{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1396","title":"Report: Disciplinary Sanctions in the Pulaski County Special School District, Office of Desegregation and Monitoring","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dc_date":["2000-06-14"],"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--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School discipline","School integration","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Report: Disciplinary Sanctions in the Pulaski County Special School District, Office of Desegregation and Monitoring"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1396"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":["73 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_85","title":"Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":["Arkansas. Department of Education"],"dc_date":["2000-06","2000-07","2000-08","2000-09","2000-10","2000-11","2000-12"],"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":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School integration--Arkansas","Arkansas. Department of Education","Project managers--Implements"],"dcterms_title":["Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) Project Management Tool"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/85"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District, plaintiff vs. Pulaski County Special School District, defendant.\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JUL .. 5 2000 Off!CEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORIN8 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of ADE's Project Management Tool for June, 2000. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Atto ey neral 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KA THERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 Based on the information available at May 31, 2000, the ADE calculated the Equalization Funding for FY 99/00,..ubject to periQc\n!Lc adjustrn~nts. B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 C. Process and distribute State MFPA. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 On May 31, 2000, distri6uti.2_ns of State Equalization Funafng for FY 99/00 were as follows: 5,493,936 $25,008,711 i 51,467,422 Tlie allotmen  ding calculafeo for FY 99/00 at MaY. 31, 2000, sunjec ere as follows~ LRSD - $50,043,330 NLRSD - $27,509,~ PCSSD - $56,614,165 D. Determine the number of Magnet students residing in each District and attending a Magnet School. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 gasea on the inforrnauoi'f~milaJi!~ lfie~AD (\n''calcufatecrarMf.J~.1:1, 2g9q~forlF'(i )9/ff0~ jecngJ:ierioaic aajtlstrnent5! E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as ordered by the Court. 2 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) E. Desegregation Staff Attorney reports the Magnet Operational Charge to the Fiscal Services Office. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 F. Calculate state aid due the LRSD based upon the Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 Based on tfie information available tfie7\\DE calculated at May 3-1, 2000 for FY. 99100, subject to periodic adJustments. G. Process and distribute state aid for Magnet Operational Charge. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 Distributions for FY 99/00 at May 31, 2000, totaled $8,93T,472. Allotment calculated for FY 99/00 was $9,867,065 subject to periodic adjustments. H. Calculate the amount of M-to-M incentive money to which each school district is entitled. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 Calculated for FY 99700, subject to periodic adjustments. I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, September - June. 3 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) I. Process and distribute M-to-M incentive checks. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 LRSD - $3 503 345 NLRSD ] PCSSD , 49 LRSD - $3,901,58~ NLRSD - $2,07f, 144 PCSSD - $7,167,474 J. Districts submit an estimated Magnet and M-to-M transportation budget to ADE. 1. Projected Ending Date 2. Ongoing, December of each year. Actual as of June 30, 2000 In July 1999, the Magnet and M-to-M transportation budgets for FY 99/00 were submitted to the ADE by the Districts. K. The Coordinator of School Transportation notifies General Finance to pay districts for the Districts' proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 In January 2000, General Finance was notified to pay the second one-third payment for FY 99/00 to the Districts. It should be noted that the Transportation Coordinator is currently performing this function instead of Reginald Wilson as indicated in the Implementation Plan. L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 4 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) L. ADE pays districts three equal installments of their proposed budget. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 In January 2000, General Finance made the second one-third payment to the Districts for their FY 99/00 transportation budget. The budget is now paid out in three equal installments. At May 2000, the following had been paid for FY 99700: LRSD -$2,278,305.3.if NLRSD - $385,333.34 PCSSD - $1,296,914.66 M. ADE verifies actual expenditures submitted by Districts and reviews each bill with each District's transportation coordinator. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, annually. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 In August 1997, the ADE transportation coordinator reviewed each district's Magnet and M-to-M transportation costs for FY 96/97. In July 1998, each district was asked to submit an estimated budget for the 98-99 school year. In September 1998, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 1998- 99 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. School districts should receive payment by October 1, 1998 In July 1999, each district submitted an estimated budget for the 99-00 school year. In September 1999, paperwork was generated for the first payment in the 99-00 school year for the Magnet and M-to-M transportation program. N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing, as stated in Exhibit A of the Implementation Plan. 5 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) N. Purchase buses for the Districts to replace existing Magnet and M-to-M fleets and to provide a larger fleet for the Districts' Magnet and M-to-M Transportation needs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 In FY 94/95, the State purchased 52 buses at a cost of $1,799,431 which were added to or replaced existing Magnet and M-to-M buses in the Districts. The buses were distributed to the Districts as follows: LRSD - 32\nNLRSD - 6\nand PCSSD -14. The ADE purchased 64 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $2,334,800 in FY 95/96. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 45\nNLRSD - 7\nand PCSSD -12. In May 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $646,400. In July 1997, the ADE purchased 16 Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $624,879. In July 1998, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $695,235. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD- 6. Specifications for 16 school buses have been forwarded to state purchasing for bidding in January, 1999 for delivery in July, 1999. The ADE accepted a bid on 16 buses for the Magnet and M/M transportation program. The buses will be delivered after July 1, 1999 and before August 1, 1999. The buses will be distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nPCSSD - 6. In July 1999, the ADE purchased 16 new Magnet and M-to-M buses at a cost of $718,355. The buses were distributed accordingly: LRSD - 8\nNLRSD - 2\nand PCSSD-6. 0. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to LRSD as required by page 23 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 and January 1, of each school year through January 1, 1999. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 Obligation fulfilled in FY 96/97. 6 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) P. Process and distribute additional payments in lieu of formula to LRSD as required by page 24 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. Q. Process and distribute payments to PCSSD as required by Page 28 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1994. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 Final payment was distributed July 1994. R. Upon loan request by LRSD accompanied by a promissory note, the ADE makes loans to LRSD. 1 . Projected Ending Date Ongoing through July 1, 1999. See Settlement Agreement page 24. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 The LRSD received $3,000,000 on September 10, 1998. As of this reporting date, the LRSD has received $20,000,000 in loan proceeds. S. Process and distribute payments in lieu of formula to PCS SD required by page 29 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. 7 I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS (Continued) T. Process and distribute compensatory education payments to NLRSD as required by page 31 of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date July 1 of each school year through June 30, 1996. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 Obligation fulfilled in FY 95/96. U. Process and distribute check to Magnet Review Committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Payment due date and ending July 1, 1995. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $75,000. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $92,500. This was the total amount due to the Magnet Review Committee for FY 99/00. V. Process and distribute payments for Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 1. Projected Ending Date Not applicable. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 Distribution in July 1997 for FY 97/98 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 97/98. Distribution in July 1998 for FY 98/99 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 98/99. Distribution in July 1999 for FY 99/00 was $200,000. This was the total amount due to the ODM for FY 99/00. 8 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date January 15, 1995 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 In May 1995, monitors completed the unannounced visits of schools in Pulaski County. The monitoring process involved a qualitative process of document reviews, interviews, and observations. The monitoring focused on progress made since the announced monitoring visits. In June 1995, monitoring data from unannounced visits was included in the July Semiannual Report. Twenty-five per cent of all classrooms were vis ited , and all of the schools in Pulaski County were monitored. All principals were interviewed to determine any additional progress since the announced visits. The July 1995 Monitoring Report was reviewed by the ADE administrative team , the Arkansas State Board of Education, and the Districts and filed with the Court. The report was formatted in accordance with the Allen Letter. In October 1995, a common terminology was developed by principals from the Districts and the Lead Planning and Desegregation staff to facilitate the monitoring process. The announced monitoring visits began on November 14, 1995 and were completed on January 26, 1996. Copies of the preliminary Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the ADE administrative team and the State Board of Education in January 1996. A report on the current status of the Cycle 5 schools in the ECOE process and their school improvement plans was filed with the Court on February 1, 1996. The unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1996 and ended on May 10, 1996. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Districts provided data on enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Districts and the ADE Desegregation Monitoring staff developed a definition for instructional programs. 9 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996 with copies distributed to the parties. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996 and concluded in December 1996. In January 1997, presentations were made to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties to review the draft Semiannual Monitoring Report. The monitoring instrument and process were evaluated for their usefulness in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on achievement disparities. In February 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was filed. Unannounced monitoring visits began on February 3, 1997 and concluded in May 1997. In March 1997, letters were sent to the Districts regarding data requirements for the July 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and the additional discipline data element that was requested by the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Desegregation data collection workshops were conducted in the Districts from March 28, 1997 to April 7, 1997. A meeting was conducted on April 3, 1997 to finalize plans for the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report. Onsite visits were made to Cycle 1 schools who did not submit accurate and timely data on discipline, M-to-M transfers, and policy. The July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were finalized in June 1997. In July 1997, the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were filed with the court, and the ADE sponsored a School Improvement Conference. On July 10, 1997, copies of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were made available to the Districts for their review prior to filing it with the Court. In August 1997, procedures and schedules were organized for the monitoring of the Cycle 2 schools in FY 97 /98. 10 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) A Desegregation Monitoring and School Improvement Workshop for the Districts was held on September 10, 1997 to discuss monitoring expectations, instruments, data collection and school improvement visits. On October 9, 1997, a planning meeting was held with the desegregation monitoring staff to discuss deadlines, responsibilities, and strategic planning issues regarding the Semiannual Monitoring Report. Reminder letters were sent to the Cycle 2 principals outlining the data collection deadlines and availability of technical assistance. In October and November 1997, technical assistance visits were conducted, and announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 2 schools were completed. In December 1997 and January 1998, technical assistance visits were conducted regarding team visits, technical review recommendations, and consensus building. Copies of the infusion document and perceptual surveys were provided to schools in the ECOE process. The February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report was submitted for review and approval to the State Board of Education, the Director, the Administrative Team, the Attorney General's Office, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. Unannounced monitoring visits began in February 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process, external team visits and finalizing school improvement plans. On February 18, 1998, the representatives of all parties met to discuss possible revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. Additional meetings will be scheduled. Unannounced monitoring visits were conducted in March 1998, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process and external team visits. In April 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were conducted, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. 11 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) In May 1998, unannounced monitoring visits were completed, and technical assistance was provided on the school improvement process. On May 18, 1998, the Court granted the ADE relief from its obligation to file the July 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report to develop proposed modifications to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. In June 1998, monitoring information previously submitted by the districts in the Spring of 1998 was reviewed and prepared for historical files and presentation to the Arkansas State Board. Also, in June the following occurred: a) The Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed, b) the Semiannual Monitoring COE Data Report was completed, c) progress reports were submitted from previous cycles, and d.) staff development on assessment (SAT-9) and curriculum alignment was conducted with three supervisors. In July, the Lead Planner provided the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee with ( 1) a review of the court Order relieving ADE of its obligation to file a July Semiannual Monitoring Report, and (2) an update of ADE's progress toward work with the parties and ODM to develop proposed revisions to ADE's monitoring and reporting obligations. The Committee encouraged ODM, the parties and the ADE to continue to work toward revision of the monitoring and reporting process. In August 1998, the ADE Implementation Phase Working group met to review the Implementation Phase activities for the previous quarter. The Assistant Attorney General, the Assistant Director for Accountability and the Education Lead Planner updated the group on all relevant desegregation legal issues and proposed revisions to monitoring and reporting activities during the quarter. In September 1998, tentative monitoring dates were established and they will be finalized once proposed revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring Plan are finalized and approved. In September/October 1998, progress was being made on the proposed revisions to the monitoring process by committee representatives of all the Parties in the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. While the revised monitoring plan is finalized and approved, the ADE monitoring staff will continue to provide technical assistance to schools upon request. In December 1998, requests were received from schools in PCSSD regarding test score analysis and staff Development. Oak Grove is scheduled for January 21, 1999 and Lawson Elementary is also tentatively scheduled in January. 12 II. MONITORING COMPENSATORY EDUCATION (Continued) A. Begin testing and evaluating the monitoring instrument and monitoring system to assure that data is appropriate and useful in monitoring the impacts of compensatory education programs on disparities in academic achievement for black students and white students. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Grove and Lawson Elementary in the PCSSD has been rescheduled for April 2000. Staff development regarding test score analysis for Oak Gfoveana Cawson Elementary in the PCSSD was conducted on May 5, 200 arfcf'May 9, 2000 respectively. 13 Ill. A PETITION FOR ELECTION FOR LRSD WILL BE SUPPORTED SHOULD A MILLAGE BE REQUIRED A. Monitor court pleadings to determine if LRSD has petitioned the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 Ongoing. All Court pleadings are monitored monthly. B. Draft and file appropriate pleadings if LRSD petitions the Court for a special election. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 To date, no action has been taken by the LRSD. 14 e IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION A. Using a collaborative approach, immediately identify those laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date December, 1994 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. B. Conduct a review within ADE of existing legislation and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. C. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. Request of the other parties to the Settlement Agreement that they identify laws and regulations that appear to impede desegregation. 1. Projected Ending Date November, 1994 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. D. Submit proposals to the State Board of Education for repeal of those regulations that are confirmed to be impediments to desegregation. 1 . Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section IV.E. of this report. 15 e IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 A committee within the ADE was formed in May 1995 to review and collect data on existing legislation and regulations identified by the parties as impediments to desegregation. The committee researched the Districts' concerns to determine if any of the rules, regulations, or legislation cited impede desegregation. The legislation cited by the Districts regarding loss funding and worker's compensation were not reviewed because they had already been litigated. In September 1995, the committee reviewed the following statutes, acts, and regulations: Act 113 of 1993\nADE Director's Communication 93-205\nAct 145 of 1989\nADE Director's Memo 91-67\nADE Program Standards Eligibility Criteria for Special Education\nArkansas Codes 6-18-206, 6-20-307, 6-20-319, and 6-17- 1506. In October 1995, the individual reports prepared by committee members in their areas of expertise and the data used to support their conclusions were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. A report was prepared and submitted to the State Board of Education in July 1996. The report concluded that none of the items reviewed impeded desegregation. As of February 3, 1997, no laws or regulations have been determined to impede desegregation efforts. Any new education laws enacted during the Arkansas 81 st Legislative Session will be reviewed at the close of the legislative session to ensure that they do not impede desegregation. In April 1997, copies of all laws passed during the 1997 Regular Session of the 81 st General Assembly were requested from the office of the ADE Liaison to the Legislature for distribution to the Districts for their input and review of possible impediments to their desegregation efforts. In August 1997, a meeting to review the statutes passed in the prior legislative session was scheduled for September 9, 1997. On September 9, 1997, a meeting was held to discuss the review of the statutes passed in the prior legislative session and new ADE regulations. The Districts will be contacted in writing for their input regarding any new laws or regulations that they feel may impede desegregation. Additionally, the Districts will be asked to review their regulations to ensure that they do not impede their desegregation efforts. The committee will convene on December 1, 1997 to review their findings and finalize their report to the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. 16 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) In October 1997, the Districts were asked to review new regulations and statutes for impediments to their desegregation efforts, and advise the ADE, in writing, if they feel a regulation or statute may impede their desegregation efforts. In October 1997, the Districts were requested to advise the ADE, in writing, no later than November 1, 1997 of any new law that might impede their desegregation efforts. As of November 12, 1997, no written responses were received from the Districts. The ADE concludes that the Districts do not feel that any new law negatively impacts their desegregation efforts. The committee met on December 1, 1997 to discuss their findings regarding statutes and regulations that may impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. The committee concluded that there were no laws or regulations that impede the desegregation efforts of the Districts. It was decided that the committee chair would prepare a report of the committee's findings for the Administrative Team and the State Board of Education. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation is now reviewing proposed bills and regulations, as well as laws that are being signed in, for the current 1999 legislative session. They will continue to do so until the session is over. The committee to review statutes and regulations that impede desegregation will meet on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The committee met on April 26, 1999 at the ADE. The purpose of the meeting was to identify rules and regulations that might impede desegregation, and review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. This is a standing committee that is ongoing and a report will be submitted to the State Board of Education once the process is completed. The committee met on May 24, 1999 at the ADE. The committee was asked to review within the existing legislation any regulations that might result in an impediment to desegregation. The committee determined that Mr. Ray Lumpkin would contact the Pulaski County districts to request written response to any rules, regulations or laws that might impede desegregation. The committee would also collect information and data to prepare a report for the State Board. This will be a standing committee. This data gathering will be ongoing until the final report is given to the State Board. On July 26, 1999, the committee met at the ADE. The committee did not report any laws or regulations that they currently thought would impede desegregation, and are still waiting for a response from the three districts in Pulaski County. 17 IV. REPEAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS THAT IMPEDE DESEGREGATION (Continued) E. Submit proposals to the Legislature for repeal of those laws that appear to be impediments to desegregation. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) The committee met on August 30, 1999 at the ADE to review rules and regulations that might impede desegregation. At that time, there were no laws under review that appeared to impede desegregation. In November, the three districts sent letters to the ADE stating that they have reviewed the laws passed by the 82nd legislative session as well as current rules \u0026amp; regulations and district policies to ensure that they have no ill effect on desegregation efforts. There was some concern from PCSSD concerning a charter school proposal in the Maumelle area. The work of the committee is on-going each month depending on the information that comes before the committee. Any rules, laws or regulations that would impede desegregation will be discussed and reported to the State Board of Education. 18 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES A. Through a preamble to the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 The preamble was contained in the Implementation Plan filed with the Court on March 15, 1994. B. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement and outcomes of programs intended to apply those principles. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 Ongoing C. Through execution of the Implementation Plan, the Board of Education will continue to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement by actions taken by ADE in response to monitoring results. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 Ongoing D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 19 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project ManagementT ool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 At each regular monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, the Board is provided copies of the most recent Project Management Tool (PMT) and an executive summary of the PMT for their review and approval. Only activities that are in addition to the Board's monthly review of the PMT are detailed below. In May 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the total number of schools visited during the monitoring phase and the data collection process. Suggestions were presented to the State Board of Education on how recommendations could be presented in the monitoring reports. In June 1995, an update on the status of the pending Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the State Board of Education. In July 1995, the July Semiannual Monitoring Report was reviewed by the State Board of Education. On August 14, 1995, the State Board of Education was informed of the need to increase minority participation in the teacher scholarship program and provided tentative monitoring dates to facilitate reporting requests by the ADE administrative team and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In September 1995, the State Board of Education was advised of a change in the PMT from a table format to a narrative format. The Board was also briefed about a meeting with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the PMT In October 1995, the State Board of Education was updated on monitoring timelines. The Board was also informed of a meeting with the parties regarding a review of the Semiannual Monitoring Report and the monitoring process, and the progress of the test validation study. In November 1995, a report was made to the State Board of Education regarding the monitoring schedule and a meeting with the parties concerning the development of a common terminology for monitoring purposes. In December 1995, the State Board of Education was updated regarding announced monitoring visits. In January 1996, copies of the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report and its executive summary were provided to the State Board of Education. 20 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) During the months of February 1996 through May 1996, the PMT report was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. In June 1996, the State Board of Education was updated on the status of the bias review study. In July 1996, the Semiannual Monitoring Report was provided to the Court, the parties, ODM, the State Board of Education, and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In August 1996, the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team were provided with copies of the test validation study prepared by Dr. Paul Williams. During the months of September 1996 through December 1996, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. On January 13, 1997, a presentation was made to the State Board of Education regarding the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report, and copies of the report and its executive summary were distributed to all Board members. The Project Management Tool and its executive summary were addressed at the February 10, 1997 State Board of Education meeting regarding the ADE's progress in fulfilling their obligations as set forth in the Implementation Plan. In March 1997, the State Board of Education was notified that historical information in the PMT had been summarized at the direction of the Assistant Attorney General in order to reduce the size and increase the clarity of the report. The Board was updated on the Pulaski County Desegregation Case and reviewed the Memorandum Opinion and Order issued by the Court on February 18, 1997 in response to the Districts' motion for summary judgment on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions. During the months of April 1997 through June 1997, the PMT was the only item on the agenda regarding the status of the implementation of the Monitoring Plan. The State Board of Education received copies of the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report and executive summary at the July Board meeting. 21 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on August 4, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. A special report regarding a historical review of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement and the ADE's role and monitoring obligations were presented to the State Board of Education on September 8, 1997. Additionally, the July 15, 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Board for their review. In October 1997, a special draft report regarding disparity in achievement was submitted to the State Board Chairman and the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee. In November 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. The Implementation Phase Working Group held its quarterly meeting on November 3, 1997 to discuss the progress made in attaining the goals set forth in the Implementation Plan and the critical areas for the current quarter. In December 1997, the State Board of Education was provided copies of the monthly PMT and its executive summary. In January 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and discussed ODM's report on the ADE's monitoring activities and instructed the Director to meet with the parties to discuss revisions to the ADE's monitoring plan and monitoring reports. In February 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and discussed the February 1998 Semiannual Monitoring Report. In March 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary and was provided an update regarding proposed revisions to the monitoring process. In April 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In May 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. 22 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) In June 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also reviewed how the ADE would report progress in the PMT concerning revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In July 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The State Board of Education also received an update on Test Validation, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Committee Meeting, and revisions in ADE's Monitoring Plan. In August 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the five discussion points regarding the proposed revisions to the monitoring and reporting process. The Board also reviewed the basic goal of the Minority Recruitment Committee. In September 1998, the State Board of Education reviewed the proposed modifications to the Monitoring plans by reviewing the common core of written response received from the districts. The primary commonalities were (1) Staff Development, (2) Achievement Disparity and (3) Disciplinary Disparity. A meeting of the parties is scheduled to be conducted on Thursday, September 17, 1998. The Board encouraged the Department to identify a deadline for Standardized Test Validation and Test Selection. In October 1998, the Board received the progress report on Proposed Revisions to the Desegregation Monitoring and Reporting Process (see XVIII). The Board also reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary. In November, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the proposed revisions in the Desegregation monitoring Process and the update on Test validation and Test Selection provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The Board was also notified that the Implementation Plan Working Committee held its quarterly meeting to review progress and identify quarterly priorities. In December, the State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion by the ADE, the LRSD, NLRSD, and the PCSSD, to relieve the Department of its obligation to file a February Semiannual Monitoring Report. The Board was also notified that the Joshua lntervenors filed a motion opposing the joint motion. The Board was informed that the ADE was waiting on a response from Court. 23 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) In January, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received an update on the joint motion of the ADE, LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD for an order relieving the ADE of filing a February 1999 Monitoring Report. The motion was granted subject to the following three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua intervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement. In February, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was informed that the three conditions: (1) notify the Joshua lntervenors of all meetings between the parties to discuss proposed changes, (2) file with the Court on or before February 1, 1999, a report detailing the progress made in developing proposed changes and (3) identify ways in which ADE might assist districts in their efforts to improve academic achievement had been satisfied. The Joshua lntervenors were invited again to attend the meeting of the parties and they attended on January 13, and January 28, 1999. They are also scheduled to attend on February 17, 1998. The report of progress, a collaborative effort from all parties was presented to court on February 1, 1999. The Board was also informed that additional items were received for inclusion in the revised report, after the deadline for the submission of the progress report and the ADE would: ( 1) check them for feasibility, and fiscal impact if any, and (2) include the items in future drafts of the report. In March, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also received and reviewed the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Progress Report submitted to Court on February 1, 1999. On April 12, and May 10, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On June 14, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. 24 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) On July 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board also was notified that once the financial section of the proposed plan was completed, the revised plan would be submitted to the board for approval. On August 9, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On September 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was also notified that the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan would be ready to submit to the Board for their review \u0026amp; approval as soon as plans were finalized. On October 12, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed the PMT and its executive summary. The Board was notified that on September 21 , 1999 that the Office of Education Lead Planning and Desegregation Monitoring meet before the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee and presented them with the draft version of the new Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan. The State Board was notified that the plan would be submitted for Board review and approval when finalized. On November 8, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of October. On December 13, 1999, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of November. On January 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of December. On February 14, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of January. On March 13, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of February. On April 10, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of March. 25 V. COMMITMENT TO PRINCIPLES (Continued) D. Through regular oversight of the Implementation Phase's Project Management Tool, and scrutiny of results of ADE's actions, the Board of Education will act on its commitment to the principles of the Settlement Agreement. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) On May 8, 2000, the Arkansas State Board of Education reviewed and approved the PMT and its executive summary for the month of April. On June 12, 2000, the Arl\u0026lt;ansas State Boara of Education reviewed and approved tne PMT and its executive summary for the month of May. 26 VI. REMEDIATION A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 During May 1995, team visits to Cycle 4 schools were conducted, and plans were developed for reviewing the Cycle 5 schools. In June 1995, the current Extended COE packet was reviewed, and enhancements to the Extended COE packet were prepared. In July 1995, year end reports were finalized by the Pulaski County field service specialists, and plans were finalized for reviewing the draft improvement plans of the Cycle 5 schools. In August 1995, Phase I - Cycle 5 school improvement plans were reviewed. Plans were developed for meeting with the Districts to discuss plans for Phase II - Cycle 1 schools of Extended COE, and a school improvement conference was conducted in Hot Springs. The technical review visits for the FY 95/96 year and the documentation process were also discussed. In October 1995, two computer programs, the Effective Schools Planner and the Effective Schools Research Assistant, were ordered for review, and the first draft of a monitoring checklist for Extended COE was developed. Through the Extended COE process, the field service representatives provided technical assistance based on the needs identified within the Districts from the data gathered. In November 1995, ADE personnel discussed and planned for the FY 95/96 monitoring, and onsite visits were conducted to prepare schools for the FY 95/96 team visits. Technical review visits continued in the Districts. In December 1995, announced monitoring and technical assistance visits were conducted in the Districts. At December 31, 1995, approximately 59% of the schools in the Districts had been monitored. Technical review visits were conducted during January 1996. In February 1996, announced monitoring visits and midyear monitoring reports were completed, and the field service specialists prepared for the spring NCA/COE peer team visits. 27 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) In March 1996, unannounced monitoring visits of Cycle 5 schools commenced, and two-day peer team visits of Cycle 5 schools were conducted. Two-day team visit materials, team lists and reports were prepared. Technical assistance was provided to schools in final preparation for team visits and to schools needing any school improvement information. In April and May 1996, the unannounced monitoring visits were completed. The unannounced monitoring forms were reviewed and included in the July monitoring report. The two-day peer team visits were completed, and annual COE monitoring reports were prepared. In June 1996, all announced and unannounced monitoring visits of the Cycle 5 schools were completed, and the data was analyzed. The Districts identified enrollment in compensatory education programs. The Semiannual Monitoring Report was completed and filed with the Court on July 15, 1996, and copies were distributed to the parties. During August 1996, meetings were held with the Districts to discuss the monitoring requirements. Technical assistance meetings with Cycle 1 schools were planned for 96/97. The Districts were requested to record discipline data in accordance with the Allen Letter. In September 1996, recommendations regarding the ADE monitoring schedule for Cycle 1 schools and content layouts of the semiannual report were submitted to the ADE administrative team for their review. Training materials were developed and schedules outlined for Cycle 1 schools. In October 1996, technical assistance needs were identified and addressed to prepare each school for their team visits. Announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools began on October 28, 1996. In December 1996, the announced monitoring visits of the Cycle 1 schools were completed, and technical assistance needs were identified from school site visits. In January 1997, the ECOE monitoring section identified technical assistance needs of the Cycle 1 schools, and the data was reviewed when the draft February Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, the State Board of Education, and the parties. 28 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) In February 1997, field service specialists prepared for the peer team visits of the Cycle 1 schools. NCA accreditation reports were presented to the NCA Committee, and NCA reports were prepared for presentation at the April NCA meeting in Chicago. From March to May 1997, 111 visits were made to schools or central offices to work with principals, ECOE steering committees, and designated district personnel concerning school improvement planning. A workshop was conducted on Learning Styles for Geyer Springs Elementary School. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 15-17, 1997. The conference included information on the process of continuous school improvement, results of the first five years of COE, connecting the mission with the school improvement plan, and improving academic performance. Technical assistance needs were evaluated for the FY 97 /98 school year in August 1997. From October 1997 to February 1998, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives. Technical assistance was provided to the Districts through meetings with the ECOE steering committees, assistance in analyzing perceptual surveys, and by providing samples of school improvement plans, Gold File catalogs, and web site addresses to schools visited. Additional technical assistance was provided to the Districts through discussions with the ECOE committees and chairs about the process. In November 1997, technical reviews of the ECOE process were conducted by the field service representatives in conjunction with the announced monitoring visits. Workshops on brainstorming and consensus building and asking strategic questions were held in January and February 1998. In March 1998, the field service representatives conducted ECOE team visits and prepared materials for the NCA workshop. Technical assistance was provided in workshops on the ECOE process and team visits. In April 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process and academically distressed schools. In May 1998, technical assistance was provided on the ECOE process, and team visits were conducted. 29 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) A. Through the Extended COE process, the needs for technical assistance by District, by School, and by desegregation compensatory education programs will be identified. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) In June 1998, the Extended COE Team Visit Reports were completed. A School Improvement Conference was held in Hot Springs on July 13-15, 1998. Major conference topics included information on the process of continuous school improvement, curriculum alignment, \"Smart Start,\" Distance Learning, using data to improve academic performance, educational technology, and multicultural education. All school districts in Arkansas were invited and representatives from Pulaski County attended. In September 1998, requests for technical assistance were received, visitation schedules were established, and assistance teams began visiting the Districts. Assistance was provided by telephone and on-site visits. The ADE provided inservice training on \"Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement\" at Gibbs Magnet Elementary school on October 5, 1998 at their request. The staff was taught how to increase test scores through data disaggregation, analysis, alignment, longitudinal achievement review, and use of individualized test data by student, teacher, class and content area. Information was also provided regarding the \"Smart Start\" and the \"Academic Distress\" initiatives. On October 20, 1998, ECOE technical assistance was provided to Southwest Jr. High School. B. Identify available resources for providing technical assistance for the specific condition, or circumstances of need, considering resources within ADE and the Districts, and also resources available from outside sources and experts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. C. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 30 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) C. D. Through the ERIC system, conduct a literature search for research evaluating compensatory education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 An updated ERIC Search was conducted on May 15, 1995 to locate research on evaluating compensatory education programs. The ADE received the updated ERIC disc that covered material through March 1995. An ERIC search was conducted in September 30, 1996 to identify current research dealing with the evaluation of compensatory education programs, and the articles were reviewed. An ERIC search was conducted in April 1997 to identify current research on compensatory education programs and sent to the Cycle 1 principals and the field service specialists for their use. An Eric search was conducted in October 1998 on the topic of Compensatory Education and related descriptors. The search included articles with publication dates from 1997 through July 1998. Identify and research technical resources available to ADE and the Districts through programs and organizations such as the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas. 1. Projected Ending Date Summer 1994 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. E. Solicit, obtain, and use available resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section VI.F. of this report. F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 31 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 From March 1995 through July 1995, technical assistance and resources were obtained from the following sources: the Southwest Regional Cooperative\nUALR regarding training for monitors\nODM on a project management software\nADHE regarding data review and display\nand Phi Delta Kappa, the Desegregation Assistance Center and the Dawson Cooperative regarding perceptual surveys. Technical assistance was received on the Microsoft Project software in November 1995, and a draft of the PMT report using the new software package was presented to the ADE administrative team for review. In December 1995, a data manager was hired permanently to provide technical assistance with computer software and hardware. In October 1996, the field service specialists conducted workshops in the Districts to address their technical assistance needs and provided assistance for upcoming team visits. In November and December 1996, the field service specialists addressed technical assistance needs of the schools in the Districts as they were identified and continued to provide technical assistance for the upcoming team visits. In January 1997, a draft of the February 1997 Semiannual Monitoring Report was presented to the State Board of Education, the Desegregation Litigation Oversight Subcommittee, and the parties. The ECOE monitoring section of the report included information that identified technical assistance needs and resources available to the Cycle 1 schools. Technical assistance was provided during the January 29-31, 1997 Title I MidWinter Conference. The conference emphasized creating a learning community by building capacity schools to better serve all children and empowering parents to acquire additional skills and knowledge to better support the education of their children. In February 1997, three ADE employees attended the Southeast Regional Conference on Educating Black Children. Participants received training from national experts who outlined specific steps that promote and improve the education of black children. On March 6-9, 1997, three members of the ADE's Technical Assistance Section attended the National Committee for School Desegregation Conference. The participants received training in strategies for Excellence and Equity: Empowerment and Training for the Future. Specific information was received regarding the current status of court-ordered desegregation, unitary status, and resegregation and distributed to the Districts and ADE personnel. 32 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) The field service specialists attended workshops in March on ACT testing and school improvement to identify technical assistance resources available to the Districts and the ADE that will facilitate desegregation efforts. ADE personnel attended the Eighth Annual Conference on Middle Level Education in Arkansas presented by the Arkansas Association of Middle Level Education on April 6-8, 1997. The theme of the conference was Sailing Toward New Horizons. In May 1997, the field service specialists attended the NCA annual conference and an inservice session with Mutiu Fagbayi. An Implementation Oversight Committee member participated in the Consolidated COE Plan inservice training. In June and July 1997, field service staff attended an SAT-9 testing workshop and participated in the three-day School Improvement Conference held in Hot Springs. The conference provided the Districts with information on the COE school improvement process, technical assistance on monitoring and assessing achievement, availability of technology for the classroom teacher, and teaching strategies for successful student achievement. In August 1997, field service personnel attended the ASCD Statewide Conference and the AAEA Administrators Conference. On August 18, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held and presentations were made on the Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) program and the Schools of the 21st Century program. In September 1997, technical assistance was provided to the Cycle 2 principals on data collection for onsite and offsite monitoring. ADE personnel attended the Region VI Desegregation Conference in October 1997. Current desegregation and educational equity cases and unitary status issues were the primary focus of the conference. On October 14, 1997, the bi-monthly Team V meeting was held in Paragould to enable members to observe a 21st Century school and a school that incorporates traditional and multi-age classes in its curriculum. In November 1997, the field service representatives attended the Governor's Partnership Workshop to discuss how to tie the committee's activities with the ECOE process. 33 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) In March 1998, the field service representatives attended a school improvement conference and conducted workshops on team building and ECOE team visits. Staff development seminars on Using Data to Sharpen the Focus on Student Achievement are scheduled for March 23, 1998 and March 27, 1998 for the Districts. In April 1998, the Districts participated in an ADE seminar to aid them in evaluating and improving student achievement. In August 1998, the Field Service Staff attended inservice to provide further assistance to schools, i.e., Title I Summer Planning Session, ADE session on Smart Start, and the School Improvement Workshops. All schools and districts in Pulaski County were invited to attend the \"Smart Start\" Summit November 9, 10, and 11 to learn more about strategies to increase student performance. \"Smart Start\" is a standards-driven educational initiative which emphasizes the articulation of clear standards for student achievement and accurate measures of progress against those standards through assessments, staff development and individual school accountability. The Smart Start Initiative focused on improving reading and mathematics achievement for all students in Grades K-4. Representatives from all three districts attended. On January 21 , 1998, the ADE provided staff development for the staff at Oak Grove Elementary School designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement. Using achievement data from Oak Grove, educators reviewed trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. On February 24, 1999, the ADE provided staff development for the administrative staff at Clinton Elementary School regarding analysis of achievement data. On February 15, 1999, staff development was rescheduled for Lawson Elementary School. The staff development program was designed to assist them with their efforts to improve student achievement using achievement data from Lawson, educators reviewed the components of the Arkansas Smart Initiative, trends in achievement data, identified areas of greatest need, and reviewed seven steps for improving student performance. Student Achievement Workshops were rescheduled for Southwest Jr. High in the Little Rock School District, and the Oak Grove Elementary School in the Pulaski County School District. 34 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) On April 30, 1999, a Student Achievement Workshop was conducted for Oak Grove Elementary School in PCSSD. The Student Achievement Workshop for Southwest Jr. High in LRSD has been rescheduled. On June 8, 1999, a workshop was presented to representatives from each of the Arkansas Education Service Cooperatives and representatives from each of the three districts in Pulaski County. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On June 18, 1999, a workshop was presented to administrators of the NLRSD. The workshop detailed the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). On August 16, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for teaching assistant in the LRSD. On August 20, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACTAAP program was presented during the preschool staff development activities for the Accelerated Learning Center in the LRSD. On September 13, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement and the components of the new ACT AAP program were presented to the staff at Booker T. Washington Magnet Elementary School. On September 27, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to the Middle and High School staffs of the NLRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program , and ACT 999 of 1999. On October 26, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was presented to LRSD personnel through a staff development training class. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT MP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On December 7, 1999, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was scheduled for Southwest Middle School in the LRSD. The workshop was also set to cover the components of the new ACTAAP program , and ACT 999 of 1999. However, Southwest Middle School administrators had a need to reschedule, therefore the workshop will be rescheduled. On January 10, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for both Dr. Martin Luther King Magnet Elementary School \u0026amp; Little Rock Central High School. The workshops also covered the components of the new ACTAAP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. 35 VI. REMEDIATION (Continued) F. Evaluate the impact of the use of resources for technical assistance. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) On March 1, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for all principals and district level administrators in the PCSSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACT MP program, and ACT 999 of 1999. On April 12, 2000, professional development on ways to increase student achievement was conducted for the LRSD. The workshop also covered the components of the new ACTMP program , and ACT 999 of 1999. Targeted staffs from the middle and junior high schools in the three districts in Pulaski County attended the Smart Step Summit on May 1 and May 2. Training was provided regarding the overview of the \"Smart Step\" initiative, \"Standard and Accountability in Action ,\" and \"Creating Learning Environments Through Leadership Teams.\" 36 VII. TESTVALIDATION A. Using a collaborative approach, the ADE will select and contract with an independent bias review service or expert to evaluate the Stanford 8, or other monitoring instruments used to measure disparities in academic achievement between black students and white students. 1. Projected Ending Date March, 1995 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 On March 29, 1995, letters were sent to four national experts about conducting a test bias validation of the Stanford Achievement Test, Eighth Edition, Form K (SAT-8). Dr. Paul Williams, Deputy Director of Educational Testing Service (ETS), contacted the ADE in April of 1995 concerning the proposal for validating the SAT-8 test. The ADE requested that Dr. Williams conduct a validity study of test items used in the SAT-8. Dr. Williams submitted a final proposal for his services. The ADE Bias Review Test Committee met Friday, July 7, 1995, and approved Dr. William's contract proposal. The final contract was forwarded to Dr. Williams for his signature. The contract was signed in August 1995, thereby, completing this goal. B. By April 1994, establish a bias review committee to oversee the bias review process, and invite representatives of the Districts and parties to meet with the bias review committee. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 Complete. ADE established a Bias Review Committee in April 1994. In accordance with the Implementation Plan, representatives from the Districts and the parties were invited to attend and participate in this and all meetings of the Bias Review Committee. C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. 1. Projected Ending Date March 1995 and ongoing 37 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 Dr. Paul Williams met with the staff of the Psychological Corporation to review their methods and procedures. In August 1995, he met with the staff at Georgia State University to review the statistical methods that would be used in the analysis. Dr. Williams reported difficulty with the bias-review study in receiving the names of the bias panel and the complete SAT-8 data set from the Psychological Corporation. Dr. Williams submitted an invoice totaling $8,961 for Task I activities of the SAT-8 validity study for partial fulfillment of the test validation study. On December 6, 1995, a contract extension for Dr. Williams was reviewed by the Legislative Council. In January 1996, he indicated that he was in the final stages of the test validation, and the ADE was presented a draft report in March 1996. In May 1996, Dr. Williams stated that the wrong data sets were sent to him by the Psychological Corporation resulting in Task 3 having to be redone. A new draft of the final report was received by the ADE in July 1996. In August 1996, copies of the test validation report were provided to the State Board of Education and the ADE administrative team for their review. On September 10, 1996, the LRSD notified the ADE that they had reviewed the test validation report and would like to meet with the ADE to discuss the report. The ADE Director indicated that he would schedule a meeting with the LRSD to discuss the report. In October 1996, historical files and data were provided to the ADE Director, the ADE Assistant Director for Technical Services, and the ADE Assistant Director for Planning and Curriculum for their review in preparation for a meeting with the LRSD regarding the validity study. Test validation procedures by the expert have been completed. A recommendation was drafted proposing the use of the SA T-8 by the ADE as the validated test for monitoring. The ADE is presently working to arrange a meeting with the Administration of the LRSD to discuss the test validation study. Effective September 22, 1997, the State Board of Education hired a new Director of the General Education Division, which should allow the ADE to move forward in this matter. 38 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) In October 1997, the GED Director was updated on the history of the test validation process to provide the Director with background information in preparation for a meeting with the LRSD. In February 1998, ADE staff met with senior staff members to discuss the test validation and appropriate test scores for consideration by the LRSD. The ADE Director met with the Superintendent of the LRSD to discuss test validation issues. In June 1998, the ADE Director directed the Assistant Director for Accountability to recommend staff to discuss how the ADE would measure LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness thresholds of the Settlement Agreement. Plans were made to meet with the staff Tuesday, June 30, 1998. The Test Validation Committee met on June 30, 1998, and discussed the following: 1. The appropriateness of the use of scaled scores on the SA T-8 test as the metric for assessing LRSD compliance with the loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement\nand 2. The need for an independent analysis of LRSD students' test scores to determine compliance or noncompliance with loan forgiveness standard, and who would bear the cost of such an independent analysis. The Test Validation Committee met on September 10, 1998, to review recent correspondence from LRSD and to further discuss issues related to the loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement. A follow-up administrative meeting was held on October 13, 1998, to discuss issues related to the test validation process. Participants included Tim Gauger, Assistant Attorney General, Dr. Charity Smith, Lead Planner for Desegregation, and Frank Anthony, Assistant Director for Accountability. A meeting was scheduled with Dr. Les Carnine, LRSD Superintendent and Mr. Ray Simon, ADE Director, regarding Test Validation and loan forgiveness provisions of the Settlement Agreement on May 12, 1999. 39 VII. TEST VALIDATION (Continued) C. Upon completion of test validation procedures by the bias review service or expert, the ADE will adopt and use a validated test as a monitoring instrument. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) On June 14, 1999, the State Board of Education was briefed on the status of LRSD's refusal to make principal and interest payments into escrow as required by the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement and related documents. The Board requested that a draft motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement be prepared and submitted to the Board for review and discussion at the Board's next regularly scheduled meeting. On July 12, 1999, the State Board of Education authorized the filing of a motion to compel LRSD to make interest and principal payments into escrow pursuant to the loan provisions of the Settlement Agreement. The State Board of Education instructed the Attorney General's Office to file a motion by March 1, 2000 if a determination is made that the LRSD is not in compliance with Section 6 B of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement regarding the establishment and funding of the escrow account in the loan provision section. On May 8, 2000, the Assistant Director of Accountability was directed by the Director of Education to contact Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement Company about the possibility of conducting a research study on the standardized test composite scores from 1990 through 1999 of LRSD (excluding special education students). The Test Selection Committee met on May 23, 2000, at the ADE and discussed ways to measure LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness threshold of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement. An update on the progress with Harcourt Brace was made at that time. Harcourt Brace has been contacted about conducting an initial research report on LRSD's progress toward meeting the loan forgiveness threshold of the settlement agreement. This report will review all composite scores since 1990 of LRSD's black and white students (excluding special education students). The purpose of the report is to determine if at any time from Spring 1990 to Fall 1999 did the composite scores of LRSD's black students (excluding special education students) reach 90% or greater of the composite scores of LRSD's white students (excluding special education students) on the State mandated norm-referenced test. Company representatives will advise the ADE of the cost and feasibility of producing the report by May 31, 2000. If the report indicates that LRSD has not meet the loan forgiveness requirements of the Pulaski County Settlement Agreement, an additional analysis of the Fall 2000 standardized tests results will be made. 40 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING A. Through an interactive process with representatives of desegregating districts, identify in-service training needs. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. B. Develop in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. C. Implement in-service training programs to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section VIII.D. of this report. D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 In April 1995, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee were provided an overview of the Scott Alternative Learning Center's operation and met with students and staff. In May 1995, the Districts were in the process of self-assessment and planning for fall staff development. 41 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) The Districts worked on staff development to be incorporated into their fall 95/96 preschool calendars. The uniqueness of each district's needs and their schools was considered in the planning by utilizing the results of needs assessment instruments. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 13, 1995 to plan for an ADE administered Classroom Management grant. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 19, 1995 to finalize the Classroom Management grant proposal. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on October 24, 1995 to discuss program and staff development evaluation models that might be available to the Districts. On November 15, 1995, the ADE met with an ODM representative to discuss the progress the ADE had made in attaining the objectives outlined in the Implementation Plan with regard to inservice training. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on November 21 , 1995 to discuss upcoming training events and various NLR programs that focus on non-academic needs. A new program consisting of placing a graduate student of social work, a field supervisor, and a OHS worker in the district at no cost to the district was discussed. Additionally, NLR provided an overview of their program for credit deficient students. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on December 19, 1995 to discuss information dealing with ways to broaden the perspective of multicultural education. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on January 17, 1996 to discuss proposed changes in the standards regarding media centers and NLRSD's staff development strategic planning committee. The committee reviewed a video on diversity produced by the Arkansas Elementary Principals Association. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 21, 1996 to discuss the implications of budget cuts on staff development programs and PCSSD's request for unitary status for their staff development program. They also discussed the need for computer literacy, technology training, and acquisition of hardware and software by the Districts. 42 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 27, 1996 to discuss available resources concerning sexual harassment. ADE regulations in relation to staff members attending professional association conferences as well as the district staff development and potential sites for training seminars were also discussed. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on April 30, 1996 to discuss the reconfiguring of Jacksonville Junior High, PCSSD professional development schedules, and APSCN on-line time lines. A tour of the Washington Magnet school was also conducted. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee received a demonstration of UALR's Baum Decision Support Center's capabilities regarding consensus and planning on May 29, 1996. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee did not meet during September, October, and November 1996 because of scheduling conflicts and the extended medical leave of the ADE liaison. On December 18, 1996, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met to discuss the linkage between the Implementation Plan, staff development, and student achievement. On January 21, 1997, the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met and discussed sharing middle school strategies and the Districts' training catalogs. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 25, 1997 to discuss their current staff development programs and an overview of the relationship of their current programs with their desegregation plans. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 26, 1997 to observe the Great Expectations Program. The principal and mentor teachers provided information on the components and philosophy of the program , and students demonstrated selected components. The PCSSD may adopt the program for selected schools in their district. The committee was provided with an update of pertinent information on resources available to the Districts. The committee decided that the ADE liaison to the committee would gather documentation of completed staff development directly from the Districts, instead of the Districts providing this information at the committee meetings. 43 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) New information on teacher licensure and rules and regulations was shared with the Tri-District Staff Development Committee at their April 1997 meeting. A report was presented to the committee on information from the Arkansas Council for Social Studies about an October 1997 meeting on integrated curriculum. The Districts will provide principal retreats this summer as a part of their staff development. The PCSSD will sponsor a renowned speaker on strategies to serve at risk youth in August 1997 in which the committee is invited to attend. The LRSD shared survey results from a pilot administration to four teachers in each district. The survey found the sample to be strong in content but lacking in context and process. Plans to address these needs will be developed. In another survey to certified and non-certified LRSD staff, stress management was the major concern. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on May 14, 1997 to participate in a teleconference with the five 1996 awardees of the National Awards Program for Model for Professional Development. The PCSSD shared their summer and fall staff development catalog with the members. The committee will reconvene in the fall of the 97/98 school year. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee is scheduled to meet on September 30, 1997 to discuss collaborative actions for FY 97/98. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on September 30, 1997 to discuss their staff development for the 1997 /1998 school year. The PCSSD had a pre-school in-service for the faculty, and the LRSD conducted a Principals Academy with an expert on the math and science initiative which lasted several days. The NLRSD is providing staff development by satellite. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on October 28, 1997. The LRSD and NLRSD shared some of their staff development course offerings with the committee, and the PCSSD discussed ways of optimizing opportunities for staff development with specific emphasis on the junior high school conflict resolution training. In November 1997, the Lead Planner provided technical assistance to Central High School staff regarding data disaggregation, test score analysis and ways to improve student achievement. 44 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on November 25, 1997 to discuss the Standards for Staff Development. The LRSD will begin providing technology training to their employees in January by utilizing business teachers. Additionally, they discussed a collaborative venture of the Districts involving a workshop from Chicago on a program called \"Great Expectations.\" The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on December 16, 1997 to discuss technology plans, strategies for obtaining information currently being provided to the education cooperatives, scheduling of Arkansas history, and the development of a comprehensive list of locations available for staff development. Members agreed to bring information on available locations to the January meeting and have set a tentative completion date for the project of May 1998. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on January 27, 1998 to share information for developing a comprehensive list of locations available for staff development. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on February 24, 1998 to work on the development of the list of locations available for staff development. The committee also discussed the meeting on student achievement sponsored by the ADE for the Districts, principals' staff development in the Districts and emphasis on improving achievement as reflected on the SAT-9. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on March 19, 1998 to discuss the math and science grant received by the LRSD, the Districts' inservice calendars for August, TESA and Student-Team Learning trainers, and team building for staff. The ADE Deputy Director is scheduled to discuss ways the committee can strengthen their relationship with the regional cooperatives at their May meeting. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on April 27, 1998 to discuss their proposal for involvement with the regional cooperatives. The ADE Deputy Director is scheduled to discuss committee's concerns regarding their relationship with the regional cooperatives at their next meeting. 45 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Thursday, May 21, 1998, in the Instructional Resources Center at Little Rock School District. Dr. Woodrow Cummins, ADE Deputy Director, joined the group to discuss ways to develop a closer connection with the Education Service Cooperatives. He also discussed other issues concerning Tri-District Staff Development. Tentative plans were made to meet with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their next regular meeting. The next Central Office meeting will be at 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 29, 1998, in the PCSSD. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee will attend the Educational Cooperative Teacher Center Coordinators' meeting September 1, 1998, in the ADE auditorium. The next regular meeting of the committee is tentatively set for 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 29, 1998, in the PCSSD Central Office. The Tri-County Staff Development Committee met Monday, August 24, 1998, at PCSSD central office with four members present: Marion Woods, LRSD\nDoug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nand Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Topics of discussion included the September 1 meeting scheduled with the regional cooperatives' teacher center coordinators\nthe staff development task force on which Marion Woods is serving\nthe property tax issue\nand various mathematics and reading programs being used in the districts. The committee met Tuesday, September 1, 1998, with the Teacher Center Coordinators, at which time Dr. Woody Cummins presented. Six Tri-District Staff Development Committee members were present: Marion Woods, LRSD\nDoug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nDana Chadwick and Estelle Crawford, NLRSD\nBetty Gale Davis, ADE. The next committee meeting will be 9:00 a.m., Thursday, September 24, 1998, at the Little Rock District Instructional Resources Center. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Thursday, September 24, 1998, at the Instructional Resources Center, Little Rock, with five present: Marion Woods and Dr. Bonnie Lesley, LRSD\nDoug Ask, PCSSD\nDana Chadwick, NLRSD\nand Dr. Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Topics of discussion included the meeting with the regional cooperatives' teacher center coordinators\nthe staff development task force on which Marion Woods is serving and the NSCI training\ntraining provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)\ntraining provided by Casio\nand the proposal of a Principals Academy. 46 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) Doug Ask will serve as representative to the October 6, 1998 meeting of the Teacher Center Coordinators. He will submit to Donna Harris, president of the group, a request for one other member of the Tri-County Committee (Dana Chadwick) to attend the meeting. Representatives for future meetings (second Tuesday of each month) will be: Marion Woods, November\nMary McClendon, December\nDana Chadwick, January. The next committee meeting will be 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, October 13, 1998, at the North Little Rock School District Central Office. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met on Tuesday, October 13, 1998, in the NLRSD Administration Building. Doug Ask represented the committee at the Teacher Center Coordinators' meeting in Fayetteville, October 6. He shared with the Tri-District Committee information regarding the upcoming NSCI/Smart Start Training. James Smith spoke with the group about Amendment 4. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee also met with the Teacher Center Coordinators, Wednesday, October 28. Doug Ask, Marion Woods, and Esther Crawford were trained as facilitators, October 29, for the initial Smart Start Summit to be held November 9-12, 1998. Marion Woods will represent the committee at the next regular Teacher Center Coordinators' meeting, Tuesday, November 3, 10:00 a.m. at the ADE. The next Tri-District Committee meeting will be at 9:00 a.m., November 10, in the PCSSD Administration Building. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met several times with the Teacher Center Coordinators in preparation for the Smart Start Summit. During the Smart Start Summit, they served as facilitators. The meeting planned for November 10 was postponed due to the conflict with the Summit. Doug Ask, Marion Woods, and Esther Crawford met with the Teacher Center Coordinators on Tuesday, December 1, 1998, for the regular monthly meeting. Principal topics discussed were the Smart Start Initiative and Principals' Institute. The next meeting of the Teacher Center Coordinators is scheduled for January 6, 1999, 9:00 a.m., in the ADE Auditorium. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee will meet at 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, December 8, 1998, at the Little Rock School District Instructional Resources Center. 47 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) Doug Ask, PCSSD\nMarion Woods, LRSD\nand Esther Crawford, NLRSD, met with the Teacher Center Coordinators on Tuesday, December 1, 1998, for the regular monthly meeting. Principal topics discussed were the Smart Start Initiative and Principals' Institute. The Teacher Center Coordinators held their monthly meeting on January 6, 1999, 9:00 a.m., in the ADE Auditorium, with Doug Ask, Marion Woods, and Esther Crawford in attendance. At the January meeting, the primary focus was on the Smart Start Initiative. Dates for the future committee meetings have been tentatively scheduled to coincide with meetings with the Teacher Center Coordinators. Due to the Tri-District Committee's involvement with the Smart Start Initiative, no formal meeting of the committee was held in January. Members of the TriDistrict Staff Development Committee met with Teacher Center Coordinators, January 6 and 25, 1999, preparing for and facilitating Smart Start activities. Dates for future meetings have been tentatively scheduled to coincide with meetings of Teacher Center Coordinators. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Wednesday, February 17, 1999, at the Best Western lnntowne with four members in attendance. Most of the discussion centered on Smart Start and Character Centered Teaching. A March meeting date was not determined. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting, April 6, 1999, at the ADE. Much of the meeting centered on the Smart Start Initiative and the Getting Smarter Summer Conference to be held in Hot Springs, July 28- 31, 1999. The next meeting of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee will be May 11, 1999, at the Northeast Arkansas Educational Cooperative, Walnut Ridge. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting, Tuesday, May 11, 1999, at the Northeast Arkansas Educational Cooperative, Walnut Ridge, with Mary McClendon, PCSSD, Marion Woods, LRSD, Esther Crawford, NLRSD, and Janinne Riggs, ADE, attending. Much of the meeting centered on the Smart Start Initiative. The next meeting was scheduled as a retreat, June 7-9, 1999, at Hot Springs. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators for their annual retreat, June 7-9, 1999, at Hot Springs. The next regular meeting will be in September, the date and place to be announced later. Summer activities will include the Getting Smarter Conference. 48 VIII . IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met during the Getting Smarter Conference, July 28-31, 1999, at Hot Springs. In collaboration with the Teacher Center Coordinators, those participating in the conference as facilitators were: Doug Ask, PCSSD\nEsther Crawford, NLRSD\nand Marion Woods, LRSD. The next regular meeting will be in September, the date and place to be announced later. Target, Teach, and Test for Student Success, a workshop aimed at improving interpretation of test data and applying that knowledge toward more effective lesson planning, was adapted for presentation in conjunction with the Multicultural Institute. Members of the Standards Assurance Unit (Dee Cox, Betty Gale Davis, Bob Maddox, and Lonzo Gatlin) presented an all-day workshop (Target, Teach, and Test for Student Success) for Pulaski County Special School District in connection with the Multicultural Institute, July 27, 1999. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, September 7, 1999, at the ADE, with five members in attendance: Doug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nEsther Crawford, NLRSD\nMaron Woods, LRSD\nand Betty Gale Davis, ADE. Discussion included Smart Start activities and performance assessment. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. The next meeting will be Tuesday, October 5, 1999, at the ADE. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, October 5, 1999 at the ADE. Discussion included middle level training (LRSD), inservice for administrators in retreat (PCSSD), and Smart Start activities. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. The next meeting will be November 2, 1999 at the ADE. Members of the Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Tuesday, November 2, 1999 at the ADE. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. The next meeting will be December 7, at the ADE. The December meeting was canceled due to conflicts in scheduling. The TriDistrict Staff Development Committee will hold its next meeting January 3, 2000 at the ADE. The Committee continues to work in cooperation with the Teacher Center Coordinators in the Smart Start Initiative. 49 VIII. IN-SERVICE TRAINING (Continued) D. Evaluate in-service training programs developed and executed to address in-service training needs of desegregating districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met January 4, 2000 at the ADE. Major discussion included the upcoming three day meeting with Teacher Center Coordinators (January 4-6, 2000), benchmarks training (NLRSD), balance literacy training (PCSSD), alternative learning training (LRSD), and activities of the Smart Start Initiative. The next meeting will be February 3, 2000 at the ADE. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met Monday and Tuesday, February 7-8, 2000, at Ferncliff, with four members present: Doug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nEsther Crawford, NLRSD\nand Marion Woods, LRSD. The meeting was held in conjunction with the Teacher Center Coordinators' retreat. Several presenters shared information on various topics, and the Getting Smarter summer conference was discussed. Plans were tentatively made to conduct the April meeting via distance learning. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met March 7, 2000, at the ADE. Following the meeting, the committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators at their regular monthly meeting. Items discussed were: documentation of clock hours for professional development, Middle School training, and the use of staff development days. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met by Distance Learning through the Sherwood School Site with the Teacher Center Coordinators for its April meeting. The Tri-District Staff Development Committee met with the Teacher Center Coordinators, in conjunction with the Smart Step Summit, May 1-2, 2000, at the Convention Center. Three members participated: Doug Ask and Mary McClendon, PCSSD\nand Marion Woods, LRSD. A June meeting date has not been set. :rne Tri-District Staff CJevelopment Committ Coordinators at tneir annual summer confe 2000. Among the discussi , r -==== al lopment Council, the P =---- ft] 'an ma  step. 50 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS A. Facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. 1. Projected Ending Dates (See dates on individual key activities) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 A staff member of the ADE's certification department attended all of the college career days in FY 94/95 in Arkansas and one out-of-state. In FY 95/96, ADE certification staff members attended career and job fairs at the following colleges and universities: Philander Smith College\nUAM\nHSU\nATU\nUCA\nASU\nUA-Pine Bluff\nUA-Fayetteville\nHarding University\nSAU\nand Jackson State. ADE certification staff met with representatives from the Districts to ensure they were aware that ADE personnel were available to provide assistance in recruitment and certification of minority teacher candidates. A job fair was conducted at the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff on December 4, 1996. The Districts were advised of the ADE's availability for providing assistance in recruitment and certification. In February 1997, ADE certification staff members attended teacher job fairs at Henderson State University, Arkansas Tech University, and University of Central Arkansas to facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. ADE certification staff members attended teacher job fairs at Harding University, UA-Fayetteville, UA-Pine Bluff, and ASU in April 1997 to facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. From April 16, 1997 through May 6, 1997, ADE certification staff members attended teacher job fairs at Philander Smith College and SAU to facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. Additionally, ADE staff attended an out-ofstate teacher job fair at Jackson State University at Jackson, Mississippi. Recruitment activities were suspended for the summer, but they will resume in the later part of September for FY 97 /98. On September 25, 1997, the ADE's Professional Licensure Supervisor attended a career day job fair at Philander Smith College to provide support to the Districts in recruiting teachers. 51 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS (Continued) A. Facilitate communication between the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) On November 6, 1997, the Professional Licensure Supervisor attended a career day job fair at the University of the Ozarks in order to facilitate the Districts' recruitment efforts. Recruitment activities will resume in February 1998. Representatives of the ADE's Professional Licensure Unit attended job fairs at Arkansas Technical University, UCA, ASU and the University of Memphis from February 26, 1998 through March 12, 1998. A representative from the ADE's Professional Licensure Unit attended job fairs at UA-Fayetteville and Harding University on March 30, 1998 and April 2, 1998, respectively. Representatives from the ADE's Professional Licensure Unit attended job fairs at Philander Smith College, SAU and North East Louisiana in April 1998. The staff members of Professional Licensure have scheduled college and university job fairs as they become aware of them . They have scheduled ATU, UCA, ASU, Harding, and UA-Fayetteville. The Professional Licensure staff assisted NLRSD in getting the spring minority graduate list from all college and university teacher education programs. The Licensure unit scheduled staff to attend job fairs coming up this spring. Representatives for the Professional Licensure Unit attended job fairs at ATU, UCA, and ASU from February 25, 1999 through March 9, 1999. Representatives for the Professional Licensure Unit attended job fairs at Harding, UA-Fayetteville, and UAM from March 25, 1999 through April 7, 1999. Representatives for the Professional Licensure Unit attended job fairs at Philander Smith, April 13, 1999 and Grambling University, April 15, 1999. The Professional Licensure Unit has scheduled a representative to attend college job fairs at the following locations: Harding, February 22\nUCA, February 25\nPhilander Smith, March 1\nASU, March 7. B. Beginning in 1994, by May and November of each year, Districts will supply to the ADE information about shortages of teachers by grade and subject area. 1. Projected Ending Dates Ongoing, as stated. 52 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS (Continued) 8. Beginning in 1994, by May and November of each year, Districts will supply to the ADE information about shortages of teachers by grade and subject area. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 Letters were sent in May, August, and December 1995 to the Districts requesting information regarding teaching positions available by grade and subject areas. In May and November 1996, the Human Resources offices of the Districts were requested to provide information regarding teaching positions available by grade and subject area. The ADE sent follow-up letters requesting information from the Districts regarding teacher shortages in February 1997. The NLRSD and the PCS SD indicated that they expect teacher shortages in the areas of Special Education, Mathematics, the Sciences, Foreign Language, English as a Second Language and Gifted and Talented Education. On May 20, 1997, information was requested from the Districts regarding teacher shortages. Follow-up letters were sent in July 1997. On November 5, 1998, letters were sent to the three schools in Pulaski County requesting a list of foreseeable teacher shortages. In May 1999, requests were made to the Pulaski County Schools for a list of teacher openings and grade levels. In June 1999, the Professional Licensure Unit received a list of teacher shortage areas and openings for Pulaski County Schools. In December 1999, the ADE Professional Licensure Unit requested a list of shortage teaching positions for each of the Pulaski County Schools. In May 2000, the ADE Professional Licensure Unit requested a list of shortage teaching positions for each of the Pulaski County Schools. C. Beginning in 1994, by May and December of each year, request information from colleges and universities about the numbers and types of minority-teacher graduates. 1. Projected Ending Dates Ongoing, as stated. 53 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS (Continued) C. Beginning in 1994, by May and December of each year, request information from colleges and universities about the numbers and types of minority-teacher graduates. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) In May and December 1995, letters were sent to all Deans and Certifying Officers of Institutions of Higher Education in Arkansas requesting information on minority teacher graduates. Letters were sent to all Deans and Certifying Officers of Institutions of Higher Education in Arkansas in May and November 1996 requesting information on minority teacher graduates. In May and December 1997, letters were sent to all Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs requesting minority teacher graduate information. On May 14, 1998, letters were sent to all Arkansas colleges and universities with teacher education programs requesting minority teacher graduate information. On August 1, 1998, the ADE Office of Professional Licensure sent advance notice to all Deans/Certifying Officials regarding the change in format for complete minority teacher candidate information. On November 5, 1998, letters were sent to Deans and Certifying Officials requesting a list of their fall minority teacher education graduates which will be sent to the three Pulaski County Schools. In May 1999, requests were made to all colleges and universities for their spring minority graduates for 1999. In June 1999, the ADE Office of Professional Licensure received minority graduate reports from colleges and universities. In December 1999, the ADE Office of Professional Licensure requested a list of all fall graduates from all colleges and universities. In May 2000, the ADE Office of Professional Licensure requested a list of all fall graduates from all colleges and universities. D. Within 30 days of receiving data from colleges and universities provide the Districts data on teacher openings to the colleges and universities on minority graduates to the Districts. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 54 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS (Continued) D. Within 30 days of receiving data from colleges and universities provide the Districts data on teacher openings to the colleges and universities on minority graduates to the Districts. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) In June 1995 and January 1996, ADE sent the information received from Arkansas colleges and universities on minority teacher education graduates to the Districts. In July 1996 and January 1997, ADE sent the information received from Deans and Certifying Officers on minority teacher education graduates to the Districts. On February 3, 1997, a list of minority teacher graduates from the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville was forwarded to the Districts as an addendum to the list of graduates compiled on January 16, 1997. The ADE provided the Districts with the Minority Teacher Graduate Report compiled from the minority teacher graduate information received from Arkansas colleges and universities in July 1997 and January 1998. The 1998 Fall Minority Teacher Graduate Report from colleges and universities have been forwarded to the three Pulaski County School District. Information from the three Pulaski County School Districts regarding vacant teaching positions are being forwarded to the colleges and universities. In July 1999, the minority graduate reports from the colleges and universities were mailed to all Pulaski County Schools. Job openings for Pulaski County Schools were mailed to all colleges and universities. On January 23, 2000, a list of minority teacher graduates was mailed to all the Pulaski County school districts. E. Each November, ADE will request information from the Districts on the effectiveness of ADE's minority recruitment assistance, including an assessment of the minority teacher candidates' database. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 55 IX. RECRUITMENT OF MINORITY TEACHERS (Continued) E. Each November, ADE will request information from the Districts on the effectiveness of ADE's minority recruitment assistance, including an assessment of the minority teacher candidates' database. 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 On November 30, 1994, letters were sent to the Districts requesting feedback on the effectiveness of the ADE's minority recruitment assistance. Follow-up letters were sent on March 17, 1995 since no responses had been received. Additional follow-up letters were sent to the Districts in August 1995 because the ADE had received no responses from the Districts. A planning and evaluation meeting was scheduled on January 11, 1996 with representatives from the Districts. The Districts did not attend the meeting. In February 1997, letters were sent to the Districts requesting feedback on the effectiveness of ADE's minority recruitment assistance. The NLRSD and the PCSSD submitted favorable evaluations concerning the effectiveness of the ADE's recruitment assistance efforts. The ADE did not received any information from the LRSD regarding this matter. In December 1999, The ADE requested a letter from each of the three Pulaski County schools documenting the effectiveness of help given the districts. In February 2000, The NLRSD and the PCSSD submitted reports concerning the effectiveness of the ADE's recruitment assistance efforts. 56 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES A. Assist ADHE in identifying, analyzing, addressing and eliminating racial disparities in the allocation of scholarships. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section X.D. of this report. B. Representatives of the ADE and the ADHE will work together, review ADHE's available data to identify racial disparities in allocation of scholarships. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section X.D. of this report. C. Using its knowledge about public schools, teacher education and certification, and through a collaborative effort with the Districts, ADE will analyze racial disparities in ADHE scholarship allocations. ADE will report its findings, conclusions, and recommendations about racial disparities in allocating scholarships to ADHE. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 The information for this item is detailed under Section X.D. of this report. D. Working with the ADHE, the ADE will use its relationships in the public education institutional settings to assist implementation of measures designed to reduce racial disparities in allocation of scholarships. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 In April 1995, ADE met with representatives of ADHE concerning identification and analysis of possible disparities in scholarship allocations. 57 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) D. Working with the ADHE, the ADE will use its relationships in the public education institutional settings to assist implementation of measures designed to reduce racial disparities in allocation of scholarships. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) In June 1995, a collaborative effort was made between the ADE and ADHE to enhance the rate at which minorities were applying for the 1995 teacher scholarships with special emphasis on the areas of science, math, and fore ign language through a direct mail program. In July 1995, representatives from the ADE and the Districts met to review the scholarship applications. The Implementation Committee on Financial Assistance to Minority Teacher Candidates discussed ways to increase minority awareness of the scholarships available for minority teacher applicants. The committee agreed to meet quarterly to identify, analyze, and address eliminating racial disparities in scholarships. The committee met in December 1995 to discuss the distribution of scholarships for the 95/96 school year. The committee meets on a continuous basis to review scholarship distributions and discuss ways of improving the pool of applicants for minority teacher scholarships as detailed further in Section X.E. of this report. E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. 1. Projected Ending Date Ongoing 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 During the May 1995 Legislative session, Acts 188, 189 and 259 regarding scholarships were passed. A meeting to monitor and analyze the distribution of scholarships for the 95/96 school year was held on December 15, 1995. The committee met on June 7, 1996 to review the scholarship applications for minority teacher candidates for the 96/97 school year. Representatives from the ADHE stated that the ADHE expected to have the resources to fund: 56 scholarships under the Emergency Secondary Education Loan Program\n100 scholarships under the Minority Teacher Scholars Program\nand 13 scholarships under the Minority Masters Fellows Program. The committee also discussed ways of increasing the scholarship applicant pools, and a recommendation was made to make scholarships available to part-time students. 58 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) In September 1996, a proposal was submitted to the Assistant to the Director for Legislative Services recommending the Legislature offer minority teacher scholarships to part-time students. The committee met on October 23, 1996 to review the scholarships awarded for the 96/97 school year. The following scholarships were funded: 60 scholarships totaling $144,266 for the Emergency Secondary Education Loan Program\n20 scholarships totaling $107,500 for the Minority Masters Fellows Program\n109 scholarships totaling $505,093 for the Minority Teacher Scholars Program\nand 258 students in the Freshman/Sophomore Minority Grant Program received scholarships totaling $374,000. In March 1997, information on minority teacher scholarships and how to apply was provided to the Districts and Arkansas colleges and universities. The Districts were informed of ADHE's scholarship promotional efforts and legislative updates. The next meeting of the committee will be in September 1997. On April 8, 1997, notifications were sent to all Arkansas colleges and universities on the Minority Teacher Scholars Program reminding them that the deadline for receiving applications was June 1, 1997. This information was also provided to the Districts. The Minority Teacher Scholarship Committee will meet on October 9, 1997 to discuss the scholarships awarded for FY 97/98. The Minority Teacher Scholarship Recruitment Committee met on October 9, 1997 to discuss the scholarships awarded for FY 97/98. The ADHE Assistant Coordinator for Student Financial Aid provided a comprehensive presentation on scholarships awarded for the 97/98 school year. There were 235 scholarships awarded in the Freshman/Sophomore Minority Scholarship program totaling $344,988. The Emergency Secondary Education Loan program awarded 52 scholarships for a total of $119,370. There were 83 scholarships for $403,520 awarded in the Minority Teachers Scholars program. The Minority Masters Fellows program awarded 20 scholarships for a total of $73,750. The ADHE representative indicated that during the 1997 regular legislative session legislation was passed to allow hispanics and asians to participate in the minority scholarship programs. It was stated that the average GPA for minority teacher scholarship recipients had increased to 3.13, and that the dollars awarded in the Minority Masters Fellows program were down from last year because most of the recipients were part-time students. 59 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) The committee discussed numerous avenues that might be utilized to inform minority applicants of scholarships available. Communication with the faculty of Arkansas colleges and universities regarding the availability of scholarships was discussed as a way of informing teaching students of possible resources available to them. The next quarterly meeting of the Minority Teacher Scholarship Recruitment Committee will be February 19, 1998. The quarterly meeting of the Minority Teacher Scholarship Recruitment Committee scheduled for February was canceled since only the NLRSD and an ADE representative were present at the scheduled meeting place. The meeting has not been rescheduled at this time. The Minority Teacher Scholarship meeting was rescheduled for March 26, 1998. The Minority Teacher Scholarship Recruitment Committee met on March 26, 1998. The committee was updated on the requirements and application packets were distributed for the Emergency Secondary Education Loan Program (ESELP), Minority Teacher Scholars Program (MTSP), and Minority Masters Fellows Program (MMFP). The deadline for applications was April 1, 1998 for the ESE LP and June 1, 1998 for the MTSP and MMFP. The scholarships will be awarded in July 1998. A committee member requested that ADHE send scholarship applications to the schools as well as the district offices to ensure that their teachers and students were apprised of the scholarships available. It was suggested that the colleges submit prospective graduate information for use by the Districts no later than April since the Districts begin the interview process of Spring graduates in May. The ADE Implementation Plan currently requires that the ADE request information on minority teacher graduates in May, and then it is distributed to the Districts in June or July. A representative from the ADE Teacher Licensure Unit was present at the meeting and stated that the ADE would try to accommodate the Districts with this request, but she cautioned that colleges and universities are reluctant to provide tentative graduate information. The next committee meeting is scheduled for July 30, 1998 at the NLRSD offices. 60 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) The Minority Teacher Scholarship Meeting was held July 30, 1998. Donna Elliot, ADE Program Support Manager was appointed to the Committee. She indicated that advance notification would be mailed to all University Deans/Certifying Officials regarding the change in format for more thorough minority teacher candidate information. A complete report will be forwarded and reported in the September PMT. Disparities in minority scholarship distributions were not evidenced in the draft report. Lillian Williams, Arkansas Department of Higher Education, submitted the following report on Minority Teacher Scholarships Distribution: 1998-99 PROGRAM STATISTICS PROGRAM NAME APPROPRIATION AWARDED #STUDENTS Freshman/Sophomore 250,000 250,000 Estimated 300+ ESEL 81 ,717 121,250 50 * Minority Teacher 450,000 445,000 89 ** Scholars Minority Masters Fellows 80,000 80,000 30 * Please note that only 81 ,717 was appropriated for the ESEL Scholarship, however, additional repayment funds were used to award an additional 39,533 totaling 121,250. ** 11 Students are pending passing the PPST. The report on Minority Teacher Scholarships Distribution was presented October 8, 1998, by the Education Lead Planner during the Break the Mold Workshop: Teacher Recruitment and Retention, sponsored by the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation. The group was informed about the following: 1. Projected Teacher shortages in Mathematics, Special Education, and Foreign Language 2. Collaborative efforts of the ADE and the ADHE to recruit teachers by funding more than 450 scholarships for applicants interested in teaching annually 3. Reasons new teachers give for leaving the profession 4. The ratio of minority teachers to minority students. 61 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluate the impacts of new approaches and new legislation on an ongoing basis. (Continued) 2. Actual as of June 30, 2000 (Continued) The Minority Teacher Scholarship Committee met on November 2, 1998 in the Pulaski County District Conference Room. The committee received (1) an update on the distribution of scholarships, (2) reviewed the scholarship information booklets, (3) approved the quarterly report of progress. The committee also identified, as a legislative issue, the need to allow part-time students access to scholarships. The next quarterly meeting is scheduled for February 2, 1999. A recommendation was received by the Committee on Financial Assistance to Minority Teacher Candidates regarding the Emergency Secondary Education Loan. The Committee recommended that the Arkansas State Legislature increase the minority teacher candidate pool by offering the Emergency Secondary Education Loan to part-time students. The Committee noted that a number of persons currently serving our education system as substitute teachers would take advantage of the assistance offered, if they could receive assistance for part-time student status. Many prospective minority teacher candidates, and candidates seeking advanced degrees are unable to serve our students and go to school on a full-time basis. The next quarterly meeting is scheduled for February 2, 1999. The next quarterly meeting was rescheduled for February 21, 1999, to accommodate all participants. The quarterly meeting of the Minority Teacher Scholarship Committee was held on February 21, 1999, in the Little Rock School District. Representatives from all three districts in Pulaski County, the ADHE and the ADE attended the meeting. A scholarship report update and scholarship applications and deadlines for the 1999 school year were provided. Information regarding the national focus on teacher shortages and recruitment were distributed. The committee discussed the status of the following bills related to teacher recruitment: SB31 , \" an act to make emergency secondary education loans available to students enrolled as a major in a program of study leading to teacher certification for foreign languages and special education.\" HB1466 \"state supported colleges and universities must report to Department of Education the name, address, and major of each minority student completing college requirements for licensure as school teacher.\" SB237 \"to make technical amendments to various sections of the Arkansas Code Annotated relative to public education.\" 62 X. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MINORITY TEACHER CANDIDATES (Continued) E. Monitor the allocation of scholarships to minority students by the ADHE\nevaluat\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eArkansas. Department of Education\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1711","title":"Court filings concerning Court approval of administrative reorganization, ODM report, ''Disciplinary Sanctions in the Little Rock School District (LRSD)'', and PCSSD motion to approve modification to student assignment 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":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2000-06"],"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","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Education--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration","School employees","School administrators","School discipline","Student suspension","School enrollment"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning Court approval of administrative reorganization, ODM report, ''Disciplinary Sanctions in the Little Rock School District (LRSD)'', and PCSSD motion to approve modification to student assignment 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/1711"],"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":["42 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for Court approval of administrative reorganization; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''Disciplinary Sanctions in the Little Rock School District (LRSD)''; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to approve modification to student assignment plan; District Court, brief in support of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to modify student assignment plan; District Court, opposition of the Joshua intervenors to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for Court approval of administrative reorganization; District Court, supplement to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for Court approval of administrative reorganization; District Court, order; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUN O 5 2000 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAME]W.~McO RMJACK, CLERK WESTERN DMSION By '\\ t l (\\ /\\A V ~  ' - .... ~ DEP filRi\u003c'- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. I, et al., * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * Intervenors, * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * lntervenors. * ORDER Before the Court are the proposed budgets for the Office of Desegregation Monitoring for 1999-2000 and 2000-2001.1 Without objection, the Court finds the proposed budgets should be and are hereby approved. -f'l\"-- IT IS SO _ORDERED THIS s._ DAY OF JUNE, 2000 i ~,t~21t C FJUD ' UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 Docket no. 3361. rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COUPLJ/tN7! WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(1) FRCP JH 0~ ~Qp BY zzt\u003e . _ 3. 3 6 4 EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1903-1977) RO BERTS. LINDSEY ( 1913-1991) IS.A.AC A. SC OTT. JR . JOHN G. LILE WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHN 0 . DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX . JR , GORDON S. RATHER . JR . TERRY L . MATHEWS OAVIO M. POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD. JR . PATRICK J. GOSS ALSTON JEN NINGS , JR. JOHN R. TISDALE KA THLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES 111 JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHAR LES C. PRICE CHARLES T . CO LEMAN JAMES J . GLOVER EDWIN L. LOWTHER. JR. CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E . MAY GREGORY T . JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E. BROWNST EIN WALTER McSPADOEN ROGER 0 . ROWE NANCY BELLHOUSE MAY Mr. John Waiker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: PCSSD Dear Counsel and Ms. Brown: 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371 -0808 FAX (501) 376 -9442 WE BSITE : www .wl j .com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A. MAY M. TOCO WOOD Writ er's Di rect Dial No . 501-212 -1 273 m1ones(llwlj .com June 9, 2000 TROY A. PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS JAMES M. MOODY. JR . KATH RYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK KEVtN W. KENN EDY JERRY J . SALLINGS FRED M. PERKINS Ill WILLIAM STUAR T JACKSON MICHAEL 0 . BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER BETSY MEACHAM KYLE R. WILSON C. TAO BOHANNON MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRISTI M. MOODY J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH PHYLLIS M. McKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE JANE M. WEISENFELS ROBERT W. GEORGE J . ANDREW VINES JUSTIN T . ALLEN Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RECEIVED Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 JUN 1 2 2000 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING , Enclosed is a copy of PCSSD's Motion for Court Approval of Administrative Reorganization which is being filed today.  MSJ/ao Encl. 182475-v1 Cordially, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD's MOTION FOR COURT APPROVAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE REORGANIZATION 1. Attached to this motion as Exhibit A is a Business Case dated June 9, 2000, supporting the combining of the responsibilities of the current offices of desegregation and pupil personnel. The specific reasons prompting and supporting this request are set forth in the Business Case. 2. In 1992, the PCSSD proposed a reorganization that, among other things, would have combined the responsibilities of the Offices of Desegregation and Pupil Personnel. The matter was litigated, but before it became necessai y for the Court to rule, an unexpected infusion of funds permitted the PCSSD to abandon this reorganization at that time. 3. The issue eventually was adjudicated in the context of a request for attorney's fees. In an Order dated December 1, 1992, this Court held that: [t]he Court finds that this reorganization was not so fundamentally in violation of the goals of the settlement plan that the Court would have reversed it. On the other hand, this Court would have permitted this reorganization to go forward with the understanding that the Court would 182441-v1 continue to monitor compliance with the settlement plan and would order a different organizational structure only if the new one proved unsatisfactory. 4. The PCSSD now, of course, operates pursuant to a new plan which does not contain the same rigid administrative hierarchy as the previous plan. 5. The district believes that it would be prudent, among other organizational changes it is making, to now effect the same reorganization that was proposed and evaluated by this Court in 1992. 6. This matter will be presented to the PCSSD Board of Directors on Tuesday, June 13, 2000. The Administration expects that the Board will approve the reorganization. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an order of this Court approving the reorganization as described herein. 182441-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 -:-:-~..,,,---:- nes Iii (7 ulaski C t 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June 9, 2000, a copy of the foregoing was served by 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 ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 182441-v1 .amueloneslll 3 Pulaski County Special School District Business Case June 9, 2000 Submitted to Judge Susan Weber Wright 1. Executive Summary: Pulaski County Special School District seeks to consolidate the positions of Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel and Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation into one new, blended position entitled Assistant Superintendent for Equity and Pupil Personnel. This administrative change will allow for greater accountability, efficiency of operation, as well as cost savings for the District. 2. Background: . The Assistant Superintendents for Pupil Personnel and for Desegregation will both retire from the District on June 30, 2000. These positions have compatible areas of accountability and responsibility for equity and student affairs . within the District. These positions share an affinity that the District wishes to build on. Streamlining these positions into one area of responsibility will be an efficient way to address the Issues of accountability and equity faced by the District. 3. Problem Statement: Pulaski County Special School District has been experiencing decreasing enrollment, triggering declining State funding levels. Reductions In personnel are being carried out to provide revenue for employee raises in 2000 - 2001. Besides the elimination of fifty-four (54) teaching positions, the Superintendent is proposing eliminating five (5) district office and three (3) assistant principal positions. In his proposed reorganization, he proposes streamlining operations with fewer people and reconfigured job responslbllltles. 4. Alternatives: Since personnel salaries make up over eighty percent (80%) of the operating budget and remaining expenses are largely fixed costs, Increasing salary costs In-a condition of declining revenues leaves two other alternatives, in addition to the proposed action. First, the District could continue current overstaffed parameters and pay for raises out of fund reserves (savings) which amount, at present, to about $8 million. Gradually, the fund reserve would be depleted, causing deficits and leaving the District In a precarious financial state. The second alternative would be to deny employees raises, including experience steps and cost of living adjustments. I EXHIBIT jJ 5. Action Recommended: Because both the Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel and Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation are retiring June 30, 2000, there is a propitious opportunity is being afforded to consolidate the two positions into one new one entitled Assistant Superintendent for Equity and Pupil Personnel. 6. Objective: To reduce one assistant superintendent position and to save $105,000 per year by merging the two divisions. A. Goal Support: The functions of the pupil personnel and desegregation divisions have a clear affinity and significant interface. Attendance zoning, majority -to-minority issues, transfer requests, and minority student and personnel recruitment are major examples. The two connected areas can more effectively produce results to advance the goals of the District and Plan 2000 in a consolidated division. B. Benefits: . Benefits to the District would be in accountability, streamlining, efficiency of operations, reduction of administrative overhead, and the resulting cost savings. 7. Impact: The Impact on District programs will be positive, as the administrative accountability will be more concise. In the same manner, the District's desegregation plan, Plan 2000, will not suffer any negative consequence of this action and will, in fact, also be more efficiently managed. 8. Hesourcec: The two divisions will be merged. Existing personnel will be available as will the financial resources of these divisions. Reconfiguration to afford more productivity and proficient use of resources will be the result. Recurring cost savings of $10~,000 per year will be yielded. 9. Plan for Implementation: The Superintendent will bring his proposal to the Board of Directors at the June 13, 2000 meeting. With the Board's approval and the Court's acceptance, the plan will be Implemented as soon as is expedient. 2 Margie L. Powell Associate Monitor DISCIPLINARY SANCTIONS IN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT June 14, 2000 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Ann S. Brown Federal Monitor PoJly Ramer Office Manager IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED JUN 2 6 ZOOQ OfFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PLAN The PCSSD, for its motion states: 1. The PCSSD proposes to modify certain student assignments within the southeast sector. 2. The proposal is fully explained in the accompanying memorandum brief and the exhibits and business case attached to this motion. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an Order of this Court approving its proposed modification of student assignments in the southeast sector. 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 'i(,1, ~u..d- ~ '~ ~,4.JIJ,., -, 6J,Ju;b_ M. Samuel Jones 1(76060) l'1 16 , '\\ Attorneys for Pulaski County Special 1 'iJ School District 185439-v1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June 2-3 , 2000, a copy of the foregoing was served by 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 ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 185439-v1 2 SCHOOL CAPACITY INFORMATION PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT JUNE 30, 1999 - HIGH SCHOOL SCHOOL CAPACITY Jacksonville 1025 Mills 780 North Pulaski 900 Oak Grove Jr./Sr. 935 Robinson 506 Sylvan Hills 998 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SCHOOL CAPACITY Fuller 945 Jacksonville Middle 800 Jacksonville Junior High 800 Northwood 964 Robinson (2-rooms devided) 486 Alpha Academy 300 Sylvan Hills 925 - ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SCHOOL CAPACITY Adkins 370 Arnold Drive 420 Baker 330 Bates 768 Bayou Mete 660 Cato 576 Clinton 833 College Station 340 Crystal Hill 820 Dupree 465 Fuller 526 Harris 525 Jacksonville 785 Landmark 568 Lawson 325 Oak Grove 476 Oakbrooke 500 Pine Forest 556 Pinewood 523 - Robinson 450 Scott  280 Sherwood 460 EXHIBIT Sylvan Hills 456 TMoullrereslol nT aylor 455700 I 4 OLD BATES White Black Total SALINE CO. STUDENTS White 62 Black 3 153 199 57% 352 LANDMARK White 224 58% Black 163 42% Total 387 OPTION 1 OPTION 2 Landmark Landmark minus minus Wrightsville Wrightsville plus Arch Street White 214 75% White 275 Black 71 25% Black 107 Total 285 Total 382  72% 28% ---- ARCH ST. STUDENTS White 61 -- Black 36 OPTION 3 Landmark minus Wrightsville plus Arch Street \u0026 Saline Co. White 337 75% Slack 110 25% Total 447  -----~~---~-O-L~D ~FU-L-L-E-R~ ----, - ,,,_ Whitt! 161 43% ----- ', --------+-------+----1 ----.,,. .,. Blaclc 217 - - -- Totz,I 378 57% \\ ,,' WRIGHTSVILLE , , ' STUDENTS White 11 Black 92 Total 103 NEW BATES White 314 43% Black 416 57% Total 730 OPTION 1 OPTION 2 :?T!ON 3 New Bates New Bates ~Jaw 3a~=s plus plus J/us Wrightsville Wrightsville .'iriQ ntsiilia minus minus Arch Street ,J..rr;h .3:r;at 3 S8linJ C;:i. White 325 39% White 264 36 \\1'/hite 202 30~',, Black 508 61% Black 472 64% Slack --169 70% Total 833 Tota l 736 Total Oi 1  1. PCSSD BUSINESS CASE FOR MODIFICATION OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PLAN JUNE 23, 2000 Executive Summary: The PCSSD seeks to modify certain aspects of its student assignment plan respecting Landmark and new Bates Elementary Schools in the southeast sector to reassign certain students closer to their neighborhoods and to reduce the amount of transportation for those students. The particulars of the reassignment are reflected in Exhibit 8 to the motion, which accompanies this Business Case. 2. Background: Last year this Court approved the construction of the new Bates Elementary School and the transfer of the student bodies from old Bates and Fuller Elementary School to new Bates. Since the Court's decision, and as construction of new Bates has proceeded, interest has increased in the affected communities to effect a reassignmenL of certain students to schools closer to their homes. - 3. Problem Statement: The reassignment proposed projects that new Bates would have an initial student body that would be 70% black and 30% white. At the same time, the proposed reorganization would reduce transportation, assign more students to schools closer to their homes and likely assist the District in reacquiring students who have left the District. The problem, thus, becomes essentially one of a balancing act and selection from among competing priorities. 4. Alternatives: One alternative is to simply retain the status quo and make no reassignment proposals. The alternatives are set forth and explained in Exhibit 8. This action would be detrimental to both children and their parents by requiring larger bus routes. 5. Action Recommended: The impetus for this move has come from the African American Community. Because the District believes that the projected opening enrollment percentages can be ameliorated over time and that the number of students attending schools in the southeast sector could ultimately grow, that the proposed reassignment should be implemented in the interest of children, particularly the black children in Wrightsville who - would otherwise be bused away from their neighborhood school (new Bates). EXHIBIT 185373-v1 I 6. Objective: To accommodate the desires of many in the community to have their students assigned to the closest available elementary school and to reduce transportation without departing unreasonably from the District's student assignment goal. 7. Impact: The reassignment should save the District money in terms of transportation, should promote parental involvement in the schools, should promote additional voluntary transfers and should result in re-attracting students to this area who have previously left the District. 8. Resources: The proposed reassignment should reduce transportation costs in an amount not yet quantified. ;. 9. Plan for Implementation: The District's Board of Directors, on June 15, 2000, approved this rezoning subject to discussions with Joshua and approval by the Court. If approved, the District proposes to implement all aspects of the reassignment for the upcoming 2000-01 school year with the exception of the shift of the arts and music programs from Landmark to new Bates which would not occur until the following school year when the District anticipates it will have implemented the middle school concept district-wide. 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PCSSD MOTION TO MODIFY STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PLAN Introduction 11Ece1:veo -JUN '2' 6 -~ioOb OfflCEOf, ______., i~ \\BEGRESATION 'MONIT-ORINU PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Last year this Court approved the closing of Bates and Fuller Elementary Schools and the transfer of their student bodies to the new Bates Elementary School located off 145 Street, just west of the Community of Wrightsville in the southeast sector of the PCSSD. (Docket #3281 ). As the new Bates School nears completion, pressure has mounted from the community to consider changes in the student assignment pattern for new Bates and Landmark Elementary. Pursuant to a motion proposed by the African American Board Member representing the greater Wrightsville area and virtually all of the southeast sector of the district, the District's Board of Education voted recently to propose certain student assignment rearrangements and to submit those to Joshua and the Court for consideration. The proposed changes, and the reasons for them, are fully explained in the business case (Exhibit \"C\" attached to the motion) and in this memorandum. 184914-v1 Background As part of the territorial exchange ordered in this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ordered the transfer of the Granite Mountain community from the LRSD to the PCSSD. This transfer, together with the transfer of the southwest Little Rock area to the LRSD, created a land-locked, majority black area of the PCSSD which the parties have consistently referred to throughout this litigation as the southeast sector. In the wake of the territorial transfer which left the PCSSD short of elementary seats, the PCSSD acquired the old Timex facility as an emergency measure, converted it to an elementary school, and opened it as Bates Elementary with an enrollment in excess of 800 students. Since that date, the enrollment of \"old\" Bates has dropped to 41t 352 students, of whom 43% are white and 57% are black. During the same time period, the PCSSD has seen the enrollment at Fuller Elementary shrink to 378 students, of whom 161 are white and 217 are black. (Exhibit \"B\" attached to the motion). As previously noted, the Court has approved the transfer of these two student bodies to the new Bates Elementary School. The current capacity of old Bates is 768 students and that of Fuller Elementary is 526 students. (Please see Exhibit \"A\" attached to the motion). Landmark Elementary, with a current capacity of 468 students, had an enrollment last year of 387 students, of whom 224 were white and 163 were black. Of the white enrollees, approximately 51 are white students recruited from north of the river for the school art and music specialty programs. 184914-v1 2 The Proposed Changes As Exhibit \"B\" reflects, there are three areas of student population proposed for reassignment. They are a mostly white area currently assigned to Bates hereafter referred to as the Arch Street students. A group of predominantly white students, heretofore assigned to Fuller, will be referred to as the Saline County students. A group of predominantly black students from the Wrightsville area, and proximate to the new school, will be referred to as the Wrightsville students. They are currently assigned to Landmark. Although it will statistically impact initial racial balance projections, the PCSSD proposes to shift the Saline County and Arch Street students from new Bates to Landmark and to assign the Wrightsville students from Landmark to new Bates. The - initially projected enrollments occasioned by these shifts project Landmark to be 25% black and new Bates to be 70% black. However, for reasons that will be explained hereafter, the District genuinely believes that these percentages can be rather expeditiously improved and that the immediate and proximate impact is to benefit children of both races and reduce unnecessary busing. The Wrightsville Students These students are located, geographically, on the far east side of the southeast sector. Until the early 1990s, these Wrightsville students were all schooled in the neighborhood at J.C. Cook Elementary School. After it burned, the decision was made not to rebuild and these students were shifted to Landmark. If no change is made, the same students will be transported twice daily past the new Bates Elementary School en - route to Landmark. To eliminate this prospect, and to substantially reduce the 184914-v1 3 - transportation burdens on these students, the PCSSD believes it to be educationally sound to reassign these students to new Bates which, in the context of the geography of the PCSSD, would act as a neighborhood school for the Wrightsville students. The Arch Street Students These students are located, geographically, on the west side of the southeast sector. Most of these students attended Baseline Elementary when it was part of the PCSSD. After the territorial shift, they were necessarily reassigned to new Bates. While the assignment to old Bates did not create a substantial transportation burden for these students, their continued assignment to new Bates would. Because this group o( students largely mirrors the racial composition of the PCSSD as a whole, and because :::.. their assignment to Landmark would represent a somewhat reduced transportation obligation for them, the PCSSD believes it to be educationally sound for these students to be assigned to Landmark Elementary. The Saline County Students These students are located, geographically, on the far west side of the southeast sector. Prior to the desegregation plan, these students were assigned to Landmark Elementary as their closest school. In an effort to racially balance Fuller Elementary, these students were reassigned during the late 1980s to Fuller Elementary School, a considerable distance from their homes. To partially replace the Wrightsville students proposed for reassignment to new Bates, to reduce the transportation obligation for the Saline County students, who would otherwise be bused from the west to the east side of the sector, and to hopefully recoup some of the student losses that the District has 184914-v1 4 experienced from the Saline County area, the PCSSD believes it to be educationally sound to transfer the Saline County students from new Bates to Landmark. The Landmark Specialty Students The PCSSD is also seeking permission to shift the art and music specialty program from Landmark to new Bates for the 2001-2002 school year. Even without the specialty students, Landmark is projected to be comfortably within the student assignment ratios for the PCSSD. The PCSSD further believes that new Bates would prove an attractive alternative to the specialty students since it would provide a shorter and more convenient transportation trip and would house the specialty students in a brand new school. All of these specialty students are white. Their transfer to new Bates would significantly reduce the initially projected minority enrollment at the school and, over time, the PCSSD believes that the transfer of the program would increase the number of white transfer students electing to attend the school, thereby annually moving new Bates closer to its ultimate racial balance goals. Because the sixth graders will be at the new Bates for the 2000-2001 year until the sixth grade is shifted to what will be Fuller Middle in 2001-2002, the transfer of the specialty program needs to be delayed until space opens up. By delaying the movement of this program until 2001-2002, the PCSSD should have ample time to educate and persuade the specialty students and their parents that movement of the specialty program to new Bates is a sound educational move. 184914-v1 5 The Long Term As this court is aware, the PCSSD proposes to shift to a middle school structure district wide beginning with the 2001-2002 school year. Little Rock has already completed this reorganization and the Court has previously approved the middle school concept in PCSSD's Jacksonville area. (Docket #2647). The PCSSD believes that the middle school concept, combined with the shifting of the Saline County students to Landmark and the reconstitution of the art and music specialty program at new Bates, will ultimately result in an increased white enrollment in these southeast sector schools. Except for the middle school concept, nothing about the current proposal will modify the feeder pattern to Fuller Junior High School and Mills High School. Neither will any of the proposals contained, herein, affect the current student assignment effort at College Station Elementary. It is also worth mentioning that the shift of the Fuller Elementary student body to new Bates will bring with it the string orchestra specialty program currently provided at Fuller Elementary. The PCSSD believes that the reconstitution of the art and music program from Landmark at new Bates, combined with the move of the string orchestra program from Fuller Elementary to new Bates, and the institution of a full-time physical education curriculum, will work a synergy making these programs even more attractive to white students from north of the Arkansas River since those interested in music in all of its dimensions will have more opportunities for this experience at new Bates if the PCSSD proposal is approved. 184914-v1 6 For all the foregoing reasons, PCSSD prays for an order of this Court approving its motion to modify student assignment plan. 184914-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 V . J~~ 'f:f i-~6..J, ~ M. Samuel Jones 7(i666oj ( q7( 5\u003c-J) Attorneys for Pulaski County Special School District 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On JuneZ..3 , 2000, a copy of the foregoing was served by 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 ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 184914-v1 8 - -- REC.EIV~D bJi__;--:[) EAST~ffN ~if ~,hl ~~~~SAS JUN 2 J 2000 JAMES 'N. McCGRMACK, LERK By: _____ _,,D.,...E\"\"P-,-.C\"LE-.-RroK JUN 2 8 2000 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V CASE NO. 82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT INTER VENO RS INTER VENO RS OPPOSITION OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS TO PCSSD'S MOTION FOR COURT APPROVAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE REORGANIZATION The Joshua Intervenors oppose the defendants' motion. First, there were no discussions as contemplated by the desegregation plan between the parties prior to this matter having been presented to the Court. See Letter from Mr. Jones to the Court dated May 24, 2000 as Exhibit A; Letter to the Court from undersigned Counsel dated June 12, 2000 as Exhibit B. Second, there is no brief attached to the motion as required by the local rules. Third, the business case does not address desegregation issues nor does it address how the changes will effectuate the desegregation commitments of the revised desegregation plan. Fourth, the business case is one which purports to save the school district money and nothing else. It does not address the desegregation staff nor define the work duties and responsibilities of those individuals. There is not a proposed job description of the new position that has been shared with Joshua. Indeed, there are myriad problems that should have been considered in the normal course of addressing desegregation issues that have not been addresse\u0026' by the proposal. These matters could have been dealt with as contemplated by the desegregation plan had the administration not sought to evade the Joshua Intervenors and had they not sought to denigrate Joshua's role in the desegregation process. Fifth, the Superintendent for Desegregation had a responsibility in the past for oversight of the Pupil Personnel Department and other departments, at least to the extent of identification of potential problems, which impeded desegregation and to make recommendations to the Superintendent directly. The current proposal is unclear, at the least, about what the duties of the position are or will be in the future. Sixth, the combination of the two positions will mean the elimination of two black - administrators from the major administrative hierarchy of the District. There is no reference to the process that the District will use to fill positions and it was, therefore, highly suspect that the District will fill the two vacated positions with white administrators who have already been selected. Seventh, to this date. Neither the Superintendent nor his major administrator, Dr. James Fox, have had any meetings whatsoever with counsel for Joshua Intervenors regarding any issue. As stated earlier, it is Joshua's opinion that they are uninformed and uncertain to the desegregation initiatives and commitments that have been in place in the District for years. (See Joshua's previous brief to the Court regarding the District's Motion to Approve Revised Desegregation Plan). Because of the uncertainties of the Defendants' proposal and how it will impact desegregation, and because Defendants' by p "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1706","title":"Court filings: District Court, two orders; 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":["2000-05"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","School integration","Magnet schools","Education and state","School districts","Education--Finance","Education--Economic aspects","Educational statistics","School enrollment"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, two orders; 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/1706"],"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":["129 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAY 12 2000 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. * * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. I, et al., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * ORDER No. LR-C-82-866 ED MAY 1 5 2000 OftlCE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\") filed a motion seeking approval of a revised monitoring plan [ docket no. 3327]. The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") and the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") responded in opposition [docket nos. 3340 \u0026 3334], and ADE replied [docket no. 3350]. After careful consideration, the Court determines ADE's motion should be denied. I. The parties' settlement agreement, Part ill.A., in pertinent part, states: The State shall be required (as a non-party) to monitor, through the ADE, the implementation of compensatory education programs by the Districts. . . . Monitoring by the State shall be independent of that of the other parties. It is being done to ensure that the state will have a continuing role in satisfactorily remediating achievement disparities. Any recommendations made by ADE shall not form the basis of any additional funding responsibilities of the State. A State plan for monitoring implementation of compensatory education will be submitted to the parties within 60 days following the execution of the settlement agreement. In 1989, Mr. H. William Allen, on behalf of ADE, submitted the monitoring plan referenced in Part ill.A above. Since then, the parties have referred to the monitoring plan as the \"Allen Letter.\" ADE moves this Court to replace the Allen Letter with a revised monitoring  plan, entitled the Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan (\"DMAP\"). II. Regarding the State's obligations under the Allen Letter, this Court stated: This plan goes beyond monitoring compensatory education in the three Pulaski County school districts and includes many more areas which ADE promised to extensively monitor and evaluate, including magnet schools, M-to-M transfers, and magnet school transportation. Likewise, the settlement agreement includes other obligations undertaken by ADE in addition to its financial agreement with the parties and, in its monitoring plan, ADE reaffirmed its commitment to undertake extensive monitoring that would fulfill those obligations. ADE never changed its monitoring plan or moved to change the settlement agreement. Therefore, the obligations contained in these two documents [the settlement agreement and monitoring plan] are the obligations to which ADE has committed. 1 Thus the Allen letter contains substantive terms of a consent decree, which relate to the vindication of constitutional rights. Disputed modifications of such terms are governed by a stricter standard than agreed-to modifications. See Appeal of Little Rock Sch. Dist., 949 F.2d 253, 258 (1991). When parties to a consent decree oppose modification, the moving party must show that (1) a significant change in fact or law warrants revision and (2) the proposed modification is tailored to resolve the problems created by the change in circumstances. Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 112 S.Ct. 748, 765 (1992). ADE makes four points in support ofDMAP. First, ADE notes that since 1989, the 1 Docket no. 2045, page 2. 2 I I I I I - Court has withdrawn supervision over various portions of the Districts' desegregation plans, and LRSD and PCSSD have revised their plans. While changes in the Districts' desegregation plans may warrant revision of the Allen Letter, ADE fails to explain how it has addressed those changes with the proposed revised monitoring plan. Second, ADE maintains its revisions are needed because \"one of the major reasons the State agreed to extensively monitor the Districts was that the Districts were scheduled to receive millions of dollars ... for 'compensatory education' programs ... [and] those additional funds are no longer being provided to the Districts.\"2 ADE does not specify how DMAP responds to the cessation of state funding for compensatory education. Furthermore, the Court can find no provisions contained in the Allen Letter delineating specific monitoring and reporting obligations related solely to compensatory education funding.3 Third, ADE states that when the State submitted the Allen Letter, the Eighth Circuit had yet to establish the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\"),4 but ADE fails to explain how the proposed plan is tailored to resolve any issues related to ODM monitoring. 2 Docket no. 3328, page 2. 3 The Allen Letter states: The primary focus of the process shall be a continuous assessment of the remedial effectiveness of programs supported partially or fully by special state funding resulting from Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al., No. LR-C-82-866. The programs and services receiving special funding include: 1. Compensatory Education 2. Magnet Schools 3. Magnet School Transportation 4. Majority to Minority Transfers 4 ADE does not contend that ODM monitoring supplants ADE's monitoring obligations. 3 Fourth, ADE emphasizes that the parties have expressed a need for more focused monitoring and assistance from ADE than called for in the Allen Letter and that ADE consulted the parties and ODM in developing the revised monitoring plan. However, two parties, LRSD and Joshua, oppose approval of the revised plan. The Court acknowledges that changed circumstances may warrant revision of ADE's monitoring plan but finds that ADE has failed to demonstrate that DMAP is tailored to address the changed circumstances. Consequently, the Court must deny ADE's motion. m. Joshua opposes approval ofDMAP on grounds the plan is vaguely worded. Additionally, Joshua asserts the proposed plan would duplicate reporting functions already carried out by ODM and the Districts5 and contends ADE should assist the Districts in a \"hands on manner.\"6 According to LRSD, ADE's current monitoring reports consist of reformatted data, originally provided to ADE by LRSD. The District argues that ODM provides sufficient, independent monitoring, rendering ADE's monitoring and reporting activities superfluous. LRSD understands the original objectives of ADE monitoring to be (1) ensuring fiscal accountability to the tax payers of Arkansas (in light of the State's obligation to fund compensatory education programs) and (2) involving the State in improving achievement disparities. Because State funding for compensatory education has ceased, LRSD contends State's role \"should shift from one of monitoring to one of active participation in the district's 5 The Court notes that Part ill.A of the settlement agreement states, \"Monitoring by the State shall be independent of that of the other parties.\" 6 Docket no. 3334. 4 efforts to eliminate the achievement disparity.\"7 LRSD concludes this Court should require a meeting between ADE and LRSD for the purpose ofreaching an agreement regarding the State's role in eliminating achievement disparities. Additionally, LRSD proposes that the Court modify the parties' settlement agreement to increase the financial obligations of the State. Specifically, LRSD requests the State pay for the cost of ODM for the current year and future years and provide the Districts additional resources in the form of personnel or funding equivalent to resources ADE planned to devote to DMAP. This Court remains mindful that \"we are dealing with a settlement\"8 and disagrees that the absence of state funding for compensatory education should shift the State's monitoring role to one of active participation in eliminating achievement disparities. As previously explained, the Allen Letter \"goes beyond monitoring compensatory education ... and includes many more areas which ADE promised to extensively monitor and evaluate, including magnet schools, Mto- M transfers, and magnet school transportation.\"9 Nor does the Court find that increasing the State's financial obligations will resolve problems related to the State's monitoring obligations. A consent decree is a final judgment that  may be reopened only to the extent that equity requires, and this Court finds that the record before the Court does not justify increasing the State's financial obligations. See Rufo, 112 S.Ct. 7 Docket 3340, 16. 8 Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371, 1390 (8th Cir. 1990). 9 Id. 5 - at 764 (\"Once a court has determined that changed circumstances warrant a modification in a consent decree, the focus should be on whether the proposed modification is tailored to resolve the problems created by the change in circumstances. A court should do no more, for a consent decree is a final judgment that may be reopened only to the extent that equity requires.\"). As for requiring ADE to negotiate with LRSD, this Court strongly encourages the parties to proceed diligently with negotiations regarding ADE's monitoring obligations, but declines ordering such negotiations at this time. If the parties are unable to reach an agreementregarding the State's monitoring role, upon proper motion, the Court will hold hearings on the matter and take action necessary to ensure the State's monitoring obligations are carried out efficiently and effectively. IV. For the reasons stated, it is hereby ordered that ADE' s motion for approval of a revised monitoring plan be DENIED [docket no. 3327]. IT IS so ORDERED nns J)l)A Y OF MAY, 2000 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT rH1S OOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COUPS. ,E Wl:?;1 RULE 5e ANn 79(~ FRCP ON  (,h/JQ !Y '- - 6 MAY 18 2000 tlfiCEOF 9f-5E6RE6Allll IIJ!l10RIII IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTI.,E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * Intervenors, * * KATIIERINE KNIGHT, et al., * Intervenors. * ORDER FILED EAsTMRsriio1sTR1cr COURT DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAY 16 2000 The Court has received the proposed 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 budgets for the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The budgets and a cover letter are attached to this Order for the parties' review. Parties have to and including fifteen days from entry of this Order to file objections regarding the proposed budgets. IT IS SO ORDERED THIS _/L~ AY OF MAY, 2000 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT rH1S OOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN_ COUPLWiE WITH RULE 58 AH~a) FRCP , ON 5=:- J '7- o-v ev ________ .!!:L .   Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor April 20, 2000 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wright: 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376~200 Fax (501) 371--0100 ODM budgets for two years, 1999-00 and 2000-01, are attached for the parties' review and your approval. Because one of the school districts did not furnish us a final October 1 student enrollment count (upon which we base the apportionment of charges to the districts) until last month, we are issuing the current-year budget late in the year. By accompanying it with next year's budget as well, we begin a new practice that will enable us to issue our annual budgets in advance of the new fiscal year . From now on, we will propose our budget for the upcoming year before the close of the current fiscal year, using an estimated total for revenue and expenditures, along with the current-year enrollment numbers (which we use as the basis for the portion each district contributes to the ODM budget). Then, when we know actual revenues and expenditures and the new October 1 enrollment numbers, we will adjust each district's contribution accordingly. The format of the budgets follows that of previous budget documents, including annotation to explain revenue calculations; budget category definitions; and budget allocations and anticipated expenditures by category for 1999-00 and 2000-01 . Note that the 1999-00 budget is only 1. 7 6% higher than that of the previous year, and that the 2000-01 budget is a 2.53% increase over that of the previous year. Salary increases for ODM staff are 3.29% per year, which is the prevailing annual experience step increase on the salary scales of the three local districts. We have continued to contain our expenditures such that they are below the projected annual budget at year's end. As is our practice, we credit that difference proportionately to each of the school districts according to their pro-rated contributions to our budget, a return that averages over 12%. If you or the parties should need any additional information, I will be happy to provide it. Sincerely yours, . ~~ Ann S. Brown Enc.    OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING: BUDGETS FOR 1999-00 AND 2000-01 REVENUE State of Arkansas LRSD Credit* NLRSD Credit* PCSSD Credit* Interest  1998-99 BUDGET 200,000.00 219,128.14 37,714.98 81 ,227.78 13,929.95 169,293.99 30,344.16 0.00 1998-99 1999-00 1999-00 2000-01 ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATED BUDGET 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 219,128.14 232,137.33 232,137.33 244,131.66 37,714.98 36,967.69 36,967.69 34,175.51 81 ,227.78 82,836.58 82,836.58 87,116.67 13,929.95 13,191.66 13,191.66 12,195.29 169,293.99 172,300.09 172,300.09 181 ,202.67 30,344.16 27,438.65 27,438.65 25,366.20 8,788.39 0.00 5,407.00 0.00  !zje~jtz~~i 1 :: z:i: ;,ijz-- t;,1:  :.-1.-.-.,:-:;!:;:::::::t:::::t i;,ee : i ij1n1;19  Every budget cycle, ODM credits each district a pro rata proportion of the unspent amount of the previous year's budget. We apply this amount toward the curr~nt budget allocation. See annotated budget. EXPENDITURES 1998-99 1998-99 1999-00 1999-00 2000-01 BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATED BUDGET Communications 9,180.00 9,157.28 10,000.00 9,832.00 10,000.00 Dues and Fees 3,300.00 3,320.67 3,850.00 3,827.00 4,000.00 Equipment 6,339.00 6,337.94 3,000.00 1,905.00 3,000.00 Food Services 200.00 93.17 200.00 133.00 200.00 Management Services 1,500.00 0.00 1,500.00 0.00 1,500.00 Periodicals 400.00 334.97 450.00 436.00 450.00 Printing and Binding 6,000.00 4,625.75 6,000.00 4,606.00 6,000.00 Prof. and Tech. Services 26,497.00 6,207.50 26,497.00 1,847.00 26,497.00 Rent 50,917.00 50,916.67 51,935.00 51,935.00 52,890.00 Repairs and Maintenance 1,500.00 720.37 1,200.00 627.00 1,000.00 Resource Library 500.00 28.40 250.00 0.00 200.00 Salaries 492,614.00 474,173.79 508,159.00 482,159.00 523,937.00 Benefits 125,122.00 103,788.82 124,431.00 116,009.96 127,114.00 Staff Development 1,000.00 500.00 1,000.00 1,025.00 1,000.00 Supplies 7,750.00 7,713.27 7,750.00 7,729.00 7,750.00 Travel 18,000.00 14,090.83 18,000.00 15,825.00 18,000.00 Insurance 820.00 820.00 650.00 646.00 650.00  LRSD ANNOTATED ODM BUDGETS FOR 1999-00 AND 2000-01 REVENUE The Court's Interim Order of June 27, 1989 required that: ... [T]he amount previously ordered for the Pulaski County Educational Cooperative (Co-op) [$200,000.00] shall be applied toward the budget of the office of the Metropolitan Supervisor ... The balance of the budget will be apportioned among the school districts on a per pupil basis ... Eighth Circuit Order of December 12, 1990: ... [T]he office previously known as the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor will be reconstituted as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring...  10/1/99 o/o of Total 1999-00 Enrollment Enrollment Budget Allocation 1998-99 Credit (Budget not spent) 1999-00 Budget Payment 2000-01 Budget Allocation 25,116 47.64 269,105.02 36,967.69 232,137.33 278,307.16 1999-00 Estimated Credit* (Budget not spent) 34,175.51 NLRSD 8,960 17.00 96,028.24 13,191 .66 82,836.58 99,311.96 12,195.29 2000-01 Estimated Budget Payment* 244,131.66 87,116.67  PCSSD 18,638 35.36 199,738.74 27,438.65 172,300.09 206,568.88 25,366.20 181,202.67  State of AR N/A NIA 200,000.00 NIA 200,000.00 200,000.00 NIA 200,000.00 - ::::i::i:1~w11i;::::::::i::::::i11~l~i1:1 :111111:.11: 1JFt,1iij;,i:i1 ::iiji~iii;qg:: :z~1i11:.1g} ::::::i1~iifi  :11,iil1~11 *Because the 2000-01 budget has been prepared before the close of the 1999-00 fiscal year, we have estimated the 1999-00 credits to the districts and the 2000-01 payments due from the districts. After the close of the current fiscal year, we will notify each district of the exact amount due for their share of ODM's 2000-01 budget, incorporating each district's exact credit. Also, adjustments in the apportioned payments for each district in 2000-01 will be made to correspond with the October 1, 2000 enrollment count. Descnbed below is the step-by-step process, reflected in the charts above, that we used to determine each district's contnbution to ODM's budgets: 1. The State of Arkansas' contribution ($200,000.00) is subtracted from ODM's total budget. 2. Based on the previous year's October 1 enrollment, the districts are charged their pro rata share of ODM's budget (minus the state's contnbution). 3. Each district is credited with its pro rata share (or estimated share) of ODM's unspent budget for the previous year. 4. Each district contnbutes that sum to ODM's budget or, if the credit has been estimated, each district will be notified at the close of the current fiscal year of the exact amount due for their share ofODM's budget.    EXPENDITURES Note: Definitions of expense categories are based on the Arkansas School Financial Accounting Manual. Communications: Services provided by persons or businesses to assist in transmitting and receiving messages or information. This category includes telephone services as well as postage machine rental and postage. 1998-99 Budget 9,180.00 1998-99 Expenditures 1999-00 Estimated Expenditures The budget increase accommodates the rising costs of postage and basic services for various communications, such as telephone and internet. Dues and Fees: Expenditures or assessment for membership in professional or other organizations or associations or payments to a paying agent for services provided, such as conference registration fees. 1998-99 Budget 3,300.00 1998-99 Expenditures 3,320.67 1999-00 Estimated Expenditures 3,827.00 The budget increase gives more staff members the opportunity to participate in regional and national conferences. Equipment: Expenditures for the initial, additionai and replacement items or equipment, such as furniture and machinery. 1998-99 Budget 6,339.00 1998-99 Expenditures 1999-00 Estimated Expenditures During 1999-00, we will replace a laser printer, color printer, scanner, and printing server and hub; during 2000-01, we will upgrade two computers.    Food Services: Expenditures for food or preparation and serving of food, which may include catering. 1998-99 Budget 200.00 1998-99 Expenditures 93.17 1999-00 Estimated Expenditures 133.00 Management Services: Services performed by persons qualified to assist management either in the broad policy area or in general operations. This category includes consultants, individually or as a team, to assist the chief executive in conference or through systematic studies. 1998-99 Budget 1,500.00 1998-99 Expenditures 0.00 1999-00 Estimated Expenditures 0.00 Periodicals: Expenditures for periodicals and newspapers for general use. A periodical is any publication appearing at regular intervals ofless than a year and continuing for an indefinite period. 1998-99 Budget 400.00 1998-99 Expenditures 334.97 1999-00 Estimated Expenditures 436.00 Printing and Binding: Expenditures for job printing and binding, usually according to specifications. This includes the design and printing of forms as well as printing and binding publications. 1998-99 Budget 6,000.00 1998-99 Expenditures 1999-00 Estimated Expenditures We are able to contain the cost of this budget category by doing most printing inhouse.    Professional and Technical Services: Services which by their nature can be performed only by persons with specialized skills and knowledge. 1998-99 Budget 26,497.00 1998-99 Expenditures 6,207.50 Mansas Financial Services Temporary help/specialized services 1999-00 Estimated Expenditures 23,497.00 3,000.00 26,497.00 To date, ODM has not needed Arkansas Financial Services (AFS) to complete the terms of a previous agreement. However, because services ultimately may be required, we are electing to maintain the AFS agreement and, thus, have budgeted an allotment for AFS. Rent: Expenditures for leasing or renting land and buildings for both temporary and long-range use. 1998-99 Budget 50,917.00 1998-99 Expenditures 1999-00 Estimated Expenditures Per our lease agreement, the 1999-2000 and 2000-0 l budgets reflect a 2% per year increase in rent. Repairs and Maintenance: Expenditures for repairs and maintenance services which restore equipment to its original state or are a part of a routine preventive maintenance program. This includes service contracts and contractual agreements covering the maintenance and operation of equipment and equipment systems. 