in [the] Revised Plan.\" [Section 11] In this light, a principal task for this court is to define the term \"[substantial compliance].\" The opinion in Cody v. Hillard. 139 F.3d 1197 (Sth Cir. 1998) provides guidance on this topic. 19 There, the district court had dissolved a consent decree, merely asserting in a conclusory manner that \"the defendants have conscientiously and in good faith complied substantially with its terms.\" [At 1199] In explaining the inadequacy of the district court's terse ruling, the appellate court wrote, in part: . . . . The record indicates that there have been failures in the past to comply with the decree and supplemental orders, and that there are still 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 violations inconsequential in considered any the context of substantial compliance. If the conditions Powitz complained of constitute violations of the consent decree. exercise violations noncompliance its I were discretion I serious and to in the district court must determining whether those enough to constitute substantial cast doubt compliance with the Constitution. . added] on defendants' future . . [At 1199\nemphasis The Cody court focuses on two related matter. These are. first, whether any violations are \"inconsequential\" in the light of 19 Cody is, however, largely distinguishable\n\"[t]he decree did not state the time of its duration.\" consent 1198. See 139 F.3d at 48the parties' overall performance and, second, whether the particular violations, given their subject matter, involve \"serious\" natters. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit twice addressed the meaning of \"substantial compliance\" in the context of appeals from judgments of civil contempt. See Fortin v. Com'r of Mass. Dept. of Public Welfare, 692 F.2d 790 (1982) and Morales-Feliciano V. Parole Bd. of Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 887 F. 2d 1 (1989) (Judge Breyer). These decisions are also helpful. In Fortin, the court wrote [692 F.2d at 795]: . 'substantiality' must depend Finally, no particular percentage of compliance can be a safe-harbor figure, transferable from one context to another. Like ^reasonableness,' . . . 'substantiality' must depend on the circumstances of each case, including the nature of the interest at stake and the degree to which non-compliance affects that interest. In the present case, the interest at stake - entitlement to subsistence-level benefits - is great . . ., making the consequences of failure to comply quite serious. The district court properly weighed the seriousness of the harm . . - in considering the substantiality of the Department's compliance. . . . [citations omitted] The court also considered the duration of noncompliance. Id. at 796. The Morales-Feliciano court followed the Fortin standard. See 887 F.2d at 4-5. Intervenors next apply these standards to the facts. The argument shows that all of the shortcomings cited in the Intervenors' factual presentation involve substantial noncompliance. Because all areas of noncompliance impinge on and harm the education of youth, an interest of great importance [see Fortin and Morales-Feliciano, supra], Intervenors address that matter once at the conclusion of the argument. 49B. Student Discipline In this case involving racial discrimination in public education, the person responsible for compliance with the discipline sections of the plan testified: \"I can't say that we are looking at it based on See para. 18. Dr. Watson's description of inaction concerning discipline was entirely race.\" consistent with her admission. See paras. 12-17. The violation of Section 2.5 was \"serious. II Cody, supra. The system argues that the revised plan \"did not require the LRSD to reduce the discipline disparity.\" [At 28] However, it did require actions \"designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline . . It [ Sec. 2.5\nemphasis added] Compliance would necessarily require scrutiny of disparity to determine whether it originated in discrimination in any schools. In any event, the LRSD plainly assumed this obligation in Section 2.12.2. See para. 26. Lastly, there are also obvious and serious violations of Section 2.1 (good faith efforts) and Part 6 (compliance program). See paras. 27-28. The LRSD merely accepted disparate discipline as a fact of lif e. That tact may be open to other school systems. See LRSD Mem. -Brief, at 28. However, the LRSD pledged to implement the revised plan in good faith. The plan became, therefore. \"the law of this case.\" The failure to implement the provisions of Section 2.5.4 (behavior modification plans) can not be dismissed as \"inconsequential.\" The March 2001 report listed 4,274 suspensions 50of black pupils in 1999-2000. [At 24] There was a need for such plans\nthe LRSD merely gave \"lip service\" to the concept. Para. 25. C- Improving and Remediating the Achievement of Black Students The LRSD pledged not only to design, but also to implement actions \"to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students.\" [Section 2.7] 11 [T]he circumstances of [this] case ...\" [Fortin, supra] highlight the centrality of this pledge. The evidence shows that at the time that the parties drafted the revised plan and its implementation began, LRSD polices and practices isolated black students, disproportionately, from the curriculum content LRSD identified as important for all students. This practice included the operation of the Title I program a mode of operation diametrically opposed to the requirements federal law. See paras. 31-38, 53. of The LRSD determined, essentially, that it needed to replace its curriculum and that this step would fulfil its Section 2.7 obligation to the plaintiff class. Intervenors factual presentation shows that implementation fell short in areas deemed significant by LRSD (training of teachers for the new literacy curriculum. implementation of the new math-science and social studies curricula. provision of interventions to students [mostly black youth] not performing well. and monitoring of classrooms. See paras. 32, 43 51. Indeed, State Benchmark Examination results in April 2001 revealed that the vast majority of black pupils in grades 4 and 8 continued to show signs of isolation from the curriculum content deemed essential by the State and the LRSD in 51 math and language arts. See paras. 52-55. These shortcomings in compliance obviously involved \"serious\" and not \"inconsequential\" matters. Cody, supra. D. Racial Disparities in Achievement Former Superintendent Carnine, Associate Superintendent Lesley, and Judge Wright recognized the continuing requirement of an effort to narrow the achievement gap between black and white students. See paragraph 59. LRSD did not argue during the hearing that it could not narrow the achievement gap. It argued that its Section 2.7 activities would do so  and that it was doing so in the area of early grade literacy. See Tr., 7-6-01, at 375, 379, 18 (Dr. Carnine)\nsee para. 62. 14 to The LRSD did not develop any particular program designed to remedy achievement disparity between black and white pupils [see para. 60]\nthere have been, as noted, serious shortcomings in its implementation of the strategies to overhaul the educational program, K-12, which were to improve black achievement. The results of State benchmark and SAT 9 testing provide evidence that the educations of countless African-American students in the system have been tainted by isolation from the mainstream curriculum. See paras. 53-54, 61. The LRSD had promised in the prior plan to deal with achievement disparity. [At para. B] Manifestly, 1. a curriculum isolating black students from core content was not the way to make progress in this sphere. The failures to address the achievement gap, as such, and to implement major parts of the reforms encompassed in Section 2.7 are 52\"serious\" shortcomings. E. Program Evaluation The LRSD elected voluntarily to make a major commitment which it understood to involve program evaluation until such time as it determined that it could not show substantial compliance with Section 2.7.1, as so construed. Para. 67. The commitment encompasses not only evaluating the programs designed to benefit black students' achievement \"after each year,\" but also making changes if programs prove to be ineffective. Section 2.7.1. The LRSD seeks to defend its performance in this area by arguing that Section 2.7.1 required something less than a program evaluation. [LRSD Mem.-Brief, at 22-23] Intervenors have addressed this point. LRSD also contends that Intervenors' focus is on a set of evaluations, which the system had identified on page 148 of its March 2001 report. [LRSD Mem.-Brief, at 20] LRSD asserts: \"The evaluations were introduced as Court's Exhibits 720-730.\" [Id., at 21] Our response is two-fold. First. Intervenors's focus is on the LRSD's failure to complete, even in the threeyear period. program evaluations of central features of the LRSD program to implement Section 2.7. See paras. 68. Second. The content of paragraph 68(h) shows that the assertion that the page 148 \"evaluations were introduced\" is vast overstatement. The evaluations were to be an integral part of the LRSD effort to provide programs to improve and remediate the achievement of African-American students. The default here is \"serious,\" not 53inconsequential\" in the overall scheme of things. Cody, supra. F. The Setting in which Noncompliance Occurred \"In the present case, the interest at stake - [education] - is great . . . , making the consequences of failure to comply quite serious.