1998-99 Budget 1,500.00 1998-99 Expenditures 720.37 1999-00 Estimated [!ti\u0026 IJ i.i~Jii Expenditures 627.00 Resource Libr~ry: Expenditures for regular or incidental purchases of library books available for general use. 1998-99 Budget 500.00 1998-99 Expenditures 28.40 1999-00 Estimated Expenditures    Salaries: Salaries are the amounts paid to employees who are considered to be in positions of a permanent or temporary nature. 1998-99 Budget 492,614.00 1998-99 Expenditures 1999-00 Estimated Expenditures Salary changes between 1998-99 and 1999-00, as well as between 1999-00 and 2000-01 , reflect a 3.29% increase, which is comparable to the annual step increase in the three Pulaski County school districts. Salaries: Name of Employaa 1998-99 Salary 1999-00 Salary 2000-01 Salary Ann Brown 104,164.00 107,591 .00' 111 ,131 .00 Melissa Guldin 2 48,533.00 50,130.00 51 ,779.00 Gene Jones 3 50,858.00 52,724.00 54,373.00 Norman Marshall 60,666.00 62,662.00 64,724.00 MaroiePowell 60,666.00 62,662.00 64,724.00 Horace Smith 60,666.00 62,662.00 64,724.00 Research Associate4 26,000.00 26,000.00 26,000.00 Pollv Ramer 45,537.00 47,035.00 48,582.00 Linda Brvant 25,252.00 26,083.00 26,941 .00 Jackie Banks5 10,272.00 10,610.00 10,959.00 Ill ;;, ::: 1I::::Illlilt1il I tt:iiroaasttM @ iitti s2a~ Jon 1Ann Brown's last salary increase was in 1993-94. 2Melissa Guldin works 4/5 time. 3Gene Jones works 4/5 time. Mr. Jones elected to receive payment for annual insurance premiums in lieu of the insurance benefits; his salary reflects that decision. 4Position not filled. 5Jackie Banks works 3/5 time .    Benefits: Benefits are the amounts paid in behalf of employees and not included in the gross salary, but are over and above. Such payments are fringe benefit payments. 1998-99 Budget 125,122.00 1998-99 Expenditures 1999-00 Estimated Expenditures 116,009.96 Below is a breakdown by category of each emoloyee's 1999-00 budgeted fringe benefits: Name Travel Social Retire- Hospital- Life Dental Hospital Allowance Security ment lzatlon Ins. Indemnity Brown 1,800.00 6,310.57 13,126.92 2,233.60 44.16 192.54 60.96 Guldin 1,200.00 3,926.75 6,159.60 2,233.60 44.16 192.54 60.96 Jones 960.00 4,106.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Marshall 1,200.00 4,885.44 7,663.44 2,233.60 44.16 192.54 60.96 Powell 1,200.00 4,885.44 7,663.44 2,233.60 44.16 192.54 60.96 Smith 1,200.00 4,885.44 7,663.44 2,233.60 44.16 192.54 60.96 Research 600.00 2,034.90 3,192.00 2,233.60 44.16 192.54 60.96 Ramer 0.00 3,598.18 5,644.20 2,233.60 44.16 192.54 60.96 0.00 1,995.35 3,129.96 2,233.60 27.60 192.54 60.96 Banks 0.00 811 .67 1,273.20 2,233.60 27.60 192.54 60.96 Short Total Term Benefits 62.88 23,831.63 62.88 13,880.49 0.00 5,066.83 62.88 16,343.02 62.88 16,343.02 62.88 16,343.02 62.88 8,421 .04 62.88 11,836.52 62.88 7,702.89 62.88 4,662.45 ,,, :::::::::::::: ::1aB:I I wii~il  :ooij1i;m  Muir :ati3afoiE i::::::::::::::::::::,:::,:-:-:- :,:,:,:,:=?:::=,}?:,:,:::,:}:,;;:,;;:/: --:-::::::::: ::rn: oo.g112  Below is a breakdown by category of each employee's 2000-01 budgeted fringe benefits: Name Travel Social Retire- Hospital- Life Dental Hospital Short Total Allowance Security ment lzatlon Ins. Indemnity Term Benefits Brown 1,800.00 6,361 .90 13,551.72 2,233.60 44.16 192.54 60.96 62.88 24,307.76 Guldin 1,200.00 4,052.89 6,357.48 2,233.60 44.16 192.54 60.96 62.88 14,204.51 Jones 960.00 4,232.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,192.97 Marshall 1,200.00 5,043.19 7,910.88 2,233.60 44.16 192.54 60.96 62.88 16,748.21 Powell 1,200.00 5,043.19 7,910.88 2,233.60 44.16 192.54 60.96 62.88 16,748.21 Smith 1,200.00 5,043.19 7,910.88 2 233.60 44.16 192.54 60.96 62.88 16,748.21 Research 600.00 2,034.90 3,192.00 2,233.60 44.16 192.54 60.96 62.88 8,421 .04 Ramer 0.00 3,716.52 5,829.84 2,233.60 44.16 192.54 60.96 62.88 12,140.50 Bryant 0.00 2,060.99 3,232.92 2,233.60 27.60 192.54 60.96 62.88 7,871 .49 0.00 838.36 1 315.08 2,233.60 27.60 192.54 60.96 62.88 4,731 .02    Staff Development: Services performed by persons qualified to assist in enhancing the quality of the operation. 1998-99 Budget 1,000.00 1998-99 Expenditures 500.00 1999-00 Estimated Expenditures 1,025.00 Supplies: Expenditures for all supplies for the operation, including freight and cartage. Amounts paid for material items of an expendable nature that are consumed, worn out, or deteriorated in use or items that lose their identity through fabrication or incorporation into different or more complex units or substances. 1998-99 Budget 7,750.00 1998-99 Expenditures 7,713.27 1999-00 Estimated 1!:ii~-~~Ufgiltf/:] Expenditures 7,729.00 Travel: Expenditures for transportation, meals, hotel, and other expenses associated with traveling or business. Payments for per diem in lieu of reimbursements for subsistence (room and board) also are charged here. 1998-99 Budget 18,000.00 1998-99 Expenditures 14,090.83 1999-00 Estimated Expenditures 15,825.00 Insurance: Expenditures for all types of insurance coverage such as property, liability, fidelity, as well as the costs of judgments. 1998-99 Budget 820.00 1998-99 Expenditures 820.00 1999-00 Estimated Expenditures 646.00 RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT / E~ASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JUN 2 2000 Off\\GEOf t\u0026GRfGAllON MONITORING  WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. NOTICE OF FILING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS In accordance with the Court's order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of AD E's Project Management Tool for May, 2000 .  ' _j\\ffr/ . :~/ .-.:~. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRYOR Attorney General Assistant Attorney eral 323 Center Street, uite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KA THERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each morith, August - June. 2. Actual as of May 31, 2000 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June.  This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources. "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1117","title":"Motion to Substitute A Complete Copy of Little Rock School District's (LRSD'S) Interim Compliance Report","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2000-04-18"],"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 law and legislation","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Motion to Substitute A Complete Copy of Little Rock School District's (LRSD'S) Interim Compliance Report"],"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/1117"],"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\nIncludes correspondence, vitas for Terrence J. Roberts and Steven M. Ross\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE A COMPLETE COPY OF LRSD'S INTERIM COMPLIANCE REPORT Rf C iE_j ~ ~i.li APR 19 1000 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Little Rock School District (LRSD) for its Motion to Substitute A Complete Copy of LRSD's Interim Compliance Report states: 1. On March 15, 2000, LRSD filed its Interim Compliance Report outlining the programs, policies and procedures implemented in accordance with LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 2. Since that time, it has come to LRSD's attention that attachments 1 through 4 of the Interim Compliance Report were inadvertently omitted from the report during printing. 3. A complete copy of the report, including attachments 1 through 4, are attached to this Motion. LRSD respectfully requests that this report be substituted for the one filed March 15, 2000. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that the complete copy of LRSD's Interim Compliance Report attached hereto be substituted for the one filed March 15, 2000. Otfiee of Desegregation Monitoring ALECOPY Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on this 18th day of April, 2000. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 3 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. FREDERICKS. 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 Ill, P.A. LARRY W. BURKS, P.A . A . WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR., P.A . JAMES EDWARD HARRIS, P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A . J , SHEPHERD RUSSELL Ill, P.A . DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER, P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN, P.A . RICHARD D. TAYLOR, PA. JOSEPH B. HURST, JR., PA. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY, PA. CHRISTOPHER HELLER, PA. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P.A. ROBERTS. SHAFER, P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN Ill, P.A. MICHAELS. MOORE, P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY, P.A . WALTER M. EBEL Ill , P.A KEVIN A. CRASS, P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL, JR . . P A SCOTT J. LANCASTER, P A. M GAYLE CORLEY, P.A . ROBERT B. BEACH, JR., P.A J . LEE BROWN, P.A JAMES C. BAKER, JR., P A. HARRY A. LIGHT, PA Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX NO. 501-376-2147 April 18 , IECEIVE!ii:, APR 1 ~ 2!JGC m:FICEOF DESESUTJQN MONITORING. Mr. Sam Jones SCOTT H. TUCKER, P.A. GUY ALTON WADE, P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER, P.A. TONIA P. JONES. P.A. DAVID D. WILSON, P.A. JEFFREY H. MOORE, P.A. DAVID M. GRAF, P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR, P.A . JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. , P.A. JONANN CONIGLIO FLEISCHAUER, P.A. R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON, P.A. GREGORY D. TAYLOR, P.A . TONY L. WILCOX, P.A . FRANC. HICKMAN, P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY, P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON, P.A. JAMES W. SMITH CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT DANIELL. HERRINGTON K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK, JR . ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS HELENE N. RAYDER JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL CHRIS A. AVERITT KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN ROBERT T. SMITH OF COUNSEL WILLIAM J . SMITH B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON, JR. H.T. LARZELERE, PA. JOHN C. ECHOLS, P.A. WRITER'S DIRECT HO (501) 370-3323 Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Finn P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222 Ms. Ann Brown - Hand Delivered Desegration Monitor Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 323 Center Street 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: LRSD vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et. al.\nMrs. Lorene Joshua, et. al.\nKatherine Knight, et. al. USDC, Eastern District. Western Division No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Ms. Brown \u0026amp; Gentlemen: Enclosed please find a Motion to Substitute a Complete Copy ofLRSD 's Interim Compliance Report which we are filing today. As indicated in the motion, attachments 1 - 4 ofLRSD's interim compliance report were inadvertently omitted during the printing process. We are enclosing attachments 1 - 4 which you can insert in the original copy of the report served on you. F\\HOMEIFENDLEYILRSD\\pcssd-brown d al h.wpd Office of Desegregation Monftorfng FILE r,opy Ms. Brown \u0026amp; Gentlemen April 18, 2000 Page2 If you would ratherreceive a second and complete copy of the report, please do not hesitate to call, and we will try to provide one. Sincerely, John C. Fendley, Jr. JCF/bgb enclosure(s) F:IHOMEIFENDLEY\\LRSD\\pcssd-brown ct al ILwpd Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on this 18th day of April, 2000. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 C. Fendley, Jr. ~ 3 EDUCATION: Ph.D. MSW BA VITAE TERRENCE J. ROBERTS, Ph.D. Clinical Psychology - Southern Illinois University, 1976, Psychology - University of California, Los Angeles, 1970 - California State University, Los Angeles, 1967 LICENSING AND CERTIFICATION: California State Licensed Psychologist, Lie. #PSY8892 California State Licensed Social Worker, Lie. #5600 EXPERIENCE: Attachment 1 Chief executive officer for Terrence J. Roberts \u0026amp; Associates, a management consultation firm active in California since 1975. A dynamic group with a wide range of skills and professional abilities. Workshops and Seminars in the areas of: Stress Management Effective Communication Managing Human Relationships Employment Transition Team Building Management Skills Managing Racial and Ethnic Diversity Self Growth and Development Conflict Resolution Developing Multicultural Awareness Employee Evaluation Staff Development Office of Desegregation Monitoring ALECOPY Created training programs and materials for employees in the department. Participated in program delivery, evaluation and revision. Provided social welfare services to children and families in the child welfare division. CONSULTATION\\PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES General psychology and consultation practice office in Pasadena, Ca. Practice includes psychological assessment, psychotherapy for individuals\nfamilies, and groups, and psychological consultation to education, business and industry. MEMBERSHIPS: Member, American Psychological Association Board Member, African American Cultural Institute Board Member, Eisenhower World Affairs Institute Board Member, Economic Resources Corporation PUBLICATIONS_\n_ __ \"Managing Trial Stress,\" in Jonathan M. Purver, Douglas R. Young, and James J. Davis III, Trial Handbook For California Lawvers, Bancroft-Whitney Co., 1987. __ \"Understanding Choice: Gateway to Sound Mental Health,\" Journal of Mental Health Administration, Vol.9, No.l, 1978. _ _ \"Social Welfare in Black America,\" in Cox\net al, eds. Introduction to Black America:A Cultural Perspective, Southern Illinois University Press, 1974. AWARDS: Spingarn Medal, 1957 Annual award presented by NAACP to that person or persons making outstanding .contributions to the area of human rights. Robert S. Abbott Memorial Award, 1958 Annual award presented to those who do most to extend the frontiers of democracy. Outstanding Teacher of the Year, College of Human Resources Southern Illinois University, 1974. NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. Award, 1982 Award commemorating twenty-fifth anniversary of \"Little Rock Nine's\" integration of Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. Southern Christian Leadership Conference Women Martin Luther King, Jr. \"Drum Major for Justice\" Award, 1995 Presented in Atlanta, Georgia. REFERENCES: Available upon request. Consultation services :provided to: California Attorneys for Criminal Justice California Medical Center Cedars Sinai Hospital Children's Bureau of Southern California Claremont Graduate School Cleveland College of Chiropractic Coca-Cola, Mid-Atlantic Division Crown City Medical Episcopal Diocese, Los Angeles Fairfield Community Hospital Heller, Ehrman, White \u0026amp; McAuliffe Internal Revenue Service, Los Angeles Kaiser Foundation King-Drew Medical Center, Los Angeles Los Angeles County Department of Children's Services Oskar J's Sightseeing Tours, Inc. Pacific Union College Pasadena Community College Pasadena T ournarnent of Roses Pepperdine University Pomona College Redwood Empire Central Service Association Riverside County Children's Services Department Santa Clara Valley Medical Center The Fielding Institute The March of Dimes Foundation TRW University of California, (Davis, Los Angeles, San Diego) Chair, Master's in Psychology Antioch University, Los Angeles 1993 - present Responsibilities of the Chair include developing and overseeing curriculum, coordinating student programs, creating and managing yearly budgets, participating in the governance of the University, and hiring and supervising adjunct faculty and staff. Included in the job description as well are activities designed to enhance the quality of the program and to maintain connections with psychology programs at schools in the southern California area. Assistant Dean, Student Services UCLA School of Social Welfare 1985 - 1993 Responsible for overall direction of student services including recruitment, admissions, retention, financial aid, student government, and coordination of both MSW and Ph.D. candidate programs. Supervisory responsibilities for student services assistant and student workers. Classroom teaching responsibilities included preparation and delivery of courses in cross-cultural awareness and group conflict and change. Director, Mental Health Services St. Helena Hospital and Health Center Deer Park, CA. 1975 - 1985 General administrative responsibility for sevent'een bed acute care mental health unit. Duties included staJ:fi.ng, program development, budget allocation, sta.i.\"':f development, quality control, coordination of ancillary services, and other related tasks. Served also as \"troubles-shooter\" for other ur,jts in the hospital providing assessment and consultation around changes in procedures and personnel. Lectured and led groups in Health Center programs including cardiac, alcohol, and pulmonary rehabilitation\nsmoking cessation\nweight management\nand eating disorders. Program Director, Social Work Pacific Union College .Angwin, CA 1975 - 1978 Responsible for development of social work curriculum 2nd coordination of program within a behavioral science department. Instructor, Social Work Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Illinois 1972-1975 Taught courses and advised majors in undergraduate social work program. Los Angeles County Children's Service 1. Staff Development Specialist: 1970 - 1972 2. Chiid Welfare Worker: 1967 - 1970 Institution Pennsylvania State University Undergraduate Major: Graduate Major: BRIEF VITA PERSONAL DATA Steven M. Ross EDUCATION Psychology Educational Psychology PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS American Psychological Association, Fellow American Educational Research Association, Member Mid-South Educational Research Association, Member Attachment 2 Degree-Year B.A. 1969 M.S . 1972 Ph.D. 1974 Association for Educational Communications \u0026amp; Technology, Member International Congress for School Effectiveness and School Improvements, Member EXPERIENCE Instructor, Continuing Education, 1973-74, Pennsylvania State University Instructor, Psychology, Spring Semester, 1974, Lock Haven State College Lock Haven, Pennsylvania Evaluator, Summer, 1974, Mitre Corporation, McLean, Virginia Assistant Professor, Educational Psychology, 197 4-79, University of Memphis Associate Professor, Educational Psychology, 1980-1985 Professor, Educational Psychology, 1.985 - Present  Senior Researcher, Center for Research in Education Policy, Univ. of Memphis, 1995 - Present COURSES RECENTLY TAUGHT Theories of Learning (Undergraduate) Individual Differences and Learning (Graduate) Educational Statistics (Undergraduate and Graduate) Educational Research (Graduate) Computers in Education (Graduate and Undergraduate) Thesis Writing (Graduate) Educational Assessment (Graduate) Attachment 2 HONORS AND DISTINCTIONS 1. 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 Memphis, 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 SCHOLARSIIlP Publications in Refereed Journals: Books Book Chapters Papers Presented at Professional Meetings SELECTED RECENT PUBLICATIONS 115 6 16 170 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 Imorovement, ~ 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, t 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,~, 29-54. Attachment 2 Stringfield, S., \u0026amp; Ross, S.M. (1997). A \"reflection at time three of marathon: The Memphis restructuring initiative in mid-stride. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, l 151-161. Ross, S. \u0026amp; Smith, L.J. (1997). Improving the academic success of disadvantaged children: An examination of Success for All. Psvcholo!Zv in the Schools, 1.1, 171-180. Jayasinghe, M.G. Morrison, G.R. \u0026amp; Ross, S.M. (1997). The effect of distance learning classroom design on student perceptions. Educational Technolo~ Research and Develooment, 4 5, 5-20. Ross, S.M., \u0026amp; Smith, L.J. (in press). Improving school achievement and inter-group relations for children placed at risk. Euronean Journal of Intercultural Education. Smith, L.J., Ross, S.M., McNelis, M., Squires, M., and others (1998), The Memphis restructuring_initiative: Analysis of activities and outcomes that impact implementation success. Education and Urban Societv, 3 0 (3), 326- 357. Stringfield, S., Datnow, A., Ross, S., \u0026amp; Snively, F. (1998). Scaling up school restructuring in multicultural multilingual contexts: Early observations from Sunland County. Education and Urban Societv, 3 0 (3), 326-357. Ross, S.M., Smith, L.J. \u0026amp; Casey, J.P. (in press). \"Bridging the Gap\": The effects of the Success for All Programs on elementary school reading achievement as a function of student ethnicity and ability level. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. Summary of Interests During the past ten years, I have worked extensively with school districts, both regionally and locally, to develop and evaluate programs for improving student achievement. The primary fo~us of these studies has been schools predominantly serving disadvantaged inner-city minority children. In 1992, I was the lead researcher for the school equity study for the State of Alabama Financial Equity Case and am currently lead researcher on a comparable study in Louisiana. Additional ongoing research projects are studies of school restructuring designs as they are implemented in Memphis City Schools and Dade County (FL) schools and of professional development schools in seven national sites as part of the NEA Teacher Education Initiative (NEA-TEI). Attachment 3 1998-99 (DRAFT 2/7 /00) Relationship Between Total Scores and Percent of African American Students Correlations Percent of African-Americ Total Score: an Students: 1998 1998 1 oral Score: 1998 Pearson Correlation 1.000 .158 Sig. (2-tailed) .285 N 48 48 Percent of Pearson Correlation .158 1.000 African-American Sig. (2-tailed) Students: 1998 .285 N 48 48 .:.\n, 100 c::, D D C') D 0 D 0 en 90  0 D T'\" U) D c D Cl) 8 C -0 80 ::J C Cf) 8 D C 0 D ctl (.) 70  0 0 \n:: 0 ::: 0 Cl) E 0 \u0026lt;i: 0 C c::: 60, ctl 0 C (.) \n:: co C ..... . 0 \u0026lt;i: C 0 C 8 C 8 C 50 C :l 0 Cl) C C u '- 0 Cl) CL 40 30 40 50 60 Total Score: 1998 70 ' Attachment 4  1999-00 (DRAFT 2/7/00) Relationship Between Total Scores and Percent of African-American Students Correlations Percent of African-Americ Total Score: an Students: 1999 1999 1 otal Score: 1999 Pearson Corretauon 1.000 -.0A6 Sig. (2-tailed) .758 N 48 48 Percent of Pearson Correlation -.046 1.000 African-American Sig. (2-tailed) .758 Students: 1999 N 48 48 .:, 100 0  0 0 0 O\"l 90, 8 O\"l  0 .O..\"-l 0 0  tJ) 0 c 80, C 0 0 Q) u C C  .3 C  C (f) 70  C C ro C C u \n:: C a: 0  i= ] C C \u0026lt;   C I C 0 ro aC 0 .g 0 0 \" \u0026lt; 4J  0 0 0 C C 3al 0 Q) f:: Q) c.. 20 30 40 50 60 Total Score: 1999  70\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\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_1725","title":"Court filings: District Court, the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) defendants' response to motion to extend time and for referral; District Court, motion to substitute a complete copy of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) interim compliance report; District Court, two orders; 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":["2000-04"],"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","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Little Rock School District","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) defendants' response to motion to extend time and for referral; District Court, motion to substitute a complete copy of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) interim compliance report; District Court, two orders; 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/1725"],"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":["76 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  EDWARD L . WRIGHT (1903 - 1977 ) ROBERTS . LINDSEY (1'1 13-1991 ) ISAAC A. SCOTT, JR . JOHN G . LILE WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHN O DAVI S JU DY SIMMONS H ENR Y KIMBERLY WOOO TUCKER RAY F CO X. JR . GORDON S . RATHER . JR . TERRY L. MATHEWS OA VIO M. POWELL ROGER A . GLASGOW C. DOUGLAS BUFORD, JR . PATRICK J . GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS. JR . JOHN R. TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M. SAMUEL JONES Ill JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES C . PRICE CHARLES T . COLEMAN JAMES J . GLOVER EDWIN L . LOWTHER. JR . CHARLES L. SCHLUMBERGER WALTER E. MAY GREGORY T . JONES H. KEITH MORRISON BETTINA E . BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPAOOEN ROGER 0. ROWE NANCY BELLHOUSE MAY Mr. John Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: PCSSD Dear Counsel and Ms. Brown: 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376-9442 WEBSITE : www .wlj .com OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS RONALD A . MAY M. TOCO WOOD Wri ter ' s Direcl Dial No . 501-21 2-1273 mjones@wlj .com April 11, 2000 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026 Clark TROY A PRI CE PA TRICIA A. SI EVERS JAMES M. MOODY . JR KA THRYN A PR YOR J . MARK DAVIS CL AIRE SHOWS HANCOCK K EV IN W. KENNEDY JERRY J . SALLINGS FRED M. PERKINS 111 WILLIAM STUART JA CKSON MICHAEL 0 . BARNES STEPHEN R . LANCASTER JUDY ROBINSON WILBER BETSY MEACHAM K YLE R. WILSON C . TAO BOHANNON MICHELE SIMMONS ALLGOOD KRISTI M. MOODY J . CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH PHYLL I S M. McKENZIE ELISA MASTERSON WHITE JANE M. FAUL KNER ROBERT W. GEORGE J. ANDREW VINES JUSTI N T. ALLEN 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RECEIVED Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 APR 1 2 2000 OfflGEOf DESEGREGATIOtl MORJTORJNQ Enclosed is a copy of the PCSSD defendants' response to motion to extend time and for referral which is being filed today. Cordially, WRIGHTEDSLEIY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP c?~ M. Sam I Jones, Ill MSJ/ao Encl. 169467-v1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. THE PCSSD DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE ECEIVED APR 1 2 2000 QffiCEOi OESESREGAD ~ PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS TO MOTION TO EXTEND TIME AND FOR REFERRAL The PCSSD defendants for their response to motion to extend time and for referral, state: 1. Pursuant to the rules of this Court, Joshua's time for the submission of a fee petition began to run on July 19, 1999 (docket no. 3282]. Thus, Joshua's time for submitting a fee petition has long since expired. 2. Since July 19, 1999, the activities of the parties have revolved around the PCSSD's submission of Plan 2000 to which, as this court has previously found, Joshua did not object and to which no member of the Joshua Class submitted either comments or objections. 3. While the PCSSD defendants thus respectfully submit that there are no fee issues that can be now timely advanced by Joshua, nevertheless, the PCSSD has no objection to submission of the issue to the Department of Justice, Community Relations Service, but it will be the position of the PCSSD, if such referral occurs, that 169379-v1 any colorable claim for attorney's fees by Joshua is time-barred pursuant to the rules of this Court, this District and this Circuit. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD defendants pray that this Court enter an order consistent with this response and for all proper relief. WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 By-:-:---=--r-,--r.---:-:--:-=~c+------- M. At Sc CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On April I(, 2000, a copy of the foregoing was served by 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 ODM Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 169379-v1 2 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 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.  DERICK S. URSERY, P.A. ARE. DAVIS , JR ., P.A. ES C. CLARK, JR ., P.A. OMAS P. LEGGETT , P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON , P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM Ill , P.A. LARRY W. BURKS, P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR ., P.A . JAMES EDWARD HARRIS , P.A . J. PHILLIP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J . SHEPHERD RUSSELL Ill , P.A . DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER , P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN, P.A. RICHARD 0 . TAYLOR, P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST, JR., P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER, P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P.A. ROBERTS. SHAFER , P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN Ill, P.A. MICHAELS. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY, P.A. WALTER M. EBEL Ill , P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS, P.A. WILLIAM A . WADDELL , JR . . P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER , P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY, P.A. ROBERT 8 . BEACH. JR .. P.A. J. LEE BROWN, P.A. JAMES C. BAKER , JR ., P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT, P.A. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026 Jones, P.A. 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501 -376-2011 FAX NO. 501-376 -2147 April I 8, IECEIVED ~ICE0F 0t5.i:9rur\u0026rriCN MONffOHING Mr. Sam Jones SCOTT H. TUCKER, P.A. GUY ALTON WADE, P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER, l' .A. TONIA P. JONES, P .A. DAVID D. WILSON. P.A. JEFFREY H. MOORE. P .A . DAVID M. GRAF, P .A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR , P.A . JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR . , P.A. JONANN CONIGLIO FLEISCHAUER. P.A. R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON, P.A. GREGORY 0 . TA YLOR, P.A. TONY L. WILCOX, P.A. FRANC. HICKMAN, P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY, P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON, l' .A. JAMES W. SMITH CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT DANIELL. HERRINGTON K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK, JR . ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS HELENE N. RAYOER JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE 8 . TIDWELL CHRIS A. AVERITT KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN ROBERT T. SMITH o, COUNS EL WILLIAM J. SMITH B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE, P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS , P .A. WRITER'S DIRECT NO, (501) 370 -3323 Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222 Ms. Ann Brown - Hand Delivered Desegration Monitor Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 323 Center Street 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: LRSD vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. I, et. al.; Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et. al.; Katherine Knight, et. al. USDC, Eastern District, Western Division No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Ms. Brown \u0026 Gentlemen: Enclosed please find a Motion to Substitute a Complete CopyofLRSD' s Interim Compliance Report which we are filing today. As indicated in the motion, attachments 1 - 4 ofLRSD's interim compliance report were inadvertently omitted during the printing process. We are enclosing attachments 1 - 4 which you can insert in the original copy of the report served on you. F:IHOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSDlpcssd-brown et ,I It. wpd Ms. Brown \u0026 Gentlemen April 18,2000 Page2 If you would rather receive a second and complete copy of the report, please do not hesitate to call, and we will try to provide one. Sincerely, John C. Fendley, Jr. JCF/bgb enclosure(s) F:IHOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD\\pcssd-brown et al lt.wpd IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO . 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNTGHT, ET AL MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE A COMPLETE COPY OF LRSD'S INTERIM COMPLIANCE REPORT RE.Cif~~ili APR 19 2000 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Little Rock School District (LRSD) for its Motion to Substitute A Complete Copy of LRSD's Interim Compliance Report states: 1. On March 15, 2000, LRSD filed its Interim Compliance Report outlining the programs, policies and procedures implemented in accordance with LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan . 2. Since that time, it has come to LRSD's atte~tion that attachments 1 through 4 of the Interim Compliance Report were inadvertently omitted from the report during printing. 3. A complete copy of the report, including attachments 1 through 4, are attached to this Motion. LRSD respectfully requests that this report be substituted for the one filed March 15, 2000. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that the complete copy of LRSD ' s Interim Compliance Report attached hereto be substituted for the one filed March 15, 2000. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000  400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY,pe~ ~ ofu;c. '~y,J. 'r21a2) 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on this 18th day of April, 2000. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 C. Fendley, Jr. ~ 3 --- - - ----- ------ - - - - EDUCATION: Ph.D. MSW BA VITAE TERRENCE J. ROBERTS, Ph.D. Clinical Psychology - S.outhem Illinois University, 1976, Psychology - University of California, Los Angeles, 1970 - California State University, Los Angeles, 1967 LICENSING AND CERTIFICATION: California State Licensed Psychologist, Lie. #PSY8892 California State Licensed Social Worker, Lie. #5600 EXPERIENCE: Attachment 1 Chief executive officer for Terrence J. Roberts \u0026 Associates, a management consultation firm active in California since 1975. A dynamic group with a wide range of skills and professional abilities. Workshops and Seminars in the areas of: Stress Management Effective Communication Managing Human Relationships Employment Transition Team Building Management Skills Managing Racial and Ethnic Diversity Self Growth and Development Conflict Resolution Developing Multicultural Awareness Employee Evaluation Staff Development Created training programs and materials for employees in the department. Participated in program delivery, evaluation and revision. Provided social welfare services to children and families in the child welfare division. CONSULTATION\\PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES General psychology and consultation practice office in Pasadena, Ca. Practice includes psychological assessment, psychotherapy for individuals; families, and groups, and psychological consultation to education, business and industry. MEMBERSHIPS: Member, American Psychological Association Board Member, African American Cultural Institute Board Member, Eisenhower World Affairs Institute Board Member, Economic Resources Corporation PUBLICATIONS,;_ __ \"Managing Trial Stress,\" in Jonathan M. Purver, Douglas R. Young, and James J. Davis III, Trial Handbook For California Lawyers, Bancroft-'Whitney Co., 1987. - __ \"Understanding Choice: Gateway to Sound Mental Health,\" Journal of Mental Health Administration, Vol.9, No.l, 1978. __ \"Social Welfare in Black America,\" in Cox; et al, eds. Introduction to Black America:A Cultural Perspective, Southern Illinois University Press, 1974. AWARDS: Spingarn Medal, 1957 Annual award presented by NAACP to that person or persons making outstanding .contributions to the area of human rights. Robert S. Abbott Memorial Award, 1958 Annual award presented to those who do most to extend the frontiers of democracy. Outstanding Teacher of the Year, College of Human Resources Southern Illinois University, 1974. NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. Award, 1982 Award commemorating twenty-fifth anniversary of \"Little Rock Nine's\" integration of Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. Southern Christian Leadership Conference Women Martin Luther King, Jr. \"Drum Major for Justice\" Award, 1995 Presented in Atlanta, Georgia. REFERENCES: Available upon request. '--- --- ---- - - Consultation services provided to: California Attorneys for Criminal Justice California Medical Center Cedars Sinai Hospital Children's Bureau of Southern California  Claremont Graduate School Cleveland College of Chiropractic Coca-Cola, Mid-Atlantic Division Crown City Medical Episcopal Diocese, Los Angeles Fairfield Community Hospital Heller, Ehrman, White \u0026 McAuliffe Internal Revenue Service, Los Angeles Kaiser Foundation King-Drew Medical Center, Los Angeles Los Angeles County Department of Children's Services Oskar J's Sightseeing Tours, Inc. Pacific Union College Pasadena Community College Pasadena Tournament of Roses Pepperdine University Pomona College Redwood Empire Central Service Association Riverside County Children's Services Department Santa Clara Valley Medical Center The Fielding Institute The March of Dimes Foundation TRW University of California, (Davis, Los Angeles, San Diego) Chair, Master's in Psychology Antioch University, Los Angeles 1993 - present Responsibilities of the Chair include developing and overseeing curriculum, coordinating student programs, creating and managing yearly budgets, parti!=ipating in the governance of the University, and hiring and supervising adjunct faculty and staff. Included in the job description as well are- I - --- _J Institution Pennsylvania State University Undergraduate Major: Graduate Major: BRIEF VITA PERSONAL DATA Steven M. Ross EDUCATION Psychology Educational Psychology PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS American Psychological Association, Fellow American Educational Research Association, Member Mid-South Educational Research Association, Member Attachment 2 Degree-Year B.A. 1969 M.S. 1972 Ph.D. 1974 Association for Educational Communications \u0026 Technology, Member International Congress for School Effectiveness and School Improvements, Member EXPERIENCE Instructor, Continuing Education, 1973-74, Pennsylvania State University Instructor, Psychology, Spring Semester, 1974, Lock Haven State College Lock Haven, Pennsylvania Evaluator, Swnmer, 1974, Mitre Corporation, McLean, Virginia Assistant Professor, Educational Psychology, 1974-79, University of Memphis Associate Professor, Educational Psychology, 1980-1985 Professor, Educational Psychology, 1.985 -Present  Senior Researcher, Center for Research in Education Policy, Univ. of Memphis, 1995 - Present COURSES RECENTLY TAUGHT Theories of Leaming (Undergraduate) Individual Differences and Leaming (Graduate) Educational Statistics (Undergraduate and Graduate) Educational Research (Graduate) Computers in Education (Graduate and Undergraduate) Thesis Writing (Graduate) Educational Assessment (Graduate) activities designed to enhance the quality of the program and to maintain connections with psychology programs at schools in the southern California area. Assistant Dean, Student Services UCLA School of Social Welfare 1985-1993 Responsible for overall direction of student services including recruitment, admissions, retention, financial aid, student government, and coordination of both MSW and Ph.D. candidate programs. Supervisory responsibilities for student services assistant and srudent workers. Classroom teaching responsibilities included preparation and delivery of courses in cross-cultural awareness and group conflict and change. Director, Mental Health Services St. Helena Hospital and Health Center Deer Park, CA. 1975-1985 General administrative responsibility for sevent'een bed acute care mental health unit. Duties included staffing, program development, budget allocation, staff development, quality control, coordination of ancillary services, and other related tasks. Served also as \"troubles-shooter\" for other units in the hospital providing assessment and consultation around changes in procedures and personnel. Lectured and led groups in Health Center programs including cardiac, alcohol, and pulmonary rehabilitation; smoking cessation; weight management; and eating disorders. Program Director, Social Work Pacific Union College Angwin, CA 1975 - 1978 Responsible for development of social work curriculum  and coordination of program within a behavioral science department. Instructor, Social Work Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Illinois 1972-1975 Taught courses and advised majors in undergraduate social work program. Los Angeles County Children's Service 1. Staff Development Specialist: 1970 - 1972 2. Child Welfare Worker: 1967 - 1970 - -  1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Attachment 2 HONORS AND DISTINCTIONS NDEA Fellowship for graduate study at the Pennsylvania State University, 1971-1973. Graduate Student Associate, Southwest Regional Laboratory, Summer, 1971 . Distinguished Teaching Service Award, University of Memphis, 1980. Phi Delta Kappa Professional Research Award, Memphis Chapter, 1983. Elected Fellow, Division 15, American Psychological Association, 1986. Visiting Scholar, National Center for Research on Improving Postsecondary Teaching and Learning. University of Memphis, 1987. Distinguished Research Award, University of Memphis, 1987. Distinguished Teacher Service Award, University of Memphis, 1988. (First eligibility since 1980; no longer eligible) Memphis State University nominee, CASE Professor of the Year Award, 1989. 10. Superior Performance in University Research (SPUR) Award, University of Memphis, 1990, 1991, 1992 11. Distinguished Research Award, University of Memphis, 1993. 12. Board of Visitors Eminent Faculty Award, University of Memphis (first recipient), 1993 13. Editor, Educational Technology Research and Development, 1993-present 14. Editorial Board, Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 1995- present 15. Editorial Board, Computers and Human Behavior, 1994-present SCHOLARSHIP Publications in Refereed Journals: Books Book Chapters Papers Presented at Professional Meetings SELECTED RECENT PUBLICATIONS 115 6 16 170 Ross, S.M., Henry D., Phillipsen, L., Evans, K., Smith, L., \u0026 Buggey, T. ( 1997). Matching restructuring programs to schools: Selection, negotiation, and preparation. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, \u0026, 45-71. Ross, S.M., Troutman, A., Horgan, D., Maxwell, S., Laitinen, R., \u0026 Lowther, D. (1997). The success of schools in implementing eight restructuring designs: A synthesis of first-year evaluation outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,~. 95-124. Ross, S.M., Smith, L.J. \u0026 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, 1., 29-54. Attachment 2 Stringfield, S., \u0026 Ross, S.M. (1997). A \"reflection at time three of marathon: The Memphis restructuring initiative in mid-stride. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, l 151-161. Ross, S. \u0026 Smith, L.J. (1997). Improving the academic success of disadvantaged children: An examination of Success for All. Psvcholo12v in the Schools, 3 4, 171-180. Jayasinghe, M.G. Morrison, G.R. \u0026 Ross, S.M. (1997). The effect of distance learning classroom design on student perceptions. Educational Technology Research and Development, .ij_, 5-20. Ross, S.M., \u0026 Smith, L.J. (in press). Improving school achievement and inter-group relations for children placed at risk. Euronean Journal of Intercultural Education. Smith, L.J., Ross, S.M., McNelis, M., Squires, M., and others (1998), The Memphis restructuring initiative: Analysis of activities and outcomes that impact implementation success. Education and Urban Societv, 3 0 (3), 326- 357. Stringfield, S., Datnow, A., Ross, S., \u0026 Snively, F. (1998). Scaling up school restructuring in multicultural multilingual contexts: Early observations from Sunland County. Education and Urban Society, 3 0 (3), 326-357. Ross, S.M., Smith, L.J. \u0026 Casey, J.P. (in press). \"Bridging the Gap\": The A effects of the Success for All Programs on elementary school reading W achievement as a function of student ethnicity and ability level. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. Summary of Interests During the past ten years, I have worked extensively with school districts, both regionally and locally, to dev~lop and evaluate programs for improving student achievement. The primary fos:us of these studies has been schools predominantly serving disadvantaged inner-city minority children. In 1992, I was the lead researcher for the school equity study for the State of Alabama Financial Equity Case and am currently lead researcher on a comparable study in Louisiana. Additional ongoing research projects are studies of school restructuring designs as they are implemented in Memphis City Schools and Dade County (FL) schools and ofprofessional development schools in seven national sites as part of the NEA Teacher Education Initiative (NEA-TEI). - Attachment 3 1998-99 (DRAFT 2/7/00) Relationship Between Total Scores and Percent of African American Students Correlations Percent of African-Americ Total Score: an Students: 1998 1998 Total Score: 1998 Pearson Correlation 1.000 .158 Sig. (2-tailed) .285 N 48 48 Percent of Pearson Correlation .158 1.000 African-American Sig. (2-tailed). Students: 1998 .285 N 48 48 :..,1 100 0 0 co O') 0 0 0 0 O') 90  . ..-- 0 0 \u003cJl C c C B Q) C \"O 80  .a C U) B C cCo C C CJ 70 C C c 0 0 0 Q) E C \u003c( ' 0 0 Cco 60 0 0 CJ ..c... . 00 0 0 \u003c( 0 0 0 8 0 B 0 50, c 0 0 Q) C 0 .C..J. 0 Q) 0.. 40 30 40 50 60 Total Score: 1998 70 Attachment 4 1999-00 (DRAFT 2/7/00) Relationship Between Total Scores and Percent of African-American Students Correlations Percent of African-.A.meric Total Score: an Students: 1999 1999 Total Score: 1999 Pearson Correlation 1.000 -.046 Sig. (2-tailed) .758 N 48 48 Percent of Pearson Correlation -.046 1.000 African-American Sig. (2-tailed) .758 Students: 1999 N 48 48 .:1 100 0 0 0 0 0 en 90 , 8 en 00 0 .e,.n.. 0 0 0 t/l 0 c 80 0 0 Q) 0 \"O 0 0 C .2 0 0 Cf) 0 70 0 0 C C1l 0 C tc) C Q) C 0 E 60 C 0 \u003c( C 0 0 I 0 C ro oO 0 (.) 50, 0 0 c 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 c 40 , 0 0 Q) .(...) Q) 0... 30 20 30 40 50 60 Total Score: 1999 0 70 - FILED EASTMlN '6',il~',g ~2~~SAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT APR 2 5 2000 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAME:3!.JV WESTERN DIVISION .By:--'/~j ~~~'7\\RK DEP~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER No. LR-C-82-866 RECEIVED uFFICE orOESEGREGATIOM MONITORING The Joshua Intervenors filed a motion requesting that the Court refer the matter of attorney's fees related to the Pulaski County Special School District's revised desegregation plan to the Department of Justice, Community Relations Service [docket no. 3352]. Additionally, Joshua requests that the Court postpone the deadline for filing a petition for attorney's fees until such time as it is determined the parties cannot resolve the matter on a voluntary basis. The Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) has no objection to Joshua's request for a referral but asserts the time for submitting a fee petition has expired [docket no. 3354]. In an Order entered February 22, 2000 this Court conditionally approved PCSSD's revised desegregation plan stating, \"Joshua may file a motion for attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C.  1988.\"1 On March 20, 2000, this Court officially approved the revised plan. Joshua 1 See docket no. 3337. 1 - filed the present motion for referral and extension on March 31, 2000, eleven days after the Court formally approved the revised desegregation plan. Under Local Rule 54.1, Joshua had fourteen days to submit a petition for attorney's fees or a motion to extend the time for submitting such a petition. The Court finds Joshua's motion timely. THEREFORE, for good cause shown, Joshua's motion is GRANTED [docket no. 3352]. The matter of attorney's fees is hereby referred to the Department of Justice, Community Relations Service. Additionally, the Court extends the deadline for Joshua to file a petition for attorney's fees until such time as it is determined the matter cannot be resolved between the parties on a voluntary basis. FURTHER, the Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to: Mr. Gus Taylor Community Relations Service U.S. Department of Justice 1100 Commerce Street Dallas, TX 75242 ..f{A.__ ITIS SOORDEREDTHis'2:!i._DAYOF APRIL,2000 UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT 2 r- - FILED t U.S. DISTRICT COURT  EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS f IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION APR 2 5 2000 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * VS. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER No. LR-C-82-866 The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") filed a motion to substitute a complete copy of the district's interim compliance report for a copy originally filed March 15, 2000.1 The motion is GRANTED [docket no. 3355]. . ~-f(_ IT IS SO ORDERED THIS~DAY OF APRIL, 2000 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT n-flS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN :MP'11J~ULE s~;N~a) FRCP _ 1 Docket no. 3344. ,~ 'jW- / ~ RECErVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 .. , ,; l j _._\\ jU~ Ml', I J. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al . DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance \\,;rh tJ1e Court's order of December 10, 1993, tJ1e Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of tJ1e filing of AD E's Project :\\Ia11agement Tool for April, 2000. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PR\"i.'OR Attorney General 1-/~~~i,;- TIMOTHY G. GA :c R #95019 Assistant Attorney eral 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL NO. LR-C-82-866 PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of April 30, 2000 B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June .  This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources. "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1392","title":"\"1999-00 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District,\" Office of Desegregation and Monitoring","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dc_date":["2000-03-29"],"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","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School enrollment","School improvement programs","School integration","School management and organization","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dcterms_title":["\"1999-00 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District,\" Office of Desegregation and Monitoring"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1392"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":["176 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1101","title":"\"Interim Compliance Report,\" 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, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2000-03-15"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","School integration","School boards","Education--Standards"],"dcterms_title":["\"Interim Compliance Report,\" 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/1101"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nancaa1DeS1:iaraciat1on UQlil0rq FILECOPY Interim Compliance Report Little Rock School District March 15, 2000 Interim Compliance Report Little Rock School District Dr. Leslie Carnine Superintendent of Schools Board of Directors Sue Strickland, President Dr. Katherine Mitchell, Vice President H. Baker Kurrus, Secretary Larry Berkley Mike Daugherty Mike Kumpuris Judy Magness THE REVISED DESEGREGATION AND EDUCATION PLAN Compliance Status Report March 15, 2000 The Little Rock School District (District or LRSD) is committed to compliance with the provisions and philosophy of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan). The Revised Plan is built on the philosophy of providing equitable opportunities for the students and employees of the District. The District recognizes that equitable and equal are not completely synonymous. Equity is based on unbiased attitude, fairness, and reasonableness. Equity takes into account the vestiges of past illegal and discriminatory acts\ntherefore, this Revised Plan does not guarantee equal treatment. It provides for some incentives and possible enhancements to ensure equity in the operation of the District. On March 15, 2001, the District is required to issue a report indicating the state of the LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. This status report is being issued on March 15, 2000, one full year in advance of the required report. It is intended to help the District assess its progress toward full compliance and to reassure the court, the parties, and the community of the District's good faith efforts to be in total compliance with the Revised Plan. The District hopes to receive comments and suggestions from interested persons as to the District's compliance with the Revised Plan and the format and content of this status report. This status report covers Sections 2, 5, and 6 of the Revised Plan. These are the sections that could be interpreted as obligation or compliance related. Sections 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 are more associated with issues other than compliance obligations such as the plan's modification process or continuing jurisdiction. Sections 3 and 4 cover school assignments and interdistrict schools. While not explained in detail in this report, the LRSD believes it has complied with all of their delineated aspects. In this report a brief summary of activities associated with Sections 3 and 4 are covered in the sequentially appropriate sections. This status report should reassure its readers that the LRSD is moving swiftly and in good faith to be in total compliance. The District has every reason to be proud of its efforts and accomplishments since transition to the Revised Plan began. The philosophy of the Revised Plan permeates the activities of the District. Since there are not hundreds of minute and specific obligations like the previous desegregation plan, there is no longer a \"scorekeeping\" mentality. Decisions are made considering the spirit and the intent of the Revised Plan as well as the express obligations of the respective sections. Compliance and Quality Assurance The Associate Superintendents of Administrative Services, Instruction, Operations, and School Services and the Special Assistant to the Superintendent comprise the \"Compliance and Quality Assurance Committee.\" The committee has responsibility for the development, implementation, oversight, review, and revision of the compliance program. The compliance program includes any programs, policies, and/or procedures necessary to ensure that the District fulfills all of its obligations under the Revised Plan. The committee meets weekly to discuss compliance issues and to discuss plan implementation in their respective areas. I The compliance philosophy is based on internalizing the Revised Plan through the performance responsibilities of the respective organizational divisions. For example, the instruction division is responsible for integrating the Revised Plan's requirements into the development of the curriculum, staff development, and other similar functions of that division. The associate superintendent who heads the division is the responsible person for the components of the Revised Plan that are appropriate for his/her division. Through the internalization of the philosophy and the integration of the Revised Plan into the District's structure, the respective divisions proactively monitor compliance. The associate superintendents are responsible for taking appropriate action with respect to incidents of noncompliance and taking steps to prevent future similar incidences of non-compliance. Compliance Plan The Compliance and Quality Assurance Committee systematized the components of the Revised Plan to ensure that the District complied with all of the commitments that it made in the Revised Plan. The systematized approach was compiled into a document titled \"Compliance Plan for the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, Programs, Policies, and Procedures\", commonly called \"The Compliance Plan.\" The document provides the identification of the administrator responsible for assuring compliance with each individual section of the Revised Plan. It also delineates specific programs, policies, and/or procedures which support compliance efforts of the District for each component of the Revised Plan. Employees are fully expected to comply with the Revised Plan. To ensure compliance it is the responsibility of all employees to report instances of non-compliance when they are aware of it. Failure to report non-compliance also may result in disciplinary action being taken. Appropriate disciplinary action may range from warning to non-renewal or the termination of employment. It is also the responsibility of employees to monitor the effectiveness of the implementation of the Revised Plan in their assigned areas. Employees are expected to cooperate in the collection of any information needed to monitor and/or assess compliance and effectiveness. Employees are encouraged to provide suggestions for improvement in the implementation of the Revised Plan to their principals, supervisors or the Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services. Quality Schools The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan is the foundation on which the District is assuring equity. However, equity alone will not restore confidence in the LRSD. Quality is also a key component. Equity and quality fit hand in hand in the approach that the District is taking. Quality principles are reflected in the programs used as supporting documentation throughout this status report. With a rich past and a promising future, the Little Rock School District is embarking on a new era in educational leadership. The District is creating ownership for those responsible for carrying out decisions by involving them directly in the decision making process and by trusting their abilities and judgements. These ideas are embedded in the many terms being used to portray the shift of authority, autonomy, and accountability to the school site and personnel within. Included are such terms as decentralization, restructuring, site-based 2 decision making, school-based management, participatory management, and school-based autonomy, to name a few. The Little Rock School District has chosen the Campus Leadership Program as the model for the District. The School Board and Administration believe this process fosters the best opportunity for the school children of Little Rock. The Board adopted the Campus Leadership Policy in July 1998. The Campus Leadership Program is a District commitment to allow each school campus the autonomy to develop programs and strategies that best meet the needs of children served at that unique school. The Little Rock School District also pledges to maintain and further develop a quality education program. The Campus Leadership Program is the participatory vehicle that will ensure that a quality education program is available at all District campuses. The primary focus of the Little Rock School District is ~tudent achievement. Each campus accepts the responsibility and challenge to provide equitable educational opportunities that ensure every student is successful. Based on the Campus Leadership Program, each Little Rock School District campus is committed to establishing a Campus Leadership Team that will work collaboratively with the principal in the decision-making process to enhance student achievement. The purpose of the Campus Leadership Team is to establish instructional goals and strategies to further promote the education of all children. Involvement and total commitment are paramount to reaching the ultimate in performance, and involvement is the key component of the Campus Leadership Program. Principals, teachers, auxiliary staff, parents, students, business leaders and community members are included in the Campus Leadership Program. Each school is assigned a central office staff member to serve as a \"broker\" for the school. The primary role of the broker is to serve as a liaison between central office and the school and to provide other means of support as needed. Each school year the principal of each school campus, with the assistance of the Campus Leadership Team, develops, reviews, and revises the campus improvement plan for the purpose of improving student performance for all students. This plan takes into account Quality Indicators and any other appropriate performance measures for special needs populations. All school plans have been submitted and approved for the 1999-2000 school year. As part of the Campus Leadership Program, a Cluster Coordinating Committee consisting of campus representatives, principals and school brokers meet quarterly with the superintendent and central office staff. The purpose of this committee is to provide feedback to the superintendent on policy and implementation of the Campus Leadership decision-making model. Since its inception, the Cluster Coordinating Committee has addressed empowerment strategies such as implementing a reward and recognition plan for schools, conducting parent surveys, recommending capital improvements, developing master schedules, and advising on staffing issues. 3 The Little Rock School District has also embraced the Total Quality philosophy. This focus will enable the District to capture wisdom and new information and to expand human thinking to improve people, services, and products. The Quality Schools Program in the Little Rock School District is based on four principles:  Continuous Improvement  Continuous Education  Customer Satisfaction  Data-Driven Decisions The District believes that in order to have Total Quality schools everyone must be committed to meeting or exceeding customer expectations. Therefore, continuous training is being provided to brokers, principals, and central office administration. Through the Campus Leadership Teams, this quality training will in turn be communicated to the school staffs. Terrence Roberts, a Little Rock School District Desegregation Educational Consultant, has provided consultation to District administrators on the Quality Schools Training Program. In addition, building principals participate monthly in study groups reviewing aspects of quality schools. Note the following: Quality Timeline July 1997 -- Superintendent received Arkansas Leadership Academy Training September 1997 through March 1998 -- Site-Based Decision Making Model designed March 1998 -- Campus Leadership Teams started Team Training through Arkansas Leadership Academy July 1998 -- Customer Service training for all central office staff -- \"Making Your School a School of Choice\" (Institute 1998) September 1998 -- Broker (central office support personnel) assigned to each school as a facilitator/coach March 1999 -- First school district in Arkansas to apply for the Arkansas Quality Award March 1999 -- Nine staff members (principals, supervisors, assistant superintendents) trained to be Arkansas Quality Examiners July 1999 -- Week-long Campus Leadership Institute designed for 600 Campus Leadership Team participants August 1999 -- Customer Service Training presented by 4 Blue Cross/Blue Shield to district secretaries September 1999 through May 2000 -- Principals, brokers and supervisors receiving Total Quality Schools training December 1998 \u0026amp; January 1999 -- All principals and brokers received three-day training on Total Quality Management through Arkansas Blue Cross/Blue Shield September 1999 -- Three staff members trained to be Arkansas Leadership Academy facilitators October 1999 -- Little Rock School District recognized at Governors Quality Awards program as first school district in Arkansas to receive the Arkansas Quality A ward on the Interest Level July 2000/Ongoing -- All principals scheduled to receive Arkansas Leadership Academy Training Ongoing -- Superintendent's Cabinet receiving Arkansas Leadership Academy Training. To enhance the Total Quality philosophy, the Little Rock School District submitted an application to the Arkansas Quality Award and became the first school district in the state to be recognized by the Governor in the Arkansas Quality Award annual recognition ceremony. The initial application in 1998 was submitted on the first of four levels, which is the starting point for any organization expressing interest in adopting and applying quality principles. Currently, an application at a higher level is being written. The very essence of this Compliance Status Report will show evidence of sincere effort, skillful execution, and careful planning on the part of all stakeholders of the Little Rock School District. These are signs of a district orchestrating quality service and investing energies into new ways of doing things while building on past successes to make our work even more effective. 5 Interim Compliance Report Section 2.1.1 LRSD shall retain a desegregation and/or education expert approved by the Joshua Intervenors to work with LRSD in the development of the programs, policies and procedures to be implemented in accordance with this Revised Plan and to assist LRSD in devising remedies to problems concerning desegregation or racial discrimination which adversely affect African-American students. The LRSD retained two desegregation/education experts approved by the Joshua Intervenors. They are Dr. Terrance Roberts and Dr. Steven Ross. Vitae for both Dr. Roberts and Dr. Ross are included in the attachments. Dr. Roberts is a noted psychologist with a strong link to the Little Rock School District. He earned his Ph.D. in Psychology from Southern Illinois University in 1976. He attended school in the LRSD and was one of the \"Little Rock Nine.\" Dr. Roberts has received several awards in the areas of civil and human rights. He has worked extensively with the District on policy review and staff development in cultural differences and sensitivity. Dr. Roberts is currently developing a staff development program, \"Leaming to Cope with Differences\", for all District employees and is providing training as well as training trainers to fully implement the program. During a 19-month period that initiated in July '98, Dr. Roberts has focused on the following areas: 1. Hiring, assignment and promotion of African-American teachers 2. Placement in and referral of students to schools and school programs 3. Student discipline 4. Instruction for students 5. Counseling services for students 6. Parent and community involvement in school programs 7. Learning to honor and embrace difference Dr. Roberts has been involved in the review and suggested changes to policies in personnel practices, student discipline, public safety, student counseling, instructional delivery systems, curriculum development, student assignment, parent and community involvement, use of volunteers in the District, student transportation, and other related areas. He has prepared presentations for designated groups (i.e. LRSD Cabinet (August 30, 1999), Extended Cabinet, Building Principals (December 1, 1999, January 26, 2000), Campus Leadership Teams, Bus Drivers (October 11, 1999), Campus Security Officers (January 25, 2000), Student Registration Personnel (October 11, 1999), etc.) and visited numerous school sites (April 12, 1999, April 13, 1999, August 30, 1999, October 14, 1999, November 30, 1999, January 26, 2000) to witness policies in action. Dr. Roberts has met individually with LRSD Board members and provided ongoing desegregation updates at school board / agenda meetings (October 14, 1999, December 2, 1999, February 24, 2000). 6 In addition, Dr. Roberts has assisted the division oflnstruction in planning and implementing several initiatives:  Revision of \"I\" section of Board policies and administrative regulations (see section 2. 7)  Restructuring of parent education and involvement programs and review of the work of the Collaborative Action Team in partnership with Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (see section 2.8)  Planning relating to the Talent Development Plan (see sections 2.6, 2.6.1 and 2.6.2)  Review of PreK-3 Literacy Plan (see section 5.2.1)  Review of programs funded by the National Science Foundation (see sections 2.7 and 5.3)  Review of plan to develop behavior standards and implement character-centered teaching program (see section 2.7)  Review of implementation of middle school transition plan (see section 3.4)  Planning and implementation of training in prejudice reduction and cultural sensitivity (see section 2.12.1)  Review of High School Curriculum Catalog  Review of K-8 grade-level and course benchmarks and the \"refrigerator curriculum\" publication for parents (see sections 2.7 and 2.8)  Review of the new assessment and accountability plans (see section 2.7.1) Dr. Steven Ross earned his Ph.D. in Educational Psychology from Pennsylvania State University in 1974. He is Senior Researcher, Center for Research in Education Policy, at the University of Memphis. During the past ten years he has worked extensively with school districts to develop and evaluate programs for improving student achievement. His primary focus has been assisting schools predominately serving disadvantaged inner-city minority children. Dr. Ross has assisted the Division of Instruction in its planning and implementation of the following initiatives:  Development of new assessment plan, particularly the addition of the achievement level lists so that growth can be measured (see section 2.7.1)  Development of the new Collective Responsibility Plan and the Quality Indicators by which school performance will be measured (see section 2. 7 .1)  Development of and training for the middle school scholarship process (see section 2.7.1)  Presentation to principals and brokers on the components of successful school restructuring  Presentation to Board of Education on assessment and accountability plans (see section 2.7.1) 7  Completion of development of curriculum content standards and benchmarks (see sections 2.7.1, 5.2, and 5.3)  Design of program evaluations (see section 2.7.1)  Evaluation of\"Success for All\" programs (see sections 2.7.1, 5.2.1, and 5.2.2)  Review of \"I\" section of Board Policies and administrative regulations (see section 2.7) Section 2.2 LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that LRSD hires, assigns, utilizes and promotes qualified African-Americans in a fair and equitable manner. Policies / Regulations GA - Personnel Goals GBA - Open Hiring/Equal Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Action GCE - Professional Staff Recruiting GCE-R- Professional Staff Recruiting Policies GA, GBA, GCE, and GCE-R, adopted by the Board on November 18, 1999, provide tracking of hiring, assignment, utilization and promotion to assure that each activity is done in a fashion to promote the desegregation obligation. Section 2.2.1 LRSD shall maintain in place its current policies and practices related to the recruitment of African-American teachers which have allowed LRSD to maintain a teaching staff which is approximately one-third African-American. Policies / Regulations GA - Personnel Goals GBA - Open Hiring/Equal Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Action GCE- Professional Staff Recruiting GCE-R - Professional Staff Recruiting (regulation) GCF - Professional Staff Hiring GCF-R- Professional Staff Hiring (regulation) Policies and regulations GA, GBA, GCE, GCE-R, GCF, and GCF-R, also adopted by the Board on November 18, 1999, implement this obligation. The District continues to recruit within the state and at historically black colleges and universities in the region. These efforts have resulted in pre-employment contracts for African-American teachers as follows: 1998-99-25 1999-00- 22 2000-01 - 10 (verbal) 8 Revisions of the Teachers of Tomorrow (TOT) program, a long-range recruiting effort in collaboration with the PCSSD and NLR school districts to increase the availability of minorities in the staffing \"pipeline\", are being enacted. In the same vein, we have initiated discussions with the Arkansas Department of Education to implement a career development program in which non-certified employees with college degrees may become certified. We also continue to support classified staff with release time so they may continue their schooling and, ultimately, become certified staff. Section 2.2.2 LRSD shall implement programs, policies or procedures designed to increase the number of African-American media specialists, guidance counselors, early childhood teachers, primary grade teachers and secondary core subject teachers, including offering incentives for African-American teachers to obtain certification in these areas, and to assign those teachers to the LRSD schools where the greatest disparity exists. Policies/Regulations GCE - Professional Staff Recruiting GCE-R- Professional Staff Recruiting (regulation) Policy and regulation GCE and GCE-R, adopted by the Board November 18, 1999, were implemented to monitor areas of certification and direct minorities into the designated areas. Priority consideration for tuition reimbursement for course work that will allow minority candidates to become fully certified in the designated areas has been initiated ('99-00). A program is in place to monitor staffing levels at each school site for the above criteria. Staffing will be re-directed accordingly. Section 2.2.3 LRSD shall implement a uniform salary schedule for all positions within the District, including a salary range for director and assistant and associate superintendent positions, designed to provide compensation in accordance with qualifications and to minimize complaints of favoritism. A comprehensive uniform salary schedule adopted by the Board October 28, 1999 was researched and recommended by a nationally recognized consultant. Initially, it has been implemented for administrators and clerical employees. The conversion to a single master salary schedule is continuing for other employee units\nhowever, teachers, custodians, security officers, paraprofessionals (aides), and LRSD employed bus drivers negotiate salaries through collective bargaining agreements. The specified job classifications, Director, Assistant and Associate Superintendent, were included and placed on the approved uniform salary schedule. As part of the implementation process, a Compensation Committee has been formed for the purpose of hearing concerns about salary placement and errors in salary determination. The committee will also be charged with establishing the appropriate salary placement for new/revised positions. 9 Section 2.2.4 LRSD shall implement a policy for the centralized hiring and assignment of teachers by the LRSD Human Resources department designed to provide an equitable distribution of teaching resources and to prevent nepotism and pre-selection of a school principal. Policy GCF, Professional Staff Hiring, and its accompanying regulation, GCF-R, were adopted November 18, 1999 to assure recommendations for new employees by principals or department managers promote equity and fairness in placements made by the Human Resources Department. Section 2.2.5 LRSD shall implement a policy of promotion from within which shall include procedures for notifying district employees of open positions. All vacant jobs are posted throughout the District when school is in session. Additionally, all vacant jobs are posted in the Human Resources Department. Certified staff has in place a procedure whereby they are allowed to pre-select three positions to which they wish to be transferred. Our Applications Coordinator accepts \"blanket\" applications that are submitted in advance of any specific opening (i.e.: future principalship ). Section 2.2.6 LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that the teaching staffs at all LRSD schools are substantially similar with regard to average years of experience and percentage of teachers with advanced degrees. Policies/Regulations GCE- Professional Staff Recruiting GCE-R- Professional Staff Recruiting (regulation) A program is in place to monitor staff's length of service and level of advanced degrees. This data is provided to all principals to consider when hiring. New hire requests submitted through the assistant superintendent and/or human resource office that are outside of the prescribed staff composition may not be approved. Upon instances whereby an individual is being recommended outside of LRSD staff composition sought, approval must be provided through the Associate Superintendent of Administrative Services. Human resource officials will continue to monitor these elements for equity allocation purposes. Section 2.2.7 LRSD shall negotiate with the Knight Intervenors to establish a procedure for the mandatory reassignment of teachers as necessary to enable LRSD to meet its obligations under Section 2.2 of this Revised Plan. The Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association representing the Knight Intervenors and the LRSD added language to their collective bargaining agreement addressing this plan provision. Article 18, Involuntary Transfers, covers the process for involuntarily moving teachers from one school to another. The parties agreed that this would be the covering provision and process with the addition of the following language as a parenthetical addition after the introductory paragraph of the article: The parties agree that some mandatory reassignments may be necessary to meet the District's obligations under the Desegregation and Education Plan in order to assure that schools are substantially similar with regard to average years of experience, percentage of teachers with advanced degrees, and racial composition. Section 2.3 LRSD shall implement student assignment programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure the desegregation of LRSD schools to the extent practicable, including but not limited to Sections 3 and 4 of this Revised Plan. Policies JCJCA-School Attendance Student Assignment Draft polices JC and JCA are scheduled to be presented to the Board at the April 2000 meeting for approval. The attendance zones have been redrawn and student assignments for 1999-2000 were made in accordance with the new zones. Little Rock School District continues to operate 6 stipulation magnet schools and 7 interdistrict magnet programs which provide school options to LRSD families in addition to their attendance zone schools. School organizational levels have been modified to accommodate the transition to middle schools, with 6th graders exiting elementary buildings and 9th graders moving to high school campuses. One of the two new schools permitted by the Revised Plan, Stephens Elementary, is under construction and scheduled to open in January 2001. Interdistrict schools - King, Washington, Romine, Clinton, Crystal Hill and Baker - continue to attract some students across district lines with varying degrees of success. During the 1999-2000 school year approximately 585 LRSD students attend a PCSSD interdistrict school and 175 PCSSD students attend a LRSD interdistrict school. Section 2.4 LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination in the referral and placement of students in special education or in other programs designed to meet special student needs. Policies The Little Rock School District Division of Exceptional Children follows the federal regulations of the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Section 504 to assure that placement of students is based on the documented existence of an eligible disability. No singular evaluation is used to determine the need for specialized services. Any evaluation used must be conducted by qualified personnel, used for the purpose intended, and not be culturally biased. The Educational Management Team must discuss pre-referral strategies attempted and eliminate the cause of any educational deficiencies as being the result of cultural or socioeconomic causes. Any decision to provide specialized II I services must consider the least restrictive environment to provide for a free and appropriate public education. Policy IHBA, Special Education for Students with Disabilities, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, makes a commitment to the provision of educational programs through individualized instruction and related services for children with special needs. Policy IKFC, Graduation Requirements for Special Needs Students, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, sets forth the expectation that students with disabilities earn high school diplomas. Procedures The Little Rock School District Division of Exceptional Children developed a Strategic Plan to guide its work. The plan is monitored in monthly staff meetings and was updated in 1998- 99. Procedures for the administration of special education programs are outlined in the Special Education Administrative Procedures Manual. This document is distributed not only to special education staff, but also to principals and other school-level staff. The Little Rock School District Division of Exceptional Children has employed two additional school psychology specialists for the 1999-2000 school year to assure availability to all elementary schools for the participation on pupil service teams. The participation of the school psychology specialist is to provide school staff with pre-referral interventions, including positive behavioral supports, to reduce the over-identification of minority students for special education. Assignments of school psychology specialists result in one specialist for each three elementary schools. School Psychology Specialists are conducting additional tests beyond the minimum requirements for students suspected of having mental retardation to eliminate any cultural or socioeconomic factors. In August 1999 special education teachers were included in curriculum staff development available to all regular education staff members to assure linkage of curriculum with specialized programs. Additional training is scheduled in March for all resource teachers, school psychology specialists, and speech pathologists in Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) and Effective Literacy. An additional \"indirect\" teacher has been employed to provide additional indirect services for students with disabilities in the general education classrooms. Supervisors and coordinators are monitoring all evaluation procedures and placement decisions at schools as they occur. Special education programs are routinely audited by both state and federal teams to ensure compliance and quality. These audit reports are sources of data for program improvement. 