\" Fortin,_supra. Indeed, the Supreme Court has recognized the importance of education in the contexts of racially discriminatory school systems [Brown V. Board of Education. 347 U.S. 483, 492-93 (1954)] and school suspensions [Goss v. Lopez. 419 U.S. 565, 576 (1975)]. See also Appeal of Little Rock School District, 949 F.2d 253, 256 (Sth Cir. 1991) (in identifying \"those elements of the 1989 plan that we consider crucial, and to which no retreat should be approved,\" court notes \"the agreed effort to eliminate achievement disparity between the races\"). States and local districts identify benchmarks in areas such as literacy and mathematics so that they can graduate youth prepared to enter postsecondary programs and later participate in all of life's callings and positive experiences. The noncompliance cited by intervenors continues to threaten these ends. The setting in which noncompliance has occurred adds to its substantiality. Conclusion The Joshua Intervenors bargained for. and secured by the district court's approval of the revised plan, the right to three years of substantial compliance with its terms. The appropriate remedy for substantial noncompliance in the areas addressed in this memorandum is compensatory relief in the form of a three year 54period of actual substantial compliance in those areas (and any other areas identified as ancillary to the areas marked by violations). See Miener v. Missouri. 800 F.2d 749 (Sth Cir. 1986)\nPihl V-_Massachusetts Dept, of Ed.. 9 F.3d 184 (1st Cir. 1993)\nLester H. v. Gilhool, 916 F.2d 865 (3rd. Cir. 1990), cert, denied, 111 S.Ct. 1317 (1991)\nJefferson County Board of Education V. Breen, 853 F.2d 853 (11th Cir. 1988). The same criteria concerning ultimate termination of the court's role should apply to the fresh three-year period. Finally, the LRSD suggestion [Mem.-Brief at 2] that the court could terminate its role despite finding of substantial a noncompliance should be rejected. The Cody opinion (at 1199) contains this language. citing the Supreme Court decision in Dowell: \"if district court finds that defendant operating in compliance with Constitution and unlikely to return to 'its former ways,' purposes of injunction have been achieved\" (emphasis added). This identifies a two-part standard. In any event, the LRSD agreed to make substantial compliance the test for the end of a court role and is bound by that choice. .'VX/' xR^pectfully .submitted, oecttully Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 Mass. 405900 ,Aohn W. Walker ^ohn W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 Ark. 64046 55Arkansas Benchmark Examination 4th Grade Literacy Note: See footnote 10 (description of Benchmark Examinations) Black Students 1998-99 [4-99] 1999-00 [4-00] 2000-01 [4-01] Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced 52% 36% 49% 28% 80% 70% 81% 34% 32% 20% 29% 19% 0% 20% 30% 19% 1% 0% White Students 1998-99 [4-99] 1999-00 [4-00] 2000-01 [4-01] Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced 17% 10% 14% 21% 38% 58% 62% 4% 23% 33% 60% 66% 6% 23% 37% 56% 7% 63% Appendix 1Arkansas Benchmark Examination 4th Grade Mathematics Note: See footnote 10 (description of Benchmark Examinations) Black Students 1998-99 [4-99] 1999-00 [4-00] 2000-01 [4-01] Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced 74% 91% 17% 6% 2% 69% 85% 16% 10% 69% 17% 8% 8% 5% 15% 6% 86% 14% White Students 1998-99 [4-99] 1999-00 [4-00] 2000-01 [4-01] Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced 24% 24% 25% 23% 28% 25% 47% 40% 48% 16% 21% 23% 21% 53% 40% 61% 31% 52% Appendix 2Arkansas Benchmark Examination 8th Grade Literacy Note: See footnote 10 (description of Benchmark Examinations) Black Students Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced 1998-99 [4-99] 1999-00 [4-00] 2000-01 [4-01] 43% 39% 82% 17% 1% 18% White Students Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced 1998-99 [4-99] 1999-00 [4-00] 2000-01 [4-01] 8% 19% 27% 51% 22% 73% Appendix 3Arkansas Benchmark Examination 8th Grade Mathematics Note: See footnote 10 [description of Benchmark Examinations) Black Students Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced 1998-99 [4-99] 1999-00 [4-00] 2000-01 [4-01] 75% 21% 4% 0% 96% 4% White Students Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced 1998-99 [4-99] 1999-00 [4-00] 2000-01 [4-01] 25% 34% 59% 31% 10% 41% Appendix 4The Extent of the Racial Disparity in Discipline by School, Race, and Sex in 1998-99 The Extent Black Male Suspensions Per 100 Students Exceed White Male Suspensions Per 100 Students The Extent Black Female Suspensions Per 100 Students Exceed White Female Suspensions Per 100 Students Junior High Schools Cloverdale Dunbar Forrest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest 1.23 2.05 1.56 1.64 1.39 2.07 3.00 0.79 1.53 2.71 2.18 1 to 1 1.11 2.80 7.00 0.71 Total 1.83 2.40 Senior High Schools Central Fair Hall McClellan Parkview 2.00 1.50 1.65 2.25 1.13 3.50 1.27 2.44 1.17 0.67 Total 1.83 1.71 Source\nODM Report, June 2000, at 90-120 Appendix 5 ICERTIFICATE OF SERVICF. This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the following counsel or record, postage prepaid on this day of May, 2002. Mr. Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark, P.A. 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 1. fehifW.ap RECEIVED FILED us DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL J 8 2002 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUL J 6 2002 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. 4:82CV00866-WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. Let al MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al ORDER JAME! 0 c DEP CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Attached is a transcript of the hearing held Friday, last (July 12). Since time is short (the evidentiary hearing will commence next Monday, July 22), this transcript, rather than a detailed. separate order, is adopted as the order of the court (court solecisms and all). IT IS SO ORDERED this I ri* day of July, 2002. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITFH RULE 58 AND/OR 7^ RCP ON BY.  1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, V . PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al.. Intervenors. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al.. Intervenors. No. 4:82CV00866WRW Friday, July 12, 2002 Little Rock, Arkansas 8:30 a.m. 12 13 TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE WILLITkM R. WILSON, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 APPEARANCES: 15 On Behalf of Little Rock School District: 16 17 18 19 MR. CHRISTOPHER HELLER, Attorney at Law MR. JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR., Attorney at Law Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Regions Center, Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 20 On Behalf of Pulaski County Special School District: 21 22 MR. M. S7H4UEL JONES, III, Attorney at Law Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 NationsBank Building 23 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 24 25 [Continued] Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter1 2 APPEARANCES CONTINUED: 2 On Behalf of North Little Rock School District: 3 4 5 MR. STEPHEN W. JONES, Attorney at Law MR. GUY W. MURPHY, JR., Attorney at Law Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 6 7 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3472 On Behalf of the Joshua Inteirvenors: 10 11 MR. JOHN W, WALKER, Attorney at Law MR. John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206\nand ROBERT PRESSMAN, Attorney at Law 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Massachusetts 02421 8 9 12 On Behalf of the Knight Intervenors: 13 14 MR. RICHARD W. ROACHELL, Attorney at Law Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 15 16 17 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 RECEIVED 18 JUL J 8 2002 19 OFFICE OF 0KE6REGATI0N MONITORING 20 21 22 Proceedings reported by machine stenography and displayed in realtime\ntranscript prepared utilizing computer-aided transcription. 23 24 25 Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter 11 3 (Proceeding at 8:30 a.m., as follows:) 2 THE COURT: We're here this morning for a short 3 hearing in the Little Rock School District against the Pulaski 4 5 County Special School, et al. It's Case No. LR-C-82-866. I 10 might first introduce counsel and the people present to Ms. Christy Conrad. Would you stand up, please, ma'am? She is my new lawyer on this case, commenced to work this morning. case. She will be the law clerk especially assigned to this That's Ms. Christy Conrad. We might start with Mr. Walker. I got my letter off late 6 7 8 9 11 yesterday, and if you don't mind outlining for me briefly what 12 13 your two rebuttal witnesses will say. Ms. Marshall go ahead. If you don't mind, come to the lectern. When we start 14 the trial next week, week after next, we'll have mikes on the 15 table, but I don't have them now. 16 MR. WALKER: Your Honor, my I inquire whether you 17 received my letter? Apparently our letters -- 18 THE COURT: I did get a letter from you. I've got it 19 right here, as a matter of fact. I don't believe it addressed 20 that issue. If it did, I overlooked it. Like I say, my letter 21 got out later than I thought. 22 MR. WALKER: Your Honor, it does attempt to address 23 it on page 2, paragraph four, sub six. 24 25 THE COURT: Paragraph four? MR. WALKER: Sub six, the bottom of the second page. Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter1 It begins, 4 \"Plaintiff suggests that if not\" 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 THE COURT: All right. Let me read that. I do have this letter, and I've read it. That's another one of my lawyers. We're all working on this case, and she needs to be able to hear us back in chambers, and she has just announced, Mr. Walker, she couldn't hear you. So both of us need to speak right into the mike. 10 11 12 13 MR. WALKER: THE COURT: sir. I have read that. Can you be a little more specific with us? MR. WALKER: Dr. Lesley in her testimony indicated that the evaluation process was not flawed. in part because it was it involved the ODM, Mr. Gene Jones specifically. and Yes, 9 14 Ms. Ann Marshall to some extent. And she submitted an exhibit 15 that relates to or was attempting to relate to the 16 participation of the ODM, in order to demonstrate that 17 involvement. We wanted to establish what ODM's role was and 18 also the fact that ODM at all times through Mr. Jones had 19 expressed difficulty and problems with the evaluation approach 20 that was being used by the district and the lack of 21 evaluations. 22 THE COURT: And Ms. Marshall and Gene Jones are both 23 going to address that issue? 24 25 MR. WALKER: There were two separate points where -- which differ. Ms. Marshall can only relate to an exhibit that Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter1 5 Dr. Lesley introduced where she made reference to, if I 2 understand to be correct, where she made reference to the 3 comments and the like that had been made about in criticism or 4 critique of a document which she had prepared, and it would be 5 our intention to show that that was misrepresentative of the 6 involvement of ODM. 7 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. 8 MR. WALKER: And the other will be Mr. Gene Jones, 9 and Mr. Jones was sometimes invited to some of the sessions 10 that dealt with the subject. And his -- the way his 11 participation was presented, we would address, and also the 12 comments and the like that he made or his obse3rvations from the 13 perspective from which he sits we thought would be useful to 14 the Court in explaining the overall evaluation. The ODM was 15 supposed to have a special role in relationship to the whole 16 process, and we would like to at least take that time to put 17 that in. 18 THE COURT: All right. I'll hear from Mr. Heller, 19 see if he continues his objection in view of that. 20 21 MR. HELLER: Good morning, your Honor. We do continue our objection. Mr. Walker didn't identify any of the 22 exhibits he's talking about. Dr. Lesley's testimony, which. as 23 we've said, could have been anticipated in its entirety because 24 it didn't concern anything other than the compliance reports 25 which were filed by the district, her testimony regarding ODM Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter1 6 10 was minimal. As I recall, all she did was point out that an ODM monitoring report which is in the record did not require anything other than what Dr. Lesley was doing. in the record. That report is Mr. Walker had a chance to question Dr. Lesley about it, and there shouldn't be any issue about that. With regard to Mr. Jones, all that was said about him was that he was a participant in several meetings. I think that's undisputed. Dr. Lesley didn't say that she thought Mr. Jones' position on a particular issue would be X or Y. The only thing in the record that I recall is that Mr. Jones participated in a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 meeting, and I think that's undisputed. 12 With respect to Mr. Walker's comment about Mr. Jones' 13 perspective would be helpful on the evaluation process, which 14 really, as the Court is aware, was a requirement for 15 16 assessments rather than evaluations, that's something that clearly could have been presented in Mr. Walker's case in 17 18 chief, if he believed that someone from ODM had a perspective about the assessment process that was important, because 19 Mr. Walker knew that's exactly what Dr. Lesley was going to 20 testify about. 21 THE COURT: Let me say this before you leave the 22 lectern, if you will, because I may ask you another question: 23 I generally take a pretty dim view of rebuttal evidence because 24 I've found that most of it -- I've found in practice over the 25 years that most of it is not true rebuttal. And I point that Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter1 7 10 11 out in some of my letters or orders, and, as a matter of fact. in my standard scheduling order or letter with that scheduling order, one or the other, I point out that rebuttal witnesses must be identified if known. Well, that's almost by definition that if they're known, they're not rebuttal witnesses. always had a hard time with that. So I've But this case was tried by Judge Wright, the first roughly half of evidentiary hearing on the issues before the Court now. She did reserve 30 minutes' rebuttal time. Truthfully, I'm inclined to agree that this doesn't sound like rebuttal, but out of an abundance of caution. since it's only 30 minutes. I'm 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 going to allow these witnesses to be called, with these 13 requirements: Number one, I'm going to require Mr. Walker to 14 identify the documents -- are you prepared to do that now. 15 Mr. Walker, exhibits, or would you rather do this by a pleading 16 in the next -- by, say, Monday afternoon? 17 18 19 20 you 21 MR. WALKER: THE COURT: MR. WALKER: THE COURT: A letter, your Honor. All right. Then by 4 p. m. Monday. Your Honor, before you finish, could Let me finish, and then I'm going to let 22 you have the floor again, Mr. Walker. 23 24 MR. WALKER: All right. Thank you. THE COURT: By 4 p.m. Monday, identify the exhibits 25 that you plan to address with Jones or Marshall. Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Number two, Mr. Heller, if you want to -- you can interview these people, I assume. If you can't interview them. I'll allow you to take a telephone deposition of them next week to prepare you to meet this rebuttal testimony. If you want to do that, notify Mr. Walker and me by 11 a.m. Monday, if you want to take their depositions as opposed to interviewing them. All right. If you don't have any other comments. 8 9 Mr. Heller, Mr. Walker looks like he's going to swell up and burst if he doesn't get to say something else on this. 10 MR. HELLER: There is just one thing, your Honor. I 11 think it's at least implicit in all of the orders, but we'll 12 13 certainly have an opportunity for cross-examination. I'm not sure how that counts against our time in the overall process. 14 but 15 THE COURT: I'm going to be somewhere between Judge 16 Woods and Judge Eisele on timing. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. HELLER: I think we'll have plenty left from our 20 hours, even if the cross-examination counts against THE COURT: All right. us. MR. WALKER: Well, your Honor, I have no objection to them interviewing these people, but Ms. Brown has always -- and the ODM, for the Court's benefit, has always taken the position that it's available to speak with either or both of the parties about any matter that they are related to. THE COURT: It looks to me like, Mr. Walker, you've Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter9 1 2 3 4 just won. Are you piling on now? MR. WALKER: No, sir. No, sir. All I'm saying -- no. sir. All I'm saying is that it's not an order that's necessary. I mean, they have that as a standing -- that's been 5 longstanding in the district, as long as the ODM has been in 6 the process. 7 THE COURT: I'm going to enter the order even if it's 8 pure surplusage. 9 MR. WALKER: All right. Now, with respect to the 10 testimony, we will provide that. 11 12 13 14 15 THE COURT: MR. WALKER: THE COURT: MR. WALKER: THE COURT: You mean the exhibits? The exhibits. Right. Your Honor, by way of background -- Let me -- I want to change that. If you 16 want to depose them, I don't think you would, Mr. Heller, but 17 if you do, let me know by -- let Mr. Walker and me know by 9 or 18 9:30, by 9:30 Tuesday morning, because you may not know until 19 you see the exhibits. 20 Go ahead, Mr. Walker. 21 MR. WALKER: Your Honor, I hate to say this. The 22 Court -- you indicated you were going to follow much of Judge 23 24 25 Wright's process that she followed. She steadfastly refused to allow us to depose the ODM, which was part of her staff. as she said it, because that would, in effect. in a way be like Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter1 2 10 deposing an arm of the Court. And I would ask that the Court not enter an order requiring depositions but allowing instead 3 for them to just have the interviews. 4 Once you start doing that, then 5 THE COURT: You know, that's a pretty good point. 