12 Materials and supplies are equivalent and, in most cases, duplicate those materials found in the general education curriculum. Secondary resource teachers have been surveyed regarding the general education texts needed for instruction. A committee has been formed to review supplemental materials needed for the 2000-2001 school year. Programs Co-teaching (special education teacher and general education teacher co-presenting curriculum/instruction) is occurring in the following schools to assure reduction of \"pull-out\" services that segregate students with disabilities from the general curriculum: Fulbright Elementary King Elementary Cloverdale Middle School Dunbar Middle School Mablevale Middle School Pulaski Heights Middle School Section 2.5 LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline. Policies ACB - Non Discrimination on the Basis of Ethnicity and Race JRAA - Student Discipline Records JRAA - R - Student Discipline Records (regulation) Policies ACB, JRAA and regulation JRAA-R adopted by the Board will help assure that the District aggressively improves the learning climate for ALL students. Student handbooks were revised and an online student discipline reporting system for each school building was established. Appropriate staff development/training was conducted. A comprehensive approach was developed which considered a variety of instructional and behavior issues. This became a priority for all those concerned with the learning climate of the Little Rock Public Schools. Suspensions have decreased from the 1997-98 school year. Eighty percent of the reductions are at the middle school level. The remaining 20% of the reduction came at the elementary level. Interestingly, the addition of the 9th grade class to the high schools showed little affect on the number of suspensions. There was a 15% reduction from the total number of sanctions issued during the 1998-99 school year to the 1997-98 school year. A total of 5312 sanctions were issued during the 1998-99 year compared to 6247 issued in the 1997-98 school year. 13 During the first semester of 1999-2000, suspensions dropped with only 1839 students receiving sanctions - a 22% reduction from the corresponding first semester of 1998-99. 6400 6200 6000 5800 5600 , 5400  5200 5000 4800 SANCTIONS m1997.99  1998-99 1998-99 1999-2000 ! II 1st Semester j 1997-98 vs. 1998-99 Sanctions 1998-98 vs. 1999-00 1st Semester Sanctions We have sampled parental and teacher perceptions of changes implemented. While working to implement varied program strategies for improvement, the District is sensitive to parent and teacher perception of safety and general decorum that affect the school learning atmosphere. Parental, student, community and teacher satisfaction has been excellent based on the first quarter operations at the middle school level. A sample of teachers and parents indicates a much safer and orderly school environment. A management study (MGT) in 1998 noted that only 42% of the teachers thought the schools were relatively safe and free from crime. That differed very little from the Plain Talk analysis. In the most recent survey in the fall of 1999, 93.7% of teachers reported that they felt safe at school. And 88% of the parents indicated that they thought their children were safe in school. Interestingly, 8% of the parents indicated they did not know or were unsure, with only 4% indicating that they had grave concerns. Ideally we would want these numbers to be 100%, but perceptions arising out of recent national events probably will not support that ideal. The District has expanded the number of alternative learning sites, but most importantly, attempted to develop a consistent standard of behavior. The alternative learning sites are: 1. Metropolitan - Career Technical Center - 9th - 12th 2. Philander Smith College - 9th 3. Penick Boy's Club- 7th and 8th 4. Pfeifer Camp Residential Elementary Program 5. Accelerated Learning Program - 9th - 12th 6. Alternative Learning Program- 6th - 12th 7. ALC Elementary Sites (3rd - 5th ) 8. LRSD Elementary Residential Charter School (Badgett) - Scheduled to open August 2000 14 In 1997-98 through 1998-99, expulsions dropped from 119 to 1. Alternative education played a major role in the reduction, but stepped up activities for young people with a variety of intervention processes could all be credited with being part of the solution. Section 2.5.1 LRSD shall strictly adhere to the policies set forth in the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook to ensure that all students are disciplined in a fair and equitable manner. In addition to due process and appeal procedures clearly outlined in the LRSD Student Handbooks, new policies and regulations have been drafted to bolster those already in place. Draft polices, JBA, Racial Disparities in Programs and Activities and its accompanying regulations, and JI, Student Rights and Responsibilities, are scheduled for presentation at the April 2000 Board meeting. They have been written to ensure LRSD's commitment to providing fair and equitable treatment to students involved in disciplinary matters. Principals were directed to closely adhere to the Student Handbooks in their staff development training on the Revised Plan, and it has been restated at principals' meetings. The students' and their parents' awareness of the disciplinary standards, sanctions, and appeals process is part of the communications from the schools annually. The employment of the Ombudsman has reinforced the equity efforts of the District in this arena. Section 2.5.2 LRSD shall purge students' discipline records after the fifth grade and eighth grade of all offenses, except weapon offenses, arson and robbery, unless LRSD finds that to do so would not be in the best interest of the student. Policies JRAA - Student Discipline Records JRAA - R - Student Discipline Records (regulation) The Board adopted policy JRAA and regulation JRAA-R June 24, 1999. Inservice was provided to building administrators (September 1999). At the end of each school year the Assistant Superintendent for School Discipline reviews student discipline records for serious offenses prior to student promotion and determines which records need to be maintained. The purged records are then sent to the new schools. Section 2.5.3 LRSD shall establish the position of \"ombudsman\" the job description for which shall include the following responsibilities: ensuring that students are aware of their rights pursuant to the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook, acting as an advocate on behalf of students involved in the discipline process, investigating parent and student complaints of race-based mistreatment and attempting to achieve equitable solutions. The ombudsman position was filled in February '99 15 The mission of the ombudsman is to provide services for parents and students by answering questions, providing information, direction and assistance regarding LRSD policies or procedures, particularly as they relate to student rights and equitable treatment. The ombudsman also assists in resolving disputes between the home and school while working to achieve equitable solutions. Goals were developed through input from ODM, Joshua Intervenors, community members, and administrators. Goals 1. Ensure that parents and students are aware their rights pursuant to the Student's Rights and Responsibilities handbook. 2. Act as an advocate on behalf of parents and students involved in the discipline process. 3. Investigate parent and student complaints of alleged race-base mistreatment and to work to achieve equitable solutions. 4. Promote collaboration between the school and community. 5. Promote District and community awareness about the role of the ombudsman. 6. Establish mediation procedures for resolving disputes and conflicts. 7. Increase community awareness about the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 8. Increase community awareness about course offerings, student assignments, academic competitions, transportation, and guidance services. 9. Establish intervention activities for stude.nts. Efforts continue to increase community awareness of the ombudsman. Monthly reports are compiled relating to the ombudsman's activities. Section 2.5.4 LRSD shall work with students and their parents to develop behavior modification plans for students who exhibit frequent misbehavior. Students who exhibit frequent misbehavior have their cases referred to the schools' Pupil Services Team. The team is comprised of the building administration, the students' teachers, the counselor, the parents and any specialists deemed necessary. The team develops a behavior modification plan as warranted. An exit conference committee has been established at the Alternative Learning Center. Each student who has violated conduct codes in the student handbook and is assigned to the ALC is required to go before the committee before he/she is returned to his/her home school. The committee includes the ALC director, the administrative assistant, the counselor, the student's grade-level facilitators, the student's parent, and the student. The therapist, social worker, or/and probation officer participate in this process on a case-by-case basis. The ALC exit process requires students to complete the following steps before a final decision is made about the students' return to their home schools: 1. Complete a written self-evaluation that is read to the committee, 2. State verbally in concrete reasons why they should return to their schools, 16 - 3. Explain/discuss how various group sessions assisted in their academic or/and behavioral improvement, 4. Answer committee member questions to provide an in-depth perspective of the students' readiness to return to their schools, 5. State achievable goals that help them be successful in their schools. Section 2.6 LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in extracurricular activities, advanced placement courses, honors and enriched courses, and the gifted and talented program. The school service division was primarily responsible for the extracurricular activities in Section 2.6 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. The following procedures have been implemented. Extracurricular activities are District sponsored and directed activities designed to provide opportunities for students to explore areas of interest that compliment and enrich the curriculum. These activities include clubs and organizations such as Student Council, YTeens, or Beta Club. A policy addressing extracurricular has been approved by the Little Rock School District Board of Directors in 1988. A committee during the 1999-2000 school year reviewed this policy. It was determined that it should be revised to be in compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. A draft copy of the policy was submitted for feedback to the Associate Superintendents, the Special Assistant to the Superintendent and Dr. Terrence Roberts. The committee reconvened, made modifications and submitted the policy to the Board of Directors. The policy and regulation (JJ and JJ-R) were adopted by the Board in November 1999 (JJ) and October 1999 (JJ-R). The Superintendent and his cabinet determined in January 2000 that an Activities Advisory Board would be organized to promote, support and enhance extracurricular activities. A steering committee with representation from the middle and secondary schools has been selected to determine how the Activities Advisory board will be organized. The first meeting took place in February 2000. Policies The Little Rock School District Board of Education has approved five new policies to ensure that there are no barriers to the participation of African-American students in advanced placement courses and the gifted and talented program.  Policy IHCC, Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement Courses, Grades 6-12, was approved by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999. Equity language in this policy follows: 17 i I \"The District shall develop appropriate programs and procedures to ensure that there are no barriers to participation in Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement courses due to ethnicity, race, gender, national origin, creed, socioeconomic level, or handicapping condition. To that end, the District shall include in its professional development program for teachers and counselors training in identifying and encouraging increasing percentages of students to participate in Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement courses.\" With this policy and the Board's adoption of new middle schools and high school curricula in fall 1998 for 1999-2000 implementation, the previous layer of \"honors and enriched courses\" was eliminated. Instead, each school offers Pre-Advanced Placement courses.  Policy IHBB, Gifted and Talented Education, was approved by the Board on July 22, 1999. This policy statement includes the following equity statement: \"The Little Rock School District is committed to each child having an opportunity to participate in its gifted programs, regardless of race, color, creed, socioeconomic level, national origin, or handicapping condition. This commitment is guaranteed through equitable procedures for assessing gifted potential, through program designs that are flexible and varied enough to be adaptable to individual student need, and through curricula designed to nurture gifted potential.\"  Policy IKC, approved by the Board of Education on September 23, 1999, outlines the specific procedures that will be used in calculating students' grade-point averages and rank-in-class, including the grading scales to be used for regular and Advanced Placement courses. This policy promotes equity in that it ensures that the same procedures will be used for all students in a given high school and among the several high schools in the Little Rock School District. The first paragraph of the policy follows: \"It is the policy of the Board of Education that students' rank-in-class and grade-point averages be determined by District regulations that govern the calculation procedures, ensure consistency among the high schools, and ensure that these regulations are widely communicated and understood by students, their parents/guardians, and the staff.\"  Policy IKF, approved by the Board of Education initially in December 1998 and then revised on July 22, 1999, effective for the graduating class of 2002, establishes new, enhanced course requirements with a total of 24 required units. The Board also established a \"Recommended Curriculum\" of27 units that provides encouragement and incentives to students to take the most rigorous curriculum possible. One incentive is that in order to earn the 18  Honors Seal on the Diploma, a student must complete the Recommended Curriculum of 27 units, successfully complete at least six Pre-Advanced (PreAP) and two Advanced Placement (AP) courses, and earn a grade-point average of at least 3.5. Policy IHBEA, English as a Second Language, also includes an equity statement. This policy is included under this section not only to illustrate the District's commitment to equity for all, but also because there are several students with African backgrounds in the English as a Second Language program. The following statement provides for access to special opportunity programs: \"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 other resources to ensure compliance and effectiveness.\" These strong policy statements are intended not just to establish rules, but also to create a culture of high expectations for all students. Procedures (Regulations, Administrative Directives, Handbooks, etc.) Many procedures and processes have been created to enforce and facilitate the implementation of the new policies: Administrative Regulations IHCC-R: Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement Courses The following sections of Administrative Regulations IHCC-R are new (adopted October 21, 1999). These statements were written specifically to promote the increase of percentages of African-American students who enroll in Pre-AP and AP courses: \"Placement in Pre-Advanced Placement or Advanced Placement mathematics courses is determined by interest and the path that began in grade 6. However, a student may not be excluded from a Pre-Advanced Placement course simply because he/she was not enrolled at that level the previous year. \"Students who earn at least a \"C\" in a Pre-Advanced Placement course may, upon request, be automatically enrolled in the next level course. No teacher recommendation is required. \"Counselors must routinely check each year to make sure that students with grades of \"A\" or \"B\" in regular-level courses and/or who are scoring at the highest levels on the state's criterion-referenced test or the norm-referenced tests are placed appropriately in Pre-Advanced Placement or Advanced 19 r II II II I i .... Placement courses. It is the responsibility of both teachers and counselors actively to recruit students into these courses. \"Schools are held accountable for ensuring that increasing percentages of students are enrolled in these rigorous courses.\" High School Curriculum Catalog (Grades 9-12), 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 The placement criteria from the Administrative Regulations were printed in the High School Curriculum Catalog for 1999-2000 and for 2000-2001, along with the following language: \"The Little Rock School District offers Pre-AP and AP courses in several content areas: English language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, foreign language, computer science, art, and music. Students are placed in these courses based on established criteria. Pre-AP and AP courses are designed to give students experiences in college-preparatory and college-level courses. \"Each secondary school must identify as many students as possible for these courses if the school and the District are to meet the challenging goals established in three critical planning documents: the LRSD Strategic Plan, the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, and the National Science Foundation project in mathematics and science.\" National Science Foundation Project The goal of increased participation of African-American students in Pre-AP and AP courses is powerfully reinforced in the proposal that the Little Rock School District wrote to the National Science Foundation to fund its project in the amount of $3.4 million. The District's accountability plan for this project includes annual reports on the enrollment of students, by race, in advanced mathematics and science courses, including Pre-AP and AP courses. The following language is included in the District's proposal for funding to NSF: \"A need exists for students to begin preparation to enter high school Advanced Placement mathematics and science courses and other upper level mathematics and science courses while they are still in elementary and junior high school. Many students, even if they meet the course prerequisites for upper level courses, have not acquired the type of skills and content knowledge that is required to be confident about their ability to succeed in these courses. The prerequisite skills and the confidence they engender are both critical elements in increasing the number of students in AP and other upper level mathematics and science courses. This is particularly true for some minorities who may not be well represented among upper classmen who are currently enrolled in these courses.\" 20 The Program Evaluation Plan for the NSF project includes the following: \"Data has been and will continue to be disaggregated by gate-keeping mathematics and science courses-algebra, geometry, calculus, biology, chemistry, and physics. \"Data will be disaggregated by the number of students enrolled and the number completing gate-keeping courses. The total number of students enrolled in each course in October of the first semester has been identified for the baseline year, year one, and year two and will continue to be identified across each succeeding year of the project. Similarly identified will be the total number of students completing each course identified as those receiving a grade of A, B, C, or Din the fourth quarter. Students who drop out, receive an F or no grade at the end of the course will be tallied and included in a separate cohort. \"Data will be disaggregated by gender and race/ethnicity, specifically American Indian/Alaskan Native\nAsian/Pacific Islander\nBlack (not Hispanic)\nHispanic\nWhite (not Hispanic)\nand other (i.e., multi-racial). \"For each gender and racial/ethnic cohort, district-wide total numbers and percentages have been and will continue to be computed. \"This information will be displayed in table and figure form (graph with accompanying table) for the baseline year and each succeeding year of the project. In addition, figures will identify gate-keeping course enrollment and completion rate trends by displaying the percent of change from the baseline year to year five (2003) of the project for the following: 1. All students vs. minority students in science gate-keeping courses\n2. All students vs. minority students in mathematics gate-keeping courses\n3. All students vs. minority students in mathematics and science gatekeeping courses.\" Course Selection Sheets Another change in procedures that was made was to add to the Course Selection form that each high school student completes for the next year's registration a statement that students who made at least a \"C\" in a previous Pre-AP course do not have to have teacher approval to take the next-level course. Both the 1999-2000 and 2000- 2001 forms included this statement. (See also Administrative Regulations IHCC-R, Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement Courses, Grades 6-12.) Student/Parent Guide to LRSD Middle School Curriculum, 2000-2001 This new publication was mailed to the parents of all grade 5-7 students (who will be in grades 6-8 in fall 2000) in anticipation of the registration process in spring 2000. It included copies of the Middle School Mission, the Middle School Program Standards, references to the \"refrigerator curriculum\" (list of specific standards/benchmarks for 21 each core middle school course), a list of available courses, and other guidance information for middle school students and parents. High School Course Selection, 1999-2000 This publication included the policy on graduation requirements for students graduating in 2000 and 2001 and also the new policy, effective for students graduating in 2002 and beyond. In addition, the publication listed the course number, course title, grade levels at which taught, and prerequisites for all the courses, including Pre-AP, AP, and University Studies courses, available in the District's high schools. This publication has been discontinued and replaced with a more comprehensive one: Student/Parent Guide to Course Selection and Graduation Requirements, 2000-2001 . Student/Parent Guide to Course Selection and Graduation Requirements, 2000-2001 The Little Rock School District produced a new publication in spring 2000 (to replace the former one that only listed graduation requirements and course lists) for high school students and their parents. The purpose of the new guide is to assist them in choosing from the more than 450 courses available in the District's high schools and to provide tools for the selection of appropriate courses and Career Focus pathways that are included in the graduation requirements. This guide includes a list of the 30 AP courses that are available, encouragement to students to take Pre-AP and AP courses, and information about the Advanced Placement examinations, as well as information about the University Studies program at Hall High School. A major reason for investing in the time and funds required to produce this 20-page publication and mail it to parents/guardians is to improve the access of all students, especially African-American students, to the \"valued\" curriculum\nthat is, to Pre-AP and AP courses and to the recommended curriculum. Enough copies have been printed to make it available to all students, grades 7-11, and to new students to the District. Every high school teacher will receive a copy, and enough additional copies were printed for use by grade 7 students in their required Career Orientation course. Each high school will be expected to conduct a parent meeting during the registration process to review the content of the Guide. The District will also sponsor several opportunities to teach the content of the Guide to parents and other patrons. Little Rock School District's Quality Index Another vehicle that the Little Rock School District is using to promote the enrollment of African-American students in the Pre-AP and AP courses is the Quality Index. The District's collective responsibility (or accountability) plan includes a number of indicators by which school performance will be evaluated annually in the Quality Index. Academic indicators are routinely disaggregated by race/ethnicity and gender so that progress for each group can be determined. 22 II II Elementary schools do not have Pre-AP and AP courses, but they will be held accountable for moving more and more students into the upper levels of academic achievement. Their indicators include the following:  Percentage of students who perform at the advanced level on the state grade 4 benchmark examinations in literacy and mathematics.  Percentage of students who perform in the top quartile on the SAT9 in reading, language, and mathematics.  Percentage of students who perform at the advanced level on the District's Achievement Level Tests (criterion-referenced test) in reading, language, mathematics, and science, grades K-5. Among the indicators for middle schools are the following:  Percentage of grades 6-8 students enrolled in at least one Pre-AP course.  Percentage of grade 8 students who successfully complete Algebra I.  Percentage of students who perform at the advanced level on the state benchmark examinations in literacy and mathematics.  Percentage of students who perform in the top quartile on the SAT9 in reading, language, and mathematics.  Percentage of students who perform at the advanced level on the District's Achievement Level Tests (criterion-referenced tests) in reading, language, mathematics, and science, grades 6-8. High school indicators are as follows:  Percentage of students who earn the honors seal on their diplomas.  Percentage of students in grades 9-12 enrolled in at least one Pre-AP or AP course.  Percentage of students who perform at the advanced level on the state's endof- course examinations in Literacy, Algebra I, and Geometry.  Percentage of students who perform in the top quartile on the SA T9 in reading, language, and mathematics.  Percentage of students who perform at the advanced level on the District's Achievement Level Tests (criterion-referenced tests) in reading, language, mathematics, and science, grades 9-12.  Percentage of students taking the ACT.  Percentage of students earning at least a score of 19 on the ACT.  Percentage of students taking AP examinations.  Percentage of students earning a score of at least \"3\" on AP examinations. Administrative Regulation IHBB-R: Gifted and Talented Education The administrative regulations for the gifted and talented program, adopted on October 21, 1999, were derived from a handbook that had in the past been distributed to principals and others directly involved in the administration of gifted and talented programs. The new regulations are not only accessible to a larger audience, but they also are more formal since they are now included in the Board's policy book. 23 I I Principals' Edition: Gifted Program Handbook This handbook is an expanded version of the administrative regulation IHBB-R and includes step-by-step procedures for identifying gifted students at all grade levels. One important aspect of the District's procedures for screening and identifying gifted and talented students is the use of a non-verbal IQ test, the Raven Matrices, so that a student's poverty or language background will not be tested instead of his or her ability to think and solve problems. Administrative Regulation IKC-R: Class Rankings and Grade-Point Average Specific procedures were established in this regulation, adopted on October 21, 1999, for the calculation of grade-point averages and rank in class. Also included are the procedures for weighting grades in AP courses. Copies have been published in the official policy notebook and in Leaming Links (a weekly publication for principals from the Division oflnstruction). They have also been distributed to all counselors and registrars. In addition, the new Student/Parent Guide to Course Selections and Graduation Requirements, 2000-2001 includes a section that reprints the regulations so that all students and parents will be well informed of the new procedures. Administrative Regulation IKF-R2: General Graduation Requirements This regulation, adopted initially in December 1998 and then revised on October 21, 1999, and on February 24, 2000, lists the specific courses that are required in the minimum program, all the options for selecting a career focus, and the specific courses that must be taken in the recommended curriculum. Also included are the requirements for earning the honors seal on the diploma. In an effort to build understanding of the new graduation requirements, the District published the new requirements in the 1999-2000 Course Selection Guide for students and parents\nheld at least three meetings with counselors to ensure their understanding\naired a television show on the District's cable channel as a part of the Superintendent's Roundtable series to inform parents and patrons\nand published the new requirements with explanations in the new Student/Parent Guide to Course Selection and Graduation Requirements, 2000-2001. The individual schools have taken additional steps to build understanding. Administrative Regulation IHBEA-R: English as a Second Language This comprehensive regulation for the ESL program, adopted on October 21, 1999, includes a section of student access to \"special opportunity programs, as follows: \"The District will ensure that LEP students have equal access to the Gifted and Talented program and Pre-AP and AP courses at the secondary level throughout the District and to the University Studies program at Hall High School. \"The District will provide parents of LEP students information about any opportunities, requirements, selection criteria, or general information 24 regarding the GIT program, Pre-AP and AP courses, and the University Studies program that is provided to the parents of non-LEP students. \"Screening tests should be in the language of the students, if at all practicable. If nonverbal tests are administered, the instructions should be in the language of the students. Staff who administer GT screening tests to LEP students must have received training on addressing the needs of LEP students.\" The procedures to increase minority enrollment in advanced courses were carefully communicated to principals, counselors, and registrars in the curriculum orientations that precede student registration in both 1999 and 2000. Also, frequent written and oral reminders are provided at every opportunity. Master schedules for each school are monitored to ensure that everyone is in compliance. The February 2000 curriculum orientation meetings emphasized, especially, that students with \"A\" and \"B\" grades and students scoring at high levels on state and District tests must be identified and placed in Pre-AP courses. Programs Curriculum Access and Consistency One of the. most significant steps taken to \"ensure that there are no barriers to participation\" was in December 1998 when the Board of Education approved new curriculum for middle and high schools. The new middle school curriculum provides Pre-AP courses in English, mathematics, science, and social studies for grades 6-8 in all eight middle schools. These courses all have established standards/benchmarks so that there is more consistency and higher quality among the middle schools. At the high school level, the Board made available to all high schools all the available AP courses. That is, all high schools are to offer the entire AP curriculum ( except that Music Theory AP is available only at Parkview). If the courses are not taught, it will be due to insufficient enrollment, but not due to some courses not being available to a given school. Another step that was taken in December 1998 was to eliminate a layer of courses usually entitled \"honors\" or \"enriched\" between the regular and Pre-AP/AP levels. This step enabled many more students to step up to the Pre-AP/AP courses and to engage in a more rigorous and challenging curriculum. Curriculum Standards and Benchmarks The District established in 1998-99 curriculum content standards for all K-6 English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies programs. In 1998-99 the standards for grades 7-12 were established and in 1999-2000 new K-12 grade-level and course benchmarks were implemented, which delineate specifically for each level the content knowledge and skills that students should know at the conclusion of that course. These standards and benchmarks, when fully implemented in every classroom, have the effect of creating higher expectations for all students. The District staff determined that one of the most powerful things that could be done would be to raise the bar for everyone and to align instruction with the standards over which students are tested. 25 National Science Foundation Project This K-12 initiative in mathematics and science has taken on the challenge ofrestructuring curriculum, instruction, and assessment with the goal of producing many more students prepared to take advanced, Pre-AP, and AP courses in the high schools and then to major in these areas in college. As noted above, both mathematics and science standards and benchmarks were implemented in fall 1999. The following teaching materials were adopted to support mathematics instruction: Investigations in Number, Data, and Space, grades K-5 Connected Mathematics Project. grades 6-8 Heath McDougal-Littell, grades 11-12 Pacesetter Pre-Calculus Through Modeling (College Board), high school The new adopted materials for science are as follows: Science and Technology for Children, grades K-6 Science and Life Issues, grade 7 Science Education for Public Understanding Project, grade 8 Active Physics, grade 9 These new curricula are aligned with the state's mathematics and science curriculum frameworks, the Little Rock School District's standards and benchmarks, and the state's benchmark examinations in mathematics. Programs were selected based on what is needed to radically improve student achievement in these curriculum areas so that students will be well-prepared to take advanced, Pre-AP, and AP courses. The NSF project organizes a variety of strategies around what NSF calls major issues ( or drivers) of systemic reform. NSF has defined the drivers as follows:  Implementation of comprehensive, standards-based curricula as represented in instructional practice, including student assessment, in every classroom, laboratory, and other learning experience prqvided through the system and its partners.  Development of a coherent, consistent set of policies that supports: provision of high quality mathematics and science education for each student\nexcellent preparation, continuing education, and support for each mathematics and science teacher (including all elementary teachers)\nand administrative support for all persons who work to dramatically improve achievement among all students served by the system.  Convergence of the usage of all resources that are designed for or that reasonably could be used to support science and mathematics educationfiscal, intellectual, material, curricular, and extra-curricular-into a focused and unitary program to constantly upgrade, renew, and improve the educational program in mathematics and science for all students.  Broad-based support from parents, policymakers, institutions of higher education, business and industry, foundations, and other segments of the 26 community for the goals and collective value of the program, based on rich presentations of the ideas behind the program, the evidence gathered about its successes and its failures, and critical discussions of its efforts.  Accumulation of a broad and deep array of evidence that the program is enhancing student achievement, through a set of indices (e.g., achievement test scores, higher level courses passed, advanced placement tests taken, college admission rates, college majors, portfolio assessment, research experiences, ratings from summer employers). In the specific instance of student test scores, awardees shall report, on an annual basis, the results of student mathematics and science achievements in a multi-grade level context for the SI (Systemic Initiative) impacted schools/districts/states relative to appropriate cohort entities (non-SI districts, the state, all of which are defined by the performance baseline.  Improvement in the achievement of all students, including those historically underserved, as evidenced by progressive increments in student performance characterized by the requisite specificity of the SI as a catalytic resource and the appropriateness of attendant attributions. The District has implemented a number of new initiatives in each of these areas, is continually collecting data on their impact on academic achievement, and will modify the programming as necessary. University Studies, Hall High School At Hall High School, in partnership with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, grade 11- 12 students may take a variety of courses for which they receive both high school and college credit. This program does not necessarily target the students who are already taking Pre-AP or AP courses, but, rather, strong students who have the capacity of doing college work. To be eligible to enroll, students must have a minimum grade-point average of 2.5 on at least 50 percent of the college preparatory courses\nor a minimum overall grade-point average of 3.0\nor a minimum score of at least 21 on the ACT. Because the courses are conducted at Hall High School and are co-taught by Hall High teachers, the students receive a reduced tuition rate. 1999-2000 courses are as follows: English III (1 high school credit) and UALR 1311 and 1312: Composition 1-11 (6 hours) Sociology (1/2 credit) and UALR 2300: Introduction to Sociology (3 hours) Biology IIA (1/2 credit) and UALR 1401: Science of Biology (3 hours) Psychology (1/2 credit) and UALR 2300: Psychology and the Human Experience (3 hours) Communications IA (1/2 credit) and UALR Speech 1300: Speech Communications (3 hours) In 2000-2001 the following courses will be available: English IV (1 high school credit) and UALR 1311 and 1312: Composition 1-11 (6 hours) 27 Pre-Calculus B (1/2 credit) and UALR MA1302: College Algebra (3 hours) Physics I Pre-AP (1 credit) and UALR 1321 and 1322: Elementary Physics I-II (6 hours) United States History (1 credit) and UALR 2311 and 2312: United States History (6 hours) Psychology (1/2 credit) and UALR 2300: Psychology and the Human Experience (3 hours) Sociology (1/2 credit) and UALR 2300: Introduction to Sociology (3 hours) Communications IA (1/2 credit) and UALR Speech 1300: Speech Communications (3 hours) Biology IIA (1/2 credit) and UALR 1401: Science of Biology (3 hours). During fall 1999, 49 of 51 students successfully earned both high school and college credit. A total of 41 students enrolled in spring 2000 semester courses. District-level and Hall High School educators work closely with UALR staff to ensure the continued success of this wonderful opportunity for LRSD students. Talent Development Plan Early conversations in the District about the obligations in Section 2.6 centered at first on the analysis of student achievement data by race and number of African-American students performing in the highest quartile of the SAT9. These analyses convinved the staff that the District not only needed to ensure the enrollment of more high-performing students in advanced classes, but strategies had to put into place to \"grow talent,\" especially among African American males. Extensive research was done and the opinons of African American men in the community were sought to advise the committee. Among those consulted were Dr. Frank James of Philander Smith College, Leon Modeste, and Dr. Terrence Roberts. The committee read research as well. Among the literature consulted were the following books and articles:  Freeman A. Hrabowski III, Kenneth I. Maton, and Geoggrey L. Grief. Beating the Odds: Raising Academically Successful African American Males. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.  Ronnie Hopkins. Educating Black Males: Critical Lessons in School, Community, and Power. Albany: State University ofNew York Press. 1997.  Vernon C. Polite and James Earl Davis (eds.). African-American Males in School and Society: Practices and Policies for Effective Education. New York: Teachers College Press. 1999.  Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips (eds.). The Black-White Test Score Gap. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. 1998.  Mano Singham. \"The Canary in the Mine: The Achievement Gap Between Black and White Students.\" Phi Delta Kappan. September 1998. Pp. 9-15.  Steven C. Ender, Byron A. Wiley, and Charles Pagano. \"The Philadelphia Partnership: Improving College Access and Retention among Minority and Low-Income Students.\" The College Board Review. Summer 1998. 28  Stephen B. Plank and Douglass J. Maciver. \"Talent Development: A Philosophy and Blueprint for Middle School Reform.\" Principal Magazine. January 1998.  Stephanie Bell-Rose. \"What It Takes: A Look at Black Achievers.\" College Board Review. Winter 1998-99.  Harold Stevenson and James Stigler. The Learning Gap. New York: Summit Books. 1992.  Williams, Belinda (ed.). Closing the Achievement Gap: A Vision for Changing Beliefs and Practices. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 1996. A committee was formed in September 1998 to develop a Talent Development Plan. Research assignments were made, and the committee moved very quickly to put some infrastructure in place:  Eliminated the honors/enriched layer of courses between the regular level and Pre-AP/AP level at grades 6-12 for the 1999-2000 school year (approved by the Board of Education on November 19, 1998)\n Made all AP courses ( except Music Theory AP) available to all high schools for 1999-2000\n Changed admission so that students with a grade of at least \"C\" in a prior PreAP or AP course can enroll in the next level without teacher approval\n Surveyed all honors, enriched, Pre-AP, and AP teachers to determine what training they had had so that a professional development plan could be designed\n Conducted study of current percentages by school of those students who are performing in the top quartile\npercentages of students who are taking the ACT\npercentages of students enrolled in AP courses\npercentages of students passing AP courses by school\netc.  Paid fee for Mable Donaldson to participate in the first year of training for Project AVID directors\n Investigated two potential grants to fund the Project AVID initiative: GearUp and Javits federal grants\n Conducted one-half day of training on Project AVID for representatives of the curriculum staff, high school principals, high school counselors, parent representatives, and community advocates\n Conducted one evening of training for members of the Board of Education on Project AVID\n Distributed information on the Talent Development Middle School (Baltimore model) to all middle school principals for restructuring ideas\n Continued research on effective strategies to close achievement gaps\n Met with representative teachers and counselors at three of the five high schools to hear what they believe they need to support the goal of increasing AP enrollment\n Discussed with Dr. Angela Sewall, Dean of Education at UALR, the possibility of a university partnership relating to Project AVID\n29  Met with ODM staff to discuss Project AVID and its potential benefits to LRSD students. The committee members understood that building the academic capacity for success in higher-level courses requires students to start early in developing their knowledge and skills. The District needs procedures in both identifying students who perform at high levels and making sure that they are placed in challenging classes. We must provide the necessary supports for more students to move into higher levels of performance-to develop the talent that is there. The assistance of Dr. Terrence Roberts, one of the District's desegregation consultants, was sought early in the development of this plan, and he has provided assistance on several occasions. Project AVID An early recommendation of the Talent Development Committee was that the District implement in its middle and high schools a national program called Project AVID. This recommendation was first presented to the Board of Education in December 1998. Due to the extraordinarily high costs of funding the training in San Diego, California, for teams of eight from each school, the only piece that was funded at that time was training for the Gifted/Talented Supervisor in the program's implementation. The Talent Development Committee is still interested in this program for the District's high schools-if the national organization can provide training at a site closer to Little Rock or if grant funding for the initial implementation can be secured. Gear-Up Grant Proposal In spring 1999 the Little Rock School District collaborated with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) and other community organizations to submit a grant proposal to the federal government to fund Project AVID and other initiatives at the middle school level. These programs would have assisted the District in its goal of increasing minority participation in higher-level courses, including the Pre-AP courses available at the middle school level. The proposal was not, however, funded. Accelerated Student Academic Program (ASAP) Since the costs of implementing Project AVID are prohibitive at this time, the Talent Development Committee has devoted itself in 1999-2000 to the development of an alternative, locally designed plan based on the critical components ofthe AVID model:  Data-driven decisions  Identification, monitoring, and placement of students  Development of high-level reading skills and vocabulary  Development of high-level writing, note-taking, and test-taking skills  Mentoring, tutoring, and service learning  Parent involvement  Test (PSAT, SAT, ACT, AP) preparation  College preparation  Leadership development 30  Professional development for teachers, counselors, tutors, and mentors  Vertical teams  Summer programs  Program evaluation Staffs have briefly defined strategies for elementary, middle, and high schools for each of these strands. (See the following pages.) Accelerated Student Academic Program (ASAP) Program Objectives: 1. To improve student access to Pre-AP and AP courses (% enrolled by grade level). 2. To improve student success in Pre-AP and AP courses(% earning a \"C\" or above). 3. To improve ACT scores. 4. To improve percentage of students earning the Honors Seal on their diplomas. 5. To improve the percentage of students performing at the Advanced Level on the State Benchmark and End-of-Level Tests. 6. To improve the percentage of students performing at the Top Quartile on the SAT9 in reading and mathematics. 7. To radically narrow the achievement gap between African-American and white students. Strand Elementary School Middle School High Sch,ool Data-Driven Analyze perfonnance Analyze perfonnance data, Analyze perfonnance data, set Decisions data, set goals, and set goals, and establish goals, and establish interventions. establish interventions. interventions. Identification, Identify and monitor all Place all elementary- Place all gifted/talented, Monitoring, and \"Advanced\" and \"Top identified gifted/talented, \"Advanced,\" and \"Top Quartile\" Placement of Quartile\" students in \"Advanced,\" and \"Top students m Pre-AP or AP courses. Students reading and Quartile\" students in Pre-AP mathematics. courses. Development of Implement independent Implement independent Implement independent reading High-Level reading program with reading program with program with specific lists to Reading Skills specific lists to develop specific lists to develop develop skills, vocabulary, and and Vocabulary skills, vocabulary, and skills, vocabulary, and content knowledge. Require at least content knowledge. content knowledge. Require 30 books each year, Require at least 30 books at least 30 books each year. each year. 31 Strand Elementary School Middle School High School Development of Implement writing Implement ASAP class for Implement ASAP class for students High-Level ' across the curriculum. students in third quartile, to in third quartile, to emphasize Writing, Note- Emphasize writing for emphasize systematic note- systematic note-taking skills, taking, and Test- learning, learning logs, taking skills, writing of writing of informative and Taking Skills. reader response journals, informative and persuasive persuasive essays, test-taking skills, etc. essays, test-taking skills, vocabulary, AP test preparation, etc. vocabulary, etc. Mentoring/ Establish a Establish a peer Establish a peer tutoring/service Tutoring/ mentoring/role model tutoring/service learning and learning/mentoring program. Use Service Learning program for advanced mentoring program. Use college students, community students. Use high school students, volunteers. middle/high students, college students, community college students, volunteers. community volunteers. Parent Individualize School- Individualize School-Parent Individualize School-Parent Involvement Parent Compacts to Compacts to accelerate Compacts to accelerate advanced accelerate advanced advanced students Focus on students. Focus on dads/male role students. Focus on dads/male role models. models. dads/male role models. College Provide information on Provide information on Provide information on college Preparation college preparation, college preparation, preparation, advanced courses, advanced courses, advanced courses, gifted/talented education, the Hall gifted/talented education, gifted/talented education, University Studies Program, etc., in the Hall University the Hall University Studies the Student Handbook. Studies Program, etc., in Program, etc., in the Student the Student Handbook. Handbook. Leadership Include curriculum Expand opportunities for Incorporate a Leadership Development modules on leaders, student participation in Development course into the including many who are co/extra-curricula curriculum with a service learning ethnic minorities, across opportunities at the middle component. Form partnership with the curriculum. schools. Encourage reading Leadership Little Rock. Encourage of biographies and reading of biographies and autobiographies. autobiographies, Professional Provide quality Provide quality professional Provide quality professional Development- professional development for teachers on development for teachers on the Teachers development for teachers the development of higher- development of higher-level on the development of level thinking. thinking. higher-level thinking. Professional Provide quality Provide quality Provide quality professional Development- professional professional development development for counselors. Counselors development for for counselors. counselors. Professional Provide quality training Provide quality training for Provide quality training for tutors. Development- for tutors. tutors. Tutors Professional Provide quality training Provide quality training for Provide quality training for mentors. Development- for mentors. mentors. Mentors Vertical Teams Implement vertical teams Implement 6-12 vertical Implement 6-12 vertical teams of at all elementary schools. teams of teachers in teachers in English, mathematics, English, m_athematics, science, social studies, and foreign science, social studies, and languages. foreign languages. 32 II Strand summer Programs Evaluation ~esign Elemen~ary _School Implement top quality summer reading program for elementary students. Gather and analyze relevant quantitative and qualitative data. Evaluate program. Make necessary modifications for improved effectiveness. Middle School Implement summer programs to prepare students for advanced study: Grade 6-Etymology Grade 7-Mathematics Grade 8-Writing and Reading Gather and analyze relevant quantitative and qualitative data. Evaluate program. Make necessary modifications for improved effectiveness. High School Implement summer programs to prepare students for advanced study. Grade 9-Mathematics Grade 10-PSA T Preparation Grade I I-ACT Preparation Gather and analyze relevant quantitative and qualitative data. Evaluate program. Make necessary modifications for improved effectiveness. Dr. Terrence Roberts' suggestions (Note: all program components are incorporated in this draft.) 1. Establish high expectations for all students to get top quality work. 2. Introduce a leadership component-skills training. 3. Use existing structures in the district and community whenever possible-to lessen the work, to minimize cost. For instance, he recommended that we consult with community organizations such as Boy Scouts, PARK, and church groups to impact black male student achievement. 4. Be sure to use community volunteers as mentors-not just other public school students or college students. 5. Each school must use a process to involve teachers in planning the school's implementation. Teacher buy-in is critical. 6. Focus on African-American males. Adult males need to form alliances with the black boys. Relationships are important. Consideration of problems. Connections to the school and to the community. Must change the mind-set. Restore/build the boys' ability to survive in a society that does not give the message: you are valued and needed. 7. Consider a scholarship program. Dr. Terrence Roberts, desegregation consultant, has been instrumental in the development of this tentative plan, which will require further revision and refinement. Implementation will be phased in at the high school level, beginning with the addition of double-period English I Pre-AP courses in fall 2000 at three high schools (see below). These courses will include the curriculum components of the plan. Other components will be implemented as possible when the plan is fully developed and approved. Gear-Up Grant Proposal Two meetings were held during the week of February 14, 2000, to begin the planning necessary to submit a second proposal for funding from the federal Gear-Up program. LRSD will form a partnership with UALR, Philander Smith College, the Chamber of Commerce Education Committee, the 33 I Arkansas Commitment, the League of United Latin American Citizens, and others to implement, according to the tentative plan, five major components (strands) from the preliminary Accelerated Students Academic Program (ASAP) plan discussed in this section:  Professional development for teachers and counselors  Student supports (mentoring, tutoring, extended day, summer programs, etc.)  Communication (use of cable channel, publications, etc.)  Parent education and involvement  College and career awareness. The grant funds programs at middle and high schools where 50 percent or more of the students are eligible for free and reduced lunches. The qualifying middle schools in LRSD are Henderson, Southwest, Mabelvale, and Cloverdale. The LRSD/UALR proposal will carefully coordinate and align the activities designed for this initiative with the work that is already in progress with the Collaborative Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement (CPMSA) funded by the National Science Foundation. The proposal will also set the planned initiatives into the context of reforms that have already been initiated or will be implemented in fall 2000. The District will also investigate other possible sources of funds for the other four middle schools. English I-II Pre-AP Workshop (2 periods) The Board of Education approved in December 1999 a proposal to allow high schools the option of offering a double-period English I (for 2000-2001) and English II (for 2001-2002) at both the regular and Pre-AP levels. Students in the regular-level course will work on the knowledge and skills necessary for them to perform at the \"proficient\" level on the state's benchmark examinations. Students in the Pre-AP level course will concentrate on notetaking, writing, vocabulary, critical reading skills, self-discipline, and other knowledge and skills that are necessary to prepare for success in the Advanced Placement English and social studies courses. These curricula components are similar to those included in Project AVID courses. English I teachers will receive during summer 2000 intensive training in the implementation of this new program. English II teachers will be trained in summer 2001. As of February 2000, the English I Workshop and English I Pre-AP Workshop will be implemented at Fair, Hall, and McClellan High Schools in fall 2000. 34 Section 2.6.1 LRSD shall implement a training program during each of the next three years designed to assist teachers and counselors in identifying and encouraging African-American students to participate in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses. Procedures Staff at the District level are using six basic procedures to provide for identification of increasing numbers of African-American students to participate in advanced, Pre-AP, and AP courses.  The District is providing teachers and counselors with the rationale ( ethical, philosophical, pedagogical, legal, and compliance-whatever works) to open more sections of Pre-AP and AP courses and to encourage increasing numbers of students, especially African-American students, to enroll in these courses.  The District is allowing students to take the Pre-AP or AP courses without having to secure \"teacher approval\" if they made a grade of \"C\" or higher in the previous course.  The District is monitoring enrollment in Pre-AP and AP courses on a nineweek basis to determine not only the numbers of students enrolled, but also to see if enrollment is holding\nthat is, if counselors are encouraging students to stay in the courses.  The District has set as an indicator in the Quality Index that schools should have approximately 65 percent of their students enrolled in Pre-AP/AP courses. As a result, some schools took the initiative at the end of the fall semester 1999 to move stronger students into the Pre-AP level from the regular level. Middle school principals discussed at their February 9, 2000, meeting that they are all building in more Pre-AP sections to their master schedule for 2000-2001 so that they will have space to increase their enrollment in these higher-level courses.  The District has constantly provided information to principals, counselors, and teachers-either in writing ( copies of articles about successful programs/schools which enroll high percentages of students in Pre-AP and AP courses), in discussions at meetings, and in training activities so that staff have the tools they need to teach a wider diversity of students.  The District is looking for every opportunity to inform parents of the benefits of their children being enrolled in this more rigorous curriculumpublications, television shows, newsletters, conversations, and parent meetings. As more and more parents understand this program, we know that they will insist that their children be involved. The Middle School Curriculum Catalog for 2000-2001, published for school staff, provides encouragement and guidelines for increasing minority participation in Pre-AP and AP courses. Counselors will receive more detailed information at the Curriculum Orientation sessions in February 2000. 35 The High School Curriculum Catalog for both 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 provide encouragement and guidelines for increasing minority participation in Pre-AP and AP courses. Several meetings occurred during 1998-99 and again in 1999-2000 to ensure that counselors and teachers understand these new expectations. The 2000-2001 Student/Parent Guide to Middle School Curriculum includes information on the Pre-AP courses that are available at all middle schools. The 2000-2001 Student/Parent Guide to Course Selection and Graduation Requirements includes sections on Pre-AP, AP, and University Studies courses. Advanced Payment of Pre-AP and AP Workshop Fees The Supervisor of the Gifted/Talented Program provided leadership in establishing a special account through which the State funds for AP workshops and institutes are processed. This fund allows all teachers equal access to the opportunities for training because attendance is no longer dependent on whether the teacher can pay the fees and wait for reimbursement or whether the schools have the available funds to pay for the fees and wait for reimbursement. The procedures that have been established enable all students in the District to have equal access to the same types of Pre-AP and AP course work and strategies. Programs Training for Counselors Curriculum Orientation workshops were conducted for elementary, middle, and high school counselors in January 1999 and February 2000 to prepare for student registration. A significant emphasis in these workshops was on increasing enrollment in Pre-AP and AP courses, especially of African-American students. The sections in the High School Curriculum Catalog relating to this issue were highlighted. On October 14, 1999, the Supervisor of the Gifted/Talented Program conducted a training session for counselors on \"Recruiting and Preparing Students for a Rigorous Academic Program.\" She discussed the recruitment of minority and disadvantaged students to the PreAP and AP programs and the importance of involving parents so that they will be supportive of students enrolling in these courses. They viewed a video entitled, \"Advanced Placement Inventive Program: Improving Education and Changing Lives.\" Training for Teachers All teachers of Pre-AP and AP courses are offered special training sponsored by the College Board and funded by the State. The Little Rock School District encourages participation and, in addition, provides supplemental training to include issues relating to minority participation. 36 In summer 1999 27 LRSD teachers attended the Summer Pre-AP and AP Institute: Central High 3 Fair High 3 Hall High 6 McClellan High 2 Parkview High 5 Cloverdale Middle 1 Dunbar Middle 5 Mann Middle 2 The AP courses that these 27 teachers represented were as follows: English (11), Social Studies (2), Mathematics (4), Science (3), Art (3), French (1), Spanish (2), and Psychology (1). On December 5-6, 1999, 94 LRSD teachers attended the AP Workshops: Central High 12 Fair High 4 Hall High 4 McClellan High 3 Parkview High 4 Cloverdale Middle 4 Dunbar Middle 7 Forest Heights Middle 13 Henderson Middle 10 Mabelvale Middle 3 Mann Middle 17 Pulaski Heights Middle 7 Southwest Middle 6 The courses represented by these 94 teachers were as follows: Pre-AP English (47), Pre-AP Social Studies (33), AP U.S. History (1), Pre-AP Spanish (5), AP Spanish (4), AP French (2), Pre-AP French(l). A third AP Conference was conducted on February 25-26, 2000. LRSD has registered 111 teachers who plan to participate: Central High 15 Fair High 4 Hall High 9 McClellan High 8 Parkview High 9 Cloverdale Middle 5 Dunbar Middle 4 Forest Heights Middle 11 Henderson Middle 7 Mabel vale Middle 10 37 - -- - -- Pulaski Heights Middle 9 Southwest Middle 6 IRC 1 The courses represented are as follows: Pre-AP Science (37), AP Chemistry (2), AP Environmental Science (2), AP Biology (1), Pre-AP Biology (4), Pre-AP Chemistry (4), AP Physics (1), Pre-AP Physics (2), Pre-AP Mathematics (51), AP Statistics (3), AP Calculus (4). Vertical Teams in Mathematics and Science Mathematics and science vertical teams were formed to align local mathematics and science standards and benchmarks with the national standards. These standards and benchmarks were used to help select the curriculum for the high school mathematics courses. State funds provided under the Advanced Placement Incentive Program, Act 929 of 1997, were allocated for Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement teachers to attend oneday and/or two-day conferences. During 1998-99, 31 mathematics teachers, grades 6-12, attended College Board's two-day Mathematics Vertical Teams Conference in Little Rock. In addition, 26 science teachers, grades 6-12, attended UALR's Vertical Teams Conference for science teachers. The mathematics teachers have a new newsletter, The Mathematics Vertical Teams Newsletter with a first issue in December 1999. The following \"purpose\" for vertical teams is included on the first page: \"Our primary goal as educators in the Little Rock School District should be to help our students master the material in our discipline. Vertical teams should be viewed as a vehicle to improve student scores and grades. Vertical teams should also improve communication between teachers in the same building, in the same grade level, in the same courses, and in the same district. A Vertical Team never comes to a complete end because decisions must be reviewed, revised, and implemented over and over.\" Training for Principals During July 1998 one day of training on the new mathematics and science curriculum and the NSF accountability plan was presented to all principals. Follow-up meetings have been conducted during the school year in 1998-99 and 1999-2000. Training for Campus Leadership Teams During July 1999 the District provided two and one-half days of training for a core group of each school's Campus Leadership Team. A major emphasis in this training was on the District's new Collective Responsibility Plan and the Quality Index-including those indicators relating to increasing minority student participation in advanced and Pre-AP/AP courses. Each school's performance will be evaluated, in part, based on those indicators. 38 Section 2.6.2 LRSD shall implement programs to assist African-American students in being successful in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses. Procedures Identification of Students for Gifted and Talented Programs Students are identified for placement in the Gifted and Talented Programs as per administrative regulation IHBB-R and the steps outlined in the Gifted Program Handbook. Guidelines for Placement of Students in Pre-AP and AP Courses Students are placed in Pre-AP and AP courses according to the guidelines established in administrative regulation IHCC-R. These are reprinted in the Gifted Program Handbook, the High School Curriculum Catalog. and the Middle School Curriculum Catalog. Review and Monitoring of Enrollment in Pre-AP, AP, and GT Programs Staff in the Planning, Research, and Evaluation office routinely monitor enrollment, by school, by race, and by gender, in Pre-AP, AP, and GT programs as a part of the program evaluation functions. The Associate Superintendent for Instruction also monitors each semester's enrollment in Pre-AP and AP courses when she reviews schools' master schedules. Individual schools monitor as well. At both the middle and high school levels, one of the indicators in the Quality Index is the percentage of students at each grade level who are enrolled in at least one Pre-AP or AP course. School-level staff, therefore, are learning that their school's performance cannot be rated well if they do not attend to this indicator. Enrollment in these courses is also encouraged in the following additional indicators:  Percentage of students scoring in the highest quartile on the SA T9 reading and mathematics sub-tests  Percentage of students scoring at the advanced level on the State's Benchmark and end-of-level tests  Percentage of students scoring at the advanced level on the LRSD Academic Level Tests  Percentage of students earning at least a 19 on the ACT  Percentage of students taking Advanced Placement examinations  Percentage of students earning at least a \"3\" on AP examiniations  Percentage of students earning the Honors Seal on their diplomas  Percentage of students who require remediation in college Building-Level Guidance Plan Each school designs and implements an annual guidance plan that is aligned with State and LRSD expectations. 39 Review and Monitoring of Quarterly Grade Distribution Reports The Superintendent and the Associate Superintendent for Instruction monitor quarterly the grade distribution reports, as do school-level staff. National Science Foundation Accountability Report The NSF program staff compile and submit to NSF an annual report that includes a narrative on the activities implemented and many tables and charts of data that are required for accountability. These data include enrollment in Pre-AP and AP courses, as well as other higher-level courses in mathematics and science. Programs College Preparatory Enrichment Program (CPEP) This summer tutoring program is funded by the State of Arkansas. The program goal is to improve students' mathematics and verbal scores on the ACT. The knowledge and skills that are taught reinforce student success in advanced classes. Academic Enrichment and Gifted in Surnrner (AEGIS), Grades 7-12 This program is state funded for identified gifted students. Southeastern Consortium for Minorities in Engineering (SECME) SECME is a premiere pre-college program that prepares and motivates students for engineering and other technical fields. LRSD received $22,000 from SECME to implement the SECME program in thirteen elementary and secondary schools. SECME's goal, which is tightly aligned with the Little Rock NSF project, is to increase the pool of minorities who are prepared to enter and complete post-secondary studies in engineering, mathematics, and science. The Little Rock SECME program works in partnerships with faculty from the School of Engineering at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR). The faculty provides in-kind contributions to deliver technical assistance to school teams. NSF funds were used to support the SECME program in five additional schools. Early College Planning Process (middle school) Students plan their high school graduation and for college both in their grade 7 Career Orientation class and through the middle school guidance program. SMART This SF-funded program provides a summer enrichment program in mathematics to ensure higher levels of success among grade 9 students in Algebra I. School-based Student Support Teams Each school has a Student Support Team whose goal is to monitor student achievement and provide support and necessary interventions to students at risk of failure. English I-II Workshop Pre-AP Three high schools plan to implement in fall 2000 a double-period English I Pre-AP course (and then to add the double-period English II Pre-AP course in fall 2001). This course will 40 include the curriculum content standards and benchmarks of the English I Pre-AP course, plus specific instruction in areas that students need for success in AP courses: note-taking, essay writing, critical reading skills, vocabulary development, test preparation, college application skills, and so forth. A part of the plan is to work with the community to secure mentors/tutors for students who need assistance in these courses. The curriculum will support student success not only in AP English courses, but in other AP courses as well. Section 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. Alignment of Multiple Plans Early in 1998 the staff concluded that everyone was going to be confused unless District leaders could clearly demonstrate the alignment and connections among at least six critical planning documents and accountability systems for the District:  LRSD Strategic Plan  LRSD Revised Desegregation and Education Plan  Title I  Arkansas Smart Start Initiative  Urban Professional Development Initiative  Collaborative Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievrnent (funded by NSF) What all these documents had in common were standards, professional development, and accountability. Members of the Division oflnstruction worked diligently, therefore, to keep all those tightly aligned as work proceeded toward implementation so that everyone at every level would see the six initiatives as basically one initiative, especially as they relate to curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Graphics were constructed, as were matrices, so that staff could see the connections. Student Success Model The Little Rock School District has adopted a comprehensive plan to improve student achievement. The Student Success Model has six components, as follows:  Establish a continuum of learning ( curriculum standards and benchmarks)  Provide professional development on effective instructional strategies  Design an assessment system to measure academic progress  Create opportunities for personalized education  Build community support  Communicate. Communicate. Communicate. The Work Plan for the Division oflnstruction was organized under these six components in 1998-99 and continued into 1999-2000. They guide the staffs thinking and their work. The Student Success Model was unveiled for the first time at the July 1998 Summer Principals' Institute. The graphic used to explain the model was used every week during 1998-99 on the front page of the Division of Instruction's publication for principals, Leaming Links, to remind everyone of both the model and the focus: improved student achievement. 41 A formal presentation of the Student Success Model was made to the Board of Education, principals and members of the Campus Leadership Teams, and the community in November 1999 at the Excelsior Hotel. Packets of explanatory materials and lists of programs were distributed. The presentation was taped and then broadcast on the District's cable channel. In a school district that is 68 percent African-American, as is the Little Rock School District, everything that responsible educators do must serve to improve opportunities, access, support systems, and academic success of African-American students. The following policies, procedures, and programs have been implemented in 1998-99 and 1999-2000 to that end. All policies and administrative regulations were reviewed not only by representative staff, but they were also sent for review and input to ODM, John Walker of Joshua Intervenors, Frank Martin of the Classroom Teachers Association, and to both Dr. Terrence Roberts and Dr. Steve Ross, desegregation consultants. Policies The section on Instruction in the Board of Education's policy manual has almost totally been revised. The following new policies (those not discussed in other sections of this document) have been adopted:  Policy IA, Academic Content Standards and Benchmarks, adopted on July 22, 1999, by the Board of Education, establishes a standards-based education system for all students. Also stated is the expectation that, \"The District, each school, each individual educator, students, and their parents/guardians are collectively responsible for ensuring student success to every extent possible.\"  Policy IB, Academic Freedom, adopted by the Board on July 22, 1999, establishes rights of both teachers and students in the area of academic freedom.  Policy IC, School Year, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, establishes the length of the school year and allows the Superintendent to apply for a waiver of up to five instructional days to be used for the professional development of staff.  Policy ICA, School Calendar, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, sets forth the requirement that the Board annually adopt the school calendar.  Policy ID, School Day, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, establishes the number of required instructional hours in the school day for elementary and secondary students.  Policy IG, Curriculum Development, Adoption, and Review, adopted by the Board of Education on August 26, 1999, requires Board approval for new courses added to the curriculum.  Policy IGA, Curriculum Program Alignment and Coherence, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, requires that all curriculum be aligned with the District's planning documents and the regular education program. It further requires that special education, Title I, ESL, migrant education, gifted and talented education, 504 programs, alternative education, and other instructional programs reflect the district-adopted standards and benchmarks. 42  Policy IGE, Curriculum Guides, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, requires curriculum guides for all courses offered in the District.  Policy IHAL, Religion in the Schools, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, reinforces the American tradition of separation of church and state. The policy specifically permits teaching about religion.  Policy IHBDA, Remedial Instruction, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, makes a commitment to provide \"expanded learning opportunities for all students.\" The policy further states that \"Intervention and remediation efforts ... will be comprised of a broad range of alternatives to ensure that all students are afforded equitable opportunities to perform at or above the 'proficient' level as defined by the standards of Arkansas and the Little Rock School District.\"  Policy IHBH, Alternative Education Programs, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, states that the District will \"provide alternative educational opportunities to the extent practicable for those students unable to succeed in a traditional learning environment.\"  Policy IHCA, Summer School, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, authorizes summer school programs for extended learning opportunities.  Policy IHCD, Credit for College Courses, adopted by the Board of Education on July 23, 1998, establishes concurrent credit programs between high schools and area universities.  Policy IHCDA, Opportunities to Earn College Credit, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, allows students to enroll in college courses while they are still in high school.  Policy IIB, Teacher-Student Ratio, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, reinforces the Arkansas Accreditation Standards for teacher and student ratios.  Policy IJ, Instructional Resources and Materials, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, establishes the responsibilities of the Board in the selection, adoption, maintenance, and control of instructional materials.  Policy IKA, Grading Systems, adopted by the Board of Education on September 23, 1999, establishes a purpose for grading, the expectations of fairness, the requirement of written procedures, the requirement that grades reflect only academic performance--not discipline, and the provision for adaptions in instruction, performance standards, and assessment strategies for students with special needs.  Policy IKB, Homework, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, sets forth a philosophy on homework.  Policy IKE, Promotion and Retention of Students, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, requires standards to be established to guide promotion and retention decisions.  Policy IKEC, Award of Credit, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, defines a unit of credit and authorizes the Superintendent to award credits earned in various ways. 43  Policy IKFA, Early Graduation, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, discourages, but allows a student to graduate early.  Policy IMB, Teaching about Controversial/Sensitive Issues, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, establishes parameters to guide decisions.  Policy IMCA, Distribution of Materials and Literature Through Schools, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, requires the Superintendent's authorization for the distribution of external materials.  Policy IMH, Class Interruptions, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, establishes the expectation that non-academic interruptions to instruction be radically limited. Policies still under development include those relating to the administration of Title I, those relating to the professional development program, and one on computer literacy. The Board of Education also approved the revised middle school curriculum requirements in November 1998 and the revised high school curriculum in December 1998. Both were slightly revised by Board action in December 1999. Procedures The following Administrative Regulations establish the procedures for curriculum, instruction, and assessment staff, as well as school-level staff:  Administrative Regulation IA-R, Academic Content Standards and Benchmarks, adopted October 21 , 1999, establishes eight exit standards for students to achieve by the time they graduate from high school.  Administrative Regulation ID-R, adopted on October 21, 1999, establishes the minimum number of courses in which a student must enroll in grades 9-12.  Adminstrative Regulation IGE-Rl, Curriculum Guide Development, adopted on October 21, 1999, establishes a five-year cycle for curriculum guide development, describes the processes that will be used, and sets expectations for dissemination and implementation.  Administrative Regulation IGE-R2, Approval of New Courses, adopted on October 21, 1999, lays out the processes to be used for the approval of new courses in the curriculum.  