6 Let me hear from Mr. Heller on that. 7 10 11 aware, MR. WALKER: MR. HELLER: Okay. Your Honor, as I'm sure the Court is we raised an issue with Judge Wright concerning the role of the monitors in this case. THE COURT: Let me say something on that, and I'll 8 9 12 try not to interrupt you too much, but I probably won't do a 13 14 very good job since I have -- I'm a type A. When I assumed the case, I met with Ms. -- or was assigned the case. I met with 15 Ms. Marshall, and we exchanged pleasantries right after I was 16 17 appointed. We did not talk about the substance of the case in any way. After that, after thinking about it and after 18 reviewing the file some and seeing what had been discussed. I 19 asked a member of my staff to contact Ms. Marshall and advise 20 her that all of our communications would be in writing. And I 21 have had no further conversations with her, do not intend to. 22 Everything will be in writing. And I can't imagine that I 23 wouldn't share the -- whatever writings I send to her or she 24 sends to me with counsel. So there will be no - just out of 25 an abundance of caution -- and I see the ODM as a fact- Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter11 1 gathering institution, and I'm going to use ODM in a different 2 way than Judge Wright used the ODM, although I'm not 3 criticizing or passing judgment on the way she used it. 4 But if 10 11 12 13 14 that helps you, that's I hope it does. But at any rate. that will be the relationship. MR. HELLER: And I think, your Honor, that addresses Mr. Walker's argument, because our position with Judge Wright IS , the monitor's office is either more like a law clerk and cannot be deposed but can't testify either, or more of a fact gatherer and not so closely related to the Court that testimony would be prohibited. And Judge Wright allowed us to take Ann Marshall's deposition. her testimony. We've done it once in anticipation of So your ruling is entirely consistent with what Judge Wright had previously ordered. And in any event, I can 5 6 7 8 9 15 say right now that if interviews can be arranged, I won't be 16 17 asking for a deposition. I will be perfectly satisfied with an interview. But only in the event that we couldn't reach an 18 agreement about arranging an interview -- 19 20 THE COURT: Let me ask you this, Mr. Heller: Assuming you wanted to discuss conversations. you or 21 Mr. Walker, either one, that Ms. Marshall had had with Judge 22 Wright, I don't see how that would be relevant now that I'm the 23 trier of fact. So that's something that I want to avoid being 24 delved into if a deposition is allowed. 25 MR. HELLER: I agree that would not be relevant. Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter1 2 3 4 5 6 12 again. shot. THE COURT: All right. Well, I'm going to flip-flop Y'all are going to give me a nervous breakdown. MR. WALKER: THE COURT: Don't do it yet. All right. I'll give Mr. Walker one last MR. WALKER: This is not a subject that I asked that 7 should be dealt with perhaps today. 8 9 I think that the Court of Appeals was very clear about what it wanted monitoring to do. There was a special concurrence from Judge Wollman in the -- 10 11 THE COURT: I'm familiar with that concurrence. MR. WALKER: -- that anticipated that monitoring 12 would be conducted in a certain manner, and the manner that it 13 was being conducted has, in effect, been approved by the Court 14 of Appeals. Now, if it's to be changed, then I would certainly 15 think that the Court ought to at least invite the positions of 16 the parties in writing and a brief on the subject so that we -- 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: MR. WALKER: On what subject? On the subject of the way the monitors should react or act with the Court. Recall in this situation. your Honor, there is a situation where once when Little Rock came to court and demonstrated that it was not aware of all the employees they had, even the total number and what they were doing and things like that. Judge Wright then gave the  office a function that was to do an investigation and to do things, and then she had hearings on those things. The Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter1 13 role of the monitor is distinctly different from that of 2 a party where orders are given and things --so what we'd like to 3 4 do is at least preserve that. In the field of desegregation 10 11 12 law, monitors me to do. THE COURT: MR. WALKER: I'm not understanding what you're asking I'm asking that you do nothing to change the way that that office operates. Because if you say that you're going to - THE COURT: I'm not changing the way, as far as I know. MR. WALKER: Even if you communicate with them and 5 6 7 8 9 13 communicate with them each time in writing, I think that that's 14 not something that should be necessarily -- 15 16 is saved. THE COURT: Your objection is noted. Your exception You can file a motion for reconsideration if you 17 want to, but I've made my mind up on that at this point, and 18 you can file a motion and -- but don't do it with a great deal 19 20 21 of optimism. But feel free to do it. MR. WALKER: Here's the reason I raise the issue THE COURT: I've decided on that issue, Mr. Walker. 22 Put whatever objection you have in your motion for 23 24 25 reconsideration. We need to move on to some other issues. MR. WALKER: Half a minute, please? THE COURT: Yes. Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter I I I14 1 MR. WALKER: We have the matter of -- the ruling here 2 necessarily has to apply to the other districts as well. 3 THE COURT\nAbsolutely. 4 MR. WALKER: We have the matters of Pulaski County 5 that are still pending. There is no motion before the Court. 6 7 The role of the monitor there would seem to be being limited by the Court's ruling now because -- 8 10 11 12 13 14 THE COURT: MR. WALKER: THE COURT: Put that in your motion. All right, your Honor. Thank you. All right. All right. I want to remind the parties, I've said it several times in writing, and Judge Wright said it, but I want to remind you at the outset of that, we have three discrete issues left, and one of them is advanced placement courses, another is extracurricular activities. the 9 15 third is guidance and counseling. And then, of course, we have 16 good faith, but only as good faith applies to those one, two. 17 three things that I just mentioned. And we have academic 18 achievement on the table, but only as it relates to those 19 three one, two, three issues. As Mr. Walker just noted. 20 this applies to both sides with equal force. 21 Now, as I have read the transcript, the issues tried to 22 23 conclusion, and I emphasize the phrase \"to conclusion. II by Judge Wright were lack of good faith under Section 2.1\ntwo. 24 25 improving African-American achievement, lack of good faith by the Little Rock School District\nand, three, student Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter1 2 15 discipline. Now, those issues are closed. They've been tried to conclusion, save and except the 30 minutes for rebuttal 3 which we will start the hearing a week from Monday with. 4 All right. Now, I want to turn to Mr. Pendley's letter 5 which was in response to the letter I got out about one o'clock 6 yesterday. Let me find Mr. Pendley's letter. It's dated July 7 11. 8 Now, on the first page, there's a reference to Joshua's 9 witness list and a reference to Ms. Sharon Brooks. 10 It appears to me that Mr. Walker's testimony would go to student 11 discipline there. If that's true, I think it would be 12 appropriate to object at the trial, but I don't know that I 13 14 need to deal with it now. If anybody thinks I do. I'll hear from you. But if it does go to student discipline. I'm likely 15 to exclude it at the trial. 16 17 18 MR. WALKER: THE COURT: MR. WALKER: Your Honor, may I be heard? You may. Some of these matters overlap. A matter 19 that may be related to student discipline may also relate to 20 counseling. And I would say in this situation, the discipline 21 part of this 22 23 THE COURT: Related to guidance and counseling? MR. WALKER: Yes, sir. And the first part of it. 24 where students collectively are punished for ringing an alarm 25 by putting them in a room with an aide for two months where Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter10 16 there's no record of the discipline appears to be disciplinary. But at the same time, it certainly goes to the educational experience and the need for there to have been at least some counseling with respect to what those -- the educational needs of those children were and how they were being addressed. we say that it has two purposes. The first, on discipline, So though, has to relate -- you remember, you've seen the records. They have disciplinary records showing students who are suspended for this, this, and this. Normal discipline relations, those kinds of things. But putting kids in a room 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 where they -- where there's no record of it clearly is 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 discipline. but it is also something else. THE COURT: I'm going to think about that issue. inclined to think that I'm relates directly to discipline, but I'll think about it and we'll take it up at the trial. Mr. Heller address it right now, briefly. MR. HELLER: I'll let if he wishes to. Thank you, your Honor. I would just like to point out that at the last hearing, Mr. Walker argued that this was a discipline issue, and he presented evidence about it and argued about it and argued precisely what he just 21 told the Court, that this is - this situation, he alleges. was 22 a way to avoid the recorded discipline statistics but was 23 nonetheless discipline. I think it's going to be easy for him 24 to say anytime something happened to any student at any time in 25 the district, whether it relates to academic achievement or Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter10 11 17 some issue that's already been litigated, oh, by the way, they missed some counseling or could have been counseled otherwise. But I don't think that draws it into the scope of any legitimate objection he might have about guidance and counseling. THE COURT: this issue. Mr. Walker, you're on the downside of If you want to submit a trial brief to me to try to get me in a right frame of mind, in your view, by trial day. do a -- and this applies to either side. If you want to do another trial brief, get it to me by noon Wednesday of next week. By noon Wednesday. And I will guarantee you I will -- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 if it's not too long, I will have read your brief and your 13 citations of authorities. if you will avoid string cites. On 14 string cites, I read only the first one and sometimes the 15 second one. 16 17 18 19 Now we come to exhibits not directly related. some of them have been withdrawn and so forth, but right. Let's go to No. 746. MR. HELLER: And I think all Your Honor, there was one other witness 20 mentioned in Mr. Pendley's letter, and that's Ethel Dunbar. 21 THE COURT: Yes. I don't believe that it' s Yes. 22 my opinion, and, again, you can put this in the trial brief. 23 24 Mr. Walker, if you think I am wrong-headed on this issue, that what it looks like what Ethel Dunbar would testify to goes 25 to the gifted and talented issue, as far as I'm concerned. 1 I Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter t1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18 That's not on the table. If you want to persuade me otherwise, you can put it in the trial brief. Let's go to the exhibits now. 746. I'm having a hard time reading my -- what is 746, Mr. Walker? Why don't you just hand me a copy of it so I can look at it? MR. WALKER: Your Honor THE COURT: can hand me? MR. HELLER: THE COURT: annotations on there. MR. HELLER: THE COURT: MR. WALKER: a copy of it. THE COURT: Does the school district have Yes, your Honor. a copy you If you've got any of your inked I don't want to see them. I've got a circle and an underline. I promise not to accept your emphasis. Your Honor, we have given you our copy, I just don't have it out here with me. and I just -- I need to look at something. MR. WALKER: MR. PENDLEY: MR. HELLER: is merely highlighted. MR. WALKER: THE COURT: sure. MR. HELLER: This one has been Here you go. We'll give you Mr. Pendley's copy, which Is this the new number given by your -- I think this is the old number. I'm not That's correct, your Honor. Our Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter19 1 objections use the old numbers. 2 3 over. THE COURT: 746 . All right. I'm working my way Mr. Walker, if you'll approach the lectern. Are you 4 telling me you don't have a copy either, Mr. Walker? 5 MR. WALKER: No, no. We have a copy, but we have 6 taken the old exhibits -- after your courtroom deputy told us 7 the new numbers, we changed them. 8 THE COURT: Okay. I'll give you time to get your sea 9 legs. 10 MR. WALKER: What is now 747 was 746. I don't 11 understand the objection. 12 13 THE COURT: All right. I'll have him state his objection then. Mr. Heller -- why don't you stand aside. 14 Mr. Walker, and let him state his objection. 15 16 MR. WALKER: All right. MR. HELLER: Your Honor, our objection is that 17 Exhibit 746, using the old number, relates to ALT testing and 18 not to any of the issues before the Court for next week. 19 MR. WALKER: Your Honor, if you look at that exhibit. 20 we're looking at the way the district has referred to the 21 numbers that are related -- I don't see anything in 746 in the 22 middle of the page which happens to be -- and I stand to be 23 corrected, the e-mail from Babbs to Kathy Lease. 24 25 THE COURT: You're going to have to -- I'm computer illiterate, Mr. Walker. You're going to have to quote the Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 20 language. I can't tell on e-mails from who to what unless it's written on there. MR. WALKER: Mr. Babbs, your Honor, is the person responsible for monitoring desegregation compliance. THE COURT: MR. WALKER: THE COURT: MR. WALKER: And he sent something to Kathy Lease. It apparently comes from Babbs to Lease. Right. And the third paragraph says, \"It would be appropriate to list current data that is available. Be reminded that when writing materials for our report submission. we will include district-wide numbers. We may not be there yet, but this will help serve as an indicator of established baseline information from which we will jump off.\" Now, this relates to, your Honor, the data that relates to pre-AP and AP courses, along with some other data, but it will be related to testimony regarding advanced placement. will be related to extracurricular activities. It also So you'11 understand the concept, when you've got two black schools. McClellan and Fair, for all practical purposes, when you lump the extracurricular participation from those schools with the other schools, it gives a picture of real inclusivity. If you take it out. it may not. When you lump the -- when you do a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 23 lumping process, we're saying that it gives a false picture. 24 There was an intent here. and this goes -- this is an 25 intent, it goes to good faith, an intent to make a presentation Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter1 21 of a reality that did not exist. 2 3 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Heller? 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. HELLER: Your Honor, Mr. Walker's explanation shows why this exhibit should be excluded. When we objected to their response was that it was related to extracurricular activities. Now the first thing that he said was that it's related to advanced placement and pre-advanced placement. not related to any of those things. and the compilation of documents. It' s It's related to testing It doesn't have anything specifically to do with any of the issues before the Court. Mr. Walker has now given the Court two different explanations of how it relates, none of which can be shown from the face of the exhibit. THE COURT: All right. I don't believe I need briefs on this one. forthwith. I will do a letter order ruling on that Mark No. 746 down and remind me so I don't -- with the other issues involved so I get right on it. I think it's already been noted, but I want to re-note it. It's now 747 under the new numbering system. All right. 754 . MR. WALKER: THE COURT: MR. WALKER: Mr. Walker, will you comment on 754? Yes, sir. Which now is what? It should be 755, if I'm not mistaken. MR. PRESSMAN: Same number. 4 5 6 7 8 9 it, Christa R. Newburg, RMR, CRR, CCR United States Court Reporter1 2 3 4 5 6 7 22 THE\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_1702","title":"Court filings concerning status report concerning Baker Elementary, LRSD's March 15, 2001, compliance report, PCSSD motion of approval for middle school site, and Joshua's objections to unitary status","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2001-12"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Baker Interdistrict School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Little Rock School District","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Joshua Intervenors","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School buildings","School integration","Education, Secondary"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning status report concerning Baker Elementary, LRSD's March 15, 2001, compliance report, PCSSD motion of approval for middle school site, and Joshua's objections to unitary status"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1702"],"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":["22 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, motion for continuance; District Court, status report concerning Baker Elementary; District Court, response to order filed November 30, 2001; District Court, order; District Court, response to order regarding Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) March 15, 2001, compliance report; District Court, order; District Court, motion of approval for middle school site; District Court, memorandum in support of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for approval of middle school site; District Court, order; District Court, plaintiff's third set of interrogatories and requests for production to the Joshua intervenors regarding Joshua's objections to unitary status; District Court, the Joshua intervenors' opposition to motion for approval of middle school site; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) reply to the Joshua intervenors' opposition to motion for approval of middle school site; District Court, noltice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool  This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  - DEC ? - 2001 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS OfflCE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORltlG DEC - 5 2001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By: PLAilHIFFoEP CLERK V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE Come the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, request a continuance - of the discovery hearing in this case for the following reasons: 1. The above styled case is set for a discovery hearing on December 7, 2001. 