Administrative Regulation IHBDA-R, Intervention/Remediation, adopted on October 21, 1999, requires that assistance be provided \"for any student who is performing below the standard levels of achievement in the areas of mathematics and reading/language arts.\" Intervention/ remediation programs include \"re-teaching, tutoring, extended-day programs, Saturday programs, summer school, and special courses offered within the school day.\"  Administrative Regulation IHCDA-R, Concurrent Enrollment, adopted on October 21, 1999, provides procedures for concurrent enrollment and credit.  Administrative Regulation IJ-Rl, Textbook Adoptions, adopted on October 21 , 1999, establishes the procedures for adoption of textbooks. 44  Administrative Regulation IJ-R2, Library Media Center Materials Selection, adopted on October 21, 1999, establishes the procedures for the selection, retention, and/or removal of library media center materials.  Administrative Regulation IKA-R, Nine-Week/Semester/Yearly Grading Procedures, adopted on October 21, 1999, provides procedures for teachers to use in grade calculations at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. Included is the provision for semester test exemptions at the high school level.  Administrative Regulation IKE-R, Student Promotion and Retention, PreK- 12, adopted on October 21, 1999, provides specific guidelines for decisions relating to promotion and retention at each level.  Administrative Regulation IKEC-Rl, Credit for College Dual-Credit and College Summer Enrichment Programs, adopted on October 21, 1999, establishes parameters and criteria for award of credit earned in these programs.  Administrative Regulation IKEC-R2, Credit for Correspondence Courses, establishes procedures and parameters for the use of credit earned through correspondence courses.  Administrative Regulation IKEC-R3, Credit by Examination, establishes a list of approved courses for which credit by examination can be earned and the procedures for administering the program. Curriculum Content Standards/Benchmarks 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. Teachers received their copies of the new curriculum documents in August 1999, along with some initial training in their implementation. Follow-up training has occurred throughout 1999-2000. (See Section 5.) Standards are important to ensure that high expectations for learning are established for every student. They describe for all involved the specific knowledge and skills that students should acquire during a year of instruction. Extensive, in-depth, and follow-up training is important for teachers so that they have the tools that they need to ensure student success in achieving the established curriculum standards and benchmarks. Instructional Standards A committee has been at work throughout 1999-2000 to identify or adapt or, perhaps, create a set of desired instructional ( or delivery) standards for use throughout the District, K-12. These standards will guide the design of professional development programs at both the District and school levels\nwould serve as part of the criteria by which educators at the District and school levels can evaluate potential curricula as 45 staff plan for improved student achievement\nwill be used by staff who observe instruction to provide feedback\nand eventually will be used to inform a revised teacher evaluation system. This work has been exciting in that it has provided a forum for professional development, for critical thinking about the available options, for discussions about culture and differences among both students and teachers, and consideration of the K- 12 and across-the-curriculum needs. Among the resources that the committee has studied are the following:  Robert Marzano. A Different Kind of Classroom: Teaching with Dimensions of Learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 1992.  Robert Marzano. A Theory-Based Meta-Analysis of Research on Instruction. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Regional Education Laboratory. 1998.  Stephanie Stoll Dalton. Pedagogy Matters: Standards for Effective Teaching Practice. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence. 1998.  Gloria Ladson-Billing. The Dreamkeepers: Successful Teachers of African American Children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 1994.  Robert Cole. Educating Everybody's Children: Diverse Teaching Strategies for Diverse Learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 1995.  Steven Zemelman, Harvey Daniels, and Arthur Hyde. Best Practice: New Standards for Teaching and Leaming in America's Schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. 1998.  Gordon Cawelti. Handbook of Research on Improving Student Achievement. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service. 1999.  Bruce Joyce and Emily Calhoun. Creating Learning Experiences: The Role oflnstructional Theory and Research. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1996.  National Research Council. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 1999.  Fred Newmann, Walter Secada, and Gary Wehlage. A Guide to Authentic Instruction and Assessment: Vision, Standards, and Scoring. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research. 1995.  Barbara Presseisen. Teaching for Intelligence. Arlington Heights, IL: SkyLight. 1999.  Charlotte Danielson's Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 1996.  Bruce Joyce and Marsha Weil's Models of Teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc. 1986.  U.S. Department of Education's Programs for English Language Learners. Washington, DC: Office of Civil Rights. 1999. 46 The core committee doing this work includes diverse participants-those representing general education, special education, gifted education, career and technical education, English-as-a-Second Language, and both elementary and secondary. A representative of ODM serves as well. More diverse levels of staff will be involved as the process continues. The Instructional Standards will be established by the end of the 1999-2000 school year and will be used immediately in planning for 2000-2001 professional development activities. Programs Title I Programs The District's Title I program serves all elementary schools and middle schools, with the exception of magnet schools that already receive supplemental funding. Money is allocated to the District and then to schools on the basis of student participation in the free and reduced lunch program. Targeted students are those who are performing at the \"below basic\" and \"basic\" levels on assessments in reading and mathematics. PLATO Labs The District has acquired PLATO laboratories for Hall, Central, and McClellan High Schools. These schools are using the programs for remediation of socially promoted students to the high schools, for tutoring in English and mathematics concepts and skills, and for retaking courses that students have failed in the core areas. Accelerated Learning Center The Accelerated LearningCenter at Metropolitan serves more than 300 over-age and creditdeficient high school students in 1999-2000 in three sessions daily and in the summer. The competency-based, accelerated program allows students to earn high school credits as quickly as they can complete the courses they lack. This program has already had a dramatic postive effect on the drop-out rate, allowing many students to graduate who might not otherwise have done so. Alternative Learning Center The Alternative Learning Center serves middle and high school students who are on longterm suspension or expulsion. Students at this school can not only continue to make academic progress, but they also receive instruction and coaching on behavior modification so that they can be more successful when they return to their home schools. Summer School The District runs a comprehensive summer school for elementary, middle, and high school students. In summer 1999 the elementary program was conducted with an emphasis on literacy, using the Reading Clinic model. Modifications to the secondary program in summer 1999 included the decision to limit enrollment to students who live in LRSD, thereby ensuring adequate space for LRSD students. 47 Tutoring Programs Several schools offer in-classroom or extended day tutoring services, especially in reading and mathematics. 21 st Century Community Learning Centers Project (Little Rock LEADERS) Little Rock LEADERS (Literacy Education, Academic Development, Educational Resource Services) is a federally funded grant project, awarded in summer 1998 that provides educational programming to students and adults of the Little Rock community. An advisory committee comprised of community partners, parents, and school district personnel provide direction and feedback regarding the LEADERS program. Programs sponsored by this project include after-school tutoring for students in grades K-12, 2 Cool 4 School, and One Three One Five Workforce Readiness and Community Service Program (for 13-15 yearolds). Mental and physical health services are also provided. ACT Tutoring A series of three-hour workshops in each of the core test areas is provided on Saturdays for persons taking the ACT. These workshops are scheduled on consecutive Saturdays leading up to the test dates available during the school year. Career Orientation (Required Grade 7 Course) The Board approved the new middle school curriculum in November 1998. At grade 7 there is a new requirement that all students take one semester of Career Orientation. The curriculum for the course was restructured so that it now meets the objectives of the Middle School Curriculum Committee. A part of the class time is devoted to a study of the high school graduation requirements and all its options, and then students make a first draft of a graduation plan. This class also includes vocational aptitude testing and feedback. The intent is to carve out sufficient time for all students to be well informed about high school and to receive good information and guidance on the choices they have. Block Scheduling All of the LRSD high schools block scheduled in fall 1999\nthat is, teachers and students met a given classes every other day. Students may take eight courses (four each day), and teachers teach six (three each day). Longer class periods have been found to facilitate the kind of instructional\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_1049","title":"\"Interim Compliance Report,\" 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, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2000-03-15"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","School integration","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs"],"dcterms_title":["\"Interim Compliance Report,\" 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/1049"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nInterim Compliance Report Little Rock School District March 15, 2000 Interim Compliance Report Little Rock School District Dr. Leslie Carnine Superintendent of Schools Board of Directors Sue Strickland, President Dr. Katherine Mitchell, Vice President H. Baker Kurrus, Secretary Larry Berkley Mike Daugherty Mike Kumpuris Judy Magness THE REVISED DESEGREGATION AND EDUCATION PLAN Compliance Status Report March 15, 2000 The Little Rock School District (District or LRSD) is committed to compliance with the provisions and philosophy of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan). The Revised Plan is built on the philosophy of providing equitable opportunities for the students and employees of the District. The District.recognizes that equitable and equal are not completely synonymous. Equity is based on unbiased attitude, fairness, and reasonableness. Equity takes into account the vestiges of past illegal and discriminatory acts\ntherefore, this Revised Plan does not guarantee equal treatment. It provides for some incentives and possible enhancements to ensure equity in the operation of the District. On March 15, 2001, the District is required to issue a report indicating the state of the LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. This status report is being issued on March 15, 2000, one full year in advance of the required report. It is intended to help the District assess its progress toward full compliance and to reassure the court, the parties, and the community of the District's good faith efforts to be in total compliance with the Revised Plan. The District hopes to receive comments and suggestions from interested persons as to the District's compliance with the Revised Plan and the format and content of this status report. This status report covers Sections 2, 5, and 6 of the Revised Plan. These are the sections that could be interpreted as obligation or compliance related. Sections 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 are more associated with issues other than compliance obligations such as the plan's modification process or continuing jurisdiction. Sections 3 and 4 cover school assignments and interdistrict schools. While not explained in detail in this report, the LRSD believes it has complied with all of their delineated aspects. In this report a brief summary of activities associated with Sections 3 and 4 are covered in the sequentially appropriate sections. This status report should reassure its readers that the LRSD is moving swiftly and in good faith to be in total compliance. The District has every reason to be proud of its efforts and accomplishments since transition to the Revised Plan began. The philosophy of the Revised Plan permeates the activities of the District. Since there are not hundreds of minute and specific obligations like the previous desegregation plan, there is no longer a \"scorekeeping\" mentality. Decisions are made considering the spirit and the intent of the Revised Plan as well as the express obligations of the respective sections. Compliance and Quality Assurance The Associate Superintendents of Administrative Services, Instruction, Operations, and School Services and the Special Assistant to the Superintendent comprise the \"Compliance and Quality Assurance Committee.\" The committee has responsibility for the development, implementation, oversight, review, and revision of the compliance program. The compliance program includes any programs, policies, and/or procedures necessary to ensure that the District fulfills all of its obligations under the Revised Plan. The committee meets weekly to discuss compliance issues and to discuss plan implementation in their respective areas. The compliance philosophy is based on internalizing the Revised Plan through the performance responsibilities of the respective organizational divisions. For example, the instruction division is responsible for integrating the Revised Plan's requirements into the development of the curriculum, staff development, and other similar functions of that division. The associate superintendent who heads the division is the responsible person for the components of the Revised Plan that are appropriate for his/her division. Through the internalization of the philosophy and the integration of the Revised Plan into the District's structure, the respective divisions proactively monitor compliance. The associate superintendents are responsible for talcing appropriate action with respect to incidents of noncompliance and taking steps to prevent future similar incidences of non-compliance. Compliance Plan The Compliance and Quality Assurance Committee systematized the components of the Revised Plan to ensure that the District complied with all of the commitments that it made in the Revised Plan. The systematized approach was compiled into a document titled \"Compliance Plan for the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, Programs, Policies, and Procedures\", commonly called \"The Compliance Plan.\" The document provides the identification of the administrator responsible for assuring compliance with each individual section of the Revised Plan. It also delineates specific programs, policies, and/or procedures which support compliance efforts of the District for each component of the Revised Plan. Employees are fully expected to comply with the Revised Plan. To ensure compliance it is the responsibility of all employees to report instances of non-compliance when they are aware of it. Failure to report non-compliance also may result in disciplinary action being taken. Appropriate disciplinary action may range from warning to non-renewal or the termination of employment. It is also the responsibility of employees to monitor the effectiveness of the implementation of the Revised Plan in their assigned areas. Employees are expected to cooperate in the collection of any information needed to monitor and/or assess compliance and effectiveness. Employees are encouraged to provide suggestions for improvement in the implementation of the Revised Plan to their principals, supervisors or the Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services. Quality Schools The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan is the foundation on which the District is assuring equity. However, equity alone will not restore confidence in the LRSD. Quality is also a key component. Equity and quality fit hand in hand in the approach that the District is talcing. Quality principles are reflected in the programs used as supporting documentation throughout this status report. With a rich past and a promising future, the Little Rock School District is embarking on a new era in educational leadership. The District is creating ownership for those responsible for carrying out decisions by involving them directly in the decision making process and by trusting their abilities and judgements. These ideas are embedded in the many terms being used to portray the shift of authority, autonomy, \u0026amp;nd accountability to the school site and personnel within. Included are such terms as decentralization, restructuring, site-based 2 - decision making, school-based management, participatory management, and school-based autonomy, to name a few. The Little Rock School District has chosen the Campus Leadership Program as the model for the District. The School Board and Administration believe this process fosters the best opportunity for the school children of Little Rock. The Board adopted the Campus Leadership Policy in July 1998. The Campus Leadership Program is a District commitment to allow each school campus the autonomy to develop programs and strategies that b~st meet the needs of children served at that unique school. The Little Rock School District also pledges to maintain and further develop a quality education program. The Campus Leadership Program is the participatory vehicle that will ensure that a quality education program is available at all District campuses. The primary focus of the Little Rock School District is student achievement. Each campus accepts the responsibility and challenge to provide equitable educational opportunities that ensure every student is successful. Based on the Campus Leadership Program, each Little Rock School District campus is committed to establishing a Campus Leadership Team that will work collaboratively with the principal in the decision-making process to enhance student achievement. The purpose of the Campus Leadership Team is to establish instructional goals and strategies to further promote the education of all children. Involvement and total commitment are paramount to reaching the ultimate in performance, and involvement is the key component of the .Campus Leadership Program. Principals, teachers, auxiliary staff, parents, students, business leaders and community members are included in the Campus Leadership Program. Each school is assigned a central office staff member to serve as a \"broker\" for the school. The primary role of the broker is to serve as a liaison between central office and the school and to provide other means of support as needed. Each school year the principal of each school campus, with the assistance of the Campus Leadership Team, develops, reviews, and revises the campus improvement plan for the purpose of improving student performance for all students. This plan takes into account Quality Indicators and any other appropriate performance measures for special needs populations. All school plans have been submitted and approved for the 1999-2000 school year. As part of the Campus Leadership Program, a Cluster Coordinating Committee consisting of campus representatives, principals and school brokers meet quarterly with the superintendent and central office staff. The purpose of this committee is to provide feedback to the superintendent on policy and implementation of the Campus Leadership decision-making model. Since its inception, the Cluster Coordinating Committee has addressed empowerment strategies such as implementing a reward and recognition plan for schools, conducting parent surveys, recommending capital improvements, developing master schedules, and advising on staffing issues. 3 The Little Rock School District has also embraced the Total Quality philosophy. This focus will enable the District to capture wisdom and new information and to expand human thinking to improve people, services, and products. The Quality Schools Program in the Little Rock School District is based on four principles:  Continuous Improvement  Continuous Education  Customer Satisfaction  Data-Driven Decisions The District believes that in order to have Total Quality schools everyone must be committed to meeting or exceeding customer expectations. Therefore, continuous training is being provided to brokers, principals, and central office administration. Through the Campus Leadership Teams, this quality training will in turn be communicated to the school staffs. Terrence Roberts, a Little Rock School District Desegregation Educational Consultant, has provided consultation to District administrators on the Quality Schools Training Program. In addition, building principals participate monthly in study groups reviewing aspects of quality schools. Note the following: Quality Timeline July 1997 -- Superintendent received Arkansas Leadership Academy Training September 1997 through March 1998 -- Site-Based Decision Making Model designed March 1998 -- Campus Leadership Teams started Team Training through Arkansas Leadership Academy July 1998 -- Customer Service training for all central office staff -- \"Making Your School a School of Choice\" (Institute 1998) September 1998 -- Broker ( central office support personnel) assigned to each school as a facilitator/coach March 1999 -- First school district in Arkansas to apply for the Arkansas Quality Award March 1999 -- Nine staff members (principals, supervisors, assistant superintendents) trained to be Arkansas Quality Examiners July 1999 -- Week-long Campus Leadership Institute designed for 600 Campus Leadership Team participants August 1999 -- Customer Service Training presented by 4 Blue Cross/Blue Shield to district secretaries September 1999 through May 2000 -- Principals, brokers and supervisors receiving Total Quality Schools training December 1998 \u0026amp; January 1999 -- All principals and brokers received three-day training on Total Quality Management through Arkansas Blue Cross/Blue Shield September 1999 -- Three staff members trained to be Arkansas Leadership Academy facilitators October 1999 -- Little Rock School District recognized at Governors Quality Awards program as first school district in Arkansas to receive the Arkansas Quality Award on the Interest Level July 2000/Ongoing -- All principals scheduled to receive Arkansas Leadership Academy Training Ongoing -- Superintendent's Cabinet receiving Arkansas Leadership Academy Training. To enhance the Total Quality philosophy, the Little Rock School District submitted an application to the Arkansas Quality Award and became the first school district in the state to be recognized by the Governor in the Arkansas Quality Award annual recognition ceremony. The initial application in 1998 was submitted on the first of four levels, which is the starting point for any organization expressing interest in adopting and applying quality principles. Currently, an application at a higher level is being written. The very essence of this Compliance Status Report will show evidence of sincere effort, skillful execution, and careful planning on the part of all stakeholders of the Little Rock School District. These are signs of a district orchestrating quality service and investing energies into new ways of doing things while building on past successes to make our work even more effective. 5 Interim Compliance Report Section 2.1.1 LRSD shall retain a desegregation and/or education expert approved by the Joshua Intervenors to work with LRSD in the development of the programs, policies and procedures to be implemented in accordance with this Revised Plan and to assist LRSD in devising remedies to problems concerning desegregation or racial discrimination which adversely affect African-American students. The LRSD retained two desegregation/education experts approved by the Joshua Intervenors. They are Dr. Terrance Roberts and Dr. Steven Ross. Vitae for both Dr. Roberts and Dr. Ross are included in the attachments. Dr. Roberts is a noted psychologist with a strong link to the Little Rock School District. He earned his Ph.D. in Psychology from Southern Illinois University in 1976. He attended school in the LRSD and was one of the \"Little Rock Nine.\" Dr. Roberts has received several awards in the areas of civil and human rights. He has worked extensively with the District on policy review and staff development in cultural differences and sensitivity. Dr. Roberts is currently developing a staff development program, \"Learning to Cope with Differences\", for all District employees and is providing training as well as training trainers to fully implement the program. During a 19-month period that initiated in July '98, Dr. Roberts has focused on the following areas: l. Hiring, assignment and promotion of African-American teachers 2. Placement in and referral of students to schools and school programs 3. Student discipline 4. Instruction for students 5. Counseling services for students 6. Parent and community involvement in school programs 7. Learning to honor and embrace difference Dr. Roberts has been involved in the review and suggested changes to policies in personnel practices, student discipline, public safety, student counseling, instructional delivery systems, curriculum development, student assignment, parent and community involvement, use of volunteers in the District, student transportation, and other related areas. He has prepared presentations for designated groups (i.e. LRSD Cabinet (August 30, 1999), Extended Cabinet, Building Principals (December 1, 1999, January 26, 2000), Campus Leadership Teams, Bus Drivers (October 11, 1999), Campus Security Officers (January 25, 2000), Student Registration Personnel (October 11, 1999), etc.) and visited numerous school sites (April 12, 1999, April 13, 1999, August 30, 1999, October 14, 1999, November 30, 1999, January 26, 2000) to witness policies in action. Dr. Roberts has met individually with LRSD Board members and provided ongoing desegregation updates at school board / agenda meetings (October 14, 1999, December 2, 1999, February 24, 2000). 6 In addition, Dr. Roberts has assisted the division oflnstruction in planning and implementing several initiatives:  Revision of \"I\" section of Board policies and administrative regulations (see section 2.7)  Restructuring of parent education and involvement programs and review of the work of the Collaborative Action Team in partnership with Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (see section 2.8)  Planning relating to the Talent Development Plan (see sections 2.6, 2.6.1 and 2.6.2)  Review of PreK-3 Literacy Plan (see section 5.2.1)  Review of programs funded by the National Science Foundation (see sections 2.7 and 5.3)  Review of plan to develop behavior standards and implement character-centered teaching program (see section 2.7)  Review of implementation of middle school transition plan ( see section 3 .4)  Planning and implementation of training in prejudice reduction and cultural sensitivity (see section 2.12.1)  Review of High School Curriculum Catalog  Review of K-8 grade-level and course benchmarks and the \"refrigerator curriculum\" publication for parents (see sections 2.7 and 2.8)  Review of the new assessment and accountability plans (see section 2.7.1) Dr. Steven Ross earned his Ph.D. in Educational Psychology from Pennsylvania State University in 1974. He is Senior Researcher, Center for Research in Education Policy, at the University of Memphis. During the past ten years he has worked extensively with school districts to develop and evaluate programs for improving student achievement. His primary focus has been assisting schools predominately serving disadvantaged inner-city minority children. Dr. Ross has assisted the Division oflnstruction in its planning and implementation of the following initiatives:  Development of new assessment plan, particularly the addition of the achievement level lists so that growth can be measured (see section 2.7.1)  Development of the new Collective Responsibility Plan and the Quality Indicators by which school performance will be measured (see section 2.7.1)  Development of and training for the middle school scholarship process (see section 2.7.1)  Presentation to principals and brokers on the components of successful school restructuring  Presentation to Board of Education on assessment and accountability plans (see section 2.7.1) 7  Completion of development of curriculum content standards and benchmarks (see sections 2.7.1, 5.2, and 5.3)  Design of program evaluations (see section 2.7.1)  Evaluation of\"Success for All\" programs (see sections 2.7.1, 5.2.1, and 5.2.2)  Review of\"I\" section of Board Policies and administrative regulations (see section 2.7) Section 2.2 LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that LRSD hires, assigns, utilizes and promotes qualified African-Americans in a fair and equitable manner. Policies I Regulations GA - Personnel Goals GBA - Open Hiring/Equal Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Action GCE - Professional Staff Recruiting GCE-R- Professional Staff Recruiting Policies GA, GBA, GCE, and GCE-R, adopted by the Board on November 18, 1999, provide tracking of hiring, assignment, utilization and promotion to assure that each activity is done in a fashion to promote the desegregation obligation. Section 2.2.1 LRSD shall maintain in place its current policies and practices related to the recruitment of African-American teachers which have allowed LRSD to maintain a teaching staff which is approximately one-third African-American. Policies / Regulations GA - Personnel Goals GBA - Open Hiring/Equal Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Action GCE - Professional Staff Recruiting GCE-R - Professional Staff Recruiting (regulation) GCF - Professional Staff Hiring GCF-R - Professional Staff Hiring (regulation) Policies and regulations GA, GBA, GCE, GCE-R, GCF, and GCF-R, also adopted by the Board on November 18, 1999, implement this obligation. The District continues to recruit within the state and at historically black colleges and universities in the region. These efforts have resulted in pre-employment contracts for African-American teachers as follows: 1998-99- 25 1999-00 - 22 2000-01 - 10 (verbal) 8 Revisions of the Teachers of Tomorrow (TOT) program, a long-range recruiting effort in collaboration with the PCSSD and NLR school districts to increase the availability of minorities in the staffing \"pipeline\", are being enacted. In the same vein, we have initiated discussions with the Arkansas Department of Education to implement a career development program in which non-certified employees with college degrees may become certified. We also continue to support classified staff with release time so they may continue their schooling and, ultimately, become certified staff. Section 2.2.2 LRSD shall implement programs, policies or procedures designed to increase the number of African-American media specialists, guidance counselors, early childhood teachers, primary grade teachers and secondary core subject teachers, including offering incentives for African-American teachers to obtain certification in these areas, and to assign those teachers to the LRSD schools where the greatest disparity exists. Policies/Regulations GCE - Professional Staff Recruiting GCE-R - Professional Staff Recruiting (regulation) Policy and regulation GCE and GCE-R, adopted by the Board November 18, 1999, were implemented to monitor areas of certification and direct minorities into the designated areas. Priority consideration for tuition reimbursement for course work that will allow minority candidates to become fully certified in the designated areas has been initiated ('99-00). A program is in place to monitor staffing levels at each school site for the above criteria. Staffing will be re-directed accordingly. Section 2.2.3 LRSD shall implement a uniform salary schedule for all positions within the District, including a salary range for director and assistant and associate superintendent positions, designed to provide compensation in accordance with qualifications and to minimize complaints of favoritism. A comprehensive uniform salary schedule adopted by the Board October 28, 1999 was researched and recommended by a nationally recognized consultant. Initially, it has been implemented for administrators and clerical employees. The conversion to a single master salary schedule is continuing for other employee units\nhowever, teachers, custodians, security officers, paraprofessionals (aides), and LRSD employed bus drivers negotiate salaries through collective bargaining agreements. The specified job classifications, Director, Assistant and Associate Superintendent, were included and placed on the approved uniform salary schedule. As part of the implementation process, a Compensation Committee has been formed for the purpose of hearing concerns about salary placement and errors in salary determination. The committee will also be charged with establishing the appropriate salary placement for new/revised positions. 9 Section 2.2.4 LRSD shall implement a policy for the centralized hiring and assignment of teachers by the LRSD Human Resources department designed to provide an equitable distribution of teaching resources and to prevent nepotism and pre-selection of a school principal. Policy GCF, Professional Staff Hiring, and its accompanying regulation, GCF-R, were adopted November 18, 1999 to assure recommendations for new employees by principals or department managers promote equity and fairness in placements made by the Human Resources Department. Section 2.2.5 LRSD shall implement a policy of promotion from within which shall include procedures for notifying district employees of open positions. All vacant jobs are posted throughout the District when school is in session. Additionally, all vacant jobs are posted in the Human Resources Department. Certified staff has in place a procedure whereby they are allowed to pre-select three positions to which they wish to be transferred. Our Applications Coordinator accepts \"blanket\" applications that are submitted in advance of any specific opening (i.e.: future principalship). Section 2.2.6 LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that the teaching staffs at all LRSD schools are substantially similar with regard to average years of experience and percentage of teachers with advanced degrees. Policies/Regulations GCE - Professional Staff Recruiting GCE-R - Professional Staff Recruiting (regulation) A program is in place to monitor staff's length of service and level of advanced degrees. This data is provided to all principals to consider when hiring. New hire requests submitted through the assistant superintendent and/or human resource office that are outside of the prescribed staff composition may not be approved. Upon instances whereby an individual is being recommended outside of LRSD staff composition sought, approval must be provided through the Associate Superintendent of Administrative Services. Human resource officials will continue to monitor these elements for equity allocation purposes. Section 2.2.7 LRSD shall negotiate with the Knight Intervenors to establish a procedure for the mandatory reassignment of teachers as necessary to enable LRSD to meet its obligations under Section 2.2 of this Revised Plan. The Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association representing the Knight Intervenors and the LRSD added language to their collective bargaining agreement addressing this plan provision. Article 18, Involuntary Transfers, covers the process for involuntarily moving teachers from one school to another. The parties agreed that this would be the covering IO provision and process with the addition of the following language as a parenthetical addition after the introductory paragraph of the article: The parties agree that some mandatory reassignments may be necessary to meet the District's obligations under the Desegregation and Education Plan in order to assure that schools are substantially similar with regard to average years of experience, percentage of teachers with advanced degrees, and racial composition. Section 2.3 LRSD shall implement student assignment programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure the desegregation of LRSD schools to the extent practicable, including but not limited to Sections 3 and 4 of this Revised Plan. Policies JCJCA-School Attendance Student Assignment Draft polices JC and JCA are scheduled to be presented to the Board at the April 2000 meeting for approval. The attendance zones have been redrawn and student assignments for 1999-2000 were made in accordance with the new zones. Little Rock School District continues to operate 6 stipulation magnet schools and 7 interdistrict magnet programs which provide school options to LRSD families in addition to their attendance zone schools. School organizational levels have been modified to accommodate the transition to middle schools, with 6th graders exiting elementary buildings and 9th graders moving to high school campuses. One of the two new schools permitted by the Revised Plan, Stephens Elementary, is under construction and scheduled to open in January 2001. Interdistrict schools - King, Washington, Romine, Clinton, Crystal Hill and Baker - continue to attract some students across district lines with varying degrees of success. During the 1999-2000 school year approximately 585 LRSD students attend a PCSSD interdistrict school and 175 PCSSD students attend a LRSD interdistrict school. Section 2.4 LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination in the referral and placement of students in special education or in other programs designed to meet special student needs. Policies The Little Rock School District Division of Exceptional Children follows the federal regulations of the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Section 504 to assure that placement of students is based on the documented existence of an eligible disability. No singular evaluation is used to determine the need for specialized services. Any evaluation used must be conducted by qualified personnel, used for the purpose intended, and not be culturally biased. The Educational Management Team must discuss pre-referral strategies attempted and eliminate the cause of any educational deficiencies as being the result of cultural or socioeconomic causes. Any decision to provide specialized 11 I I I I services must consider the least restrictive environment to provide for a free and appropriate public education. Policy IHBA, Special Education for Students with Disabilities, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, makes a commitment to the provision of educational programs through individualized instruction and related services for children with special needs. Policy IKFC, Graduation Requirements for Special Needs Students, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, sets forth the expectation that students with disabilities earn high school diplomas. Procedures The Little Rock School District Division of Exceptional Children developed a Strategic Plan to guide its work. The plan is monitored in monthly staff meetings and was updated in 1998- 99. Procedures for the administration of special education programs are outlined in the Special Education Administrative Procedures Manual. This document is distributed not only to special education staff, but also to principals and other school-level staff. The Little Rock School District Division of Exceptional Children has employed two additional school psychology specialists for the 1999-2000 school year to assure availability to all elementary schools for the participation on pupil service teams. The participation of the school psychology specialist is to provide school staff with pre-referral interventions, including positive behavioral supports, to reduce the over-identification of minority students for special education. Assignments of school psychology specialists result in one specialist for each three elementary schools. School Psychology Specialists are conducting additional tests beyond the minimum requirements for students suspected of having mental retardation to eliminate any cultural or socioeconomic factors. In August 1999 special education teachers were included in curriculum staff development available to all regular education staff members to assure linkage of curriculum with specialized programs. Additional training is scheduled in March for all resource teachers, school psychology specialists, and speech pathologists in Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) and Effective Literacy. An additional \"indirect\" teacher has been employed to provide additional indirect services for students with disabilities in the general education classrooms. Supervisors and coordinators are monitoring all evaluation procedures and placement decisions at schools as they occur. Special education programs are routinely audited.by both state and federal teams to ensure compliance and quality. These audit reports are sources of data for program improvement. 12 Materials and supplies are equivalent and, in most cases, duplicate those materials found in the general education curriculum. Secondary resource teachers have been surveyed regarding the general education texts needed for instruction. A committee has been formed to review supplemental materials needed for the 2000-2001 school year. Programs Co-teaching (special education teacher and general education teacher co-presenting curriculum/instruction) is occurring in the following.schools to assure reduction of \"pull-out\" services that segregate students with disabilities from the general curriculum: Fulbright Elementary King Elementary Cloverdale Middle School Dunbar Middle School Mablevale Middle School Pulaski Heights Middle School Section 2.5 LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline. Policies ACB - Non Discrimination on the Basis of Ethnicity and Race JRAA - Student Discipline Records JRAA - R - Student Discipline Records (regulation) Policies ACB, JRAA and regulation JRAA-R adopted by the Board will help assure that the District aggressively improves the learning climate for ALL students. Student handbooks were revised and an online student discipline reporting system for each school building was established. Appropriate staff development/training was conducted. A comprehensive approach was developed which considered a variety of instructional and behavior issues. This became a priority for all those concerned with the learning climate of the Little Rock Public Schools. Suspensions have decreased from the 1997-98 school year. Eighty percent of the reductions are at the middle school level. The remaining 20% of the reduction came at the elementary level. Interestingly, the addition of the 9th grade class to the high schools showed little affect on the number of suspensions. There was a 15% reduction from the total number of sanctions issued during the 1998-99 school year to the 1997-98 school year. A total of 5312 sanctions were issued during the 1998-99 year compared to 6247 issued in the 1997-98 school year. 13 During the first semester of 1999-2000, suspensions dropped with only 1839 students receiving sanctions - a 22% reduction from the corresponding first semester of 1998-99. SANCTIONS m1997.95  1998-99 2500~=:,,:\n-:\nn=.::~7-'\nI 2000 1000 !  1st Semester! 1998-99 1999-2000 1997-98 vs. 1998-99 Sanctions 1998-98 vs. 1999-00 1st Semester Sanctions We have sampled parental and teacher perceptions of changes implemented. While working to implement varied program strategies for improvement, the District is sensitive to parent and teacher perception of safety and general decorum that affect the school learning atmosphere. Parental, student, community and teacher satisfaction has been excellent based on the first quarter operations at the middle school level. A sample of teachers and parents indicates a much safer and orderly school environment. A management study (MOT) in 1998 noted that only 42% of the teachers thought the schools were relatively safe and free from crime. That differed very little from the Plain Talk analysis. In the most recent survey in the fall of 1999, 93.7% of teachers reported that they felt safe at school. And 88% of the parents indicated that they thought their children were safe in school. Interestingly, 8% of the parents indicated they did not know or were unsure, with only 4% indicating that they had grave concerns. Ideally we would want these numbers to be 100%, but perceptions arising out of recent national events probably will not support that ideal. The District has expanded the number of alternative learning sites, but most importantly, attempted to develop a consistent standard of behavior. The alternative learning sites are: 1. Metropolitan- Career Technical Center - 9th - 12th 2. Philander Smith College - 9th 3. Penick Boy's Club- 7th and 8th 4. Pfeifer Camp Residential Elementary Program 5. Accelerated Learning Program - 9th - 12th 6. Alternative Learning Program - 6th - 12th 7. ALC Elementary Sites (3 rd - 5th ) 8. LRSD Elementary Residential Charter School (Badgett) - Scheduled to open August 2000 14 In 1997-98 through 1998-99, expulsions dropped from 119 to 1. Alternative education played a major role in the reduction, but stepped up activities for young people with a variety of intervention processes could all be credited with being part of the solution. Section 2.5.1 LRSD shall strictly adhere to the policies set forth in the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook to ensure that all students are disciplined in a fair and equitable manner. In addition to due process and appeal procedures clearly outlined in the LRSD Student Handbooks, new policies and regulations have been drafted to bolster those already in place. Draft polices, IBA, Racial Disparities in Programs and Activities and its accompanying regulations, and JI, Student Rights and Responsibilities, are scheduled for presentation at the April 2000 Board meeting. They have been written to ensure LRSD's commitment to providing fair and equitable treatment to students involved in disciplinary matters. Principals were directed to closely adhere to the Student Handbooks in their staff development training on the Revised Plan, and it has been restated at principals' meetings. The students' and their parents' awareness of the disciplinary standards, sanctions, and appeals process is part of the communications from the schools annually. The employment of the Ombudsman has reinforced the equity efforts of the District in this arena. Section 2.5.2 LRSD shall purge students' discipline records after the fifth grade and eighth grade of all offenses, except weapon offenses, arson and robbery, unless LRSD finds that to do so would not be in the best interest of the student. Policies JRAA - Student Discipline Records JRAA - R - Student Discipline Records (regulation) The Board adopted policy JRAA and regulation JRAA-R June 24, 1999. Inservice was provided to building administrators (September 1999). At the end of each school year the Assistant Superintendent for School Discipline reviews student discipline records for serious offenses prior to student promotion and determines which records need to be maintained. The purged records are then sent to the new schools. Section 2.5.3 LRSD shall establish the position of \"ombudsman\" the job description for which shall include the following responsibilities: ensuring that students are aware of their rights pursuant to the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook, acting as an advocate on behalf of students involved in the discipline process, investigating parent and student complaints of race-based mistreatment and attempting to achieve equitable solutions. The ombudsman position was filled in February '99 15 The mission of the ombudsman is to provide services for parents and students by answering questions, providing information, direction and assistance regarding LRSD policies or procedures, particularly as they relate to student rights and equitable treatment. The ombudsman also assists in resolving disputes between the home and school while working to achieve equitable solutions. Goals were developed through input from ODM, Joshua lntervenors, community members, and administrators. Goals l. Ensure that parents and students are aware their rights pursuant to the Student's Rights and Responsibilities handbook. 2. Act as an advocate on behalf of parents and students involved in the discipline process. 3. Investigate parent and student complaints of alleged race-base mistreatment and to work to achieve equitable solutions. 4. Promote collaboration between the school and community. 5. Promote District and community awareness about the role of the ombudsman. 6. Establish mediation procedures for resolving disputes and conflicts. 7. Increase community awareness about the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 8. Increase community awareness about course offerings, student assignments, academic competitions, transportation, and guidance services. 9. Establish intervention activities for students. Efforts continue to increase community awareness of the ombudsman. Monthly reports are compiled relating to the ombudsman's activities. Section 2.5.4 LRSD shall work with students and their parents to develop behavior modification plans for students who exhibit frequent misbehavior. Students who exhibit frequent misbehavior have their cases referred to the schools' Pupil Services Team. The team is comprised of the building administration, the students' teachers, the counselor, the parents and any specialists deemed necessary. The team develops a behavior modification plan as warranted. An exit conference committee has been established at the Alternative Learning Center. Each student who has violated conduct codes in the student handbook and is assigned to the ALC is required to go before the committee before he/she is returned to his/her home school. The committee includes the ALC director, the administrative assistant, the counselor, the student's grade-level facilitators, the student's parent, and the student. The therapist, social worker, or/and probation officer participate in this process on a case-by-case basis. The ALC exit process requires students to complete the following steps before a final decision is made about the students' return to their home schools: 1. Complete a written self-evaluation that is read to the committee, 2. State verbally in concrete reasons why they should return to their schools, 16 3. Explain/discuss how various group sessions assisted in their academic or/and behavioral improvement, 4. Answer committee member questions to provide an in-depth perspective of the students' readiness to return to their schools, 5. State achievable goals that help them be successful in their schools. Section 2.6 LRSD shall implement programs, policies, and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barr.iers to participation by qualified African-Americans in extracurricular activities, advanced placement courses, honors and enriched courses, and the gifted and talented program. The school service division was primarily responsible for the extracurricular activities in Section 2.6 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. The following procedures have been implemented. Extracurricular activities are District sponsored and directed activities designed to provide opportunities for students to explore areas of interest that compliment and enrich the curriculum. These activities include clubs and organizations such as Student Council, YTeens, or Beta Club. A policy addressing extracurricular has been approved by the Little Rock School District Board of Directors in 1988. A committee during the 1999-2000 school year reviewed this policy. It was determined that it should be revised to be in compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. A draft copy of the policy was submitted for feedback to the Associate Superintendents, the Special Assistant to the Superintendent and Dr. Terrence Roberts. The committee reconvened, made modifications and submitted the policy to the Board of Directors. The policy and regulation (JJ and JJ-R) were adopted by the Board in November 1999 (JJ) and October 1999 (JJ-R). The Superintendent and his cabinet determined in January 2000 that an Activities Advisory Board would be organized to promote, support and enhance extracurricular activities. A steering committee with representation from the middle and secondary schools has been selected to determine how the Activities Advisory board will be organized. The first meeting took place in February 2000. Policies The Little Rock School District Board of Education has approved five new policies to ensure that there are no barriers to the participation of African-American students in advanced placement courses and the gifted and talented program.  Policy IHCC, Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement Courses, Grades 6-12, was approved by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999. Equity language in this policy follows: 17 \"The District shall develop appropriate programs and procedures to ensure that there are no barriers to participation in Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement courses due to ethnicity, race, gender, national origin, creed, socioeconomic level, or handicapping condition. To that end, the District shall include in its professional development program for teachers and counselors training in identifying and encouraging increasing percentages of students to participate in Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement courses.\" With this policy and the Board's adoption of new middle schools and high school curricula in fall 1998 for 1999-2000 implementation, the previous layer of \"honors and enriched courses\" was eliminated. Instead, each school offers Pre-Advanced Placement courses.  Policy IHBB, Gifted and Talented Education, was approved by the Board on July 22, 1999. This policy statement includes the following equity statement: \"The Little Rock School District is committed to each child having an opportunity to participate in its gifted programs, regardless of race, color, creed, socioeconomic level, national origin, or handicapping condition. This commitment is guaranteed through equitable procedures for assessing gifted potential, through program designs that are flexible and varied enough to be adaptable to individual student need, and through curricula designed to nurture gifted potential.\"  Policy IKC, approved by the Board of Education on September 23, 1999, outlines the specific procedures that will be used in calculating students' grade-point averages and rank-in-class, including the grading scales to be used for regular and Advanced Placement courses. This policy promotes equity in that it ensures that the same procedures will be used for all students in a given high school and among the several high schools in the Little Rock School District. The first paragraph of the policy follows: \"It is the policy of the Board of Education that students' rank-in-class and grade-point averages be determined by District regulations that govern the calculation procedures, ensure consistency among the high schools, and ensure that these regulations are widely communicated and understood by students, their parents/guardians, and the staff.\"  Policy IKF, approved by the Board of Education initially in December 1998 and then revised on July 22, 1999, effective for the graduating class of 2002, establishes new, enhanced course requirements with a total of 24 required units. The Board also established a \"Recommended Curriculum\" of 27 units that provides encouragement and incentives to students to take the most rigorous curriculum possible. One incentive is that in order to earn the 18 Honors Seal on the Diploma, a student must complete the Recommended Curriculum of 27 units, successfully complete at least six Pre-Advanced (PreAP) and two Advanced Placement (AP) courses, and earn a grade-point average of at least 3.5.  Policy IHBEA, English as a Second Language, also includes an equity statement. This policy is included under this section not only to illustrate the District's commitment to equity for all, but also because there are several students with African backgrounds in-the English as a Second Language program. The following statement provides for access to special opportunity programs: \"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 other resources to ensure compliance and effectiveness.\" These strong policy statements are intended not just to establish rules, but also to create a culture of high expectations for all students. Procedures (Regulations, Administrative Directives, Handbooks, etc.) Many procedures and processes have been created to enforce and facilitate the implementation of the new policies: Administrative Regulations IHCC-R: Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement Courses The following sections of Administrative Regulations IHCC-R are new (adopted October 21, 1999). These statements were written specifically to promote the increase of percentages of African-American students who enroll in Pre-AP and AP courses: \"Placement in Pre-Advanced Placement or Advanced Placement mathematics courses is determined by interest and the path that began in grade 6. However, a student may not be excluded from a Pre-Advanced Placement course simply because he/she was not enrolled at that level the previous year. \"Students who earn at least a \"C\" in a Pre-Advanced Placement course may, upon request, be automatically enrolled in the next level course. No teacher recommendation is required. \"Counselors must routinely check each year to make sure that students with grades of \"A\" or \"B\" in regular-level courses and/or who are scoring at the highest levels on the state's criterion-referenced test or the norm-referenced tests are placed appropriately in Pre-Advanced Placement or Advanced 19 Placement courses. It is the responsibility of both teachers and connselors actively to recruit students into these courses. \"Schools are held accountable for ensuring that increasing percentages of students are enrolled in these rigorous courses.\" High School Curriculum Catalog (Grades 9-12), 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 The placement criteria from the Administrative Regulations were printed in the High School Curriculum Catalog for 1999-2000 and for 2000-2001, along with the following language: \"The Little Rock School District offers Pre-AP and AP courses in several content areas: English language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, foreign language, computer science, art, and music. Students are placed in these courses based on established criteria. Pre-AP and AP courses are designed to give students experiences in college-preparatory and college-level courses. \"Each secondary school must identify as many students as possible for these courses if the school and the District are to meet the challenging goals established in three critical planning documents: the LRSD Strategic Plan, the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, and the National Science Foundation project in mathematics and science.\" National Science Fonndation Project The goal of increased participation of African-American students in Pre-AP and AP courses is powerfully reinforced in the proposal that the Little Rock School District wrote to the National Science Foundation to fund its project in the amount of $3.4 million. The District's accountability plan for this project includes annual reports on the enrollment of students, by race, in advanced mathematics and science courses, including Pre-AP and AP courses. The following language is included in the District's proposal for funding to NSF: \"A need exists for students to begin preparation to enter high school Advanced Placement mathematics and science courses and other upper level mathematics and science courses while they are still in elementary and junior high school. Many students, even if they meet the course prerequisites for upper level courses, have not acquired the type of skills and content knowledge that is required to be confident about their ability to succeed in these courses. The prerequisite skills and the confidence they engender are both critical elements in increasing the number of students in AP and other upper level mathematics and science courses. This is particularly true for some minorities who may not be well represented among upper classmen who are currently enrolled in these courses.\" 20 The Program Evaluation Plan for the NSF project includes the following: \"Data has been and will continue to be disaggregated by gate-keeping mathematics and science courses-algebra, geometry, calculus, biology, chemistry, and physics. \"Data will be disaggregated by the number of students enrolled and the number completing gate-keeping courses. The total number of students enrolled in each course in October of the first semester has been identified for the baseline year, year one, and year two and will continue to be identified across each succeeding year of the project. Similarly identified will be the total number of students completing each course identified as those receiving a grade of A, B, C, or Din the fourth quarter. Students who drop out, receive an For no grade at the end of the course will be tallied and included in a separate cohort. \"Data will be disaggregated by gender and race/ethnicity, specifically American Indian/Alaskan Native\nAsian/Pacific Islander\nBlack (not Hispanic)\nHispanic\nWhite (not Hispanic)\nand other (i.e., multi-racial). \"For each gender and racial/ethnic cohort, district-wide total numbers and percentages have been and will continue to be computed. \"This information will be displayed in table and figure form (graph with accompanying table) for the baseline year and each succeeding year of the project. In addition, figures will identify gate-keeping course enrollment and completion rate trends by displaying the percent of change from the baseline year to year five (2003) of the project for the following: 1. All students vs. minority students in science gate-keeping courses\n2. All students vs. minority students in mathematics gate-keeping courses\n3. All students vs. minority students in mathematics and science gatekeeping courses.\" Course Selection Sheets Another change in procedures that was made was to add to the Course Selection form that each high school student completes for the next year's registration a statement that students who made at least a \"C\" in a previous Pre-AP course do not have to have teacher approval to take the next-level course. Both the 1999-2000 and 2000- 2001 forms included this statement. (See also Administrative Regulations IHCC-R, Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement Courses, Grades 6-12.) Student/Parent Guide to LRSD Middle School Curriculum, 2000-2001 This new publication was mailed to the parents of all grade 5-7 students (who will be in grades 6-8 in fall 2000) in anticipation of the registration process in spring 2000. It included copies of the Middle School Mission, the Middle School Program Standards, references to the \"refrigerator curriculum\" (list of specific standards/benchmarks for 21 each core middle school course), a list of available courses, and other guidance information for middle school students and parents. High School Course Selection, 1999-2000 This publication included the policy on graduation requirements for students graduating in 2000 and 2001 and also the new policy, effective for students graduating in 2002 and beyond. In addition, the publication listed the course number, course title, grade levels at which taught, and prerequisites for all the courses, including Pre-AP, AP, and University Studies courses, available in the District's high schools. This publication has been discontinued and replaced with a more comprehensive one: Student/Parent Guide to Course Selection and Graduation Reguirements, 2000-2001. Student/Parent Guide to Course Selection and Graduation Reguirements, 2000-2001 The Little Rock School District produced a new publication in spring 2000 (to replace the former one that only listed graduation requirements and course lists) for high school students and their parents. The purpose of the new guide is to assist them in choosing from the more than 450 courses available in the District's high schools and to provide tools for the selection of appropriate courses and Career Focus pathways that are included in the graduation requirements. This guide includes a list of the 30 AP courses that are available, encouragement to students to take Pre-AP and AP courses, and information about the Advanced Placement examinations, as well as information about the University Studies program at Hall High School. A major reason for investing in the time and funds required to produce this 20-page publication and mail it to parents/guardians is to improve the access of all students, especially African-American students, to the \"valued\" curriculum\nthat is, to Pre-AP and AP courses and to the recommended curriculum. Enough copies have been printed to make it available to all students, grades 7-11, and to new students to the District. Every high school teacher will receive a copy, and enough additional copies were printed for use by grade 7 students in their required Career Orientation course. Each high school will be expected to conduct a parent meeting during the registration process to review the content of the Guide. The District will also sponsor several opportunities to teach the content of the Guide to parents and other patrons. Little Rock School District's Quality Index Another vehicle that the Little Rock School District is using to promote the enrollment of African-American students in the Pre-AP and AP courses is the Quality Index. The District's collective responsibility (or accountability) plan includes a number of indicators by which school performance will be evaluated annually in the Quality Index. Academic indicators are routinely disaggregated by race/ethnicity and gender so that progress for each group can be determined. 22 Elementary schools do not have Pre-AP and AP courses, but they will be held accountable for moving more and more students into the upper levels of academic achievement. Their indicators include the following:  Percentage of students who perform at the advanced level on the state grade 4 benchmark examinations in literacy and mathematics.  Percentage of students who perform in the top quartile on the SA T9 in reading, language, and mathematics.  Percentage of students who perform at the advanced level on the District's Achievement Level Tests ( criterion-referenced test) in reading, language, mathematics, and science, grades K-5. Among the indicators for middle schools are the following:  Percentage of grades 6-8 students enrolled in at least one Pre-AP course.  Percentage of grade 8 students who successfully complete Algebra I.  Percentage of students who perform at the advanced level on the state benchmark examinations in literacy and mathematics.  Percentage of students who perform in the top quartile on the SA T9 in reading, language, and mathematics.  Percentage of students who perform at the advanced level on the District's Achievement Level Tests (criterion-referenced tests) in reading, language, mathematics, and science, grades 6-8. High school indicators are as follows:  Percentage of students who earn the honors seal on their diplomas.  Percentage of students in grades 9-12 enrolled in at least one Pre-AP or AP course.  Percentage of students who perform at the advanced level on the state's endof- course examinations in Literacy, Algebra I, and Geometry.  Percentage of students who perform in the top quartile on the SA T9 in reading, language, and mathematics.  Percentage of students who perform at the advanced level on the District's Achievement Level Tests (criterion-referenced tests) in reading, language, mathematics, and science, grades 9-12.  Percentage of students taking the ACT.  Percentage of students earning at least a score of 19 on the ACT.  Percentage of students taking AP examinations.  Percentage of students earning a score of at least \"3\" on AP examinations. Administrative Regulation IHBB-R: Gifted and Talented Education The administrative regulations for the gifted and talented program, adopted on October 21, 1999, were derived from a handbook that had in the past been distributed to principals and others directly involved in the administration of gifted and talented programs. The new regulations are not only accessible to a larger audience, but they also are more formal since they are now included in the Board's policy book. 23 Principals' Edition: Gifted Program Handbook This handbook is an expanded version of the administrative regulation IHBB-R and includes step-by-step procedures for identifying gifted students at all grade levels. One important aspect of the District's procedures for screening and identifying gifted and talented students is the use of a non-verbal IQ test, the Raven Matrices, so that a student's poverty or language background will not be tested instead of his or her ability to think and solve problems. Administrative Regulation IKC-R: Class Rankings and Grade-Point Average Specific procedures were established in this regulation, adopted on October 21, 1999, for the calculation of grade-point averages and rank in class. Also included are the procedures for weighting grades in AP courses. Copies have been published in the official policy notebook and in Learning Links (a weekly publication for principals from the Division of Instruction). They have also been distributed to all counselors and registrars. In addition, the new Student/Parent Guide to Course Selections and Graduation Requirements, 2000-2001 includes a section that reprints the regulations so that all students and parents will be well informed of the new procedures. Administrative Regulation IKF-R2: General Graduation Requirements This regulation, adopted initially in December 1998 and then revised on October 21, 1999, and on February 24, 2000, lists the specific courses that are required in the minimum program, all the options for selecting a career focus, and the specific courses that must be taken in the recommended curriculum. Also included are the requirements for earning the honors seal on the diploma. In an effort to build understanding of the new graduation requirements, the District published the new requirements in the 1999-2000 Course Selection Guide for students and parents\nheld at least three meetings with counselors to ensure their understanding\naired a television show on the District's cable channel as a part of the Superintendent's Roundtable series to inform parents and patrons\nand published the new requirements with explanations in the new Student/Parent Guide to Course Selection and Graduation Requirements. 2000-2001. The individual schools have taken additional steps to build understanding. Administrative Regulation IHBEA-R: English as a Second Language This comprehensive regulation for the ESL program, adopted on October 21, 1999, includes a section of student access to \"special opportunity programs, as follows: \"The District will ensure that LEP students have equal access to the Gifted and Talented program and Pre-AP and AP courses at the secondary level throughout the District and to the University Studies program at Hall High School. \"The District will provide parents of LEP students information about any opportunities, requirements, selection criteria, or general information 24 regarding the G/T program, Pre-AP and AP courses, and the University Studies program that is provided to the parents of non-LEP students. \"Screening tests should be ih the language of the students, if at all practicable. If nonverbal tests are administered, the instructions should be in the language of the students. Staff who administer GT screening tests to LEP students must have received training on addressing the needs of LEP students.\" The procedures to increase minority enrollment in advanced courses were carefully communicated to principals, counselors, and registrars in the curriculum orientations that precede student registration in both 1999 and 2000. Also, frequent written and oral reminders are provided at every opportunity. Master schedules for each school are monitored to ensure that everyone is in compliance. The February 2000 curriculum orientation meetings emphasized, especially, that students with \"A\" and \"B\" grades and students scoring at high levels on state and District tests must be identified and placed in Pre-AP courses. Programs Curriculum Access and Consistency One of the most significant steps taken to \"ensure that there are no barriers to participation\" was in December 1998 when the Board of Education approved new curriculum for middle and high schools. The new middle school curriculum provides Pre-AP courses in English, mathematics, science, and social studies for grades 6-8 in all eight middle schools. These courses all have established standards/benchmarks so that there is more consistency and higher quality among the middle schools. At the high school level, the Board made available to all high schools all the available AP courses. That is, all high schools are to offer the entire AP curriculum ( except that Music Theory AP is available only at Parkview). If the courses are not taught, it will be due to insufficient enrollment, but not due to some courses not being available to a given school. Another step that was taken in December 1998 was to eliminate a layer of courses usually entitled \"honors\" or \"enriched\" between the regular and Pre-AP/ AP levels. This step enabled many more students to step up to the Pre-AP/AP courses and to engage in a more rigorous and challenging curriculum. Curriculum Standards and Benchmarks The District established in 1998-99 curriculum content standards for all K-6 English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies programs. In 1998-99 the standards for grades 7-12 were established and in 1999-2000 new K-12 grade-level and course benchmarks were implemented, which delineate specifically for each level the content knowledge and skills that students should know at the conclusion of that course. These standards and benchmarks, when fully implemented in every classroom, have the effect of creating higher expectations for all students. The District staff determined that one of the most powerful things that could be done would be to raise the bar for everyone and to align instruction with the standards over which students are tested. 25 National Science Foundation Project This K-12 initiative in mathematics and science has taken on the challenge of restructuring curriculum, instruction, and assessment with the goal of producing many more students prepared to take advanced, Pre-AP, and AP courses in the high schools and then to major in these areas in college. As noted above, both mathematics and science standards and benchmarks were implemented in fall 1999. The following teaching materials were adopted to support mathematics instruction: Investigations in Number, Data, and Space, grades K-5 Connected Mathematics Project, grades 6-8 Heath McDougal-Littell, grades 11-12 Pacesetter Pre-Calculus Through Modeling (College Board), high school The new adopted materials for science are as follows: Science and Technology for Children, grades K-6 Science and Life Issues, grade 7 Science Education for Public Understanding Project, grade 8 Active Physics, grade 9 These new curricula are aligned with the state's mathematics and science curriculum frameworks, the Little Rock School District's standards and benchmarks, and the state's benchmark examinations in mathematics. Programs were selected based on what is needed to radically improve student achievement in these curriculum areas so that students will be well-prepared to take advanced, Pre-AP, and AP courses. The NSF project organizes a variety of strategies around what NSF calls major issues ( or drivers) of systemic reform. NSF has defined the drivers as follows:  Implementation of comprehensive, standards-based curricula as represented in instructional practice, including student assessment, in every classroom, laboratory, and other learning experience prqvided through the system and its partners.  Development of a coherent, consistent set of policies that supports: provision of high quality mathematics and science education for each student\nexcellent preparation, continuing education, and support for each mathematics and science teacher (including all elementary teachers)\nand administrative support for all persons who work to dramatically improve achievement among all students served by the system.  Convergence of the usage of all resources that are designed for or that reasonably could be used to support science and mathematics educationfiscal, intellectual, material, curricular, and extra-curricular-into a focused and unitary program to constantly upgrade, renew, and improve the educational program in mathematics and science for all students.  Broad-based support from parents, policymakers, institutions of higher education, business and industry, foundations, and other segments of the 26 community for the goals and collective value of the program, based on rich presentations of the ideas behind the program, the evidence gathered about its successes and its failures, and critical discussions of its efforts.  Accumulation of a broad and deep array of evidence that the program is enhancing student achievement, through a set of indices ( e.g., achievement test scores, higher level courses passed, advanced placement tests taken, college admission rates, college majors, portfolio assessment, research experiences, ratings from summer employers). In the specific instance of student test scores, awardees shall report, on an annual basis, the results of student mathematics and science achievements in a multi-grade level context for the SI (Systemic Initiative) impacted schools/districts/states relative to appropriate cohort entities (non-SI districts, the state, all of which are defined by the performance baseline.  Improvement in the achievement of all students, including those historically underserved, as evidenced by progressive increments in student performance characterized by the requisite specificity of the SI as a catalytic resource and the appropriateness of attendant attributions. The District has implemented a number of new initiatives in each of these areas, is continually collecting data on their impact on academic achievement, and will modify the programming as necessary. University Studies, Hall High School At Hall High School, in partnership with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, grade 11- 12 students may take a variety of courses for which they receive both high school and college credit. This program does not necessarily target the students who are already taking Pre-AP or AP courses, but, rather, strong students who have the capacity of doing college work. To be eligible to enroll, students must have a minimum grade-point average of 2.5 on at least 50 percent of the college preparatory courses\nor a minimum overall grade-point average of 3.0\nor a minimum score of at least 21 on the ACT. Because the courses are conducted at Hall High School and are co-taught by Hall High teachers, the students receive a reduced tuition rate. 1999-2000 courses are as follows: English III (1 high school credit) and UALR 1311 and 1312: Composition I-II (6 hours) Sociology (1/2 credit) and UALR 2300: Introduction to Sociology (3 hours) Biology IIA (1/2 credit) and UALR 1401: Science of Biology (3 hours) Psychology (1/2 credit) and UALR 2300: Psychology and the Human Experience (3 hours) Communications IA (1/2 credit) and UALR Speech 1300: Speech Communications (3 hours) In 2000-2001 the following courses will be available: English IV (1 high school credit) and UALR 1311 and 1312: Composition 1-11 (6 hours) 27 Pre-Calculus B (1/2 credit) and UALR MA1302: College Algebra (3 hours) Physics I Pre-AP (1 credit) and UALR 1321 and 1322: Elementary Physics 1-11 (6 hours) United States History (1 credit) and UALR 2311 and 2312: United States History (6 hours) Psychology (1/2 credit) and UALR 2300: Psychology and the Human Experience (3 hours) Sociology (1/2 credit) and UALR 2300: Introduction to Sociology (3 hours) Communications IA (1/2 credit) and UALR Speech 1300: Speech Communications (3 hours) Biology IIA (1/2 credit) and UALR 1401: Science of Biology (3 hours). During fall 1999, 49 of 51 students successfully earned both high school and college credit. A total of 41 students enrolled in spring 2000 semester courses. District-level and Hall High School educators work closely with UALR staff to ensure the continued success of this wonderful opportunity for LRSD students. Talent Development Plan Early conversations in the District about the obligations in Section 2.6 centered at first on the analysis of student achievement data by race and number of African-American students performing in the highest quartile of the SAT9. These analyses convinved the staff that the District not only needed to ensure the enrollment of more high-performing students in advanced classes, but strategies had to put into place to \"grow talent,\" especially among African American males. Extensive research was done and the opinons of African American men in the community were sought to advise the committee. Among those consulted were Dr. Frank James of Philander Smith College, Leon Modeste, and Dr. Terrence Roberts. The committee read research as well. Among the literature consulted were the following books and articles:  Freeman A. Hrabowski III, Kenneth I. Maton, and Geoggrey L. Grief. Beating the Odds: Raising Academically Successful African American Males. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.  Ronnie Hopkins. Educating Black Males: Critical Lessons in School, Community, and Power. Albany: State University ofNew York Press. 1997.  Vernon C. Polite and James Earl Davis (eds.). African-American Males in School and Society: Practices and Policies for Effective Education. New York: Teachers College Press. 1999.  Christopher Jencks and Meredith Phillips (eds.). The Black-White Test Score Gap. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. 1998.  Mano Singham. \"The Canary in the Mine: The Achievement Gap Between Black and White Students.\" Phi Delta Kappan. September 1998. Pp. 9-15.  Steven C. Ender, Byron A. Wiley, and Charles Pagano. \"The Philadelphia Partnership: Improving College Access and Retention among Minority and Low-Income Students.\" The College Board Review. Summer 1998. 28  Stephen B. Plank and Douglass J. Maciver. \"Talent Development: A Philosophy and Blueprint for Middle School Reform.\" Principal Magazine. January 1998.  Stephanie Bell-Rose. \"What It Takes: A Look at Black Achievers.\" College Board Review. Winter 1998-99.  Harold Stevenson and James Stigler. The Learning Gap. New York: Summit Books. 1992.  Williams, Belinda (ed.). Closing the Achievement Gap: A Vision for Changing Beliefs and Practices. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 1996. A committee was formed in September 1998 to develop a Talent Development Plan. Research assignments were made, and the committee moved very quickly to put some infrastructure in place:  Eliminated the honors/enriched layer of courses between the regular level and Pre-AP/AP level at grades 6-12 for the 1999-2000 school year (approved by the Board of Education on November 19, 1998)\n Made all AP courses (except Music Theory AP) available to all high schools for 1999-2000\n Changed admission so that students with a grade of at least \"C\" in a prior PreAP or AP course can enroll in the next level without teacher approval\n Surveyed all honors, enriched, Pre-AP, and AP teachers to determine what training they had had so that a professional development plan could be designed\n Conducted study of current percentages by school of those students who are performing in the top quartile\npercentages of students who are taking the ACT\npercentages of students enrolled in AP courses\npercentages of students passing AP courses by school\netc.  Paid fee for Mable Donaldson to participate in the first year of training for Project AVID directors\n Investigated two potential grants to fund the Project A YID initiative: GearUp and Javits federal grants\n Conducted one-half day of training on Project A YID for representatives of the curriculum staff, high school principals, high school counselors, parent representatives, and community advocates\n Conducted one evening of training for members of the Board of Education on Project A YID\n Distributed information on the Talent Development Middle School (Baltimore model) to all middle school principals for restructuring ideas\n Continued research on effective strategies to close achievement gaps\n Met with representative teachers and counselors at three of the five high schools to hear what they believe they need to support the goal of increasing AP enrollment\n Discussed with Dr. Angela Sewall, Dean of Education at UALR, the possibility of a university partnership relating to Project A YID\n29  Met with ODM staff to discuss Project AVID and its potential benefits to LRSD students. The committee members understood that building the academic capacity for success in higher-level courses requires students to start early in developing their knowledge and skills. The District needs procedures in both identifying students who perform at high levels and making sure that they are placed in challenging classes. We must provide the necessary supports for more students to move into higher levels of performance-to develop the talent that is there. The assistance of Dr. Terrence Roberts, one of the District's desegregation consultants, was sought early in the development of this plan, and he has provided assistance on several occasions. Project AVID An early recommendation of the Talent Development Committee was that the District implement in its middle and high schools a national program called Project AVID. This recommendation was first presented to the Board of Education in December 1998. Due to the extraordinarily high costs of funding the training in San Diego, California, for teams of eight from each school, the only piece that was funded at that time was training for the Gifted/Talented Supervisor in the program's implementation. The Talent Development Committee is still interested in this program for the District's high schools-if the national organization can provide training at a site closer to Little Rock or if grant funding for the initial implementation can be secured. Gear-Up Grant Proposal In spring 1999 the Little Rock School District collaborated with the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR) and other community organizations to submit a grant proposal to the federal government to fund Project AVID and other initiatives at the middle school level. These programs would have assisted the District in its goal of increasing minority participation in higher-level courses, including the Pre-AP courses available at the middle school level. The proposal was not, however, funded. Accelerated Student Academic Program (ASAP) Since the costs of implementing Project AVID are prohibitive at this time, the Talent Development Committee has devoted itself in 1999-2000 to the development of an alternative, locally designed plan based on the critical components of the AVID model:  Data-driven decisions  Identification, monitoring, and placement of students  Development of high-level reading skills and vocabulary  Development of high-level writing, note-taking, and test-taking skills  Mentoring, tutoring, and service learning  Parent involvement  Test (PSAT, SAT, ACT, AP) preparation  College preparation  Leadership development 30  Professional development for teachers, counselors, tutors, and mentors  Vertical teams  Summer programs  Program evaluation Staffs have briefly defined strategies for elementary, middle, and high schools for each of these strands. (See the following pages.) Accelerated Student Academic Program (ASAP) Program Objectives: 1. To improve student access to Pre-AP and AP courses (% enrolled by grade level). 2. To improve student success in Pre-AP and AP courses(% earning a \"C\" or above). 3. To improve ACT scores. 4. To improve percentage of students earning the Honors Seal on their diplomas. 5. To improve the percentage of students performing at the Advanced Level on the State Benchmark and End-of-Level Tests. 6. To improve the percentage of students performing at the Top Quartile on the SAT9 in reading and mathematics. 7. To radically narrow the achievement gap between African-American and white students. Strand Elementary ~chool Middle School High School Data-Driven Analyze performance Analyze performance data, Analyze performance data, set Decisions data, set goals, and set goals, and establish goals, and establish interventions. establish interventions. interventions. Identification, Identify and monitor all Place all elementary- Place all gifted/talented, Monitoring, and \"Advanced\" and \"Top identified gifted/talented, \"Advanced,\" and \"Top Quartile\" Placement of Quartile\" students in \"Advanced,\" and \"Top students in Pre-AP or AP courses. Students reading and Quartile\" students in Pre-AP mathematics. courses. Development of Implement independent Implement independent Implement independent reading High-Level reading program with reading program with program with specific lists to Reading Skills specific lists to develop specific lists to develop develop skills, vocabulary, and and Vocabulary . skills, vocabulary, and skills, vocabulary, and content knowledge. Require at least content knowledge. content knowledge. Require 30 books each year, Require at least 30 books at least 30 books each year. ,. each year. 31 Strand Elementary School Middle School High School Development of Implement writing Implement ASAP class for Implement ASAP class for students High-Level across the curriculum. students in third quartile, to in third quartile, to emphasize Writing, Note- Emphasize writing for emphasize systematic note- systematic note-taking skills, taking, and Test- learning, learning logs, taking skills, writing of writing of informative and Taking Skills. reader response journals, informative and persuasive persuasive essays, test-taking skills, etc. essays, test-taking skills, vocabulary, AP test preparation, etc. vocabulary, etc. Mentoring/ Establish a Establish a peer Establish a peer tutoring/service Tutoring/ mentoring/role model tutoring/service learning and learning/mentoring program. Use Service Learning program for advanced mentoring program. Use college students, community students. Use high school students, volunteers. middle/high students, college students, community college students, volunteers. community volunteers. Parent Individualize School- Individualize School-Parent Individualize School-Parent Involvement Parent Compacts to Compacts to accelerate Compacts to accelerate advanced accelerate advanced advanced students Focus on students. Focus on dads/male role students. Focus on dads/male role models. models. dads/male role models. College Provide information on Provide information on Provide information on college Preparation college preparation, college preparation, preparation, advanced courses, advanced courses, advanced courses, gifted/talented education, the Hall gifted/talented education, gifted/talented education, University Studies Program, etc., in the Hall University the Hall University Studies the Student Handbook. Studies Program, etc., in Program, etc., in the Student the Student Handbook. Handbook. Leadership Include curriculum Expand opportunities for Incorporate a Leadership Development modules on leaders, student participation in Development course into the including many who are co/extra-curricula curriculum with a service learning ethnic minorities, across opportunities at the middle component. Form partnership with the curriculum. schools. Encourage reading Leadership Little Rock. Encourage of biographies and reading of biographies and autobiographies. autobiographies, Professional Provide quality Provide quality professional Provide quality professional Development- professional development for teachers on development for teachers on the Teachers development for teachers the development of higher- development of higher-level on the development of level thinking. thinking. higher-level thinking. Professional Provide quality Provide quality Provide quality professional Development- professional professional development development for counselors. Counselors development for for counselors. counselors. Professional Provide quality training Provide quality training for Provide quality training for tutors. Development- for tutors. tutors. Tutors Professional Provide quality training Provide quality training for Provide quality training for mentors. Development- for mentors. mentors. Mentors Vertical Teams Implement vertical teams Implement 6- I 2 vertical Implement 6-12 vertical teams of at all elementary schools. teams of teachers in teachers in English, mathematics, English, mathematics, science, social studies, and foreign science, social studies, and languages. foreign languages. 32 Strand Elementary School Middle School High School Summer Implement top quality Implement summer Implement summer programs to Programs summer reading program programs to prepare prepare students for advanced study. for elementary students. students for advanced study: Grade 9-Mathematics Grade 6-Etymology Grade I 0-PSA T Preparation Grade 7-Mathematics Grade I I-ACT Preparation Grade 8-Writing and Reading Evaluation Gather and analyze Gather and analyze relevant Gather and analyze relevant D_esign relevant quantitative and quantitative and qualitative quantitative and qualitative data. qualitative data. data. Evaluate program. Evaluate program. Make necessary Evaluate program. Make Make necessary modifications for improved necessary modifications modifications for improved effectiveness. for improved effectiveness. effectiveness. Dr. Terrence Roberts' suggestions (Note: all program components are incorporated in this draft.) 1. Establish high expectations for all students to get top quality work. 2. Introduce a leadership component-skills training. 3. Use existing structures in the district and community whenever possible-to lessen the work, to minimize cost. For instance, he recommended that we consult with community organizations such as Boy Scouts, PARK, and church groups to impact black male student achievement. 4. Be sure to use community volunteers as mentors-not just other public school students or college students. 5. Each school must use a process to involve teachers in planning the school's implementation. Teacher buy-in is critical. 6. Focus on African-American males. Adult males need to form alliances with the black boys. Relationships are important. Consideration of problems. Connections to the school and to the community. Must change the mind-set. Restore/build the boys' ability to survive in a society that does not give the message: you are valued and needed. 7. Consider a scholarship program. Dr. Terrence Roberts, desegregation consultant, has been instrumental in the development of this tentative plan, which will require further revision and refinement. Implementation will be phased in at the high school level, beginning with the addition of double-period English I Pre-AP courses in fall 2000 at three high schools (see below). These courses will include the curriculum components of the plan. Other components will be implemented as possible when the plan is fully developed and approved. Gear-Up Grant Proposal Two meetings were held during the week of February 14, 2000, to begin the planning necessary to submit a second proposal for funding from the federal Gear-Up program. LRSD will form a partnership with UALR, Philander Smith College, the Chamber of Commerce Education Committee, the 33 Arkansas Commitment, the League of United Latin American Citizens, and others to implement, according to the tentative plan, five major components (strands) from the preliminary Accelerated Students Academic Program (ASAP) plan discussed in this section:  Professional development for teachers and counselors  Student supports (mentoring, tutoring, extended day, summer programs, etc.)  Communication (use of cable channel, publications, etc.)  Parent education and involvement  College and career awareness. The grant funds programs at middle and high schools where 50 percent or more of the students are eligible for free and reduced lunches. The qualifying middle schools in LRSD are Henderson, Southwest, Mabelvale, and Cloverdale. The LRSD/UALR proposal will carefully coordinate and align the activities designed for this initiative with the work that is already in progress with the Collaborative Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievement (CPMSA) funded by the National Science Foundation. The proposal will also set the planned initiatives into the context of reforms that have already been initiated or will be implemented in fall 2000. The District will also investigate other possible sources of funds for the other four middle schools. English I-II Pre-AP Workshop (2 periods) The Board of Education approved in December 1999 a proposal to allow high schools the option of offering a double-period English I (for 2000-2001) and English II (for 2001-2002) at both the regular and Pre-AP levels. Students in the regular-level course will work on the knowledge and skills necessary for them to perform at the \"proficient\" level on the state's benchmark examinations. Students in the Pre-AP level course will concentrate on notetaking, writing, vocabulary, critical reading skills, self-discipline, and other knowledge and skills that are necessary to prepare for success in the Advanced Placement English and social studies courses. These curricula components are similar to those included in Project AVID courses. English I teachers will receive during summer 2000 intensive training in the implementation of this new program. English II teachers will be trained in summer 2001. As of February 2000, the English I Workshop and English I Pre-AP Workshop will be implemented at Fair, Hall, and McClellan High Schools in fall 2000. 34 Section 2.6.1 LRSD shall implement a training program during each of the next three years designed to assist teachers and counselors in identifying and encouraging African-American students to participate in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses. Procedures Staff at the District level are using six basic procedures to provide for identification of increasing numbers of African-American students to participate in advanced, Pre-AP, and AP courses.  The District is providing teachers and counselors with the rationale (ethical, philosophical, pedagogical, legal, and compliance-whatever works) to open more sections of Pre-AP and AP courses and to encourage increasing numbers of students, especially African-American students, to enroll in these courses.  The District is allowing students to take the Pre-AP or AP courses without having to secure \"teacher approval\" if they made a grade of \"C\" or higher in the previous course.  The District is monitoring enrollment in Pre-AP and AP courses on a nineweek basis to determine not only the numbers of students enrolled, but also to see if enrollment is holding\nthat is, if counselors are encouraging students to stay in the courses.  The District has set as an indicator in the Quality Index that schools should have approximately 65 percent of their students enrolled in Pre-AP/AP courses. As a result, some schools took the initiative at the end of the fall semester 1999 to move stronger students into the Pre-AP level from the regular level. Middle school principals discussed at their February 9, 2000, meeting that they are all building in more Pre-AP sections to their master schedule for 2000-2001 so that they will have space to increase their enrollment in these higher-level courses.  The District has constantly provided information to principals, counselors, and teachers-either in writing ( copies of articles about successful programs/schools which enroll high percentages of students in Pre-AP and AP courses), in discussions at meetings, and in training activities so that staff have the tools they need to teach a wider diversity of students.  The District is looking for every opportunity to inform parents of the benefits of their children being enrolled in this more rigorous curriculumpublications, television shows, newsletters, conversations, and parent meetings. As more and more parents understand this program, we know that they will insist that their children be involved. The Middle School Curriculum Catalog for 2000-2001, published for school staff, provides encouragement and guidelines for increasing minority participation in Pre-AP and AP courses. Counselors will receive more detailed information at the Curriculum Orientation sessions in February 2000. 35 The High School Curriculum Catalog for both 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 provide encouragement and guidelines for increasing minority participation in Pre-AP and AP courses. Several meetings occurred during 1998-99 and again in 1999-2000 to ensure that counselors and teachers understand these new expectations. The 2000-2001 Student/Parent Guide to Middle School Curriculum includes information on the Pre-AP courses that are available at all middle schools. The 2000-2001 Student/Parent Guide to Course Selection and Graduation Requirements includes sections on Pre-AP, AP, and University Studies courses. Advanced Payment of Pre-AP and AP Workshop Fees The Supervisor of the Gifted/Talented Program provided leadership in establishing a special account through which the State funds for AP workshops and institutes are processed. This fund allows all teachers equal access to the opportunities for training because attendance is no longer dependent on whether the teacher can pay the fees and wait for reimbursement or whether the schools have the available funds to pay for the fees and wait for reimbursement. The procedures that have been established enable all students in the District to have equal access to the same types of Pre-AP and AP course work and strategies. Programs Training for Counselors Curriculum Orientation workshops were conducted for elementary, middle, and high school counselors in January 1999 and February 2000 to prepare for student registration. A significant emphasis in these workshops was on increasing enrollment in Pre-AP and AP courses, especially of African-American students. The sections in the High School Curriculum Catalog relating to this issue were highlighted. On October 14, 1999, the Supervisor of the Gifted/Talented Program conducted a training session for counselors on \"Recruiting and Preparing Students for a Rigorous Academic Program.\" She discussed the recruitment of minority and disadvantaged students to the PreAP and AP programs and the importance of involving parents so that they will be supportive of students enrolling in these courses. They viewed a video entitled, \"Advanced Placement Inventive Program: Improving Education and Changing Lives.\" Training for Teachers All teachers of Pre-AP and AP courses are offered special training sponsored by the College Board and funded by the State. The Little Rock School District encourages participation and, in addition, provides supplemental training to include issues relating to minority participation. 36 In summer 1999 27 LRSD teachers attended the Summer Pre-AP and AP Institute: Central High 3 Fair High 3 Hall High 6 McClellan High 2 Parkview High 5 Cloverdale Middle 1 Dunbar Middle 5 Mann Middle 2 The AP courses that these 27 teachers represented were as follows: English (11), Social Studies (2), Mathematics (4), Science (3), Art (3), French (1), Spanish (2), and Psychology (1). On December 5-6, 1999, 94 LRSD teachers attended the AP Workshops: Central High 12 Fair High 4 Hall High 4 McClellan High 3 Parkview High 4 Cloverdale Middle 4 Dunbar Middle 7 Forest Heights Middle 13 Henderson Middle 10 Mabelvale Middle 3 Mann Middle 17 Pulaski Heights Middle 7 Southwest Middle 6 The courses represented by these 94 teachers were as follows: Pre-AP English (47), Pre-AP Social Studies (33), AP U.S. History (1), Pre-AP Spanish (5), AP Spanish (4), AP French (2), Pre-AP French(l). A third AP Conference was conducted on February 25-26, 2000. LRSD has registered 111 teachers who plan to participate: Central High 15 Fair High 4 Hall High 9 McClellan High 8 Parkview High 9 Cloverdale Middle 5 Dunbar Middle 4 Forest Heights Middle 11 Henderson Middle 7 Mabel vale Middle 10 37 I I 111. lJ. Pulaski Heights Middle 9 Southwest Middle 6 IRC 1 The courses represented are as follows: Pre-AP Science (37), AP Chemistry (2), AP Environmental Science (2), AP Biology (l), Pre-AP Biology (4), Pre-AP Chemistry (4), AP Physics (1), Pre-AP Physics (2), Pre-AP Mathematics (51), AP Statistics (3), AP Calculus (4). Vertical Teams in Mathematics and Science Mathematics and science vertical teams were formed to align local mathematics and science standards and benchmarks with the national standards. These standards and benchmarks were used to help select the curriculum for the high school mathematics courses. State funds provided under the Advanced Placement Incentive Program, Act 929 of 1997, were allocated for Pre-Advanced Placement and Advanced Placement teachers to attend oneday and/or two-day conferences. During 1998-99, 31 mathematics teachers, grades 6-12, attended College Board's two-day Mathematics Vertical Teams Conference in Little Rock. In addition, 26 science teachers, grades 6-12, attended UALR's Vertical Teams Conference for science teachers. The mathematics teachers have a new newsletter, The Mathematics Vertical Teams Newsletter with a first issue in December 1999. The following \"purpose\" for vertical teams is included on the first page: \"Our primary goal as educators in the Little Rock School District should be to help our students master the material in our discipline. Vertical teams should be viewed as a vehicle to improve student scores and grades. Vertical teams should also improve communication between teachers in the same building, in the same grade level, in the same courses, and in the same district. A Vertical Team never comes to a complete end because decisions must be reviewed, revised, and implemented over and over.\" Training for Principals During July 1998 one day of training on the new mathematics and science curriculum and the NSF accountability plan was presented to all principals. Follow-up meetings have been conducted during the school year in 1998-99 and 1999-2000. Training for Campus Leadership Teams During July 1999 the District provided two and one-half days of training for a core group of each school's Campus Leadership Team. A major emphasis in this training was on the District's new Collective Responsibility Plan and the Quality Index-including those indicators relating to increasing minority student participation in advanced and Pre-AP/AP courses. Each school's performance will be evaluated, in part, based on those indicators. 38 Section 2.6.2 LRSD shall implement programs to assist African-American students in being successful in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses. Procedures Identification of Students for Gifted and Talented Programs Students are identified for placement in the Gifted and Talented Programs as per administrative regulation IHBB-R and the steps outlined in the Gifted Program Handbook. Guidelines for Placement of Students in Pre-AP and AP Courses Students are placed in Pre-AP and AP courses according to the guidelines established in administrative regulation IHCC-R. These are reprinted in the Gifted Program Handbook, the High School Curriculum Catalog, and the Middle School Curriculum Catalog. Review and Monitoring of Enrollment in Pre-AP, AP, and GT Programs Staff in the Planning, Research, and Evaluation office routinely monitor enrollment, by school, by race, and by gender, in Pre-AP, AP, and GT programs as a part of the program evaluation functions. The Associate Superintendent for Instruction also monitors each semester's enrollment in Pre-AP and AP courses when she reviews schools' master schedules. Individual schools monitor as well. At both the middle and high school levels, one of the indicators in the Quality Index is the percentage of students at each grade level who are enrolled in at least one Pre-AP or AP course. School-level staff, therefore, are learning that their school's performance cannot be rated well if they do not attend to this indicator. Enrollment in these courses is also encouraged in the following additional indicators:  Percentage of students scoring in the highest quartile on the SA T9 reading and mathematics sub-tests  Percentage of students scoring at the advanced level on the State's Benchmark and end-of-level tests  Percentage of students scoring at the advanced level on the LRSD Academic Level Tests  Percentage of students earning at least a 19 on the ACT  Percentage of students taking Advanced Placement examinations  Percentage of students earning at least a \"3\" on AP examiniations  Percentage of students earning the Honors Seal on their diplomas  Percentage of students who require remediation in college Building-Level Guidance Plan Each school designs and implements an annual guidance plan that is aligned with State and LRSD expectations. 39 Review and Monitoring of Quarterly Grade Distribution Reports The Superintendent and the Associate Superintendent for Instruction monitor quarterly the grade distribution reports, as do school-level staff. National Science Foundation Accountability Report The NSF program staff compile and submit to NSF an annual report that includes a narrative on the activities implemented and many tables and charts of data that are required for accountability. These data include enrollment in Pre-AP and AP courses, as well as other higher-level courses in mathematics and science. Programs College Preparatory Enrichment Program (CPEP) This summer tutoring program is funded by the State of Arkansas. The program goal is to improve students' mathematics and verbal scores on the ACT. The knowledge and skills that are taught reinforce student success in advanced classes. Academic Enrichment and Gifted in Surnrner (AEGIS), Grades 7-12 This program is state funded for identified gifted students. Southeastern Consortium for Minorities in Engineering (SECME) SECME is a premiere pre-college program that prepares and motivates students for engineering and other technical fields. LRSD received $22,000 from SECME to implement the SECME program in thirteen elementary and secondary schools. SECME's goal, which is tightly aligned with the Little Rock NSF project, is to increase the pool of minorities who are prepared to enter and complete post-secondary studies in engineering, mathematics, and science. The Little Rock SECME program works in partnerships with faculty from the School of Engineering at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR). The faculty provides in-kind contributions to deliver technical assistance to school teams. NSF funds were used to support the SECME program in five additional schools. Early College Planning Process (middle school) Students plan their high school graduation and for college both in their grade 7 Career Orientation class and through the middle school guidance program. SMART This NSF-funded program provides a summer enrichment program in mathematics to ensure higher levels of success among grade 9 students in Algebra I. School-based Student Support Teams Each school has a Student Support Team whose goal is to monitor student achievement and provide support and necessary interventions to students at risk of failure. English I-II Workshop Pre-AP Three high schools plan to implement in fall 2000 a double-period English I Pre-AP course (and then to add the double-period English II Pre-AP course in fall 2001). This course will 40 include the curriculum content standards and benchmarks of the English I Pre-AP course, plus specific instruction in areas that students need for success in AP courses: note-taking, essay writing, critical reading skills, vocabulary development, test preparation, college application skills, and so forth. A part of the plan is to work with the community to secure mentors/tutors for students who need assistance in these courses. The curriculum will support student success not only in AP English courses, but in other AP courses as well. Section 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. Alignment of Multiple Plans Early in 1998 the staff concluded that everyone was going to be confused unless District leaders could clearly demonstrate the alignment and connections among at least six critical planning documents and accountability systems for the District:  LRSD Strategic Plan  LRSD Revised Desegregation and Education Plan  Title I  Arkansas Smart Start Initiative  Urban Professional Development Initiative  Collaborative Partnerships for Mathematics and Science Achievment (funded by NSF) What all these documents had in common were standards, professional development, and accountability. Members of the Division oflnstruction worked diligently, therefore, to keep all those tightly aligned as work proceeded toward implementation so that everyone at every level would see the six initiatives as basically one initiative, especially as they relate to curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Graphics were constructed, as were matrices, so that staff could see the connections. Student Success Model The Little Rock School District has adopted a comprehensive plan to improve student achievement. The Student Success Model has six components, as follows:  Establish a continuum of learning (curriculum standards and benchmarks)  Provide professional development on effective instructional strategies  Design an assessment system to measure academic progress  Create opportunities for personalized education  Build community support  Communicate. Communicate. Communicate. The Work Plan for the Division oflnstruction was organized under these six components in 1998-99 and continued into 1999-2000. They guide the staffs thinking and their work. The Student Success Model was unveiled for the first time at the July 1998 Summer Principals' Institute. The graphic used to explain the model was used every week during 1998-99 on the front page of the Division oflnstruction' s publication for principals, Leaming Links, to remind everyone of both the model and the focus: improved student achievement. 41 A formal presentation of the Student Success Model was made to the Board of Education, principals and members of the Campus Leadership Teams, and the community in November 1999 at the Excelsior Hotel. Packets of explanatory materials and lists of programs were distributed. The presentation was taped and then broadcast on the District's cable channel. In a school district that is 68 percent African-American, as is the Little Rock School District, everything that responsible educators do must serve to improve opportunities, access, support systems, and academic success of African-American.students. The following policies, procedures, and programs have been implemented in 1998-99 and 1999-2000 to that end. All policies and administrative regulations were reviewed not only by representative staff, but they were also sent for review and input to ODM, John Walker of Joshua Intervenors, Frank Martin of the Classroom Teachers Association, and to both Dr. Terrence Roberts and Dr. Steve Ross, desegregation consultants. Policies The section on Instruction in the Board of Education's policy manual has almost totally been revised. The following new policies (those not discussed in other sections of this document) have been adopted:  Policy IA, Academic Content Standards and Benchmarks, adopted on July 22, 1999, by the Board of Educati.on, establishes a standards-based education system for all students. Also stated is the expectation that, \"The District, each school, each individual educator, students, and their parents/guardians are collectively responsible for ensuring student success to every extent possible.\"  Policy IB, Academic Freedom, adopted by the Board on July 22, 1999, establishes rights of both teachers and students in the area of academic freedom.  Policy IC, School Year, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, establishes the length of the school year and allows the Superintendent to apply for a waiver of up to five instructional days to be used for the professional development of staff.  Policy ICA, School Calendar, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, sets forth the requirement that the Board annually adopt the school calendar.  Policy ID, School Day, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, establishes the number of required instructional hours in the school day for elementary and secondary students.  Policy IG, Curriculum Development, Adoption, and Review, adopted by the Board of Education on August 26, 1999, requires Board approval for new courses added to the curriculum.  Policy IGA, Curriculum Program Alignment and Coherence, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, requires that all curriculum be aligned with the District's planning documents and the regular education program. It further requires that special education, Title I, ESL, migrant education, gifted and talented education, 504 programs, alternative education, and other instructional programs reflect the district-adopted standards and benchmarks. 42  Policy IGE, Curriculum Guides, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, requires curriculum guides for all courses offered in the District.  Policy IHAL, Religion in the Schools, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, reinforces the American tradition of separation of church and state. The policy specifically permits teaching about religion.  Policy IHBDA, Remedial Instruction, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, makes a commitment to provide \"expanded learning opportunities for all students.\" The policy further states that \"Intervention and remediation efforts ... will be comprised of a broad range of alternatives to ensure that all students are afforded equitable opportunities to perform at or above the 'proficient' level as defined by the standards of Arkansas and the Little Rock School District.\"  Policy IHBH, Alternative Education Programs, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, states that the District will \"provide alternative educational opportunities to the extent practicable for those students unable to succeed in a traditional learning environment.\"  Policy IHCA, Summer School, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, authorizes summer school programs for extended learning opportunities.  Policy IHCD, Credit for College Courses, adopted by the Board of Education on July 23, 1998, establishes concurrent credit programs between high schools and area universities.  Policy IHCDA, Opportunities to Earn College Credit, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, allows students to enroll in college courses while they are still in high school.  Policy JIB, Teacher-Student Ratio, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, reinforces the Arkansas Accreditation Standards for teacher and student ratios.  Policy IJ, Instructional Resources and Materials, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, establishes the responsibilities of the Board in the selection, adoption, maintenance, and control of instructional materials.  Policy IKA, Grading Systems, adopted by the Board of Education on September 23, 1999, establishes a purpose for grading, the expectations of fairness, the requirement of written procedures, the requirement that grades reflect only academic performance--not discipline, and the provision for adaptions in instruction, performance standards, and assessment strategies for students with special needs.  Policy IKB, Homework, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, sets forth a philosophy on homework.  Policy IKE, Promotion and Retention of Students, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, requires standards to be established to guide promotion and retention decisions.  Policy IKEC, Award of Credit, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, defines a unit of credit and authorizes the Superintendent to award credits earned in various ways. 43  Policy IKF A, Early Graduation, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, discourages, but allows a student to graduate early.  Policy IMB, Teaching about ControversiaVSensitive Issues, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, establishes parameters to guide decisions.  Policy !MCA, Distribution of Materials and Literature Through Schools, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, requires the Superintendent's authorization for the distribution of external materials.  Policy IMH, Class Interruptions, adopted by the Board of Education on July 22, 1999, establishes the expectation that non-academic interruptions to instruction be radically limited. Policies still under development include those relating to the administration of Title I, those relating to the professional development program, and one on computer literacy. The Board of Education also approved the revised middle school curriculum requirements in November 1998 and the revised high school curriculum in December 1998. Both were slightly revised by Board action in December 1999. Procedures The following Administrative Regulations establish the procedures for curriculum, instruction, and assessment staff, as well as school-level staff:       Administrative Regulation IA-R, Academic Content Standards and Benchmarks, adopted October 21, 1999, establishes eight exit standards for students to achieve by the time they graduate from high school. Administrative Regulation ID-R, adopted on October 21, 1999, establishes the minimum number of courses in which a student must enroll in grades 9-12. Adminstrative Regulation IGE-Rl, Curriculum Guide Development, adopted on October 21, 1999, establishes a five-year cycle for curriculum guide development, describes the processes that will be used, and sets expectations for dissemination and implementation. Administrative Regulation IGE-R2, Approval of New Courses, adopted on October 21, 1999, lays out the processes to be used for the approval of new courses in the curriculum. Administrative Regulation IHBDA-R, Intervention/Remediation, adopted on October 21, 1999, requires that assistance be provided \"for any student who is performing below the standard levels of achievement in the areas of mathematics and reading/language arts.\" Intervention/ remediation programs include \"re-teaching, tutoring, extended-day programs, Saturday programs, surnrner school, and special courses offered within the school day.\" Administrative Regulation IHCDA-R, Concurrent Enrollment, adopted on October 21, 1999, provides procedures for concurrent enrollment and credit. Administrative Regulation IJ-Rl, Textbook Adoptions, adopted on October 21, 1999, establishes the procedures for adoption of textbooks. 44  Administrative Regulation IJ-R2, Library Media Center Materials Selection, adopted on October 21, 1999, establishes the procedures for the selection, retention, and/or removal of library media center materials.  Administrative Regulation IKA-R, Nine-Week/SemesterNearly Grading Procedures, adopted on October 21, 1999, provides procedures for teachers to use in grade calculations at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. Included is the provision for semester test exemptions at the high school level.  Administrative Regulation IKE-R, Student Promotion and Retention, PreK- 12, adopted on October 21, 1999, provides specific guidelines for decisions relating to promotion and retention at each level.  Administrative Regulation IKEC-Rl, Credit for College Dual-Credit and College Summer Enrichment Programs, adopted on October 21, 1999, establishes parameters and criteria for award of credit earned in these programs.  Administrative Regulation IKEC-R2, Credit for Correspondence Courses, establishes procedures and parameters for the use of credit earned through correspondence courses.  Administrative Regulation IKEC-R3, Credit by Examination, establishes a list of approved courses for which credit by examination can be earned and the procedures for administering the program. Curriculum Content Standards/Benchmarks 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. Teachers received their copies of the new curriculum documents in August 1999, along with some initial training in their implementation. Follow-up training has occurred throughout 1999-2000. (See Section 5.) Standards are important to ensure that high expectations for learning are established for every student. They describe for all involved the specific knowledge and skills that students should acquire during a year of instruction. Extensive, in-depth, and follow-up training is important for teachers so that they have the tools that they need to ensure student success in achieving the established curriculum standards and benchmarks. Instructional Standards A committee has been at work throughout 1999-2000 to identify or adapt or, perhaps, create a set of desired instructional ( or delivery) standards for use throughout the District, K-12. These standards will guide the design of professional development programs at both the District and school levels\nwould serve as part of the criteria by which educators at the District and school levels can evaluate potential curricula as 45 staff plan for improved student achievement\nwill be used by staff who observe instruction to provide feedback\nand eventually will be used to inform a revised teacher evaluation system. This work has been exciting in that it has provided a forum for professional development, for critical thinking about the available options, for discussions about culture and differences among both students and teachers, and consideration of the K- 12 and across-the-curriculum needs. Among the resources that the committee has studied are the following:  Robert Marzano. A Different Kind of Classroom: Teaching with Dimensions of Leaming. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 1992.  Robert Marzano. A Theory-Based Meta-Analysis of Research on Instruction. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Regional Education Laboratory. 1998.  Stephanie Stoll Dalton. Pedagogy Matters: Standards for Effective Teaching Practice. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence. 1998.  Gloria Ladson-Billing. The Dreamkeepers: Successful Teachers of African American Children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 1994.  Robert Cole. Educating Everybody's Children: Diverse Teaching Strategies for Diverse Learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 1995.  Steven Zemelrnan, Harvey Daniels, and Arthur Hyde. Best Practice: New Standards for Teaching and Learning in America's Schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. 1998.  Gordon Cawelti. Handbook of Research on Improving Student Achievement. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service. 1999.  Bruce Joyce and Emily Calhoun. Creating Learning Experiences: The Role oflnstructional Theory and Research. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1996.  National Research Council. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 1999.  Fred Newmann, Walter Secada, and Gary Wehlage. A Guide to Authentic Instruction and Assessment: Vision, Standards, and Scoring. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research. 1995.  Barbara Presseisen. Teaching for Intelligence. Arlington Heights, IL: Sky Light. 1999.  Charlotte Danielson's Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 1996.  Bruce Joyce and Marsha Weil's Models of Teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc. 1986.  U.S. Department of Education's Programs for English Language Learners. Washington, DC: Office of Civil Rights. 1999. 46 The core committee doing this work includes diverse participants-those representing general education, special education, gifted education, career and technical education, English-as-a-Second Language, and both elementary and secondary. A representative of ODM serves as well. More diverse levels of staff will be involved as the process continues. The Instructional Standards will be established by the end of the 1999-2000 school year and will be used immediately in planning for 2000-2001 professional development activities. Programs Title I Programs The District's Title I program serves all elementary schools and middle schools, with the exception of magnet schools that already receive supplemental funding. Money is allocated to the District and then to schools on the basis of student participation in the free and reduced lunch program. Targeted students are those who are performing at the \"below basic\" and \"basic\" levels on assessments in reading and mathematics. PLATO Labs The District has acquired PLATO laboratories for Hall, Central, and McClellan High Schools. These schools are using the programs for remediation of socially promoted students to the high schools, for tutoring in English and mathematics concepts and skills, and for retaking courses that students have failed in the core areas. Accelerated Learning Center The Accelerated LearningCenter at Metropolitan serves more than 300 over-age and creditdeficient high school students in 1999-2000 in three sessions daily and in the summer. The competency-based, accelerated program allows students to earn high school credits as quickly as they can complete the courses they lack. This program has already had a dramatic postive effect on the drop-out rate, allowing many students to graduate who might not otherwise have done so. Alternative Learning Center The Alternative Learning Center serves middle and high school students who are on longterm suspension or expulsion. Students at this school can not only continue to make academic progress, but they also receive instruction and coaching on behavior modification so that they can be more successful when they return to their home schools. Summer School The District runs a comprehensive summer school for elementary, middle, and high school students. In summer 1999 the elementary program was conducted with an emphasis on literacy, using the Reading Clinic model. Modifications to the secondary program in summer 1999 included the decision to limit enrollment to students who live in LRSD, thereby ensuring adequate space for LRSD students. 47 Tutoring Programs Several schools offer in-classroom or extended day tutoring services, especially in reading and mathematics. 21 st Century Community Leaming Centers Project (Little Rock LEADERS) Little Rock LEADERS (Literacy Education, Academic Development, Educational Resource Services) is a federally funded grant project, awarded in summer 1998 that provides educational programming to students and adults of the Little Rock community. An advisory committee comprised of community partners, parents, and school district personnel provide direction and feedback regarding the LEADERS program. Programs sponsored by this project include after-school tutoring for students in grades K-12, 2 Cool 4 School, and One Three One Five Workforce Readiness and Community Service Program (for 13-15 yearolds). Mental and physical health services are also provided. ACT Tutoring A series of three-hour workshops in each of the core test areas is provided on Saturdays for persons taking the ACT. These workshops are scheduled on consecutive Saturdays leading up to the test dates available during the school year. Career Orientation (Required Grade 7 Course) The Board approved the new middle school curriculum in November 1998. At grade 7 there is a new requirement that all students take one semester of Career Orientation. The curriculum for the course was restructured so that it now meets the objectives of the Middle School Curriculum Committee. A part of the class time is devoted to a study of the high school graduation requirements and all its options, and then students make a first draft of a graduation plan. This class also includes vocational aptitude testing and feedback. The intent is to carve out sufficient time for all students to be well informed about high school and to receive good information and guidance on the choices they have. Block Scheduling All of the LRSD high schools block scheduled in fall 1999\nthat is, teachers and students met a given classes every other day. Students may take eight courses (four each day), and teachers teach six (three each day). Longer class periods have been found to facilitate the kind of instructional strategies that work best with all kinds of learners. Teachers received professional development to prepa\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_302","title":"Compliance court orders","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2000-03/2001-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","School administrators"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance court orders"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/302"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nIncludes vitae for Terrence J. Roberts, Ph.D., clinical psychology\nLittle Rock Nine\nAttachment 1 VITAE TERRENCE J. ROBERTS, Ph.D. Clinical Psychology EDUCATION: Ph.D. MSW BA - Southern Illinois University, 1976, Psychology - University of California, Los Angeles, 1970 - California State University, Los Angeles, 1967 LICENSING AND CERTIFICATION: California State Licensed Psychologist, Lie. #PSY8892 California State Licensed Social Worker, Lie. #5600 EXPERIENCE: Chief executive officer for Terrence J. Roberts \u0026amp; Associates, a management consultation firm active in California since 1975. A dynamic group with a wide range of skills and professional abilities. Workshops and Seminars in the areas of: Stress Management Effective Communication Managing Human Relationships Employment Transition Team Building Management Skills Managing Racial and Ethnic Diversity Self Growth and Development Conflict Resolution Developing Multicultural Awareness Employee Evaluation Staff Development Office of Desegregation Monitoring RLE COPYCreated training programs and materials for employees in the department. Participated in program delivery, evaluation and revision. Provided social welfare services to children and families in the child welfare division. CONSULTATIONXPSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES General psychology and consultation practice office in Pasadena, Ca. Practice includes psychological assessment, psychotherapy for individuals, families, and groups, and psychological consultation to education, business and industry. MEMBERSHIPS: Member, American Psychological Association Board Member, African American Cultural Institute Board Member, Eisenhower World Affairs Institute Board Member, Economic Resources Corporation PUBLICATIONS: \"Managing Trial Stress,\" in Jonathan M. Purver, Douglas R. Young, and James J. Davis III, Trial Handbook For California Lawyers. Bancroft-Whitney Co., 1987. ir 'Understanding Choice: Gateway to Sound Mental Health,\" Journal of Mental Health Administration. Vol.9. No.l. 1978. \"Social Welfare in Black America,\" in Cox, et al, eds. Introduction to Black America: A Cultural Perspective, Southern Illinois University Press, 1974. AWARDS: Spingam Medal, 1957 Annual award presented by NAACP to that person or persons making outstanding .contributions to the area of human rights. Robert S. Abbott Memorial Award, 1958 Annual award presented to those who do most to extend the frontiers of democracy. Outstanding Teacher of the Year, College of Human Resources Southern Illinois University, 1974. NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. Award, 1982Award commemorating twenty-fifth anniversary of \"Little Rock. Nine's\" integration of Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. Southern Christian Leadership Conference Women Martin Luther King, Jr. \"Drum Major for Justice\" Award, 1995 Presented in Atlanta, Georgia. REFERENCES: Available upon request.Consultation services provided .to\nCalifornia Attorneys for Crimmal Justice California Medical Center Cedars Sinai Hospital  Children's Bureau of Southern California Claremont Graduate School Cleveland College of Chiropractic Coca-Cola, Mid-Atlantic Division Crown City Medical Episcopal Diocese, Los Angeles Fairfield Community Hospital Heller, Ehrman, White \u0026amp; McAuliffe Internal Revenue Service, Los Angeles Kaiser Foundation King-Drew Medical Center, Los Angeles Los Angeles County Department of Children's Services o Oskar J's Sightseeing Tours, Inc. Pacific Union College Pasadena Community College Pasadena Tournament of Roses Pepperdine University Pomona College _ . Redwood Empire Central Service Association Riverside County Children's Services Department Santa Clara Valley Medical Center The Fielding Institute The March of Dimes Foundation TRW University of California, (Davis, Los Angeles, San Diego) Chair, Master's in Psychology Antioch University, Los Angeles 1993 - present ing curriculum, coordinating student --  , of the Chah include ^(Ste governance of the University, proiatns. creating and managing yearly budgets, Heecrioti and hiring and supervising adjunct faculty i--------- Responsibilities Indstaff' Included in the job description a.s well are oactivities designed to enhance the quality of the program and to maintain connections with psychology programs at schools in the southern California area. Assistant Dean, Student Services UCLA School of Social Welfare 1985 - 1993 Responsible for overall direction of student services including recruitment, admissions, retention, financial aid, student government, and coordination of both MSW and Ph.D. candidate programs. Supervisory responsibilities for student services assistant and student workers. Classroom teaching responsibilities included preparation and delivery of courses in cross-cultural awareness and group conflict and change. Director, Mental Health Services St. Helena Hospital and Health Center Deer Park, CA. 1975 - 1985 General administrative responsibility for seventeen bed acute care mental health unit. Duties included staffing, program development, budget allocation, staff development, quality control, coordination of ancillary services, and other related tasks. Served also as \"troubles-shooter\" for other units in the hospital providing assessment and consultation around changes in procedures and personnel. Lectured and led groups in Health Center programs including cardiac, alcohol, and pulmonary rehabilitation\nsmoking cessation\nweight management\nand eating disorders. Program Director, Social Work Pacific Union College Angwin, CA 1975 - 1978 P^.esponsible for development of social work curriculum and coordination of program within a behavioral science department. Instructor, Social Work Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Illinois 1972 - 1975 Taught courses and advised majors in undergraduate social work program. Los Angeles County Children's Service 1. 2. Staff Development Specialist: 1970 - 1972 Child Welfare Worker: 1967 - 1970Attachment 2 BRIEF VITA PERSONAL DATA Steven M. Ross EDUCATION Institution Pennsylvania State University Degree-Year B.A. 1969 M.S. 1972 Ph.D. 1974 Undergraduate Major: Graduate Major\nPsychology Educational Psychology PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS American Psychological Association, Fellow American Educational Research Association, Member Mid-South Educational Research Association, Member Association for Educational Communications \u0026amp; Technology, Member International Congress for School Effectiveness and School Improvements, Member EXPERIENCE Instructor, Continuing Education, 1973-74, Pennsylvania State University Instructor, Psychology, Spring Semester, 1974, Lock Haven State College Lock Haven, Pennsylvania Evaluator, Summer, 1974, Mitre Corporation, McLean, Virginia Assistant Professor, Educational Psychology, 1974-79, University of Memphis Associate Professor, Educational Psychology, 1980-1985 Professor, Educational Psychology, 1985 - Present Senior Researcher, Center for Research in Education Policy, Univ, of Memphis, 1995-Present COURSES RECENTLY TAUGHT Theories of Learning (Undergraduate) Individual Differences and Learning (Graduate) Educational Statistics (Undergraduate and Graduate) Educational Research (Graduate) Computers in Education (Graduate and Undergraduate) Thesis Writing (Graduate) Educational Assessment (Graduate)Attachment 2 HONORS AND DISTINCTIONS 1. 2. 3. 4, 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. NDEA Fellowship for graduate study at the Pennsylvania State University, 1971-1973. Graduate Student Associate, Southwest Regional Laboratory, Summer, 1971, Distinguished Teaching Service Award, University of Memphis, 1980. Phi Delta Kappa Professional Research Award, Memphis Chapter, 1983. Elected Fellow, Division 15, American Psychological Association, 1986. Visiting Scholar, National Center for Research on Improving Postsecondary Teaching and Learning. University of Memphis, 1987. Distinguished Research Award, University of Memphis, 1987. Distinguished Teacher Service Award, University of Memphis, 1988. (First eligibility since 1980\nno longer eligible) Memphis State University nominee, CASE Professor of the Year Award, 1989. 10. Superior Performance in University Research (SPUR) Award, University of Memphis, 1990, 1991, 1992 11. Distinguished Research Award, University of Memphis, 1993. 12. Board of Visitors Eminent Faculty Award, University of Memphis (first recipient), 1993 13. Editor, Educational Technology Research and Development, 1993-present 14. Editorial Board, Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 1995- present 15. Editorial Board, Computers and Human Behavior, 1994-present SCHOLARSHIP Publications in Refereed Journals\nBooks Book Chapters Papers Presented at Professional Meetings 115 6 16 170 SELECTED RECENT PUBLICATIONS Ross, S.M., Henry D., Phillipsen, L., Evans, K., Smith, L., \u0026amp; Buggey, T. (1997). Matching restructuring programs to schools: Selection, negotiation, and preparation. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8, 45-71. Ross, S.M.,Troutman, A., Horgan, D., Maxwell, S., Laitinen, R., \u0026amp; Lowther, D. (1997). The success of schools in implementing eight restructuring designs: A synthesis of first-year evaluation outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 8, 95-124. Ross, S.M., Smith, L.J. \u0026amp; Casey, J. (1997). Preventing early school failure: Impacts of Success for all on standardized test outcomes, minority group performance, and school effectiveness. Journal for Research on Students Placed at Risk, 2, 29-54.Attachment 2'  Stringfield, S., \u0026amp; Ross, S.M. (1997). A reflection at time three of marathon: The Memphis restructuring initiative in mid-stride. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 8. 151-161. Ross, S. \u0026amp; Smith, L.J. (1997). Improving the academic success of disadvantaged children: An examination of Success for All. Psychology in the Schools, 3 4. 171-180. Jayasinghe, M.G. Morrison, G.R. \u0026amp; Ross, S.M. (1997). The effect of distance learning classroom design on student perceptions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 4 5, 5-20. Ross, S.M., \u0026amp; Smith, L.J. (in press). Improving school achievement and inter-group relations for children placed at risk. European Journal of Intercultural Education. Smith, L.J., Ross, S.M., McNelis, M., Squires, M., and others (1998), The Memphis restructuring initiative: Analysis of activities and outcomes that impact implementation success. Education and Urban Society. 3 0 (3), 326- 357. Stringfield, S., Datnow, A., Ross, S., \u0026amp; Snively, F. (1998). Scaling up school restructuring in multicultural multilingual contexts: Early observations from Sunland County. Education and Urban Society, 3 0 (3), 326-357. Ross, S.M., Smith, L.J. \u0026amp; Casey, J.P. (in press). Bridging the Gap: The effects of the Success for All Programs on elementary school reading achievement as a function of student ethnicity and ability level. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. Summary of Interests During the past ten years, I have worked extensively with school districts, both regionally and locally, to develop and evaluate programs for improving student achievement. The primary focus of these studies has been schools predominantly serving disadvantaged inner-city minority children. In 1992,1 was the lead researcher for the school equity study for the State of Alabama Financial Equity Case and am currently lead researcher on a comparable study in Louisiana. Additional ongoing research projects are studies of school restructuring designs as they are implemented in Memphis City Schools and Dade County (FL) schools and of professional development schools in seven national sites as part of the NEA Teacher Education Initiative (NEA-TEI).Attachment 3 1998-99 (DRAPT 2/7/00) Relationship Between Total Scores and Percent of African American Students Correlations Total Score\n1998 Pearson Correlation Total Score: 1998 1.000 Percent of African-Americ an Students: 1998 Sig. (2-tailed) N .285 48 48 Percent of African-American Students: 1998 Pearson Correlation Sig. {2-tailed) .158 .285 48 1.000 48 100 T CO o CD 90 c o a  to C .y E \u0026lt; c s 80 70 60 N Q  Q Q c Q  o  Q   a  B s     Q    0 a c Q  \u0026lt; o 50.   s  s   Q  0) o s G_ 40 30 40 50 60 70 0  Total Score: 1998Attachment A- 1999-00 (DRAFT 2/7/00) Relationship Between Total Scores and Percent of African-American Students Correlations Total Score: isyy Percent of African-American Students: 1999 Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) Total Score: 1999 TOGO 48 -.046 .758 48 Percent of African-Americ an Students: 1999 -.046~ .75Q 48 TSoo 48 N I 100 a  a   S o CD CD 90 oa in c CD o D 00 C CO c p \u0026lt; c ra o 80 70' 60 50 \u0026lt; *0  o o s 0- 40. 30 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 s        a   a    Q   a Q  Q   c      a  c    Total Score: 1999FRIDAY. ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1922-19941 WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P.A. BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR., P.A. JOE O. BELL, P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY, P.A. FREDERICK S. URSEHY, P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS, JR., P.A. JAMES C. CLARK, JR., P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM III, P.A. LARRY W. BURKS, PA. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR., P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS, P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III, P.A. DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER, P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD D. TAYLOR, P A. JOSEPH B. HURST, JR., P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER, P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER, P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III, P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE, P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY, P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III, P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT 6. BEACH. JR.. P.A. J. LEE BROWN, P.A. JAMES C. BAKER, JR., P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT, P.A. A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-201 1 FAX NO. 501-376-2147 March 15, 2000 DECEIVED MAR 15 2000 Office OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING SCOTT H. TUCKER, P.A. GUY ALTON WADE, P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER. P-A. TONIA P. JONES, P.A. DAVID D. WILSON, P.A. JEFFREY H. MOORE, P.A. DAVID M. GRAF, P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR, P.A. JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR., P.A. JONANN CONIGLIO FLEISCHAUER, P.A. R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON, P.A. GREGORY D. TAYLOR, P.A. TONY L. WILCOX. P.A. FRAN C. HICKMAN, P.A. BETTY J. OEMORY, P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON, P.A. JAMES W. SMITH CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT DANIEL L. HERRINGTON K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK, JR. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS HELENE N. RAYDER JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL CHRIS A. AVERITT KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH MARTIN A. KASTEN ROBERT T. SMITH Of COUNSEL WILLIAM J. SMITH B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON, JR. H.T. LARZELERE, P.A, JOHN C. ECHOLS, P.A. WRITER'S DIRECT NO. (501 \u0026gt; 370-3323 Mr. James W. McCormack United States District Court Clerk 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 402 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 RE: Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et. al.\nMrs. Lorene Joshua, et. al.\nKatherine Knight, et. al. United States District Court. Eastern District. Western Division No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Mr. McCormack: Enclosed please find the original and copies of plaintiff s Notice of Filing LRSDs Interim Compliance Report to be filed in the captioned case. Please file the original of record and return the extra file marked copies to me in the enclosed envelope. By copy of this letter, I am forwarding a copy of the enclosed pleading to counsel for the defendant. JCF/bgb enclosure(s) cc: Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Steve Jones F:\\HOME\\JEANNE\\Barbara\\jef - Irsd v. pcssd clcrk-ll.wpd Sincerely, John C. Pendley, Jr. Mr. Richard Roachell Ms. Ann Brown (hand delivered) Mr. Timothy G. Gauger IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING LRSD'S INTERIM COMPLIANCE REPORT The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") hereby gives notice of filing the attached Interim Compliance Report outlining the programs, policies and procedures implemented in accordance with LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY\nyohn C. Fendiey,Jr! (#92182)CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on this 15th day of March, 2000. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway- Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roache11 Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Interim Compliance Report Little Rock School District /)ai J RESERVED MAR i 5 2GQfl CfflCEGF DESEGRGAilC\ni^lCi^uORI?iS March 15, 2000 (^PR 19 2M IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE A COMPLETE COPY OF LRSD'S INTERIM COMPLIANCE REPORT The Little Rock School District (LRSD) for its Motion to Substitute A Complete Copy of LRSD's Interim Compliance Report states: 1. On March 15, 2000, LRSD filed its Interim Compliance Report outlining the programs, policies and procedures implemented in accordance with LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 2 . Since that time, it has come to LRSD's attention that attachments 1 through 4 of the Interim Compliance Report were inadvertently omitted from the report during printing. 3 . A complete copy of the report, including attachments 1 through 4, are attached to this Motion. LRSD respectfully requests that this report be substituted for the one filed March 15, 2000. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that the complete copy of LRSD's Interim Compliance Report attached hereto be substituted for the one filed March 15, 2000.Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY: 2182) 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on this 18th day of April, 2000. on Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222 Ms. Ann Brown HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 . Fendley, Jr. 3HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1922-1994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR.. P.A. JOE D. BELL. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY, P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR.. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM III. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD D. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER, P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL 111, P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR., P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER, P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY, P.A. ROBERT 8. BEACH, JR.. P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR.. P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX NO. 501-376-2147 April 18, i^CEIVED APR 19 Joaa OTCEGF DKESRBTION MONITORINS SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER. P.A. TONIA P. JONES. P.A. DAVID D. WILSON. P.A. JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GRAF. P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR.. P.A. JONANN CONIGLIO FLEISCHAUER. P.A. R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.A. GREGORY D. TAYLOR. P.A. TONY L. WILCOX. P.A. FRAN C. HICKMAN. P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY. P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W. SMITH CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT DANIEL L. HERRINGTON K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS HELENE N. RAYDER JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL CHRIS A. AVERITT KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN ROBERT T. SMITH OF COUNSEL WILLIAM J. SMITH B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. WRITER'S DIRECT NO. (501) 370-3323 Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Sam Jones John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Mr. Richard Roachell Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222 Ms. Ann Brown - Hand Delivered Desegration Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: LRSD vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et. al.\nMrs. Lorene Joshua, et. al.\nKatherine Knight, et. al. USDC, Eastern District, Western Division No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Ms. Brown \u0026amp; Gentlemen: Enclosed please find a Motion to Substitute a Complete Copy of LRSDs Interim Compliance Report which we are filing today. As indicated in the motion, attachments 1-4 of LRSDs interim compliance report were inadvertently omitted during the printing process. We are enclosing attachments 1 - 4 which you can insert in the original copy of the report served on you. F:\\HOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD\\pc5sd-brown ct al h.wpd Office of Desegregation Monitoring FILF COPYMs. Brown \u0026amp; Gentlemen April 18,2000 Page 2 If you would rather receive a second and complete copy of the report, please do not hesitate to call, and we will try to provide one. Sincerely, John C. Fendley, Jr. JCF/bgb enclosure(s) F:\\HOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD\\pcssd-brown et al h.wpdRespectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY: 2182) 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on this 18th day of April, 2000. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, AR 72222 Ms. Ann Brown HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 3 r FILED f IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT U.S. DISTRICT COURT eastern district ARKANSAS APR 25 2000 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION By:. ERK DEPCLERk- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. l,etal.. Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al.. Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al.. Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * * * No. LR-C-82-866 RECBVED APR 2 6  orflGtOl- OESEGREGAPOfiMONnORIHS ORDER The Little Rock School District (LRSD) filed a motion to substitute a complete copy of the districts interim compliance report for a copy originally filed March 15, 2000. The motion is GRANTED [docket no. 3355]. IT IS SO ORDERED THIS\u0026lt;^\" DAY OF APRIL, 2000 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT RULE 58 ANi 3 BY_ rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPUANCf WITH RULE 58 ANQ^R 79(a) FRCP ON__ ' Docket no. 3344. 3 3 5 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 RECESVSD PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ET AL MAR 15 DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL OFFICE OF DESEGRESWIOM MONITORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING COMPLIANCE REPORT AND REQUEST FOR SCHEDULING ORDER The Little Rock School District (LRSD or District) for its Notice of Filing Compliance Report and Request for Scheduling Order states: 1. LRSD hereby files the attached Compliance Report in accordance with Section 11 of its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan). LRSD has substantially and in good faith complied with terms of the Revised Plan. A brief summary of each section of the Compliance Report is set forth below. 2. Good Faith. During the term of the Revised Plan, LRSD attempted to demonstrate its good faith by complying with its plan obligations. To manifest its good faith commitment for the future, the LRSD Board of Directors (Board) on January 11, 2001, adopted a Covenant for the Future, in which the Board promised to continue fighting discrimination, providing equity and improving the academic achievement of all students. A key component of the Districts success under the Revised Plan was the establishment of Campus Leadership Teams (CLTs) at each school. The CLTs provide the horsepower driving the Districts efforts to improve student achievement. The District invested heavily in providing training to the CLTs and school principals in Total Quality Management (TQM). All principals received intensive TQM training through the Arkansas Leadership Academy. The Office of Desegregation Mcxtftoring filecopyDistricts focus on quality leadership has not gone without recognition. In the fall of 2000, the District received the Quality Commitment Award from the non-profit group Arkansas Quality Award. This award recognized the District as an organization that has a plan and commitment to quality management. The Districts development of leadership talent should pay substantial dividends in the future. 3. Faculty and Staff. LRSD had a strong record in the area of faculty and staff even before adopting the Revised Plan. Even so, the District worked hard to recruit, develop and promote increased numbers of qualified Afncan-Americans. Under the Revised Plan, the District increased the percentage of Afncan-American administrators and teachers, and it increased the number of Afncan-American media specialists, counselors, secondary core subject teachers, early childhood teachers and primary grade teachers. The District also began tracking the distribution of the most experienced and educated teachers in an effort to better ensure an equitable distribution of these teachers. 4. Student Assigiunent. In accordance with the Revised Plan, the District revised student attendance zones to allow students to go to their neighborhood schools to the extent possible. While this resulted in an increase in the number of racially identifiable schools and schools more than 20 percentage points from the district-wide percentage of Afncan-American students, the increases were not dramatic. Moreover, the large number of alternative assignment choices available to students helped minimize any adverse effect resulting from the neighborhood school zone plan. This year twenty-percent of the Districts students chose to attend a school other than their zone school. 5. Special Education. While African-American students remain disproportionately represented among special education students, a review of the Districts programs, policies, and procedures revealed no vestiges of racial discrimination in the referral and placement of students in special education or other special needs programs. Furthermore, since 1998-99 the increase in the number of Afncan-American students identified with disabilities has been in proportion to 2their increase in the total student population. There has been only two percent growth in the number of identified students with disabilities since 1998-99, with the percentage of African- American students remaining just about the same. The two percent growth correlates with the increase in total student enrollment over the same period, as well as an increase in the percentage of students qualifying for ffee/reduced lunch eligibility. 6. Discipline. The number of Afncan-American students suspended decreased 20 percent from 1997-98 through 1999-2000. This was consistent with a 21 percent decrease in the total number of disciplinary sanctions. For the same time period, the number of students committing offenses decreased 16 percent. Thus, fewer student are committing offenses, and those that do commit offenses are less likely to commit a second offense. The behavior modification plans being implemented pursuant to the Revised Plan may account for this decrease. The decrease in discipline sanctions positively impacted parents and teachers perceptions of District schools. A survey of parents and teachers conducted during the 1999-2000 school year revealed that 93 percent of African-American parents and 95 percent of white/other parents who expressed an opinion agreed that their child was safe at school. Ninety-one percent of both African-American and white/other parents who expressed an opinion agreed that their child has a feeling of belonging at school. Ninety-seven percent of Afncan-American teachers and 96 percent of white/other teachers who expressed an opinion indicated that they felt safe at school. 7. Extracurricular Activities. Extracurricular activities increased dramatically under the Revised Plan. The number of Afncan-American students participating in extracurricular activities jumped from 2,335 to 5,203 from 1997-98 through 1999-2000. A large part of the increase in participation resulted from a no-cut policy in athletics for middle school six graders and the use of Supplemental Instructional Plans (SIPs). SIPs allow students who otherwise would be academically ineligible for athletics to continue participating in athletics while they attend tutoring to improve their grades. The District also organized an Activities Advisory Board to promote, support and enhance the activities available in the District. 3The 1999-2000 survey of parents and teachers also reflected the Districts success in the area of extracurricular activities. Ninety percent of African-American parents and 93 percent of white/other parents who expressed an opinion agreed that activities were open to students. Ninety-three percent of African-American teachers and 95 percent of white/other teachers who expressed an opinion agreed that students have opportunities for activities. 