2. Undersigned counsel has been in trial since Monday, December 3, 2001 in federal district court regarding the following case: Mercedes Alexander v. Little Rock Convention and Visitors Bureau, et al., Case No. LR-C-99-572. The trial is expected that this case will last for the remainder of week. 3. Because of this scheduling conflict and the need for additional time to comply with the court's previous order regarding the hearing scheduled for December 7, 2001, Joshua respectfully request that the discovery hearing be reset to a later date. 4. This continuance is not made for delay and will not prejudice the respective parties to this action. WHEREFORE, Joshua herein respectfully move that the Court enter an order granting their request for a continuance. By: Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (Tel.) QI) 374-4187 ~~~ , Bar No. 64046 Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing ha~~n mailed, postage prepaid to the following counsel or record, postage prepaid on this ./ -  day of December, 2001. Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little.Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Jo Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building t ittle Rock, AR 72201 ! I i   IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ' STATUS REPORT CONCERNING BAKER ELEMENTARY RECEIVED DEC 1 0 2001 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. At its October, 2001 Board meeting, the PCSSD Board of Directors reviewed and addressed the issues of school repair, school renovation and school construction in the PCSSD. 2. Because of the millage failure, the Board determined that it could address only the most critical repair projects confronting the District and ultimately voted to establish certain priorities, which priorities are reflected on the attached Exhibit \"A\". 3. Because of limited funds, the Board did not place any new construction at existing schools on this list. 4. In an allied matter, the District has also determined that the anonymous donation previously reported and to be used for the construction of a multi-purpose facility at Baker Elementary is now highly unlikely to materialize. Accordingly, the - administration has placed the construction of a multi-purpose facility at Baker on indefinite hold. 301206-v1 5. Absent the financial ability to fund any construction projects at Baker, the District proposes to simply continue with the Baker recruitment plan which was reported to the Court last summer. Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 ,. By , M. . orneys tol Pulaski nty Special ~rict CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On December 1, 2001, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 301206-v1 2 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Ms. Colette D. Honorable Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 301206-v1 onesJ 3 DEC-07-01 FRI tt:29 AM FAX NO. Date October 9, 2001 Pass Fail Other ________ _ AGENDA ACTION FORM Pulaski County Special School District P, 02 Agenda Item Number: New Business - 5 Subject: Building Repair and Construction Priority List Prepared By: Dr. Donald J. Henderson, Assistant Superintendent for Support Services Rationale: The Board has requested a prioritized list of potential building repairs and construction projects. The Administration submits the attached listing for roofing, HVAC, electrical, and carpet/tile projects as well as new construction projects. Cost: To be determined by School Board Funding Source: Recommendation: I move approval of the prioritized list of building repairs and construction as set by the Board. DEC-07-01 FRI 11:30 AH FAX NO. P. 03 ._. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTl~ICT Donr.ld J. Henderson, ED.D. Assistant Superintendent TO: lJr. Gary Smith, Superintendent FROM: Dr. Donald J. Henderson, Assistant Superintendent Support Services DATE: October 1,200) RE: 1. 2. 3. Potential Priority Facility Projects ROOFING PRO.JECTS North Pltlaski High Oak Grove Elementary Sylvan IIills Uigh Total HV AC PRO.TRCTS $ 900,000.00 $ 448,000.00 $1,022,000.00 $2,370,000.00 DIVISION OF SUPPORT SERVICES 925 East Dixon Road/P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, Arkansas 72216 (501) 4902227 fxt. 209 Fax: (501) 4~0-0483 1. 2. Baker Elementary Toll~son Elementary $ 13,000.00  R~-plncc 9-window units w/sp[it systems 1. 2. 3. $ 102.,_611.00  Rcph1.cc all window A/C units w/split sy5k ms Total $ 115,6ll.0O ELECTRICAL PROJECTS Jncksonville Elementary Oakbrookc Elementary Pinewt)Od Elementary Total S 281,000.00 S 267,000.00 ~ 275,000.00 $ 823,000.00 DEC-07-01 FRI tt:30 AM. FAX NO. P. 04 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. I. 2. CARllE'f/TILE PROJECTS Cato Elementary Pinewood Elementary Oak Grove Iligh Jacksonville Junior High Sylvnn Hills High Replace carpel in all classrooms and offices. Tile main rntry, restroom entry areas and main offices area. $ 51,300.00 Replace carpet in all classrooms and offices. Tile main t'ntrance, cafeteria and main office area. S 49,400.00 Replace main office area with tile. Replace media center carpet. $ 8,500.00 Replace media center carpet and replace main office caT) )et with tile. S 6,950.00 Replace media center carpet. Replace front office carpet with tile. $ 5,775.00 Toh1l amount for carpet projects $121,925.00 (est.) RENOVATION SUBTOTAL NEW CONSTRUCTION PROJE~TS $ 3,-130,536.00 Crystal Hill Area North Pulaski High Build a 800 pupil middle school. $10,900,078.00 Option A: l3uild an athletic field house. Convert current training and locker rooms into 4-classrooms S 1,084,969.00 Option B: Build a. 4-classroom addition $ 600,000.00 NEW CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $12,585,047.00 ESTIMATED TOTAL FOR RENOVATIONS AND N:EW CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS $16,015,583.00 l 0% Contingency $ 1,601.558.30 CRANJ) ESTIMATED TOT.AL .ll'l,617,14].~0 BALANCE IN BUILDING J.fUND, 8/30/01 $ 5,592,490.00 DEC-07-01 FRI tt:-30 AH FAX NO. Regular Board Meeting October 9, 2001 Page 4 New Fh1,5lness Election of Officers 10/9/01 Appointment Ex Offi cl o Secretary, Treasurer, and Legal Counsel 10/9/01 Approval of Bond Resolution 10/9/01 Lease of Land North Pulaski Recreation Committee 10/9/01 Approval of Prioritized Llst of Building Repairs and Construction . 10/9/01 Roll Call Vot~ Yeas: Manfredini, Roberts, Shaneyfelt, Tatum, Wilfiams Nays: O'Brien Mr. Sharpe acknowledged that the te.ims had met three times and that they did differ in t.'1elr opinion of the Board's charge. He said the team advised PASS to alter its request because the Board would net likely support the 6.8 percent salary, but the union refused to move from that position. Ms. Williams opened the election of officers by nominating  Mrs. Tatum fer President. Mrs. Tatum was elected President. Mr. O'Brien nominated Mrs. Roberts for Vice President Mrs. Roberts was elected Vice PresidenL Mrs. Tatum nominated Ms. Williams for Secretary. Mrs. Roberts nominated Mr. Shaneyfeit for Secretaiy, Ms. Williams was elected Secretary. Mr, O'Brien moved, seconded by Mr. Shaneyfelt, to appoint Superinlendent Gary Smith as ex officio fi11anclal secretary, Assistant Superintendent for Business/CFO John Archetko as treasurer, Wright Llnd$ey \u0026 Jennings, Skokos Bequette \u0026 Billingsley, ~nd Henry Osterloh as legal counsel. The motion carried . Mr, Shaneyfelt moved, seconded by Mr. O'Brien, approval of a resolution refunding the 1996 bond Issue for Interest savings and to award the bond sale to Morgan Stanley DW Inc. at an Interest rate of 4.4668 percent. The motion carried. See attachment, Mr. O'Brien moved, seconded by Mrs. Roberts, approval to lease 4.7 ao-es ln the Bayou Meta community to ttle North Pulaski Recreation Committee for six years at a payment of $1 per year, The motion carried. The Administration presented a prioritized list of the most urgent repairs needed at the District's schools. Toe repairs totaling $3.4 million Included roofing, HVAC, electrfcal and carpet/tile proj ects. Mr. O'Brien moved, seconded by Mrs. Tatum, approval or the prioritized list of building repairs induding roofing, HV/\\C, electrical, ,ind carpet/tile projects totaling $3.4 million to be paid from the building fund. The motion P. 05 DEC-07-01 FRI tl:30 AM FAX NO. Regular Board Meeting October 9, 2001 Page 5 f!QM.d Member CommcnJ,i  10/9/01 carried four (4) to two (2) In a roll call vote. See attachment. Roll Cail Vote Yeas: Manfredini, O'Brien, Roberts, Tatum Nays: Shaneyfelt, Williams Voting against the expenditure, Ms. Williams said the list of repairs was prepared without input from the Board. ' . Mr. O'Brien called tile plan for repai~ not much more than a Band-Aid, but said it shows that the District Is trying to address the most critical needs. Toe administration also listed as top priorities for construction an 800 pupil middle school in the Crystal Hill area and a fourclassrocrn addition to North Pulaski High. Toe Board directed Superintendent Smith to prepare a recommend.ition by the November Board meeting for ral5ing the $11 million _needed for those projects. Dr. Smit11 reported tl1at John Walker, altorney for the Joshua l nlervenors, discussed with the District's legal counsel the possibility of adding dassroom space at Baker Elementary, Mrs. Tatum expressed her appreciation for the dedication ceremony of the Mildred C. Tatum Media Center at Mills High. She sc1id she was truly humbled by the honor c1nd the recognition of her contribution as a school board member, She thanked the Board for their confidence in electing her as President. Mrs. Roberts extended congrutvlations to Oak Grove Elementary Principal Truett McCurry on being name a National Distinguished Principal. She .ilso congratulated Mary Ask, Pine Forest Elementary Principal, and her st.aff for their Improvement on the Benchmark Exams, Mr. Shaneyfelt announced that the schools In Zone 2 would host a reception to honor former Board Member Ruth Tucker at 2. p,m, on October 14. He congratulated Mrs. Tatum on her election as President and said he looked forward to working with her. Mr, Shaneyfelt s;;ld the Board valued PASS employees and that he was still prep.ired to recommend an increase in insurance benefits For the PASS group. P. 06 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAW 1 723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 December 7, 2001 Mr. J arnes McCormick United States District Court Clerk 400 West Capitol, 4th Floor Little Rock, AR 72201 DEC l. 0 2001 OFFICE OF OtSEGREGffflON MONITORf OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 HENDERSON ROAD LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72210 PHONE: (501) 372-3425  FAX (501) 372-3428 EMAIL: mchenryd@swbell.net Re:4:CV820866SWW, Little Rock School District v. PCSSD, et al Dear Mr. McCormick: Enclosed please find pleading for filing. Also enclosed is a self addressed stamped envelope for the return of a file marked copy. Thank you for your attention to this matter. JWW:js Enclosures cc: Mr. Sam Jones Ms. Ann S. Marshall IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITJLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. RESPONSE TO ORDER FILED NOVEMBER 30. 2001 RECEIVED DEC 1 0 2001 Off/Cf Of DESEGREGATIONAIJIJrlls PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VENO RS INTER VENO RS Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, for its' response - to the court's order dated November 30, 2001 . 1. On December 3, 2001 , undersigned counsel received a copy of the court 's order. 2. The parties have been attempting to address the issues in the spirit suggested by the court. The parties expect this matter resolved in an acceptable matter pendente lite. 3. Upon resolution, the parties will promptly inform the court. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of this response has been sent to Mr. Sam Jones, Wright, Lindsey and Jennings, 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200, Little Rock, AR 72201 and Ms. Ann S. Marshall, 124 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1895, Little Rock, AR 72201. FILED _ U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT ttB~T\"3 TR l: T A P '{J\\f\\l C::AS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DEC 7 2001 WESTERN DIVISION JAMES w. IVlC~U~, CLERK ay: \\ DEP.CLERK. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. 4 : 82CV00866 SWW NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL MRS. KATHERINE KNIGHT , ET AL 0 R D E R OfflCEOF J~ON MONITORINO INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court is the motion filed by the Joshua Intervenors for a continuance of the discovery hearing scheduled for December 7 , 2001 , due to counsel ' s involvement in the trial of a nother matter. Counsel for the Little Rock School District has advised the Court that there is no objection to this request. Therefore , the motion will be granted . The discovery hearing in this matter is hereby continued and rescheduled for 2 :15 p.m. on Tuesday, December 11, 2001. The issues for this hearing will be as set forth in the Court ' s previous order which originally scheduled the discovery hearing . IT IS SO ORDERED this 71\\ day of December , 2001 . THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/Om FRCP n N J ;-,;/{fl/ 0/ BY__._.~~\"4----- Chief United States District Judge 5 5 5 5013744187 WALKER LAl,J FI RM IN THE l,\"NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTR.1CT VS. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DTSTRlCT NO. l, ET AL 1\\1.RS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL RESPONSE TO ORDER REGARDING LRSD'S MARCH 15, 2001 COM PLJANCE REPORT 088 P02 DEC 11 '01 17:44 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Come now the Joshua lntervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, for its' response to the court's order regarding areas for addit ional hearing dates and respectfully show the Court that it intends to show noncompliance by the Little Rock School District with respect to the following additional areas with respect to Lhe Revised Desegregation and Education Plan: 1) Bad Faith - Section 2.1 2) Desegregation Experts - Sections 2.1.l 3) Extracurricular Activities - Section 2.6.l 4) Advanced Placement Courses - Section 2.6.l 5) Guidance \u0026 Counseling - Section 2.11 6) Achievement - Section 2. 7 7) Student Assignment/ Racial Balance - Sections 3,1 and 3.8 8) Middle Schools - Section 3.4 5013744187 l,JALKER LAl,.J F IRM 088 P03 DEC 11 '01 17:44 9) School Closing/Construction - Section 3.6 10) Housi11g - Section 3.9 11) lnterdistrict Schools - Section 4.0 12) Incentive Schools - Section 5.5 13) Alternative Education - Section 5,6 14) Compliance Program - Section 6.0 15) Plan Modification - Section 7.0 16) Programs, Policies and Procedures - Section 8.3 Since the burden of proof is upon Joshua, counsel for the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that the Court allow an additional three weeks in order for it to submit its proof with respect to the aforementioned areas. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501 -374-4 l 87(fax) ~w~tK~~ CERTlFTCA TE OF SERVICE l do hereby that certify that a copy of the foregoing been hand delivered to all counsel of record on this 11 th day of December. 200 I . 5013744187 l,JAU\u003cEP LAl,J FIRM 088 P01 DEC 11 '01 17:44 JOHN W WALJ(ER~ P.A . .. A .. ti:omey C1.t L1.W 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 F-1:c (501) 371-4:187 FA .X. TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET Date: To: Fax: Re: Sender: YOU SHOUW RECEIVE [ 3 (including coJ1er shet:t)J PAGE(S), LNCLUDING THIS COv-:ER SHEET IF YOU DO 1VOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL \"\u003c(501) 374-3758\u003e\" The information contained in this facsimile message is attorney privileged and confidential informac.ibn intended only for the use of che individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible co deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby no tilled t.ha1 any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. ff you have received this communication in error, please in1mediate notify us by telephone, and return che original message to us at the above address via the: U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DEC f 2 2001 WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, JA_MES 'f\": ~MACK, CLERK By. \\ , [\\J\\A ~ D CLERK Plaintiff, VS. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * * * No. 4:82CV00866 SWW /. ( l .RECEIVED DtC 1 7 2001. OfRCEOF DE88MATION IIONITORJN6 SCHEDULING ORDER FOR JANUARY 28, 2002 HEARING On December 11 , 2001 , the Court held a scheduling and discovery hearing in this matter, and established the following. The following issues, listed in order of priority to the Court, will be addressed at the January 28, 2002 hearing: (1) Student Achievement; (2) Advanced Placement; (3) Guidance and Counseling; and ( 4) Extra-curricular Activities. Joshua and the LRSD shall have an equal amount of time for their presentations, and may contact the Court's staff to determine the amount of time that will be available to them. On or before December 29, 2001 , counsel for Joshua and the LRSD shall meet to exchange exhibits and exhibit lists. On or before January 12, 2002, counsel for Joshua and the LRSD shall exchange witness lists. .On or before January 21, 2002, the parties shall exchange final witness lists and final exhibit lists, exchanging any additional exhibits, if necessary. The final witness lists shall include only witnesses who were listed on the January 12, 2002 witness lists (no additional witnesses may be added after that date). In conducting discovery prior to the January 28, 2002 hearing, the parties shall have up to and including five days to respond to a discovery request. All discovery requests shall be made such that responsive materials will be provided before January 21 , 2002. On every occasion the parties exchange exhibit lists, witness lists, and exhibits under this Order, the parties shall provide the Court with exact copies of these lists and exhibits. If a party intends to refer to an exhibit already in the record, in place of exchanging the exhibit or providing it to the Court, the party shall specify the exhibit, including the document number and page number where appropriate. Toe parties are directed to provide exhibits to the Court in paper form; exhibits may not be provided on diskette or CD-rom without the express permission of the Court. The Court will be available to the parties during this discovery period, and the parties should not hesitate to contact the Court if the Court's intervention becomes necessary. f(__ IT IS SO ORDERED THIS /;J__ DAY OF DECEMBER, 2001 I ~~! ~4: HIBFJUDGE \" UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 ANO/O~ FRCP ON IJ, 13-0 / gy_m_:__ _ 2 REC IVED OEC 1 7 2001 - --QfflC-Etf - IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF MIDDLE SCHOOL SITE The PCSSD for its motion, states: 1. By this motion, the PCSSD seeks a determination by this Court that Plan 2000 authorizes the construction of a new middle school within the city limits of the Town of Maumelle. 