8. Advanced Placement Courses. New policies and procedures for placement of students in advanced courses greatly improved access and participation for all students, and especially African-American students. New programs have the potential of producing exponential growths in both participation and success in advanced courses in the next few years. The increasing number of African-American students participating and succeeding in advanced courses perhaps provides the best reason to be optimistic about the Districts future. With regard to Advanced Placement (AP) courses, the total enrollment of African- American students increased from 471 in 1997-98 to 797 in 2000-01an increase of 326 students or 69 percent. The total enrollment of white/other students in AP courses increased from 964 in 1997-98 to 1495 in 2000-01an increase of 531 students or 55 percent. The total enrollment of all students in AP courses increased from 1435 in 1997-98 to 2292 in 2000-01an increase of 857 students or 60 percent. The number of AP courses taught increased from 16 in 1997-98 to 20 in 2000-01\nwhereas, the average high school in the United States teaches only six AP courses. With regard to high school Pre-AP courses, the total number of high school students enrolled improved from 5065 in 1999-2000 to 5953 in 2000-01an increase of 888 students or 15 percent. African-American student enrollment improved at a slightly higher ratefrom 2341 in 1999-2000 to 2715 in 2000-01an increase of 374 students or 16 percent. White/other student enrollment also improvedfrom 2724 in 1999-2000 to 3238 in 2000-01an increase of 514 or 15 percent. With regard to middle school Pre-AP courses, Afiican-American student enrollment grew 937 from 1999-2000 to 2000-01an increase of 19 percent. White/other student enrollment in 4middle school Pre-AP courses grew 1076 in one yeara 24 percent improvement. The total middle school Pre-AP enrollment grew by 2013 studentsa 22 percent improvement. In contrast to the enrollment in the high school AP courses, where African-American enrollment was 35 percent of the total in 2000-01, the African-American enrollment in middle school Pre-AP courses was 51 percent of the total. In sixth grade Pre-AP/GT English courses there were 908 students enrolled in 2000-01. At the high school level there were 261 students enrolled in English III AP in 2000-01. If the current grade six students stay in the pipeline for advanced course enrollment. the English III AP enrollment could improve 250 percent in a few years. The number of AP examinations taken increased from 422 in 1997-98 to 524 in 1999- 2000an increase of 24 percent. Although the percentage of students earning a 3 or higher on the AP examinations went down from 60 percent in 1997-98 to 52 percent in 1999-2000, the number of students earning a 3 or higher improved from 252 in 1997-98 to 268 in 1999-2000. With regard to the ACT, the most common college entrance exam taken by LRSD students, the number of test-takers improved from 786 in 1997-98 to 1026 in 1999-2000 for an increase of 240 or 31 percent. The number of African-American test takers improved from 410 to 570an increase of 160 students or 39 percent. The number of white test takers also increasedfrom 268 in 1997-98 to 345 in 1999-2000an improvement of 77 students or 29 percent. African-American students improved their English scores from 17.2 in 1997-98 to 17.4 in 1999-2000, their Science Reasoning scores from 17.2 to 17.4, and their average composite scores from 17.2 to 17.3. While small increases, they represent a substantial accomplishment given that test scores usually decrease when the number of test-takers increases. African-American students willingness to move into more rigorous academic courses may reflect their belief that they will get the support they need to succeed. In the 1999-2000 parent survey, 88 percent of African-American parents who expressed on opinion agreed that their child received academic support. Eighty-six percent of white/other parents who expressed an opinion agreed with this statement. 59. Academic Achievement. The District completely revised its policies, procedures, and programs to facilitate and enhance academic achievement of all students, especially African- American students. The District implemented new standards-based curricula, effective teaching strategies, aligned materials, and a re-designed and a comprehensive professional development program in fall 1999 and expanded in fall 2000 in English language arts, mathematics, and science, K-9. School year 2001-02 will see expansions into grades 10-12, as well as K-12 social studies and the beginning of fine arts program planning. Efforts included the addition of several new student support programs, many of which were funded through federal, state, and foundation grants. This District set high expectations for its students by raising graduation standards. Beginning in 2002, seniors must have a minimum of 24 units to graduate, and beginning in 2004, they must have 26 units. In addition, the District published a Recommended Curriculum for high school students that includes eight advanced courses in the 28 units that students are encouraged to complete. The District secured several major grants as a part of its efforts to improve academic achievement. They are as follows: A $3.4 million grant from the National Science Foundation to support improvements in mathematics and science\nA $7.8 million Safe Schools/Healthy Students grant from the United States Department of Education to support implementation of new programs aligned with the Districts transition of the junior highs to middle schools\nTwo multi-million dollar 21* Century Learning Community grants from the United States Department of Education to develop and support after-school and summer programs to support student achievement\nA $250,000 planning grant from the Carnegie Foundation to support a year of planning for high school reform and improvements in student achievement. 6An $11 million grant proposal was submitted to the Department of Education in December 2000 to develop magnet curricula at four southwestern Little Rock schools. One challenge the District faces in its effort to improve academic achievement is students arriving for kindergarten without the necessary social or learning skills. To meet this challenge, the District went beyond the requirements of Revised Plan in funding (with no assistance from the State) an early childhood program. The District implemented new four-year-old classes in 1999- 2000 and again in 2000-01. In 2000-01 there were 954 four-year-olds enrolled234 more than the 720 required by the Revised Plan. In addition, early childhood enrollment included 254 children served in the HIPPY program\n23 infants, toddlers, and three-year olds at Metropolitan\n63 infants, toddlers, and three-year-olds at Rockefeller\nand 18 three-year-olds at Washingtonfor a total of 1058. The District implemented new procedures and programs for early childhood education designed to improve childrens kindergarten readiness level. Specifically with regard to reading and language arts, the District developed its PreK-3 Literacy Plan to guide implementation of new standards-based curricula, instructional strategies, materials, and assessments across all schools. The District invested heavily in professional development for all teachers and in the purchase of classroom sets of materials for students. Consistent with the Revised Plan, the District established a two and one-half hour block of time for the teaching of reading and language arts in grades K-3. To measure success of the PreK-3 Literacy Plan, the District administers the Observation Survey and the Developmental Reading Assessment in kindergarten through grade two. Both are informal reading inventories that are administered one-on-one. They are administered both in the fall and spring so growth can be measured. The results from the 1999 fall pre-test showed that white kindergarten students began with a score of more than two (a score of two indicates readiness for the next grade level), as compared to African-American students whose fall pre-test score was less than one. Thus, white students began kindergarten with a higher level of readiness. On the spring post-test, the kindergarten class had the highest percentage of students scoring at or 7above readiness (72.2 percent) of any of the three grades tested, perhaps as a result of the new Animated Literacy program in phonemic awareness that was introduced in fall 1999, along with the new ELLA strategies and materials. Both African-American and white students improved significantly from the pre-test to the post-test. On average, African-American kindergarten students post-test scores were 43 percent of that of their white counterparts. First graders performed the poorest of the three grades tested in terms of the percentage of students scoring at or above readiness at the end of the school year (53.6 percent), perhaps indicating the need for the Animated Literacy program for these students. All first graders improved, but white students improved the most, probably because the reading skills that they began the year with enabled them to progress faster. However, the average score for African- American first graders was 65 percent of that of their white peers, suggesting a narrowing of the achievement gap that existed when the students entered the District. All second graders scores improved significantly over the course of the year, just as they did in kindergarten and first grade, with 67.5 percent at or above the readiness level on the spring post-test. On average, African-American students scores were 77 percent of that of their white peers, an increase from 43 percent in kindergarten and 65 percent in first grade. This again suggests that the District may be having success in narrowing the achievement gap which exists when students enter the District. With regard to reading and language arts in the intermediate grades, the District implemented new standards-based curricula, instructional strategies, materials, and assessments across the District in fall 1999, just as with the primary grades. The District emphasized Effective Literacy in professional development for intermediate grade teachers. While the District is still not where it would like to be, the results from the State Benchmark Exam taken by fourth graders showed substantial improvement. Scores improved from 32 percent at the proficient/advanced levels in 1998-99 to 42 percent in 1999-2000an improvement of 31 percent. Afncan-American students improved almost 10 points on the exam. 8a 50 percent improvement, and white students improved four points, a seven percent improvement. The gap between the scores of African-American and white students narrowed six points in 1999-2000, from 42 points to 36 points. The rate of improvement of African-American students was 43 points higher than for white students. The District had many fewer grade four students performing at the lowest level in 1999-2000 than in 1998-99a reduction of 13 percentage points or a 32 percent decrease. Additionally, fewer African-American students performed at the Below Basic levela reduction of 16 percentage points or a 31 percent decrease. White students in the lowest level were reduced by seven percentage points for a 41 percent decrease. The gap between white and African-American students in the Below Basic level was 35 points in 1998-99 and was reduced to 26 points in 1999-2000. Reading scores also improved for fifth graders on the Stanford Achievement Test (9* Edition) (SAT9) from 1999-2000. The average percentile score for all students improved five points, for Afncan-American students improved five points, and for white students improved one point. Compared to the SAT9 scores from the fall of 1997, the average percentile score for all students improved five points, for African-American students improved seven points, and for white students improved four points. The achievement gap in reading narrowed from 46 percentile points in 1997-98 to 43 percentile points in 2000-01. Fifth graders' language scores on the SAT9 also improved from 1999-2000. The average percentile score for all students improved four points and for Afiican-American students improved six points. Compared to the SAT9 scores from the fall of 1997, the average percentile score for all students improved four points, for Afncan-American student improved seven points. and for white students improved one point. The achievement gap in language narrowed from 36 percentile points in fall 1997 to 30 percentile points in fall 2000. With regard to math and science, the District implemented new standards-based curricula. instructional strategies, and materials in K-9. The District funded these efforts in large part with 9the grant from the National Science Foundation. Major investments occurred in professional development and in the purchase of new materials. The scores of fourth graders on the State Benchmark Exam provide a reason for optimism. The State administered the grade four State Benchmark Exam in mathematics for the second time in spring 2000. The Districts scores showed significant improvements for all students (eight points), for African-American students (seven points), and white students (eight points). Although the gap widened one point between African-American and white students in 1999-2000 (from 45 to 46 points), the percentage improvement for African-American students was much greater than that of white students, 88 percent compared to 15 percent. The Districts grade four as a whole saw fewer students performing at the lowest level in 1999-2000 as compared to 1998-99a reduction of four percentage points or a seven percent decrease. Additionally, fewer African-American students performed at the lowest levela reduction of five percentage points or a seven percent decrease. The gap between white and Afncan-American students in the Below Basic level shrank from 50 points in 1998-99 to 45 points in 1999-2000. Fifth graders' mathematics scores improved slightly on the fall 2000 SAT9, with all students scores up one percentile point and African-American students scores up two percentile points. Compared to fall 1997 SAT9, the average percentile scores for all students improved one point and for Afncan-American students improved four points. The achievement gap narrowed slightly from 1997-98 to 2000-01, from 36 to 32 percentile points. Tenth graders SAT9 mathematics scores also improved. Their teachers had had initial training in a standards-based curriculum, and the students were the first required to take physics in the ninth grade. From 1999-2000 to 2000-01, the average percentile scores for all students improved four points, for African American students improved one point, and for white students improved six points. 10. Parental Involvement. The District already had a plethora of parent and community involvement policies, procedures, and programs when the Revised Plan was approved 10in 1998. Accordingly, the District directed it efforts to widening the outreach, focusing on the school level, and creating a more coherent leadership structure at the district level. The District began including parents and community representatives on CLTs, and the Board approved a Parent Program Restructuring Plan which consolidated all parent programs under the direction of one Collaborative Action Team. 11. Equitable Allocation of Resources. The District developed a unique method of reviewing equity in the allocation of resources. Each year the resource allocation review revealed no correlation between resources allocated to a school and the schools racial composition. Moreover, the District used the results of the review in making resource allocation decisions, such as allocating grant and Title I funding. 12. Guidance and Counseling. The 1999-2000 survey of parents revealed that 94 percent of all parents, both Afncan-American and white/other, who expressed an opinion agreed that help and guidance was available to their child. This perception has proven a reality at least with regard to scholarship money received by African-Americans. Of the 301 scholarships awarded in the 1998-99 school year, 147 or 49 percent went to African-American students totaling $3,256,207 or 47 percent of the total dollar amount of scholarships awarded. For 1999- 2000 school year, African-American students received a total of 185 scholarships valued at $3,716,358. Afncan-American students represented 56 percent of the scholarship recipients and received 58 percent of the total dollar amount of scholarships awarded. Afncan-American females outpaced all other groups in the number received (105) and the dollar value of scholarships awarded ($1,967,654). 13. Cultural Sensitivity. Since the 1999-2000 school year, the District has been providing cultural sensitivity training through Dr. Terrence Roberts, one of the Little Rock Nine and a desegregation consultant for the District approved by the Joshua Intervenors. His workshop, entitled Learning to Cope with Differences, provides strategies for dealing with differences in race, ethnicity, gender, economics, disabilities, religion and other characteristics that 11can divide people and create unhealthy tension. The 1999-2000 survey of teachers suggests that the District has done well in this regard. Ninety-four percent of African-American teachers and 93 percent of white/other teachers who expressed an opinion agreed that District administrators value diversity. Eighty-eight percent of African-American teachers and 92 percent of white/other teachers who expressed an opinion agreed that personnel respond to cultural differences. 14. Compliance. Section 8 of the Revised Plan included a procedure for parties to raise issues related to the Districts compliance. This procedure was invoked on only five occasions, with the last being in December of 1999. All of those issues were resolved without the necessity of court intervention. 15. The Revised Plan obligated LRSD to implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to achieve certain outcomes, and it has done so. Although the Revised Plan did not obligate LRSD to achieve any particular outcomes, the Compliance Report includes information on outcomes which was used by LRSD to evaluate the programs, policies and procedures being implemented. 16. Section 11 of the Revised Plan provides: At the conclusion of the 2000-01 school year, the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a report on March 15, 2001, indicating the state of LRSDs compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSDs compliance bears the burden of proof. If no party challenges LRSDs compliance, the above-described order shall be entered without further proceedings. LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in the Revised Plan. If no party challenges LRSD's compliance, an order should be entered finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations. 17. LRSD respectfully requests that the Court issue a scheduling order establishing a period not exceeding 20 days for parties to file challenges to LRSD's compliance pursuant to Section 11 of the Revised Plan. This should be sufficient time given that the parties have known when this report would be filed since April 10, 1998, and that Section 8 of the Revised Plan 12required parties to raise compliance issues as soon as reasonably practicable. See Revised Plan, Section 8.2.1. If any party files a challenge on or before the deadline established by the Court, LRSD respectfully requests that a hearing on the challenge be held before June 30, 2001, the end of the 2000-2001 school year. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that this Court immediately issue a scheduling order establishing a period not exceeding 20 days for parties to file challenges pursuant to Section 11 of the Revised Plan\nthat should a challenge be filed by a party, a hearing be held on the challenge before June 30, 2001\nand that should no party file a challenge on or before the deadline established by the Court, that on June 30, 2001, this Court enter an order finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376\n:2Dii Y: Chri^opher Heller.(^108 13CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by handdelivery on March 15, 2001: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates \u0026amp; Woodward 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201-3525 Christopher Heller 14 f. MAR 1 \nZOOi omCSOf DESE^feG^noriMO'tWRiHS Little Rock School District Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Compliance Report March 15, 2001RECEIVED FILED U.S, DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS APR? 2001 OFBCEOF OSESREGAPON MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION APR 04 2001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL. Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. Intervenors, KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. Intervenors. * * * * * *  * *   * * * * * *  * * JAME: By- E^W. McCQRMACK, CLERK AZ DEP CLERK No. 4:82CV00866 SWW ORDER On March 15, 2001, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) filed a Compliance Report and asked the Court to issue a Scheduling Order setting a date by which the parties must file any objections or challenges to the report.' The LRSD suggests that the parties be given no more than twenty days within which to file their challenges and, in the event any party files a timely challenge, that the Court schedule a hearing before June 30, 2001. The Court has heard informally from one of the parties, who contends he needs more time to review the report and file challenges. See Attachment A. ^See docket entry 3410. M 141 4Having reviewed the Compliance Report, and considering the informal request for additional time, the Court finds that the parties need more than twenty days to review the many details set forth in the Report and prepare any challenges. After having consulted the Courts own calendar, the Court hereby establishes the following deadlines and hearing dates. Any challenges to the LRSDs Compliance Report must be filed on or before May 18, 2001. If challenges to the report are filed, a hearing will be held on July 5 and July 6,2001, beginning at 9:00 a.m. If necessary, the hearing will continue on August 1 and August 2, 2001. If the parties desire the Court to examine any documents pertaining to this hearing, those documents shall be submitted to the Court no later than June 29, 2001. Also before the Court is the motion of Tim C. Humphries to withdraw his appearance as counsel for separate defendant Arkansas Department of Education. The motion [docket entry 3411] is granted.^ The Clerk is directed to remove Mr. Humphries as counsel for the Arkansas Department of Education. A SO ORDERED this day of April 2001. CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR79{a) FRCP ON TH OR 79(. RY Vl ^On February 21,2001, Sammye L. Taylor and Mark Hagemeier entered their appearances as counsel for the Arkansas Department of Education. See docket entries 3405 \u0026amp; 3406. 2 ) John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile March 26, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd@swbell.net Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright Chief Judge United States District Court 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD v PCSSD Dear Judge Wright. Due to the fact that I was in trial before the Honorable George Howard Jr. in Pine Bluff, Arkansas from March 19-22, 2001 and in intense preparation for the days preceding the 19*, I am just getting in position to address the Little Rock filing. Notice of Filing Compliance Report and Request for Scheduling Order. I further note that Little Rock has indicated that it wishes to limit our time for filing challenges to twenty (20) days. This letter is being written to request that the Court set a time for a conference before addressing the issue of a scheduling order so that all parties, as well as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, would have an opportunity to address the propriety of the scheduling order request. The compliance report is extensive. It appears to be more than two hundred (200) pages in length, is very detail oriented and it makes many claims which are unfamiliar to us and probably to the ODM as well. I am writing the Court this letter, rather than filing a motion, because Mr. Heller, who I am advised is away until Wednesday, expressed an interest in having some dialogue regarding this matter, and the State settlement as well, before this matter becomes, if it ever does, a public dispute which the Court must resolve. I understand that the Court intends to schedule a hearing in the near future regarding the middle school issues raised by the PCSSD. May I suggest that the matter of the hearing of the scheduling order be set for the same day inasmuch as all parties are expected to be in court for the PCSSD matter. Although I have been unable to speak with Mr. Heller and I have not attempted to reach his co-counsel, Mr. Clay Fendley who I intend to try and reach immediately, I have informed Ms. Ann Marshall regarding my concerns herein and will be having further conversations with the parties until such time I receive the Courts reply to this letter.JWW:js cc: Mr. Chris Heller Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Steve Jones Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Timothy Gauger With due respect to the court I e.'. hECEIVEO APR 12 2001 u. QfflCEGF APR O4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2001 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANS WESTERN DIVISION :OURT A^MES VY MeeSRMACK, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPONSE TO LRSDS NOTICE OF FILING AND REQUEST FOR SCHEDULING ORDER Come now the Joshua Intervenors, through undersigned counsel, for their Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to LRSD Notice of Filing Compliance Report and Request for Scheduling Order, state: 1. Due to undersigned counsels trial schedule and other obligations, additional time is needed to review LRSDs Compliance Report. 2. In addition, undersigned adopts, by reference, his letter to the Court dated March 26, 2001. A copy is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 3. This request is not for purposes of delay. WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated above, plaintiffs respectfully move the Court for an Order extending the time in which to file their Response LRSDs Notice of Filing Compliance Report and Request for Scheduling Order for an additional thirty days including and up to May 4, 2001 Respectfully submitted.record. John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing motion has been sent to all counsel of .John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile March 26, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY. P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderso.s Road Little Rock. Abflassas 72210 Phone\n(.501) .372-342.5  F.ax (501) 372-.3423 Email: mchenryd^i^swbell.net Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright Chief Judge United States District Court 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock. AR 72201 Re: LRSD v PCSSD Dear Judge Wright: Due to the fact that I was in trial before the Honorable George Howard Jr. in Pine Bluff, Arkansas from March 19-22, 2001 and in intense preparation for the days preceding the 19\", I am just getting in position to address the Little Rock filing. Notice of Filing Compliance Report and Request for Scheduling Order. I further note that Little Rock has indicated that it wishes to limit our time for filing challenges to twenty (20) days. This letter is being written to request that the Court set a time for a conference before addressing the issue of a scheduling order so that all parties, as well as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, would have an opportunity to address the propriety of the scheduling order request. The compliance report is extensive. It appears to be more than two hundred (200) pages in length, is very detail oriented and it makes many claims which are unfamiliar to us and probably to the ODM as well. I am writing the Court this letter, rather than filing a motion, because Mr. Heller, who I am advised is away until Wednesday, expressed an interest in having some dialogue regarding this matter, and the State settlement as well, before this matter becomes, if it ever does, a public dispute which the Court must resolve. I understand that the Court intends to schedule a hearing in the near future regarding the middle school issues raised by the PCSSD. May I suggest that the matter of the hearing of the scheduling order be set for the same day inasmuch as all parties are expected to be in court for the PCSSD matter. Although I have been unable to speak with Mr. Heller and 1 have not attempted to reach his co-counsel, Mr. Clay Fendley who 1 intend to try and reach immediately, I have informed Ms. Ann Marshall regarding my concerns herein and will be having further conversations with the parties until such time I receive the Courts reply to this letter.With due respect to the court, 1 remain, JWWjs cc: Mr. Chris Heller Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Steve Jones Mr. Richard Roachell Mr Timothy Gauger Sincerely vours. RECEIVEO may 1 8 2001 district OmCEOF desegregation mowtorimq may 1 s 2001 JAMES W IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CffttRT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION McCormack, clerk  dep cleric LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO LRSDS COMPLIANCE REPORT Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, for their Motion for Extension of time to Respond to LRSDs Compliance Report, state: 1. Because of undersigned counsel busy trial schedule, additional time is needed for undersigned counsel to review the voluminous report of the Little Rock School District. 2. Undersigned counsel has at least a dozen trials scheduled within the next thirty days for which he has been and is being required to prepare and to meet imminent time requirements and deadlines which included the following cases\nName of Case Bennett v. First National Bank Date of Trial May 21, 2001 State of Arkansas v. Tyrone Gamble May 22, 2001 U.S.A. V. Joe Bryant III Beverly Burkett v. USDA Schroeder, et al, v. Ibbottson, et al. Jamie Tims v. DHS May 29, 2001 June 4, 2001 June 4, 2001 June 4, 2001 Court/Judge Prince George Co., Maryland Craighead Co. Circuit Court Judge George Howard Jr. Judge Susan Webber Wright Judge G. Thomas Eisele Judge George Howard Jr.Carolyn Adkins v. McGhee SD June 4, 2001 D. Williams, et al. v Parkcrest Apts. June 6, 2001 J.C. Springer v. Rita Rowland State of AR v. Tremaille Ross State of AR v. Ravin Taylor June 8, 2001 June 11, 2001 June 11, 2001 Tenisha Stewart v. Dr. James Trice June 13, 2001 Judge William Bill Wilson Judge Jim Moody Ouachita County Chancery Court Jackson County Circuit Court Jackson County Circuit Court Jefferson County Circuit Court 3. In addition, undersigned counsel has been in negotiations with counsel for the Little Rock School District and the State of Arkansas regarding the Districts compliance report and related matters. 4. This request is not being made for purposes of delay. 5. Counsel for the Little Rock School District has been contacted and has authorized undersigned counsel to indicate that he does not object to this request. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors pray that the Court enters an Order extending the time in which they may respond to the Little Rock School Districts Compliance Report up to and including June 18, 2001. Respectfully submitted. John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-z 8 By: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been sent via Jjnited States mail postage prepaid to all counsel of record on thi. th day of May, i^Ol. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VS rECEH^O MAY 2 9 2001 OFFICE OF desegregation MONlTORiMS CASE NO. 4:82-CV-866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT t  Cl-uFJsED may 1 8 2001 K, CLERK dep clerk DEFENDANT MOTION OBJECTING TO RELEASE OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM FEDERAL COURT SUPERVISION Comes Franklin A. Davis, former employee of Little Rock School District, representing himself PRO SE, and for his action states: 1. Venue is proper under Ark. Code Ann. 16-60-115 as at least one, if not all. Defendants (LRSD) live in Pulaski County and the cause of action arose in Pulaski County. 2. Jurisdiction is proper as Franklih A. Davis is a resident of Arkansas and all Defendants are residents of the State of Arkansas. 3. Davis became a principal in the Little Rock School District in 1989. 4. In late December of 1994, Defendant Sadie Mitchell, made repeated sexual advances and remarks towards Davis while she was his supervisor. 5. Davis rejected these advances. 6. In December of 1997, the Little Rock School District, Dr. Leslie Camine, Brady Gadberry, and Sadie Mitchell began an orchestration to tortuously interfere with Davis employment contract with the Little Rock School District. 7. This tortuous interference directly led to Davis termination as a principal in the Little Rock School District. Office ol Desegregation Monitoring FILE COPY 8. The Little Rock School District denied Davis his due process rights imder the 5*'' and 14* Amendments of the United States Constitution by terminating his employment without providing Davis adequate notice, adequate opportunity to respond, and a timely hearing. 9. The Little Rock School District materially misrepresented Davis job performance as a principal in the Little Rock School District. 10. The Little Rock School District violated the procedmal due process requirements of the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act. 11. The Little Rock School District wrongfully committed slander and defamation of Davis character and reputation by publicizing unproven facts and allegations claiming Davis had committed sexual harassment to various individuals in the community, in his profession, and state agencies. 12. The Little Rock School District intentionally discriminated against Davis by treating Davis detrimentally and causing his termination based on his race and gender. 13. Davis has suffered emotional, financial and physical damages as a result of these actions caused by the Little Rock School District. 14. Davis has suffered irreparable damage to his reputation and monetary loss of income damage as a result of his termination by the Little Rock School District and their actions in this matter. 215. All of the discriminatory actions the Little Rock School District took against Davis, happened after the LRSD submitted its current Desegregation Plan to this Court. 16. On April 3,2000, the Little Rock School District issued a report aimed at reassuring the public and this Court that it is moving swiftly and in good faith to carry out its revised desegregation plan. Defendant Brady Gadberry was a co-author of this report. 17. As recent as today. May 18, 2001, the Little Rock School Districts scandalous, whitewashing, and dirty linen covered behavior covers the front page of the states largest newspaper, the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. 18. All of the praise lauded on Dr. Les Gamine the past several months has been merely a subterfuge by the Little Rock School District to convince the Honorable Chief Judge Susan Webber Wright to grant their release from federal Court supervision. SUMMARY OF WHAT THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DID TO FRANKLIN A. DAVIS SINCE SUBMITTING THEIR REVISED DESEGREGATION PLAN TO THIS COURT The bulk of Franklin A. Davis suit against the Little Rock School District, and certain school officials, falls under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.  1983 which states: Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law. Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 3The Little Rock School District is liable under  1983 for violating Franklin A. Davis Due Process rights under the 14*** Amendment. According to current law, Due Process mandates that a Teacher be provided a hearing prior to termination if the nature of the termination involves an attack on the teachers character or reputation. The Supreme Court holds that a teacher, even a non- probationary one, has a property interest that requires a prior termination hearing by the school board to respond to claims that affect his/her good name, reputation, honor, or integrity. See Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 573-577 (1972). The Eighth Circuit, which Arkansas falls in, has also held that there is a liberty interest when an employee is fired based on a charge that would impair that employees opportunities within his profession. See Wellner v. Minnesota State Junior College Board, 487 F. 2d 153, 155-156 (1973)(citing Harnett v. Ulett, 466 F.2d 113,116 (8*** Cir. 1972)). The Eighth Circuit has constantly held that a teacher or government employee, who has been fired under circumstances that tarnish the teachers character and negatively impact future job possibilities, is entitled to \u0026amp; prior termination hearing with full opportunity to respond to the charges. See Wilder man v. Nelson, 467 F.2d 1173 (1972)\nScheelhaase v. Woodbury Central Community School District, 488 F.2d 237 (1973)\nBuhr v. Buffalo Public School District NO. 38, 509 F.2d 1196 (1974). Franklin A. Davis was a Principal with the Little Rock School District for many years. During all those years, he received outstanding evaluations. In 1995, Sadie Mitchell wrote in his evaluation, An open line of communication (with Assistant Superintendent) was evident. Mr. Davis has been very cooperative and receptive to constructive criticism. She also wrote, His leadership style and relationship is respected 4by personnel, colleagues, parents, students, and the community. She again gave Mr. Davis a near perfect evaluation in 1996. In a mid-year evaluation in February of 1996, Sadie Mitchell wrote, Correspondences to parents, teachers, and District personnel 99 (6 displays that Mr. Davis is a team player. Administrative policies are followed while working well with others. She also gave him an excellent evaluation in June of 1997(the last evaluation Franklin A. Davis received as a LRSD employee). Yet, somehow by December of 1997, six months after his evaluation, Franklin A. Davis was suddenly reassigned. Four months later in April of 1998, Superintendent Les Camine sent a termination letter to Franklin A. Davis. In less than six months, Franklin A. Davis had gone from the Little Rock School Districts exemplary tenured principal to being considered an outcast without the LRSD granting him a hearing. It is noteworthy and interesting that Franklin A. Davis became a principal with the Little Rock School District at the age of twenty-seven (27). Essential to a full understanding of Franklin A. Davis claim against the Little Rock School District is the timing of what occurred. This is the timeline, followed with an explanation of what it means: 1.) June 1997 - Sadie Mitchell gives Franklin A. Davis a great evaluation. 2.) December 30, 1997 - Davis is asked to leave Wilson Elementary and temporarily reassigned. 3.) April 2,1998 - Dr. Camine sends Davis a letter informing Davis of Dr. Camines intent to recommend the School Board terminate Davis and suspending him without pay, which is later temporarily reinstated. 54.) May 4, 1998 - Davis gets an attorney to write the School Board requesting a hearing, with an offer to arbitrate the superintendents recommendation for termination before going before the school board. 5.) May 12,1998 - Dr. Gamine writes Davis agreeing to arbitrate Dr. Gamines termination recommendation before proceeding to the board with it. 6.) December 1, 1998 - Davis still has not had a hearing of any kind, yet the Little Rock School District quits paying Davis. 7.) June 28, 1999 - Fourteen months after Dr. Gamines recommendation, Davis is given an arbitration hearing covering solely the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act. Davis is awarded back pay, but not reinstated. Franklin A. Davis and the Little Rock School District did come to an understanding to arbitrate under the Teacher Fair Dismissal Act, however, this was under the assumption that the arbitrator would decide whether he would be terminated if the recommendation went before the School Board. Davis did not expect the School District to terminate him fourteen months later without a hearing. After the understanding to arbitrate whether Davis would be terminated, the Little Rock School District did the following: 1.) Dr. Richard Hurley sent a form to the Arkansas Employment Security Division checking the box stating that Davis was discharged. 2.) The Little Rock School District stopped paying Davis in December of 1998, and 63.) The Little Rock School District sent Davis a letter on June 29, 1998 informing him his insurance would terminate on August 31, 1998. These actions were in direct conflict with the letter from Dr. Gamine, dated May 12, 1998, which stated that the arbitration was to be an alternative method for binding adjudication of the termination recommendation.(Emphasis added). This was not to be an arbitration of a Principal who was already terminated. The Superintendent wrote the letter recommending Davis termination in April of 1998. Davis requested a hearing. All Davis received was an arbitration hearing 14 months later, but after the Little Rock School District terminated him anyway despite his understanding. Although Davis attorney (at that time), did write a letter that included a proposal to arbitrate his claims under the Arkansas Teacher Fair Dismissal Act, this letter was prior to his termination. Davis NEVER agreed to waive his right to a full and open hearing in front of the School Board when the Little Rock School District later terminated him. This is what this MOTION OF OBJECTION is about. CONCLUSION I, Franklin A. Davis, have been fighting for justice in this sad and unfortunate situation for nearly four (4) years. The Little Rock School Districts attorney Chris Heller has continuously advised the school district against doing the right thing and reinstating me to my principals job with appropriate back pay and damages. Mr. Heller has the advantage of working for a large law firm and the support of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. Throughout the three and a half 7years Ive fought this claim against the Little Rock School District, not once have I been given an opportunity to tell my side of the story. When I file a claim, motion, suit or any type action for redress, the Arkansas Democrat Gazette immediately calls Chris Heller and allow him to bash, slander, defame, and torture my name, character, reputation and integrity. Always without giving me an opportunity to rebut. Within a day or so of my filing this motion, Chris Heller will be given newspaper space to lie and smear me in every way he chooses. Wherefore, Franklin A. Davis, Pro Se, now submits this Motion of Objection with his Prayer that the Little Rock School District is denied release from this Court. Respectfully Submitted, Franklin A. Davis 625 Northwind Circle Conway, AR 72032-3477 501 329-8722 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The imdersigned certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on Chris Heller, attorney for Little Rock School Distri^this day of May, 2001, via certified U.S. Mail. Franklin A. Davis, Pro Se Cc: Judge James M. Moody Dr. Katherine P. Mitchell, LRSD Board President 8REC0VED Iu I I FILED MAY29 2OO1 OfflCEOF IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAY 22 2001 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMES By:: McCORWIACK, clerk\nrk LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * No. 4:82CV00866 SWW ORDER Before the Court is the motion of the Joshua Intervenors for an extension of time in which to respond to the Little Rock School Districts Compliance Report. The Court finds that the motion should be, and is hereby, granted. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Joshua Intervenors are allowed an extension up to and including June 18, 2001, to file any challenges to the LRSDs Compliance Report. DATED this ~^day of May 2001. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON BY. 3 4 34 [ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMES By\n. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL,, Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * filed JUN 0 5 2001 3 w. McCormack, clerk 11 a No. 4:82CV00866 SWW received JUN 13 200' OFFICE Of DEP CLERK ORDER On April 4, 2001, the Joshua Intervenors filed a motion for extension of time to respond to the LRSDs Notice of Filing and Request for Scheduling Order. On the same day, the Court filed an Order setting forth deadlines and hearing dates to address any challenges to the LRSD Compliance Report.* Therefore, the Court finds that the motion [docket entry 3415] is moot. The Clerk is directed to remove said motion from the pending motions report. DATED this day of June 2001. CfilEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ^The Court referenced in that Order a letter from the Joshua Intervenors counsel in which he stated he needed additional time to review the report. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WlTH ^ULE 58 AND/O^9(a) FRCP 3 4 4 1 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUN 1 5 2001 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JAMES W. McCORMACK CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ---------------------------____2 WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V NO. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLIANCE REPORT Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, for their Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to LRSDs Compliance Report, state: 1. Counsel is in negotiations with counsel for the Little Rock School District regarding the compliance report and other matters. 2. This request is not made for purposes of delay. 3. Counsel for Little Rock School District has been consulted and has authorized undersigned counsel to indicate that he does not object to this request. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors pray that the Court enter an Order extending the time in which they may respond to the Little Rock School Districts Compliance Report up to and including June 25, 2001. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 BroadwayLittle Rock, AR 72206 501-374 By:_ J- W. alker CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing has been sent to all counsel of record on this 15 th day of June, 2001. Jonn . Walker received JUN 2 5 2001 filed U.S. DISTRICT COURT eastern district ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUN 20 2001 JAMES By\n. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 3 \\jv. McfiORMACK, CLERK M * nDcEDP r *Ci LcEaJR'K' No. 4:82CV(X)866 SWW omcEtt_ _ _ ORDER Before the Court is the motion of the Joshua Intervenors for an extension of time in which to respond to the Little Rock School Districts Compliance Report. For good cause shown, and without objection from the Little Rock School District, the Court grants the motion. The Joshua Intervenors have until and including June 25, 2001, within which to file their response. No further extensions will be granted. SO ORDERED this ay of June 2001. CH UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON docket sheet in compliance WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP 0N-\u0026gt;^O^/^0/ RY 4 45 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRIC^OURTr-   - q EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS  rX^iIrMRT kJ.O. L/IO 1 iaIL. I ULJUia I SAS WESTERN DIVISION EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUN 2 5 2001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO, l,et al., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al.. Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al.. Intervenors, * * * * * * * * * * * * * * JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By:. DEP CLERK No. 4:82CV00866 SWW DECEIVED / y m \u0026lt;3 - / JUN 2 7 2001 OfflCEOF 0nm0^M0NITQfilN6 JOSHUA INTERVENORS OPPOSITION TO LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICTS COMPLIANCE REPORT PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the Court to defer final decision upon the petition of the Little Rock School District for a declaration that it is now unitary as that term has been defined by relevant case law. The Joshua Intervenors believe that there are numerous significant questions which are not addressed in a clear, accurate and substantive manner which need to be further explored in an evidentiary proceeding before the Court. Upon that event the Court would be in a better position to make the necessary analysis to determine whether the objectives and commitments of the revised desegregation plan have been fully met. The Joshua Intervenors believe further that the Court must have before it a written response to the districts plan or other written analysis 1- regarding that plan from the Courts Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) before the Court can issue a final opinion regarding the matter. Otherwise, any assessment by the Court would be incomplete and not in keeping with the expectations of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals when it required the establishment of the ODM to assist the Court in determining and effectuating desegregation compliance. The school districts compliance report of March 15,2001, which incorporates by reference its interim compliance report dated March 15, 2000, is before the Court reportedly to inform concerned interests of the status of the districts efforts to meet its obligations under the revised plan... The district makes reference to the fact that it offered the opportunity for interested parties to provide comments or suggestions to the interim court and that it received none. Because it received no comments or suggestions regarding that report, the district has determined that the form of the report is appropriate for the present report. That position is inaccurate. Joshua made many comments throughout the year to District officials regarding areas of noncompliance and bad faith implementation. Joshua notes, however, that before either of the reports was submitted to the Court, the district did not consult and meet with Joshua regarding the contents in order to reach the agreements of the report contemplated by the desegregation plan. The present report has many of the same failings of earlier reports to the Court. In fact, it has been the exception rather than the rule for the district to affirmatively involve Joshua in preliminary stages of any report or other activity undertaken by the school district. Joshua submits that the Little Rock School District is far from being unitary at this time. and that the District has much work to accomplish before court release is appropriate. Joshua further submits that the burden of proof that the District is unitary, i.e., has fulfilled all of its obligations. -2- is upon the District rather than upon Joshua. The following comments by Joshua to the March 15, 2001 report raise appropriate for further inquiry by the court. JOSHUAS SERIATIM RESPONSES TO THE DISTRICTS REPORT DATED MARCH 15, 2001 Section 2.1. LRSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools. The district firsts projects the covenants dated January 11, 2000 to illustrate its good faith beyond March 15, 2001 in the event that the Court declares the district to be unitary. It points to meetings of administrators who were informed of the covenant\nthe involvement of Dr. Terrence Roberts, a consultant to the district'\nand the receipt of the district of a quality interest award from the Arkansas Quality Award Nonprofit Agency to demonstrate that the initiatives now in place will continue. Joshua notes that the emphasis of the report is upon the objective to improve the academic achievement of all students through the use of its resources in a manner which complies with the non discrimination requirements of law. The commitment is vague! It allows equal, we say greater. attention to the higher achieving white students than to the lower achieving Black students. It does not address the problems which have persisted since the settlement agreement was reached in 1989, especially the concern of remediating preexisting achievement disparities between white and Black ^Dr. Roberts is one of the first African American students to enroll in Little Rock Central High, i. e., the Little Rock Nine he is a clinical psychologist who is on the staff of the University of Antioch University. -3- students. The district received at least $20 million dollars in the form of a forgivable loan by which to address the remediation disparities. Those achievement disparities linger. In this respect, the State of Arkansas has given the district little assistance in meeting this objective and, on information and belief, despite noncompliance, has agreed to forgive the Little Rock School District loan obligation (See Exhibit 1 hereto). Joshua further notes that an objection to the incentive schools by district officials was that those schools were too program heavy and therefore did not lend themselves to effective implementation and evaluation of those programs. We believe that the district now has even more programs which were present in its schools and that the districts past criticism of the incentive schools programs may be applied to the programs which it has put in place since it reduced the number of incentive school programs. Effectiveness of the programs is still lacking. Effect is usually determined after program evaluation. The districts evaluation system borders upon being nil. The district makes reference under good faith to the success of the Campus Leadership Team, later referred to herein as CLT. The person assigned the responsibility for the CLT was Ms. Gayle Bradford. She (like School Superintendent Les Camine and Associate Superintendent Brady Gadberry) is leaving the school district as of July 1. Her assignment to the position was makeshift in the first place in that it was a job created for her while the district determined what good use could be made of her services after she was removed as principal at Hall High School due to problems associated with desegregation complaince. The Campus Leadership Program was ill conceived, and ^The plan which set the objective that African American achievement as measured by appropriate standardized tests, on a comparative basis, would come within ten percentage points of white student academic achievement. -4-has been poorly implemented. It may be said that the CLT is only a hope for better school management for the future. But it too lacks an assessment or evaluation component. The Campus Leaderships Team are generally under the overall leadership of Associate Superintendent Ms. Sadie Mitchell, to whom Ms. Gayle Bradford reported. Ms. Mitchell, to her credit, has sought to create a working environment conducive to better cooperation between administrators and teachers. But those efforts on her part are have just begun and with the departure of Ms. Bradford, must begin anew with new staff. The program is not so fundamentally sound as to be self executing. Good faith is to be determined, we submit, within the context of the objectives set by the parties and by the law, especially the law of the case\nthe actions promised to be taken in order to achieve the objectives\nand the manner in which those actions are actually undertaken. Good faith contemplates results as well as processes for achieving the contemplated results. The Little Rock School District outrageously argues that it is simply obliged to make promises to meet its objectives and to set up a procedure for fulfilling those promises but, having done that, it is not required to meet the objectives set. That position reflects the basic difference between Joshua and Little Rock. Joshua believes that the commitments agreed upon required that the processes or plans for achieving the agreed upon objectives actually be fulfilled and that only conditions of impossibility could preclude compliance. Joshua further believes that the agreement contemplated that there would be prompt undertaking of the commitments\nand that that undertaking would be vigorous and sustained. Joshua also believes that implicit in the agreement is that the commitments would be subject to professionally competent evaluation of policies, programs, and procedures put in place as implementing tools for the plan objectives. As will be shown below, the Districts efforts have been neither timely nor prompt, vigorous or sustained\nnor complimented by competent professional -5- evaluation. We are thus met with a pleading of excuse with promises (the Covenant) of actions that will follow upon Court release. The question before the Court is whether the district can be expected to achieve goals and objectives without Court oversight (the Covenant) that have not been achieved with Court oversight. Moreover, how can Black students enforce this Covenant? The CLT program was at the heart of the Districts efforts to met its obligations under the reviewed plan. P. 1, Compliance Report. A quality school district meets the needs of all a students. In adopting the CLT program, the District committed itself to providing each school the leadership and autonomy necessary to meet the needs of each schools unique population. With that autotomy comes a responsibility to ensure the success of each student. Page 3, Compliance Report. Joshua differs with that objective. Remediation of disparity conflicts with that concept. When racial grouping is taken into account. Joshua has not been provided with any report which reports an evaluation of the CLT program or of the results that have been achieved by that program. The program appears to accept the proposition that individual schools, through the CLT, will meet their responsibility to each of its students. Because of this autonomy, some magic conversion or remediation of disparities will occur it seems to be argued. Joshua submits that the CLTs actually provide more opportunity for discrimination and for mischief and maintenance of the status quo than a system wide approach would. Moreover, the district does not appear to define success of each student. The districts three (3) page presentation under Section 2.1 is vague, uncertain, without measurement standards and therefore offers no promise of providing equal educational opportunity for all students in the school district. To this point, there is no way for determining the extent to which it has worked. -6-Section 2.1.1. LRSD shall retain a desegregation and/or education expert approved by Joshua to work with LRSD in the development of the programs, policies and procedures to be implemented in accordance with this Revised Plan and to assist LRSD in devising remedies to problems concerning desegregation or racial discrimination which adversely affect African- American students. The district committed to hire an expert approved by Joshua. It did so, but it did not properly explain to the Joshua expert, Dr. Terrence Roberts or to Dr. Steven Ross of the University of Memphis how they may help in assisting the district to devise remedies to problems concerning desegregation or racial discrimination which adversely affected African American students. Indeed, Joshua has requested, but the district has been unable to provide, a simple listing of problems which adversely affect African American students. Joshua submits that without such a listing there can be no remedies devised to those problems. It appears that Drs. Steven Ross and Terrence Roberts have been used in a consultative role regarding general school educational problems, rather than addressing specific needs of African American students. Joshua concedes that a better faculty which is more sensitive to equitable considerations is more likely to provide better quality instruction. But a better faculty as measured by professional assistance given them should produce changes in the outcomes for Black students. Despite its use of Roberts and Ross and submits that the District has not devised any remedies to any problems concerning desegregation or racial discrimination which adversely affects African American students. Furthermore, a review of the expenditures for both Ross and reflects limited use of their professional resources and services Roberts until Joshua complained about their relative non-use in 1999 and until the district began to compile the present report. Dr. Roberts will acknowledge that his role was enlarged due to his own initiative than that -7- of the districts. This absence of leadership reflects not only upon the planning aspect of the district but upon the results which have been achieved as well. Section 2.2. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that LRSD hires, assigns, utilizes and promotes qualified African-Americans in a fair and equitable manner. The district has not indicated what it has done to meet the provisions of this section. The interim report suggests that four policies were adopted to address the issue. That occurred more than a year after the Court approved the plan, did not involve Joshua and still provides no assurance that the promise will be fulfilled. Furthermore, there is no monitoring component of the provision. Joshua further notes that the office personnel of the various principals offices tend to reflect the race of the principal. The exception is that the office staffs of Black principal are more likely to be mixed. In terms of assignment, Joshua urges that principal assignments or reassignments in many cases are neither fair nor equitable. Several principals who have a record of mistreatment of Black students or staff appear to have been promoted. Several Black principals seem to have been transferred without cause against their will for no apparent legitimate reason. It can not therefore be said that the staff is being treated, assigned or utilized in a fair and equitable manner. Section 2.2.1. LRSD shall maintain in place its current policies and practices relating to the recruitment of African-American teachers which have allowed LRSD to maintain a teaching staff which is approximately one-third African-American. The district commits to faculty balance in the schools. According to Associate Superintendent Junious Babbs, African American teachers should be within a range of 10% above -8- or not more than 15% below the overall percentage of African American staff at a particular grade level. The compliance report is in error. Joshua notes next that staff recruitment is not addressed to grade level needs and that there has been no presentation of the number or percentage of African American teachers at each grade level or in each school. These data are necessary in making a utilization analysis of staff. This is important because African American teachers are still appear to be concentrated in non-core areas such as special education, vocational education, remedial education, physical education, etc. Section 2.2.2. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to increase the number of African-American media specialists, guidance counselors, early childhood teachers, primary grade teachers and secondary core subject teachers, including offering incentives for African-American teachers to obtain certification in these areas, and to assign those teachers to the LRSD schools where the greatest disparity exists. With respect to this provision, it appears that there has been no material change in the percentage or number of Black media specialists, counselors, core secondary, early childhood and primary grade teachers. The recruitment plan indicates that it provides incentives to attract African American teachers. It is uncertain what those incentives are\nand the extent to which they will be continued. It is also uncertain what the problems are with being able to move beyond the numbers that existed in 1997, especially now that it is evident that the white teacher applicant pool is also deficient. Section 2.2.3. LRSD shall establish a uniform salary schedule for all positions within the district, including a salary range for director and associate and assistant superintendent positions, designed to provide compensation in accordance with qualifications and to minimize -9-complaints of favoritism. The salary schedule freezes in arbitrary and racially discriminatory pay practices which refer back to the Williams administration between 1992 to 1996. Section 2.2.4. LRSD shall implement a policy for the centralized hiring and assignment of teachers by the LRSD Human Resources Department designed to provide an equitable distribution of teaching resources and to prevent nepotism and preselection by a school principal. Joshua does not believe that this policy has been effective in practice. Policy GCF RI allows for the principal to interview and make recommendations for teaching positions. There is no process to prevent nepotism and preselection and the policy does not prohibit it. Section 2.2.5. LRSD shall implement a policy of promotion from within which shall include procedures for notifying district employees of open positions. The district has no standard for determining when it will fill a vacancy by promotion from within. A promotion from within policy ensures that a higher percentage of African American teachers and staff will be available for consideration for promotion than an open application process. The applicant pool in the former would be between 35%-40% and in the latter, it will be closer to 8%-l 0%. Therefore, when the district opens staff positions to the public at large it is knowingly inviting a significantly whites applicant pool than were it to implement a policy of promotion from within. It is also saying that a white person is preferred for the job. Under this section this is no explanation of how assignments were made in the filling of vacancies for administrative positions which were not filled via promotion. Section 2.6. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to -10-promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in extracurricular activities, advance placement courses, honors and enriched courses and the gifted and talented program. With respect to this Section, the district has merely reported the composition of each school and has fit the teachers into select categories. It has taken no affirmative steps to ensure that the more minority or low achieving schools where the remediation needs are greatest, have equally strong, experienced teachers. Joshua acknowledges that degrees and years of experience by themselves do not confirm superior status of a teacher. But these criteria tend to reflect the ability of school to be perceived as capable of maintaining its staff. That perception enables educational programs to have a better chance of being successfully implemented. Low turnover is a reflection of a schools stability, while high turnover is a reflection of a schools instability. This comment is consistent with earlier district testimony which lamented the fact that Mitchell school had almost every year for 5 or 6 years in succession principal turnover. Joshua observes that Badgett and the Charter School, Baseline, Dodd, Mitchell, Rightsell, Washington, Watson and Woodruff appear to have staff with considerably less than 10 years average experience. These are disproportionately minority schools with concentrations of free and reduced priced lunch eligible students. Cloverdale and Mabelvale fit into that category at the middle school level as do McClellan and Fair at the high school level. The assignment practices of the district are consistent with the relative status as schools of academic excellence or despair. Without doubt, the perceived quality pecking order of schools is as follow: a) high schools: Parkview, Central, Hall, Fair, McClellan -11-b) middle schools: Mann, Pulaski Heights, Dunbar, Forest Heights, Henderson, and either Southwest, Cloverdale or Mabelvale We further note that the schools appear to be more evenly balanced except for Cloverdale and Mabelvale Middle and McClellan in 1998-99 with respect to average years of experience than they came to be in 2001. Inasmuch as these schools are mostly minority the plan does not appear to be delivering experienced teachers to these schools or an even basis. In assessing teachers with advanced degrees, the district median or average percentage is not presented. But the schools that have the lowest percentage of teachers with advanced degrees seem to be: Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Mabelvale 23% Alternative 25% Metropolitan 23% Rightsell 32% Cloverdale 32% McClellan 49% Geyer Springs 33% Washington 37% Mitchell Baseline 38% 38% The high end schools include: High End Schools High End Middle Schools High Schools Jefferson 74% Mann 59% Parkview 71% Wakefield 71% Central 63% Wilson 68% Hall 56% With respect to teachers with a masters degree plus 9 years or more experience: -12-Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Rightsell 18% Cloverdale 27% McClellan 35% Mabelvale 19% Forest Heights 27% Fair 36% Mitchell 29% Geyer Springs 29% Franklin 32% The high ends of this category reflect as follows: High End Schools High End Middle Schools High Schools Jefferson 63% Mann 52% Parkview 55% Wakefield 67% Pulaski Heights 40% Central 51% Wilson 60% Hall 43% Joshua has some concerns about these categories because of its general impression that there is less stability in the schools that are more heavily minority. Note the following drops between 1998 and 2000 with respect to: a) average years of experience: Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Badgett 11.63 to 8.29 Mabelvale 7.9 to 6.15 Fair 12.17 to 8.84 Rightsell 10.5 to 6.65 Cloverdale 9.84 to 8.36 McClellan 9.67 to 7.90 Washington 10.74 to 9.31 Woodruff 9.18 to 7.38 b) masters degree plus 9 or more years: Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Geyer Springs 38% to 29% Cloverdale 30% to 27% McClellan 38% to 35% -13-Mitchell 32% to 29% Fair 40% to 36% Mabelvale 19% to 19% Hall 51% to 43% Rightsell 43% to 18% Washington 53% to 33% It is noted that Parkview remains relatively consistent in all of these categories and that Central is not far behind, while McClellan and Fair are relatively consistent but on the other end of the scale. The same is true at the high end with Carver, Brady, Booker, Fair Park, Gibbs, Jefferson, McDermott, Meadowcliff, Romine, Wakefield, Terry, Williams and Wilson. Al of these schools have higher than average concentration of white students. Joshua, therefore, submits that the schools in the LRSD are not equal with respect to the promises of Section 2.2.6 and that the high schools especially reflect gross concerns of racial inequity. Joshua, in making this point, refers to Section 2.11.1. This section addresses equity in academic honors, awards, scholarships and honor graduate comparisons. At the outset we note that the district has segregated the white grouping of students into white and other. There is no reason for the distinction other than to diminish the degree of favor which white students receive in comparison to Black students. Moreover, the district has lumped nonacademic scholarships which were more likely awarded to minority students and then set forth the total dollar value of scholarships awarded. With these things in mind, we note that the pecking order for scholarships relates to the size of the school but mostly to the reputation of the school and the race of the students in those schools. In 1997-98,of71 honor graduates at Central, 11 were Black\nand at Parkview, there were 50 honor graduates of whom 14 were Black. In this respect, we note that neither school has had an -14-African American valedictorian in the past 5 or 6 years (and Central never has). We further note that there are discriminatory nuances in the honor designation categories in those schools as well as at Hall which tend to drive white students into the top positions notwithstanding lower academic achievement and which cause them to obtain honors or awards due Black students. In 1997, approximately 25% of the honor graduates at Parkview were Black\n21% were Black in 1999-00. In 1998-99, Joshua brought to the attention of the school district, manipulative practices of the school principal and some of the white staff at Hall High School with respect to altering grade weights of white students. Those practices were reflected in an ombudsman report which established that grades of white students were manipulated in order to accord them honor status. The district now commits that it will work with students to provide equity in academic awards, honors and scholarships. This relates back to the perception of schools. Central and Parkview, and to a lesser extent Hall, appear to extend promises to white students that if they attend those schools that they will meet with academic favor and have that academic favor reflected in awards and scholarships. and to disproportiately white students in their classes. At Hall, where Black upper end achievement has been exceedingly high in the past three years, the district has diminished the relative showing of Black achievement. The chart on page 161 reflects that there were but 13 honor graduates in 1998-99 when there were actually twenty-three of whom, 16 were Black. But the public recognition went to the few white honor students. The district does not intend for a showing to be made that Black students achieve as well, if not better, than white students in certain circumstances where they have the necessary support and resources. The message is thus reinforced that Parkview, Central and Hall are the best schools for white students in that order and that Fair and McClellan dont count for white students. That image drives white students geographically assigned to Fair and McClellan -15-to private schools or to white flight public schools. The charts presented by the district are incongruent with respect to scholarships awarded for honors or academic work. If 70% of the honor graduates in 1998 were white in all the schools, then the scholarship values should reflect that. Instead, they are about equal during that year and in 1999- 2000. African American students received approximately 60% of the scholarships. We believe that the district is not fairly presenting its evidence and that the facts it presents are inaccurate, but they do not detract from the basic point being made in Section 2.2.6. The teachers are largely responsible for the quality of education delivered. In that the teachers of the southwest schools and the schools with high minority populations do not seem to be equal with respect to the criteria delineated in the plan, it becomes easier to understand how the outcomes which may be measured by honor graduate. and scholarships by achievement show them to be in such low standing. The district is aware of the fact that the state scholarships administered by the Arkansas Department of Higher Education have racially discriminatory impact upon Black Little Rock graduates. It has not taken steps to bring this matter to the attention of the ADE as set forth in the state agreement herein. Section 2.2.7. LRSD shall negotiate with the Knight Intervenors to establish a procedure for the mandatory reassignment of teachers as necessary to enable LRSD to meet its obligations under Section 2.2 of this Revised Plan. There have not been established procedures for the mandatory reassignments of teachers. Whatever negotiations occurred between Knight and the district did not result in a procedure for that result where required by the necessity of equity. Joshua submits that not one teacher has been assigned by the district from a perceived strong school to a perceived weaker school for the purpose of remediation of achievement disparities. -16-Section 2.3. LRSD shall implement student assignment programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure the desegregation of LRSD schools to the extent practicable, including but not limited to Sections 3 and 4 of this Revised Plan. The district does not indicate which policies, programs or procedures that it has revised with the but not limited language of Section 2.3. Furthermore, policies JC and JCA have been in effect for only one year. Joshua notes that these policies were approved May 25, 2000 and that there has been no realistic time to assess their effectiveness assuming that they met their purpose in the first place. As noted elsewhere in this set of concerns, it appears that the schools in the southwest are becoming one race and grossly inferior while the schools in Pulaski Heights area and west Little Rock are becoming disproportionately white and superior. The district does not indicate what steps it is taking to prevent these assignment and quality patterns from occurring. Section 3.6. School Construction/Closing. LRSD shall construct at least two new area elementary schools, one in west Little Rock and one at the site of the former Stephens school. When the new Stephens Elementary opens, it shall receive additional funding as described in Section 5.5 of this Revised Plan and one or more of the schools identified in Section 5.5 will be closed. When a school identified in Section 5.5 is closed, LRSD shall exercise its best efforts to find a community or educational use for the property. Otherwise, LRSD shall not seek to close schools in African-American neighborhoods solely because of age or poor maintenance except when a new school will be located in the same general area. With respect to new school construction and school closing, Joshua has not been involved in the meetings of the west Little Rock school site selection committee and to our knowledge, no site has been selected. The location of that site could significantly affect desegregation possibilities or -17- created further desegregation problems. On the other hand, on information and belief, the district plans to close Mitchell, Badgett and Rightsell because of age and poor maintenance. Joshua is concerned that court release could free the district to place the Jefferson replacement school in a site which is disadvantageous to Black pupils. It also leaves open the possibility of keeping Jefferson as a school. This would tend to create greater desegregation burdens upon African American students. Section 2.4. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination in the referral and placement of students in special education or in other programs designed to meet special student needs. First, Joshua has not been involved in the devisation of the promised programs, policies and procedures in this section or any other section. The 504 program is replete with difficulties and programs which tend to impact African American students in a disparate way. As reflected by the charts on page 22, it appears that African American male and female students are over identified. Such identifications have labeling effects which are anathema to a unitary school system. Section 2.5. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline. The disciplinary programs still tend to be disproportionate. We note that the District has not indicated by gender as it did with respect to the charts on page 22 the students who are actually being suspended. Joshua contends that the suspensions and expulsions are falling most heavily upon African American male students. Some schools are more zero tolerant than others. While the district has diminished the number of overall suspensions, we note that the reduction in white -18- suspensions between 1998 and 2000 was approximately 29%, while the reduction in Black suspensions was approximately 5%. The numbers are roughly equal but the percentages are grossly disparate. This reflects a district still inclined to give more favor to white students. For each Black reducton it makes a white reduction. This is disturbing for if disparate treatment was occurring, the students who benefit from the remedy should be those who suffer rather than those who benefitted all along. Joshua will also point up at a hearing that virtually all the referrals by resource officers and/or district officials to juvenile officials are of Black pupils. White students are seldom referred to those sources when they misbehave. Furthermore, when Black resource officers attempt to respond sensitively to suspensions and referrals to the juvenile or criminal justice system, there is evidence that those resource officers are subject to removal or dislocation. Zero tolerance practices tend to apply generally to Black students and not to white students. Section 2.5.1. LRSD shall strictly adhere to the policies set forth in the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook to ensure that all students are discipline in a fair and equitable manner. This section has to be constantly subject to review because of the disparate treatment received by Black students, especially Black males. See Section 2.5 above. Joshua also requests that the district provide a breakdown by school and by gender, race and offense of the discipline sanctions imposed upon the students during each of the past 3 years. Section 2.5.2. LRSD shall purge students discipline records after the fifth grade an eighth grade of all offenses, except weapons offenses, arson and robbery, unless LRSD finds that to do so would not be in the best interest of the student. -19-The district has not adopted a policy to apply or define with respect to the best interests of the students. This allows subjective consideration to displace objective consideration. Section 2.5.3. LRSD shall establish the position of Ombudsman the job description for which shall include the following responsibilities: ensuring that students are aware of their rights pursuant to the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook, acting as an advocate on behalf of students involved in the discipline process, investigating parent and student complaints of race-based mistreatment and attempting to achieve equitable solutions. Joshua has serious concerns about the ombudsperson position with respect to job description, role and relationship to the administration, duties to students, sufficiency of staff and receptivity of administrators to the efforts of the ombudsperson to investigate complaints. Joshua submits that the Office of Ombudsperson requires a staff, organization, definition of roles and responsibilities and a direct reporting line to the superintendent and the board if the agreed upon expectations are to be realized. Joshua further notes the activities of the ombudsperson are not in this report. His reports, however, demonstrate that there are myriad problems associated with school desegregation implementation which give substance to the need for position in the first place\nand which justify court continued supervision in the second place. Section 2.5.4. LRSD shall work with students and their parents to develop behavior modification plans for students who exhibit frequent misbehavior. Joshua is concerned with the lack of definition with the term students who exhibit frequent misbehavior. 