2. This motion is accompanied by a memorandum which more fully sets forth the bases for this motion. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for a declaration of this Court that Plan 2000 authorizes the construction of a new middle school within the city limits of Maumelle, Arkansas and for all proper relief. 302820-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By ~? ,c,____ es Ill ) ulaski ty Special CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On December 13, 2001, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Ark.ansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Ms. Colette D. Honorable Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 302820-v1 ones 1110 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO .. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED DEC 1? zom r-lGEGF ~Tf ON.:flON\"OR/N(I. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MEMORANDUMINSUPPORTOFPCSSD MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF MIDDLE SCHOOL SITE The Specific Relief Sought The PCSSD seeks by this motion to have this Court interpret the literal language of Plan 2000 which states in pertinent part that: \"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 new elementary school has been built and named Bates. By this motion, the PCS SD seeks a declaration of this Court that a middle school located within the Maumelle city limits is in fact permitted pursuant to Plan 2000. While the PCSSD will enumerate below the steps it has taken in respect of a site in Maumelle, the PCSSD also states that steps related to the selection and approval of a geographically specific site have not yet taken place. For instance, 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 301134-v1 - 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 representatives of the LRSD, the NLRSD and the Joshua lntervenors, and the ODM has not yet been specifically consulted concerning a specific site. None of this has been done pending obtaining the Court's views upon the matter specifically as they relate to Plan 2000. No specific site has been proposed, both because the PCSSD needs and desires the interpretation of this Court and because selection of a specific site at this time would likely artificially elevate the acquisition cost. Accordingly, and absent any other specific information at this time, the motion of the PCSSD is very simple, to-wit: May it explore and ultimately propose to this Court a - middle school site located within the city limits of Maumelle? A Brief History 1. Pine Forrest Elementary School remains the only PCSSD school within the city limits of Maumelle. Pine Forrest Elementary School was built in 1980. The present capacity of the school as used this year is 556.. Maumelle was incorporated in 1985 with a population of 4,359. Today, the population of Maumelle is approximately 10,557. 2. Since its inception as a town in the 1960s, junior and senior high students from Maumelle have all been bused to Oak Grove Junior-Senior High School. As noted in previous filings with this Court, the PCSSD desires to convert Oak Grove into a 9-12 high school and to construct a middle school to substitute for the current Oak Grove - Junior High School. 301134-v1 2 3. Currently, Pine Forrest Elementary, which would jettison its sixth grade under this proposal, can accommodate only 63% of K-6 children residing in Maumelle. The remainder are currently bused to either Crystal Hill Elementary or Oak Grove Elementary. Under this proposal, both Crystal Hill and Oak Grove Elementary would become K-5 schools. The Site Selection Process 4. Plan 2000 specifically provides that, \"An elementary school, located around 145th Street, and a middle school or junior high school in the Crystal Hill\\Maumelle area will be built.\" 5. Certain leaders of the Maumelle Community have proposed that a site located on Count Massie Road be secured for the construction of a new middle school. - This site qualifies as a racially neutral site because it is located in a larger commercial area and is not bounded by any neighborhood and contains no \"housing stock\". 6. This possible site would fall within a line that can currently be drawn between the new Maumelle Charter School located within a densely populated residential area of Maumelle and Central Arkansas Christian which is located north of Crystal Hill Elementary School. This site would enable the PCSSD to more directly and efficiently compete with both the privately run charter school and Central Arkansas Christian. Both schools currently draw significant numbers of middle school age children from the Maumelle area. 7. The property currently owned by the PCSSD adjacent to Crystal Hill Elementary would be sold to help defray acquisition and construction costs of the new middle school. 301134-v1 3 - 8. To accommodate current M to M sixth graders at Crystal Hill and to otherwise help realize a fully intergraded middle school, the PCSSD would reserve 100 seats at the new middle school for M to M students. 9. The PCSSD Board of Directors voted 6 to Oto seek approval for a school located within Maumelle at their meeting held on November 13, 2001 . 10. Face to face communications have been had with counsel for Joshua as regards a new middle school located within Maumelle. Advantages of a Maumelle Site 11. Overall, the PCSSD believes that the proposed site will reduce busing and the attendant transportation expense. 12. The proposed school will allow the PCSSD to complete its conversion to - the middle school system and will relieve over-crowding at the land-locked Oak Grove Campus. 13. The proposed school will allow the PCSSD to establish an interdistrict middle school offering more choices and grade levels particularly for those LRSD students who currently attend Crystal Hill Elementary. 14. The PCSSD believes that the location and construction of this school will finally pave the way to secure support for millage increases in the Maumelle area, a very practical and necessary matter for the PCSSD to achieve. The PCSSD proposes to construct the school with a capacity of 1,000 students providing room not only for the 100 seats reserved for M to M students, but also space for students who can be attracted from the charter school, private schools and children who are currently being home-schooled. 301134-v1 4 15. The PCSSD proposes to begin construction by October 2002 so that the new facility can be open for education by August 2003. 16. The PCSSD proposes to pay for the acquisition and the construction of the school by a new bond issue or by re-financing existing debt. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays that the Court approve the concept of a new middle school located within Maumelle which would reserve 100 seats for M to M transfer students and for all proper relief. 301134-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 Special 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On December 13, 2001, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Ms. Colette D. Honorable Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 301134-v1 6 RECEIVED DEC 1 7 200\\ - 0ff\\Ct0F DESEGREGATION MONITORINB INTHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, FILED EAsTMR 5 rii ~,i~~'g ~~~~sAs DEC f 3 2001 vs. * * * * No. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * * * * * ORDER The Court is in receipt of Joshua's response to this Court's Order of November 30, 2001 , - in which Joshua states the parties are still attempting to resolve the matters raised in Joshua's motion for relief from Orders entered on April 27, 2000 and May 9, 2001 by Gary Smith [docket no. 3473]. The Court hereby directs Joshua to inform the Court on or before February 15, 2002 whether it is necessary for the Court to rule on this motion or whether the motion should be removed from the Court's docket. If the Court does not hear from Joshua by that date, the Court will assume that Joshua intends the motion be removed from the Court's docket. ~ IT IS SO ORDERED THIS /(3 DAY OF DECEMBER, 2001 c~~JX+t UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1318","title":"Proceedings: ''Joshua: Objection to Little Rock School District's Motion for Unitary Status''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2001-11-20"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning","Educational statistics","Educational innovations","School facilities","School improvement programs","School integration","School management and organization","Student assistance programs","Court records","Meetings"],"dcterms_title":["Proceedings: ''Joshua: Objection to Little Rock School District's Motion for Unitary Status''"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1318"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["legal documents"],"dcterms_extent":["158 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":39,"next_page":40,"prev_page":38,"total_pages":155,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":456,"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}}]}}