95 Until that term is defined and standards set for implementation, there can be no assurance that the plan being developed addresses the purposes of this section and are being administered in a nondiscriminatory fashion. Moreover, there is no showing how the District has -20- applied these plans since 1997 in order to assist Black students. Section 2.6. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in extracurricular activities, advanced placement courses, honors and enriched courses the gifted and talented program. Joshua is grossly concerned about the extracurricular section. First, the figures are not broken down by school, activity, race or gender. The administration of the advanced placement program gives rise to concerns that white students are being placed more into AP courses in earlier points in their lives and that in effect when one views the participation of academic activities one will find that those are largely participated in by white students. With respect to football, basketball and track, those activities are disproportionately Black. The Supplemental Instruction Program (SIP) gives rise to the impression that Black students are being place therein in order to qualify them for athletic participation. In any case, extra curricular participation is not as the district presents it. The chart on page 28 shows that co-cunicular participation has been increasing at the same rate for Black students over the past three years. Joshua is not familiar with an Activities Advisory Board and how it relates to having met desegregation goals and objectives, and has not been invited to participate in it. Section 2.6.1 and 2.6.2. 2.6.1. LRSD shall implement a training program during each of the next three years designed to assist teachers and counselors in identifying and encouraging African-American students to participate in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses. 2.6.2. LRSD shall implement programs to assist African- American students in being successful in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement -21-courses. There has been no assessment of the training programs for teachers and counselors for each of the last three years in order to assist them in identifying and encouraging African American students participation in honors, enriched and advanced placement courses. These sections demonstrate that programs are beginning to be implemented for the first time in 2001 and afterwards. These programs are 3 years late, with no evaluation criteria or component and are rife with problems, and no track record! For example, the board is establishing different graduation seals, using standards that are arbitrary and which particularly favor white students. Joshua is completely opposed to a system where Black children are not taught on the same basis as white children and then have that lack of teaching rubbed into their faces at graduation when they are denied honors. We note here that the district is yet to have a single Black national merit scholar in the nineteen years of this active litigation. We note also that in the elementary and junior high grades, there have been hundreds of Black pupils whose standardized test scores place them in the 90+ percentiles. While the district says it is trying to get everybody onto the same playing field, on an equal basis, establishing criteria which give the impression that white students are inherently unequal is patently unfair. In reviewing the additional courses and other activities, Joshua has general concerns about those programs and activities that are set forth on pages 32-35. There is no educational justification for an International Baccalaureate Program at Cloverdale Middle and McClellan High School. These students do not have the resources available to them as do students at Parkview and Central. The gifted participation remains as it has been, mostly white at the elementary schools and the percentage at the secondary schools appears to be moving up from 50% to 52%. As with white -22- and Black students with discipline, the practice to provide a one for one benefit for white pupils any time Black pupils advance. The District presents a chart to show African American student enrollment is increasing in advanced placement courses, p. 38. Joshua observes that there is no real change. In 1997, 33% of those students were minority and in 2000, 35% were minority. While the number increased from 33 to 39 in tw'o years, it dropped to where it was in 1997. The African American totals appear to have increased from 471 in 1997 to 797 in 2001, a difference of 326. The non black numbers. however, increased from 964 to 1495, a difference of 531. Taking into account the fact that non Black students are only approximately one third of the school system, their numbers increased to a point that virtually every non-black student is in an AP class. That translates into mostly white classes for white or non-black pupils. It is projected that for next school year there will be 2230 non Black students in the high schools. Assuming that at least 1495 of them as was the case last year are in AP courses, then 67%, or two of every three of the white students are in AP courses. Assuming that there will be 4509 Black students in the high schools next year and that 797 will be in AP courses that means that only 17%, or less than two of every ten of the Black students will be in AP courses. We submit that there is no way under the sun that a white population can be so much smarter than a Black population whoever makes the assessment. On the percentages alone, that means that the white students are almost four times more likely, i.e. smarter, to be placed into AP courses than Black students. It means that every time an additional Black student is placed into an AP course, 1.5 white students are placed in to AP classes. The further ahead we get, the further behind we get comment often made by African American citizens is given dramatic proof by this single statistic. There are some interesting patterns of enrollment in AP courses. Black students are -23- enrolled more in AP American history then any other subject. White students are enrolled more in English IV, English III and Environmental Science and Spanish IV. Less than 10% of the students\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_305","title":"Compliance court orders","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["2000-03/2001-09"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","School administrators"],"dcterms_title":["Compliance court orders"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/305"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nif Hz- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS CASE NO. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. received DEFENDANTS I) KIRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. SE^P 6 2001 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT WRIGHT, ET AL. Office Of OeseSREGATIOSJ MOJifTOR/iMS INTERVENORS THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS RESPONSE TO THE PLAINTIEFS MOTION TO CITE JOSHUA COUNSEL FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT The Little Rock School District, through their counsel, Christopher John Heller and John Clay Fendley, Jr., filed a motion on August 23, 2001. Therein, they renewed by reference an earlier motion which had been dismissed by the Court on August 17, 2001 without prejudice The crux of the LRSDs motion is that Joshua counsel, John W. Walker, violated the following ruling of the Court: My ruling is that he is entitled to FOI requests and he is entitled to that information. If he needs to talk to one of your clients, he ought to go through you, thats true, he needs to go through you, so you will know what your client is saying to Mr. Walker. And I would favor you in that Regard, even though you are a public institution. The present motion certifies the Districts belief that Attorney Walker violated the courts orders... by appearing at the office of Dr. Bonnie Lesley on the morning of August 23. 12001T There is no other contention in the renewed motion for contempt. The respondents, therefore, respectfully submit that the court has not entered an order prohibiting Joshua counsel or his associates from appearing at the office of any school district official in either of the three school districts. The District submitted the affidavits of Dr. Bonnie Lesley and Ms Anita Gilliam, Dr. Lesleys secretary, to support its motion. Neither addresses the issue of whether Mr. Walker violated a court order by appearing in the building. There is no question that Mr. Walker appeared at the buildin\nig- It again submitted no affidavits in support of its earlier, now renewed motion. Accordingly, the Court is called upon to address the issue of whether Mr. Walker is in contempt of court because he appeared at the Ish IRC on August 23, 2001. The issue for the future is whether he is in contempt whenever he enters upon a Little Rock School District property without the prior approval of either or both Messrs. Heller and Pendley. The Court has not entered such an Order. Accordingly, there can be no contempt upon which to base a show case order because there is no antecedent Order denying entry upon LRSD property to the representatives of the Joshua Intervenors. The relief that is being sought is inconsistent with the claimed violation, i.e. appearing at the office of a school official. The relief sought, in addition to sanctions, is that Mr. Walker be refrained from any communication with District personnel and that he be ordered to submit all requests for LRSD documents to counsel for LRSD. There is no authority for such broad relief. Nor is there a brief in support of the motion. The Court is asked to treat the other brief in the dismissed motion for contempt as its brief for this new action. That is, of course, inapposite. But however it is viewed, there is no basis in law argued for denying class counsel entry upon the very 2school premises that he is directed by the Court of Appeals, and expected by this Court, to monitor. As Judge Wollman noted in his concurring opinion in the November 14, 1991 Eighth Circuit decision vacating her honors opinion: I view the continuing presence of the Joshua Intervenors as a powerful force to insure that the several school districts adhere to their commitments to desegregation. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al., 949 F2d 253, 259 (8' Cir., 1991). We submit that our presence is required both 1 to fulfill our class representative obligations and to assure that class concerns regarding implementation of the court orders will be effectively addressed. Messrs. Heller \u0026amp; Fendley would, and by their motion seek to, effectively limit, if not end. Joshua monitoring of the parties agreement. That is another way by which they advise the LRSD that it may be brought into compliance. In other words, keep Walker out of the schools and the case will end. They are badly mistaken. The rule of law governs rather than the identity of the litigators. Joshua counsel submit their own affidavits in order to demonstrate their actions and their respect of the Court and its Order, mindful at the same time, of what appears to be the never ending defiance of law by Little Rock School District officials. Joshua requests that the Court schedule an evidentiary hearing upon the motion and thereafter dismiss it. .espectfully submitted. J^htW. Walker, P.A. 4723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 J501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) By: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do. hereby state the foregoing response has been sent to all counsel of record on this 4* day of September, 2001 via United States mail post^e prepaid. Joj W. Walker - Bar No. 64046 4 I 2001 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CTT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION a LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF No. 4:82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOi DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL. )\u0026lt; '^ECEiWD DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. SEP S 200^ INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. OFHCEQF desesrkaiionwww^ INTERVENORS STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF koMke. AFFIDAVIT OF JOY C. SPRINGER ) )ss. ) Comes the affiant, Joy C. Springer, under oath, and states the following: 1. I am employed by the law firm, John W. Walker, P. A. I direct and engage in that offices school desegregation monitoring activities regarding the three Pulaski county public school districts. 2. I have regularly visited the Ish Instructional Resource Center (IRC) at its present location since it was established as a part of the ongoing monitoring responsibility of the Joshua Intervenors. At times, I have attended meetings at the IRC both at LRSD ofBcials and at my own initiative. My meetings with IRC staff have usually been professional. J. On some of my monitoring visits, I have been accompanied by other office staff of John 1W. Walker, P.A., including Mr. Walker himself. We have all been generally welcomed, upon our meetings and visits, by LRSD officials. 4. I have personal knowledge of the following facts which occurred on August 23, 2001. On the morning of August 23, 2001, Mr. Walker and I went to the IRC office for a monitoring visit. Prior to our arrival, we discussed visiting with Ms. Joanna Harris, who is in the Little Rock Comprehensive Science and Math Achievement offices (LRCSMA), to obtain a schedule of their activities for the year and to obtain Dr. Bonnie Lesleys vitae which we had requested on August 20' and August 22\"\" 5. Mr. Walker and 1 rode to the IRC together. Upon arrival to the building, Mr. Walker received a telephone call and he was on the telephone when I exited the vehicle. 6. I entered the building and signed in shortly after 8:00 a.m. There was no one at the reception area. First, I decided to go into Ms. Harris offices to say hello and obtain the information that Mr. Walker and I had discussed obtaining. Ms. Harris had not come into her offices. There was no one in her offices. 7. I returned to the hall area, sat down and made some notes. I noticed Ms. Anita Gilliam exit from the offices of Dr. Bonnie Lesley and we (Ms. Gilliam and I) exchanged greetings. 8. After approximately five minutes, Mr. Walker came into the building. We went into the reception area of Dr. Bonnie Lesleys offices and were greeted by Ms. Anita Gilliam. I heard Mr. Walker inform Ms. Gilliam that we were there to pick up a copy of Dr. Lesleys vitae. I heard her indicate that she placed it in the mail the previous day. Mr. Walker then said, it should be no problem for you to give us another copy of it. Ms. Gilliam, then, after a pause, gave us a copy of the vitae. 28. After a quick review of the document, Mr. Walker then asked, Is this all of it. And he further stated I am sure her vitae is more extensive than this. Ms. Gilliam left the reception room, went into Dr. Lesleys office and closed the door. While we waited for Ms. Gilliam to return, I observed Mr. Walker take copies available to the public of the standards and benchmarks for grades one through eight. 9. Ms. Gilliam came out of Dr. Lesleys office and informed us that Dr. Lesley was talking to district counsel and that she, Ms. Gilliam, would get back with us shortly. 10. As Mr. Walker was leaving the office and I remained in the office, Mr. Walker then asked Ms. Gilliam if there was any information to supplement the instructional divisions agenda items that were on the school boards agenda for that night. She did not answer. Mr. Walker then left the office. 11. Ms. Gilliam went into Dr. Lesleys office again and closed the door. I sat down and waited for a few minutes for Ms. Gilliam to come out of Dr. Lesleys office. Ms. Gilliam did not return. 12. I left the reception area of Dr. Lesleys offices and joined Mr. Walker who was in the hallway. We took our usual course for monitoring and circled the building. 13. While we were on the math and science hallway, I saw Ms. Gilliam come over to the hall as if she was watching what we were doing. It appeared that she had come over to follow us around the building. I have not previously observed her follow us around the building during previous visits to the IRC. 14. I returned to reception area of Dr. Lesleys offices about ten minutes later at which time Ms. Gilliam told me that the agenda was all the information that was available. I did not Jask to speak with Dr. Lesley. However, Dr. Lesley came out of her office and volunteered that she may have copies of the grant proposals and that I may already have them too. She looked at a piece of paper and said they are not on the list of documents that we have provided you and I will get them for you later. I then asked her to let me understand what she was saying. She repeated it and I wrote it down. No other information was requested of Dr. Lesley by me. 15. Mr. Walker was not in the reception area of Dr. Lesleys offices at the time that Dr. Lesley volunteered the information regarding the grant proposals. He was still in the hallways of the building. 16. When I left the reception area of Dr. Lesleys offices, I met Mr. Walker in the hallway and we went into the LRCPMSA offices again to see if Ms. Harris had arrived. Upon learning that Ms. Harris was not there, we began to leave the office. As were leaving the office, Ms. Gilliam came into the office and asked if she could help us. Mr. Walker said no, and that if he needed help he would ask for it. He then offered to show her the items which he had in his hands which he obtained from the districts display tables and the reception area of Dr. Lesleys offices. 17. Except for speaking to people, Mr. Walker initiated no further conversation with anyone in Dr. Lesleys offices or the IRC. As we exited the building, Mr. Walker asked me who the lady was coming into the building. I told him I thought it was Ms. Dillingham. He spoke to her and asked if she was Ms. Dillingham and she said no. We then left the premises of the IRC. 18. With respect to the events which occurred on August 16, 2001 at the offices of Ms. Jo Evelyn Elston, I am also familiar with the facts surrounding that encounter. 19. When we arrived at Ms. Elstons offices on August 16, 2001, there was no secretary 4in her reception area. In early June, 2001, when I visited Ms. Elstons offices, there was no secretary present in her outer offices. 20. I was the first person to walk into Ms. Elstons office and as I did so, I said hello in order to gain the attention of Ms. Elston and Dr. Terrence Roberts. 21. Asi entered the office of Ms. Elston, Ms. Elston and Dr. Terrence Roberts were seated at a table at the back of her office. As I entered the office, both Ms. Elston and Dr. Terrence got up from the table and greeted me and they subsequently greeted Mr. Walker and \u0026gt;! Ms. Caldwell who came into Ms. Elstons office behind me. Mr. Walker, Ms. Frances Caldwell and I were invited into the offices of Ms. Elston after I got Ms. Elstons attention with my hello. 22. After exchanging greetings, Ms. Elston exited the room and returned with several chairs in order for Mr. Walker, Ms. Caldwell and myself to be seated. 23. Mr. Walker immediately indicated to Dr. Roberts that he was required to go through District attorneys in order to ask questions of District administrators. Mr. Walker indicated to Dr. Roberts his concerns regarding African American student enrollment in Advanced Placement (AP) courses and that he (Dr. Roberts) should inquire of District officials including Ms. Elston regarding American African enrollment, recruitment, success and failure in AP courses. Mr. Walker asked Dr. Roberts to specifically inquire regarding the African American student failure rates in AP courses as a result of current district initiatives. Mr. Walker did not tell Dr. Roberts that all African American students in AP courses were flunking. 24. Mr. Walker did not ask Ms. Elston any questions. She volunteered information as Mr. Walker told Dr. Roberts what his concerns were regarding African American student 5participation in AP courses. 2^ On Saturday, June 30, 2001, while on my way to lunch with Mr. Walker, I phoned Mr. James Washington on my cellular telephone, as I have routinely telephoned him on numerous occasions at home, to advise him that it looks like we would not be having a cook-out at my house anytime soon because I would be working weekends as a result of Mr. Walker having filed objections to rhe Districts motion for declaration of unitary status. Mr. Washington had previously suggested that I invite liim over for a cook-out at my house one weekend. I also told \u0026gt;) him that we could not discuss the case with him without going through district counsel. Mr. Walker asked me to allow him to say hello to Mr. Washington, I handed him the telephone and he did so. I heard him tell Mr. Washington that he was not to discuss matters involving the case without going through district attorneys. I did not hear what was being said by Mr. Washington. In addition, I did not hear Mr. Walker suggest to Mr. Washington that he testify that he feared for his job, if called to testify. 26. I have no personal knowledge regarding the allegations involving Dr. Don Stewart. I have prepared and read the foregoing statements and they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. li / 'Y C. SPRINGER SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before mele day of August, PUBLIC lOl. MY CO^MMlSSION EXPIRES: ! jsaoooiii),. 6 i %1 4 1 \\ I FILED  /--! r'r-A i SEP 0't 2001 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSASIES W. McCORMACK, CJ WESTERN DIVISION H\n:. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF y. NO. 4\n82CV00866 SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL. J!' MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. g^ECEIVED DEFENDANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT. ET AL. STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF SEP - 6 2C01 INTERVENORS OBI 13 INTERVENORS AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN W. WALKER ) )ss. ) Comes affiant, John W. Walker, under oath, and states the following: 1. On August 23, 2001 at approximately 5:55 p.m., I received a copy of Plaintiffs Motion for Contempt wherein the LRSD sought to have me cited for contempt and renewed its earlier motion to have me cited for contempt. It did not, however, seek a show cause order. Despite there being no show cause order entered by the Court or sought by plaintiff, I respectfully request the Court to set this matter for evidentiary hearing and I submit the following statements as if there is an Order entered by the Court to show cause why I should not be cited for contempt. 2. The August 23, 2001 motion relates to events of that day and is supported by two -1-J. 4. 5. affidavits, one from Ms. Anita GilEam and the other from her supervisor, Dr. Bonnie Lesley. The first motion, though renewed, is still without affidavit or evidentiary support. I wish to reply, however, under oath and do so as follows: On August 20, 2001,1 wrote Mr. Clay Pendley , Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark and the co-counsel, Mr. Chris Heller, also of that firm, at least three letters and I spoke with ' Mr. Pendley at least on one occasion for approximately twenty minutes. I attempted to call him a second time but was informed that he was unavailable for my call. The first letter. Exhibit A, addressed the issue of our request for information from school principals and I note that we offered twenty additional days to respond to that FOIA. I also note that I wrote in that letter with respect to district officials whom we sought information from that if we seek opinions from your primary administrative staff members, we will get them either in that form [without depositions] or ... by interrogatories. I received no response to this letter from Mr. Fendley. I then wrote Mr. Fendley requesting, a copy of Dr. [Bonnie] Lesleys vitae noting that I was addressing this request to her as well. See Exhibit B. At approximately 2:25 p.m., I informed Mr. Fendley that I would seek to obtain a copy of the 2001 budget document from the district, for possible use at the school board meeting on August 23, 2001, and I noted if you determine that I am not entitled to this information. would you kindly inform me . .  Mr. Fendley did not respond to this letter either. See Exhibit C. Not having heard from Mr. Fendley or Dr. Lesley on August 22, 2001, I wrote Dr. Lesley a two sentence letter. Exhibit D. I asked would you please provide me a -2-copy of your vitae by return fax. Thank you for your cooperation. Mr. Pendley was copied with the letter. I did not receive the requested fax response on August 22, 2001 from either Mr. Pendley or Dr. Bonnie Lesley. Neither of them interposed an objection to my obtaining the information. 6. On the morning of August 23, 2001, shortly after 8\n00 a.m., I and Joshua Intervenor Monitor, Ms. Joy Springer, went to the Instructional Resource Center IRC located 9 at 30* and Pulaski Streets in Little Rock. We discussed obtaining information from Ms. Vanessa Cleavers office and obtaining a copy of the vitae of Dr. Bonnie Lesley. I followed Ms. Springer into the IRC building by approximately five minutes. When I entered the building, Ms. Springer was seated in the hallway in front of Dr. Bonnie Lesleys office. We both went into the outer office of Dr. Bonnie Lesley and I spoke with Ms. Anita Gilliam, Dr. Lesleys secretary. The only conversation that took place in that office at that time concerned my request for a copy of the requested vitae. I did not see (lay eyes on) nor talk (exchange words with), Dr. Bonnie Lesley that morning. Ms. Gilliam informed me that Ms. Gilliam had mailed Dr. Lesleys resume to me the day before. Her two page resume is attached as Exhibit E. Upon seeing that it was only two pages and that it only cited her educational background and work experience, I asked Ms. Gilliam if she had another one that was more comprehensive. My request for Dr. Lesleys vitae was made in order for me to be able to review some of her writings. I had no other way of being informed of her ideas regarding remediation which were being reflected in the policies she was submitting to the LRSD Board for approval. Her resume appeared to be different from those of other -j-) 7. 8. 9. 10. professional employees. Her e-mails reflected that she has written extensively and has had other experiences which equip her to be Director of Instruction. The resume that I was given did not appear to meet the District standards. Ms. Gilliam did not engage in any substantive conversation with me at that time or at any time. I did not seek any information from Ms. Gilliam other than the resume of Dr. Lesley and any documentation that Dr. Lesley intended to present to the school board later that evening. Ms. Gilliam did not respond to me or in my presence to this request. I received on August 22, 2001 an agenda from the LRSD for the next days board meeting. On the agenda there were several pohcy proposals from Dr. Lesley: IVA with five pages of an administrative regulation IVA-R\nproposed revision to administrative regulation IKEC-R3\nCredit by Examination with five additional pages\nprogram evaluation agenda for 2001 -2002, three pages\nweighted credit for university studies courses at Hall High School, two pages\nproposed revision to administrative regulation IKC-R: Grade Point Average and Rank in Class, six pages\nand, a grant proposal - Teaching United States History, one page. While I was in the office, I asked Ms. Gilham if there was any additional information which was available which supported the enumerated items being submitted by the Instructional Division which were on the 6:00 p.m. agenda that day. I never received a response from Ms. Gilliam to my question. Before I left Ms. Gilliams office, I picked up copies addressed to parents and guardians of standards benchmarks for grades 1-8. I left Ms. Gilliams office and walked down the hallways of the IRC. There were pubhc pass outs on the tables -4-11. 12. 13. 14. which involved the districts schedule, the LRSDs Comprehensive Partnership for Mathematics and Science Achievement, the PRAXIS Series Tests at a Glance for approximately fourteen different programs, and several communications to parents. Dr. Lesley has given an afhdavit in support of the districts motion to cite me for contempt. Dr. Lesley indicates that she spoke with me personally. I make this determination because she speaks in terms of a they said which includes me. In paragraph four of her affidavit, she appears to indicate that I had a conversation with her. It is clear, however, from a full reading of her afSdavit, that she neither spoke with me nor laid eyes upon me on the morning of August 23, 2001. I state that I never saw or spoke with Dr. Lesley on August 23, 2001. The most that can be said of my activity in Dr. Lesleys office was that upon being informed that the requested vitae had been mailed the day before, I asked Anita for another copy of what had allegedly been mailed\nthat upon being provided the copy. I asked if it was a complete copy\nand I asked if there any other writings that supported the departments agenda items on the school board agenda of 6:00 p.m. that day I could have. When I returned to my office I wrote Ms. Ann Marshall, ODM Monitor, a letter complaining about the districts response and asking her help: 1 am writing this letter to enlist your offices assistance in helping to ensure that the LRSD is fully responsive to citizens requests for information. If the district will not provide full information on something as simple as a resume, I believe that speaks to the districts general inclination. Exhibit F. A copy of this letter went to Dr. Lesley and to Mr. Chris Heller. After the school board meeting on the evening of August 23,2001, it appears that Dr. -5-Lesley updated her vitae. Her letter dated August 23, 2001, Exhibit G, begins as follows: You came to the ISH IRC on August 23, 2001, and requested immediately of my assistant a copy of the resume that we had mailed to you on Wednesday. It appears that the letter dated August 23, 2001, was written after that date. Today, August 27, 2001, I received Exhibit F in original form from Dr. Lesley. She now indicates that she has updated her curriculum vitae to a point where it is now 27 pages J n long and that in order for me to get it, I will have to pay the district $6.75. With respect to the proposals that were for discussion on the board agenda for August 23\"'*, she has informed me that to review the document and get a copy of it would cost $11.00\nfor the Technology Challenged Grant Proposal, $4.50. I may then obtain the documents, apparently without going through Mr. Heller and Mr. Fendley by bringing a check for $22.25 to Ms. Gilliam. 15. 16. In Dr. Lesleys letter of August 23as well as in her affidavit. Dr. Lesley does not indicate that I spoke, or sought to speak, with her personally. She acknowledges that I only sought to obtain a document that was or could have been readily available on request to anyone, of which prior notice that I was seeking it was given to her counsel. On August 17, 2001, the Court denied LRSDs motion without prejudice to cite me for contempt. During the telephone conference, the Court indicated that it would be prudent to, and in fact, ordered me to go through, or at least tell the attorneys what [I was] doing. This would prevent misconstruction of my conduct. The Courts Order which was received by me in the morning mail on August 23\"* is -6-) 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. slightly different from what was spoken during the telephone conference. The Court  s Order which was intended to. clarify her previous Order . . . directs counsel for Joshua Intervenors to go through counsel for the LRSD when seeking information from the district or district officials and personnel that is pertinent to the case and to inform counsel for the LRSD prior to contacting district officials and personnel about matters that are not currently before the Court. Exhibit A reflects that if we sought opinions from the district administrators we would do that by interviews or by interrogatories. Exhibit B indicates that I informed and went through Mr. Pendley in order to obtain information from Dr. Lesley, i.e., her vitae. Exhibit C reflects that I went through Mr. Fendley on August 20, 2001, in order to obtain a budget document which was on the August 23, 2001 agenda. Exhibit D reflects that, after informing and upon not receiving a response from Mr. Fendley on the third day, I requested from Dr. Lesley a copy of her vitae by return fax. Mr. Fendley interposed no objection to this request. She did not reply. When it was not received by return fax as requested on August 22, 2001,1 simply stopped by the LRC to pick it up. Nothing else happened other than that I requested from Anita Gilliam any information that her office had to support the policies to be presented in the public forum later that night and that Ms. Springer and I made a routine monitoring visit of the IRC. For years, the school district has taken the position that it has provided us, in advance of school board meetings, the proposed policies or regulations and back-up information before they were presented to the school board. Dr. Lesley and Dr. -1-J, 22. 23. Carnine have previously indicated that it was their belief and purpose that I should have, and that the district would provide such information to me at least several weeks, before the proposals were presented to the school board for action. The districts counsel were aware of this commitment. Moreover, the districts counsel were aware that I intended to appear at the school board meeting on the evening on August 23\"*. See Exhibit H. I wrote Mr. Heller that day, August 23, 2001, asking if he perceived the Courts Order as restricting any discussion between me and the board members later that day. See Exhibit H. The LRSD filed a motion on August 16, 2001 seeking to cite me for contempt. It now renews that motion. In doing so, the district has failed to provide either affidavit of other evidentiaiy support of the allegations in the motion. The renewal of the motion does not make it legally sufficient to put me on notice of what it is that I am specifically charged with having done. I proceed, however, to respond by this affidavit to those allegations under penalty of perjury. There are three allegations stated in the first motion. I address them seriatim: a) To the allegation that I confronted Ms. Jo Evelyn Elston with allegations that all African American students in advanced placement (AP) courses were flunking, I deny that allegation. Dr. Terrence Roberts, a consultant recommended by the Joshua Intervenors, was in a meeting Ms. Jo Evelyn Elston at approximately 11:30 a.m.. August 16,2001. I was scheduled to meet with him during the day. I had previously written him and informed him that I would like to be involved in your meetings with Dr. Washington and Dr. Lesley. See Exhibit 1. I was unable to meet with him -8-during his meetings with either of those persons. When I caught up with him he was at Ms. Elstons office. Ms. Elston invited me and Ms. Springer into the office. A law clerk named Francis Caldwell, who accompanied us to the meeting, was also invited in. During the meeting, I informed Dr. Roberts that I was not to elicit information from any district officials and then I proceeded to tell him some of the concerns that we had regarding the treatment of African American students that I wished for him to address with Ms. Elston and the other administrators as he sought to work with the school district. My conversations were primarily expressions of concern to Dr. Roberts regarding his role in relating to school administrators. I did discuss with him the treatment of African American students not only in advanced placement but in the district as well. At no time did Ms. Elston indicated that I interrupted any meeting and she appeared to welcome my discussions with Dr. Roberts. Ms. Elston and I have been personal friends since college, and we are neighbors. Dr. Roberts has provided a written statement regarding the alleged events. See Exhibit J. (The signed copy from Dr. Roberts is being submitted to the Court). b) To the allegation that I called Mr. James Washington, LRSD Ombudsman on\\ June 30, 2001, and suggested that Washington testify that he feared for his job if he told the truth, I deny having done that. Mr. Washington did not testify at the Court hearing that he feared for his job if he told the truth. MT. Washington, however, has visited my office on scores of occasions in response to complaints that we have directed to him in his role as Ombudsperson. During several of those meetings he complained about his treatment by the district and that he did not feel that he had the -9-) 24. 25. full support of Mr. Junious Babbs in the execution of his job duties. At court, as I recall his testimony, he confirmed that lack of full support. He indicated .shortcoming.^ with respect to his office space, staff and limitations upon his investigations, especially about complaints that emanated from Pulaski Heights Middle School. Mr. Washington, I believe, says different things to different people at different times depending upon his view of the advantage to be obtained by such expressions. c) To the allegation that on July 19, 2001 I attempted to intimidate Dr. Don Stewart by walking into a closed door meeting in his office, I deny that. I am not certain of where Dr. Don Stewarts office is located. I went into a room where he and Mr. Junious Babbs were present, which may have been his office, exchanged a few pleasantries and left. I do not recall either of us being seated. Absolutely nothing took place where I sought to obtain infonnation^ verbal or written, from a school district ofiBcial. I further suggest that any intimidation or intended intimidation of Dr. Don Stewart is impossible due, if for no other reason, to Dr. Stewarts high degree of self-confidence to say the least. I do not believe that he will testify, under oath, by recitation of any factual scenario, that I have ever sought to intimidate him. With respect to both motions for contempt, I deny that I either have contempt for the Court or have acted in a manner contemptuous of any Court Order, Court Directive or Code of Professional Conduct. The contrary is true. The district acknowledges that as counsel for Joshua, I have a duty to engage in monitoring activity regarding class activity. The motion for contempt, I believe, is an -10-attempt to frustrate our monitoring. I have read the foregoing statements and they are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. jo: W. WALKER SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me ^ay of , 2001. MY co: :SSION EXPIRES: NotaSypublic -11- cout\u0026lt;^ i i i ) ) 0 I J 1 John W. Walker, P.a. ArroENBYAr Law 1723 Broadway Little Eock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WAI,KF,B. SHAWN CHILDS August 20, 2001 Mr. Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 OF COUNSEL EGBERT McHENRY, PjL DONNA J. McHenry . 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd^wbelLiiet ) Dear Clay: In that you have taken ten days, and in that the information that I am seeking is readily accessible, you may have 20 additional days to respond to the FOIA involving the principals. I will agree to a protective order regarding personal student information provided by FREPA. In that the LRSDs motion to be declared unitary is not a trial on the merits of the case, and in that no discovery schedule has been approved by the court, I can not agree to the procedure you suggest. There are several reasons for this. The most compelling reason, however, is that the information 1 request has routinely been provided upon request in the past\nand that we have not requested to use the FOIA in the past for these purposes. We now use the FOIA to make sure that the district is clear about what we need and to give the district officials time to obtain it without interference with their jobs. You lawyers interrupted the process when you decided you wanted to scrutinize each request that came from us. To us, that means that you not only want to review the matter but to structure the response as well. Clay, the documents we requested to review need not be examined first by you if they are public documents. We dont even need to copy many of them. We are entitled to see them even if the purpose is unrelated to your motion. You make things more difScuit and then try to blame us for having done so. ( With respect to the federal rules, we will request that you make available witnesses without depositions. If we seek opinions from your primary administrative staff members, we will get them either in that form or either by interrogatories. !ry truly yours, i ihn Walker JWW\nlp cc: Ms. Ann Marshall JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway . Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRE PA. DONNA J. MoHENRY 8210 Henderson Road LrrrtE Rook, Arkansas 72210 Phone\n(501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchem7d@swbell.11et August 20, 2001 Mr. Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Dear Mr. Fendley: I intend to request a copy of Dr. Lesleys vitae and am informing you of same. If you have it, would you be kind enough to forward it to me. In that I dont imagine that you do, and it should not be a controversial matter at all, I am forwarding this request to her as well. Sincerely, I W. Walker JWW:lp cc: Dr. Bonnie Lesley Ms. Ann Marshall John W, Walker. P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 BEOADWAy Little Rocs, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS OF COUNSEL EOBERT McHENEY, PA. DONNA J. McHENEY 8210 Hendesson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone\n(501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email\nmchenrydl^wbelLiiet August 20, 2001 Kir. Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Dear Clay: It is now 2:25 p.m.. August 20, 2001. I intend to appear or having someone appear on my behalf at the school district to request a copy of the 2001 budget document which the district has prepared. We have been provided these copies in the past but have not been provided one this time. Perhaps it is an oversight. I have tried to call you by telephone in the last few minutes after having spoken to you for about 20 minutes on another matter and I am informed that you are unavailable for my call. If you determine that I am not entitled to this information, would you kindly inform me whether this information is otherwise available to the public. Siaeerely, D^ri Walker A JWW:lp John w. Wiker, P.A. ATTOENBYArLAW 1723 Broadway Lotle Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAZ (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WAT,KER SHAWN CHILDS August 22, 2001 OF COUNSEL EOBEST McHENEY, EA. DONNAJ. McHENRY 8210 HEioiBssoN Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone\n(501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email\nmohenryd^wbelLnet Dr. Bonnie Lesley Little Rock School District 81^0 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas Dear Dr. Lesley\nWill you please provide me a copy of your vitae by return fax. Thank you for your cooperation. Walker nVW:lp cc: Mr. Clay Fendley Ms. Ann Marshall f \u0026gt; Resume Bonnie Alexander Lesley Home Address: 232 Trelon Circle, Little Rock, AR 72223-3920 Office Address: 3001 S. Pulaski, Little Rock, AR 72206 Home Telephone: 501/868-4289 Office Telephone: 501/324-2131 Home E-mail: baleslev@aol.com Office E-mail: balesIe@irc.lrsdLkl2.ar.tis Educational Background Ed. D., Aug. 1989 to- Baylor University, Waco, Texas 54 Graduate Hours University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, Texas M.A. mEngEsh, Aug. 1968 West Texas A\u0026amp;M University, Canyon, Texas B.A: in English, June 1962 With Honors University of North Texas, Denton, Texas High School Diploma, Valedictorian, May 1959 Hedley High School, Hedley, Texas Work Experience June 1998Present Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School Distric Little Rode, Arkansas Dec. 1995March 1998 Associate Superintendent Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools Kansas City, Kansas June 1993Dec. 1995 Associate State Superintendent for Curiiculum/Standards Delaware Department of Public Instruction Dover, Delaware Oct. 1991June 1993 Associate Superintendent for Curriculum/Instruction Austin Independent School District Austin, Texas June 1986Oct. 1991 Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum Waco Independent School District Waco, Texas iAug. 19S1June 1986 Director of Secondary Education Ysleta independent School District El Paso, Texas ). Aug. 1979Aug. 1981 Fall 1965Spring 1979 J Fall 1964Spring 1965 Fall 1962Spring 1964. Supervisor of Secondary Language Arts Ysleta Independent School District El Paso, Texas Teacher of Enghsh and Creative Writing Eastwood High School Ysleta Independent School District El Paso, Texas Reading and Elementary Spanish Teacher Scotsdale Elementary School Ysleta Independent School District El Paso, Texas English, Mathematics, Reading, Spanish Teacher Silverton Independent School District S Everton, TexasJohn W. Walker, P.A. Attorney Ar Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (601) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WAT,KER SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile - 371-0100 August 23 , 2001 OF COUNSEL aOBEET McHENRY, PA. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Hendeeson Road Liitle Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (601) 372-3425  Fas (501) 372-3428 Ematt: mchenryd^-wbelLjiei: Ms. Ann S. Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 124 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Ms. Marshall\nAs you know, I have been seeking information from the Little Rock School District. You also know it is my behef that the District does not provide full or accurate information, at least to us, upon request. We have some substantial evidence of that already. Yesterday, I requested a copy of Dr. Bonnie Lesleys resume or vitae. You received a copy of my request. She provided a resume, a copy of which is attached. The resume is three pages. The resume is an example of an attitude: give them something, anything will do\nbut dont give them all of what we-have. Dr. Lesley surely provided to the Little Rock School District a far more extensive resume that she provided in response to our request. Perhaps, you have seen it. Surely, the Board of Directors had more than what she provided to us. I am writing this letter to enlist your offices assistance in helping to ensure that the Little Rock School District is fully responsive to citizens requests for information. If the District will not provide full information on something as simple as a resume, I believe that speaks to the Districts general inclination. Sincerely, /^nn W. Walkdf JWW\njs Attachment cc: Dr. Bonnie Lesley Mr. Chris Heller An Individual Approach to a World of IPdiowledge August 23, 2001 MB 27 an Mr. John Walker 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 h Dear Mr. Walker: I You came to the Ish IRC on Thursday morning. August 23, 2001, and requested immediately of my assistant a copy of the resume that we had mailed to you on Wednesday. She provided that to you. Then you and Ms. Springer requested copies of the grant proposals that were referenced in the Board agenda book for the August 23 meeting. I told Ms, Springer that we can provide those but that I dont have copies in my office and would have to get them from others. Then you told Ms. Gilliam that the resume I had provided was not adequate, that you wanted a more complete one, with lists of my writings. I asked her to tell you that I would have to update what I had, but that I would be happy to provide that, although it will be very long. I stopped what I was doing this morning and spent the necessary time to update the full curriculum vitae that you apparently want. I also secured from the other offices copies of the United States History grant proposal and the Technology Challenge grant proposal. The curriculum vitae is 27 pages long, so the cost for that document is $6.75. The United States History grant proposal is 44 pages, so the cost for that document is $11.00. The Technology Challenge grant proposal is 18 pages, so that cost will be $4.50. That is a total of $22.25. If you will bring a check made payable to the LRSD for that amount to Ms. Gilliam, she will provide you with the copies of the documents that you have requested. YojleFs Connie A. Lesley, cd. D. Associate Superintendent for Instruction BAL/adg cc: Chris Heller Clay Fendley Dr. Kenneth James 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.Irsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fes\n501-324-2032 John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney Ar Law 1723 Broadway Ltttle Book, Arkansas 72206 Tkt,EPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WAT,KER SHAWN CHILDS August 23, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHenry, PjL DONNA J. McHENEY 8210 Hendbsson Road Little Rock, xArkansas 72210 Phone\n(501) 372-3425  Fas (501) 372-3428 Email\nmchenryd^wbelLnet Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Dear Mr. Heller\nDo you perceive the Judges Order as requiring me to inform you that I intend to have a discussion with the board members today during the board meeting. Please let me hear from you by return fax. ySi^cerely, W. Walker JWW:lp cc\nMs. Arm Marshall 1 /OHN WALKER, PA. Attorn^ at Law 1723 Broadway Litde Rod:, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 FAX TRANSXnSSION COVER^ SHEET Tax: Re: Sender: To: YOU SHOULD RECEIVT [ (induding cover sheet)] PAGE(S), EXCLUDING _ THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT FECETVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEAEE CALL ''\u0026lt;(501)S74-3758\u0026gt; The information contained in this facsimile message is attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for tire use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediate notify us by telephone, and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. Tarsnee J. Roberts, PhD. P.O. Bos 96- Pasadena, CA 91102 (626) 644-4956 August 17, 2001 Mr. John Cia^' Fendley Friday, SIdredgs \u0026amp; Clark ) 2000 Regions Center ''i :\u0026lt;aP.-cirif .AA\"R 72201 Mr. John W, Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Mr. Fendiej' and Mr. Walker: It was brought to my itlentioh this momiug by John Walker that a mos: tica to eke Mr. Jolin WaOsef ip contempT of court was made by Mr. Clay Fendley, representative of the Little Rock School District. ?y^_ w^ijrwr p?i\u0026gt;Vtdcd ulC With thfi iiiOuOu, J apl addrSSSing thS facts in paragraph 2 of the motion i i I was present with Ms. Jo Evelyn Elston when Mr. W'sikw -asri twtj ijf iliil iSSGClixLcS wcr 1X1 VilCU into her ofSces. Mr. Walker did not barge into Ms. islstons oiSoe. Mr. Waik-er cognizsnt of .-4 Lerexcre, he addressed his ststeiiiniits to ixi ord^A to Ci^'xfy heipg discussed between Ms. ilston and mysi t:? j i Please coxitact me if addxtii Sincerely, LiXLVXXXXCXtXV.^^ i I I Terrence J. Roberts, PlhD 'J I Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (I922-I994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR., P A. JOE D. BELL. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK S- URSERY. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR-. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P-A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM III. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III. P A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD D. TAYLOR. P-A. JOSEPH B HURST. JR.. P-A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. P-A. MICHAEL S. MOORE, P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY, P.A. WALTER M. EBEL HI. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR., P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR.. P.A HARRY A. LICHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER. P.A. TONIA P. JONES. P.A. DAVID D. WILSON. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE. SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703-4811 TELEPHONE 501-695-2011 FAX 501-695-2147 JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GRAF. P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P-A. JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR.. P.A. JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO. P.A. R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.A. GREGORY D. TAYLOR. P.A. TONY L. WILCOX. P.A. FRAN C. HICKMAN. P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY. P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W. SMITH. P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT. P.A. DANIEL L. HERRINGTON. P.A. MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR. ALLISON I. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL MICHAEL E- KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P- MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON PHILIP B. MONTGOMERY KRISTEN S. RIGGINS ALAN G. BRYAN OF COUNSEL B S CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE, P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. A.D. MCALLISTER 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2898 FAX 870-762-2918 JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-3323 FAX 501-244-5341 fndlyfc.nt September 21, 2001 received ( ria Facsimile \u0026amp; Mail) Honorable Susan Webber Wright United States District Court SEP 24 2G01 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3325  QffICEOr ^^SESHEGATIONnOfilHQ RE: Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et. al.\nMrs. Lorene Joshua, et. al.\nKatherine Knight, et. al. United States District Court Western Division No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Judge Wright: Enclosed please find Plaintiffs Motion to Compel and Request for Expedited Hearing. This motion concerns discovery propounded by Plaintiff to the Joshua Intervenors. Joshua has advised that they will not respond absent a Motion to Compel. We respectfully request that this matter be set for an expedited hearing at the courts earliest convenience. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, JCF/bgb enclosure(s) cc: Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Sam Jones W. 'JWs. Richard Roachell s. Ann Marshall Mr. Steve Jones Mr. Sammye Taylor F:\\HOME\\BBrown\\Fendley\\LRSD\\wright lt.wpd IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED HEARING Plaintiff Little Rock School District for its Motion for Compel states: 1. received SEP 24 20C1 Q55ICE\u0026gt; PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Plaintiff served the Joshua Intervenors with written discovery by mail on August 9, 2001, making Joshua's responses due on or before September 11, 2001. Joshua has failed and refused to respond. 2. Plaintiff contacted Joshua concerning responses and was advised to file a motion to compel. 3. A copy of the written discovery served on Joshua is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that Joshua be ordered to provide full and complete responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production to the Joshua Intervenors Regarding Joshua's Objections to Unitary Status on or before October 1, 2001\nthat an expedited hearing be held on this Motion at the Court's earliest convenience\nthat Plaintiff be awarded its costs and attorneys' fees expended herein\nand that Plaintiff be awarded all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled.Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501)376-2011 BY: yCnnstopher Heller (#81083^1 ZJohn C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following persons by fax and mail on September 21, 2001: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sammye Taylor Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Or Cnristopher Heller I' tj' Uohn C. Jr. Fendley, F \\HOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD 2001\\dcs-mot-coiiipel wpd 38'9-0! IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION TO THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS REGARDING JOSHUAS OBJECTIONS TO UNITARY STATUS Comes the Plaintiff, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), and submits the following Interrogatories and Requests for Production to be answered within thirty days in accord with Rules 33 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. GENERAL DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS tr (A) \"you\" or \"your' Shall mean the Joshua Intervenors' LRSD class representative and counsel for the Joshua Intervenors and any person (as defined below) acting on their behalf\n(B) \"person\" Shall mean any individual, corporation, partnership, joint venture, firm. association, proprietorship, agency, board, authority, commission, and other such entities. II (C) \"communicate\" or \"communication Shall mean every manner or means of disclosure, transfer or exchange, and every disclosure, transfer or exchange of information whether orally or by document or whether face to face, by telephone, mail, personal delivery, or otherwise\nII (D) \"document' EXHIBITShall mean any original written, typewritten, handwritten, printed or recorded material, as well as all tapes, disks, non-duplicate copies and transcripts thereof, now or at any time in your possession, custody or control\nand, without limiting the generality of the foregoing definition, but for the purposes of illustration only, \"document\" includes notes, correspondence, memoranda, business records, diaries, calendars, address and telephone records, photographs, tape recordings, videotapes and financial statements. Without limitation of the term \"control\" as used in the preceding sentence, a document is deemed to be in your control if you have the right to secure the document or a copy thereof from another person or a public or private entity having actual possession thereof. If a document that is responsive to a request for identification or production is in your control, but is not in your possession or custody, identify the person with possession or custody. If any document that is responsive to a request for identification or production was. but is no longer, in your possession or subject to your control, state what disposition was made of it, by whom, and the date or dates or approximate date or dates on which disposition was made, and why\n(E) \"identify tt (i) As to a person (as defined), shall mean the person's name, business and residence address(es), occupation, job title\nand, if not an individual, state the type of entity and the address of its principal place of business\n(ii) As to a document, shall mean the type of document (letter, memo, etc.) the identity of the author or originator, the date authored or originated, the identity of each person to whom the original or copy was addressed or delivered, the identity of such 2The singular includes the plural number, and vice versa. The masculine includes the feminine and neuter genders. The past tense includes the present tense where the clear meaning is not distorted by change of tense. If you do not answer any Interrogatory or Request for Production because of a claim of privilege, set forth the privilege claimed, the facts upon which you rely to support the claim of privilege, and identify all documents for which such privilege is claimed. INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please identify all persons who participated in the preparation of the responses hereto. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please identify the Joshua Intervenors' LRSD class representative and the date on which that person became Joshuas class representative. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please identify all persons who performed monitoring for you during the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Please produce all of your monitoring reports that were shared with LRSD during the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. fNTERROGATORY NO. 4: Please identify and describe in detail all areas of noncompliance and bad faith implementation communicated by you to LRSD during the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Please produce all documents pertaining to areas of noncompliance and bad faith implementation communicated by you to LRSD during the term of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 4INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Please state whether you received a copy of LRSDs Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999, on July, 1, 1999, and if not, please state when you received a copy of LRSDs Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999. INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Please identify and describe in detail all communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the format or content of LRSDs Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Please produce all documents pertaining to communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the format or content of LRSDs Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Please identify and describe in detail all communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the format or content of LRSDs Interim Compliance Report filed March 15, 2000. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Please produce all documents pertaining to all communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the content and format of LRSDs Interim Compliance Report filed March 15, 2000. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Please identify and describe in detail all racial disparities revealed by your monitoring during the term of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\nand for each area of racial disparity state: (a) When you became aware of the disparity\n(b) When you communicated your knowledge of the disparity to LRSD\n(c) Whether LRSDs response to the racial disparity complied with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\nand if not, why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 5REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding Interrogatory regarding racial disparities. fNTERROGATORY NO. 9: Please identify and describe in detail all incidents of racial discrimination in the imposition of discipline which occurred during the term of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, and separately with regard to each such incident, please state: (a) (b) (c) When you became aware of the incident\n''Yhen you communicated your knowledge of the incident to LRSD\nWhether LRSDs response to the incident complied with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\nand if not, why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding Interrogatory regarding incidents of racial discrimination in the imposition of discipline. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: On average, about 85% of LRSDs suspensions are of African-American students (See Compliance Report, March 15, 2001, p. 24). Please explain how much of that 85%, if any, you contend results from racial discrimination by LRSD and identify all facts and documents with support that contention? REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding interrogatory. 6INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Please identify and describe in detail all incidents involving student discipline which you referred to the LRSD Ombudsman\nand separately for each such incident, please state: (a) When you became aware of the incident\n(b) When you communicated your knowledge of the incident to the ombudsman\n(c) Whether LRSD's response to the incident complied with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\nand if not, why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Please produce all documents pertaining to your communications with the LRSD Ombudsman. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Please identify all facts and documents which support your objection to LRSD's compliance with Section 2.5 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Please identify all facts and documents which support your objection to LRSD's compliance with Section 2.5.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding interrogatory. 7INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Please identify all facts and documents which support your objection to LRSD's compliance with Section 2.5.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Please identify all facts and documents which support your objection to LRSD's compliance with Section 2.5.3 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Please identify all facts and documents which support your objection to LRSD's compliance with Section 2.5.4 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding interrogatory. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Please state whether you contend that the \"Program Evaluation Agenda\" and/or the \"Assessment Plan\" set forth on pages 53-57 in the Interim Compliance Report filed March 15, 2000, complied with LRSD's obligation under Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. If not, please: (a) identify and describe in detail all facts and documents supporting your contention\n(b) state when you determined that they did not comply\nand, (c) when you communicated to LRSD your belief that they did not comply\n8(d) why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding interrogatory. rNTERROGATORY NO. 18: Please identify and describe in detail all programs, policies and procedures proposed by you pertaining to LRSDs obligations under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: Please oroduce all documents pertaining to programs, policies and procedures proposed by you pertaining to LRSDs obligations under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Please produce all documents received by you in the ordinary course of business (as opposed to in response to an FOIA request) during the term of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan pertaining to your participation on LRSD committees or in LRSD activities. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Please produce all documents pertaining to your invoking the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 37$=2^H------------. BT Cfiristopher Heller 1083\nJohn C. Fendley, Jr. (#92182) 9CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on August 9, 2001: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sammye Taylor Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 F HOMF FES'DLEY LRSD OOr.des-unilan ini-rfp-Joshua-OOI wpd 10 iristopher Heller IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED HEARING Joshua has failed and refused to respond to Plaintiffs diseovery requests served by mail on August 9, 2001. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(5) authorizes the party submitting interrogatories to move for an order compelling responses under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a) where the party to whom interrogatories were submitted fails to respond. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4) prohibits the party to whom interrogatories were submitted from responding to a motion to compel by raising objections to the interrogatories. It provides, \"Any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the party's failure to object is excused by the court for good cause shown.\" (emphasis supplied). Similarly, Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b) authorizes a party submitting requests for production to move for an order compelling production under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). Accordingly, Plaintiff prays that Joshua be ordered to provide full and complete responses to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production to the Joshua Intervenors Regarding Joshua's Objections to Unitary Status on or before October 1, 2001Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501)376-2011 BY\n/ Christopher Heller (#8108 w (./John C. Fendley, Jr. (#92IK) Fendley, (#92182) 2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following persons by fax and mail on September 21,2001: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road, Suite 146 Post Office Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sammye Taylor Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 istopher ihn C. Fendley, Jr. Heller  '/j dlev, F\n\\HOME\\FENDLEY\\LRSD 200l\\des-inol-compel-bn wpd 3RECESVED SEP 2 4 2001 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO.4\n82CV00866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS JOSHUAS ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION REGARDING JOSHUAS OBJECTIONS TO UNITARY STATUS 6/^'  /.' bra.r~, r fNTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please identify all persons who pailicipated in the preparation of the responses hereto. ANSWER NO. 1: John W. Walker as counsel for the Joshua Intervenors and Joy C. Springer, Monitor. INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please identify the Joshua Intervenors LRSD representative and the date on which that person became Joshuas class representative. ANSWER NO. 2: The Defendant LRSD is aware of the class representatives. There have been no new or additional persons identified as class representatives. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Please identify all persons who performed monitoring for you dming the tenn of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Educational Plan. ANSWER NO. 3: The following persons performed monitoring: John W. Walker, -1-Joy C. Springer, Kirke Herman, Carolyn Cooley, Margaret Freeman, Lorene Joshua, Delois Sykes and Frances Caldwell. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Please produce all of yom monitoring reports that were shared with LRSD during the term of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. RESPONSE NO. 1: The Joshua Intervenors counsel, in response to and at the request of Superintendent Les Caimne and District counsel Chris Heller, in an effort to be cooperative with them did not publish any monitoring reports of the concenis which he had with respect to LRSD Plan implementation between 1998 and 2001. See the written commimications from Heller, Camine and Walker - Court Exhibits 558 and 566. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Please identify and describe in detail all areas of noncompliance and bad faith implementation communicated by you to LRSD \u0026amp; term of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 4\nPlease see Joshuas Opposition to LRSDs Motion for Unitary Status filed herein. The Agreement entered between Little Rock School District and the State of Arkansas regarding the 20 million dollar' loan forgiveness. Also see the notes and files of Superintendent Les Carmine, District cormsei Chris Heller, Jrmious Babbs, James Washington, Sadie Mitchell, Marion Lacey, Linda Watson, Brady Gadberry, Victor Anderson, Bonnie Lesley and Gene Parker that contain correspondence and other documentation from Joshua. There is a partial list of items in the March 15, 2001 Compliance Report. In addition, undersigned counsel had numerous conversations with -2-Superintendent Canijne and District Attorney Heller regarding noncompliance issues at Rightsell Elementaiy School involving discipline, lack of academic achievement, segregation of boys from girls as a punitive measure\ndouble funding, maintenance and proper staffing, equipment and materials at the Incentive Schools\nthe proposed closing of Mitchell Elementaiy school\nthe closing of Ish School under the guise of it not being a repairable facility and later being refurbished to house the new Ish bistmctional Resource Center\nPulaski Heights Middle School involving disparate tieatment of African American students and staff, disparate discipline, lack of academic achievement, use of racial sluis and racial epitaphs by staff, assault of students by staff and discriminatory learning environment\nHall High School involving discriminatory learning environment, dispai ate discipline, lack of recognition of academic honors and lack of academic achievement\nCloverdale Middle School involving discriminatory learning environment. dispar ate discipline and lack of academic achievement\nthe creation and implementation of Office of Ombudsperson\ndiscriminatory practices involving the removal of the principal at J. A. Fair High School\nthe promotion of Gayle Bradford to School Services and of other principals who engaged in discriminatory conduct toward African American students and/or staff (Faith Donovan, Nancy Rosseaum etc.)\nMabelvale Middle School involving discriminatory learning environment, disparate discipline and lack academic achievement\nDunbar Middle School involving disparate discipline of students including the use of resource officer in investigation and detennination of discipline decisions. assault of student by staff member, use of racial slurs by staff and lack of academic -3- achievement\nForest Heights Middle School involving dispaiate discipline, discriminatory discipline practices\nWakefield Elementary involving the quality of education being delivered and discriminatoiy learning environment\nForest Park Elementary involving discriminatory learning environment, discriminatoiy practices regarding the participation in field tiip activities, racial comments by members of the PTA\nMeadowcliff Elementary involving dispaiate discipline\nWestern Hills Elementaiy involving retaliatory treatment of staff member who complained about lack of and poor implementation of lEPs and education of African American students\nRockefeller Elementary involving disparate discipline of students and staff\nHorace Maim involving discriminatory grading practices. discriminatory discipline rules established at the school level, disparate discipline practices, assault of student by staff member\nCentr'al High School involving discriminatory practices in student participation in extr acunicular- activities- cheerleader tryouts, homecoming queens, mock court, student council, disparate discipline practices. one race AP classes and favoring white students in these classes, lack of academic achievement and favoring white students irr awards and activities\nParkview involving discriminatory practices in counseling services, disparate discipline, discriminatory practices in student participation in extracunicular activities (band and choir). discriminatory teaching assignments, lack of academic achievement\nMcClellan involving unequal facilities, staff, leanring evironment, resources, and staff use of racial epitaphs\nseveral incidents of discriminatory assigrrment practices\nnumerous incidents of the Districts failme to properly implement lEPs of African American students\nand Safety -4-and Secmity Director Bobby Jones staff use. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Please produce all documents to areas of noncoinpllance and bad faith implementation communicated by you to LRSD during the term of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. RESPONSE NO. 2\nRefer to response given in Interrogatory Answer No. 4. Documents are located in files entitled John W. Walker m the offices of Junious Babbs, Superintendent Camine, Sadie Mitchell, and other central office administrators including the offices of Ombudsperson, James Waslungton. Copies of these files have been previously provided to counsel for the District. Also refer to Coml Exhibits 556, 557, 558 and 566. Also see attached documents. INTERROGATORY NO. 5: Please state whether you received a copy of LRSDs Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999, on July, 1, 1999, and if not, please state when you received copy of LRSDs Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999. ANSWER NO. 5: I obtained with difficulty and only after repeated requests of the plan from District officials. Superintendent Camine and Junious Babbs acknowledge that the compliance plan was not provided to cormsei for Joshua Intervenors until after a request was made for it along with the compliance handbook.. See Coml Exhibits 559 and 562. (Plan was received shortly after the date indicated in Babbss letter of August 31, 2001, Coml Exhibit 562.) INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Please identify and describe in detail all communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the fomrat or content of LRSDs -5-Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999. ANSWER NO. 6: There were no communications between the parties regarding the foimat or content of the Compliance Plan. District officials and other compliance committee members developed the plan without input from Joshua. District officials did not request any input from Joshua although Joshua sought on many occasions to be involved in the process. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Please produce all documents pertaining to communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the foimat or content of LRSDs Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999. RESPONSE NO. 3: Refer to response given in InteiTOgatoiy Answer No. 6. INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Please identify and describe in detail all communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the foimat or content of LRSDs Interim Compliance Report filed March 15, 2000. ANSWER NO. 7: There were no communications between the parties. District officials and other compliance committee members developed the content and format of LRSDs Interim Compliance Report filed on March 15, 2000 without input from Joshua. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.4: Please produce all documents pertaining to all communications between you and LRSD pertaining to the content and format LRSDs Interim Compliance Report filed Maich 15, 2000. RESPONSE NO. 4: Refer to response given in Interrogatory Answer No. 7. INTERROGATORY NO. 8: Please identify and describe in detail all racial -6- disparities revealed by your monitoring during the tenn of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\nand for each area of racial disparity state: (a) When you became aware of the disparity\n(b) When you communicated your knowledge of the disparity to LRSD (c) Whether LRSDs response to the racial disparity complied with the Desegregation and Education Plan\nand if not, why you did not invoke the process raising compliance issues pmsuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 8: Please refer to the Joshuas Response in Opposition to LRSDs Motion for Unitary Status filed herein. Also see InteiTOgatoiy Response No. 4. District officials and members of the compliance committee withheld and refused to share the quarterly reports which were produced by the School Services division of the District. These reports were indicative of the racial dispaiities that remained present in the District. Also see the notes and files of Superintendent Les Camine, District counsel Chris Heller, Junious Babbs, James Washington, Sadie Mitchell, Marion Lacey, Linda Watson, Brady Gadbeny, Victor Anderson, Bonnie Lesley and Gene Parker that indicate dates of communications. Joshuas counsel was continually misled and misinformed by LRSD school officials including Camine and Heller regarding desegregation accomplishments. In addition, the Distiict did not regularly provide the semester by semester discipline statistics. The Joshua Intervenors counsel did invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to the revised plan which he had with respect to LRSD -7-Plan implementation between 1998 and 2001 involving several issues, however, in response to and at the request of and from Supeiintendent Cainine and District counsel Chris Heller and upon promised of fair and adequate remedy thereof, he did not follow through on the compliance issues that were raised. Joshuas right to contest in a vigorous manner the Districts release from court jurisdiction after the Districts report of March 15, 2001 is independent of the number of times Joshua invoked the process described in Section 8 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Please produce all documents periaining to your response to the preceding Intenogatory regarding racial disparities. RESPONSE NO. 5\nRefer to response given in Interrogatory Answer No. 8. Also see Coml Exhibits 556, 557, 558, 566 and 582. Also see attached documents. INTERROGATORY NO. 9: Please identify and describe in detail all incidents of racial discrimination in the imposition of discipline which occurred during the term of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, and separately with regard to each such incident, please state: (a) When you became aware of the incident\n(b) When you communicated your knowledge of the incident to LRSD (c) Whether LRSDs response to the incident complied with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\nand if not, why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. -8-ANSWER NO. 9\nJoshua received notice of nrunerous incidents involving racial discrimination over the three year period. See Response in Interrogatory No. 4. Also see the files of Ombudsman, James Washington. Also see letter addressed to Superintendent Caimne with copies to James Washington and Dr. Linda Watson dated November 8, 2000, Coml Exhibit 567. There were numerous racial incidents dming this period including, but not limited to the following schools: Hall High School, McClellan, Central, Parkview and Fan High Schools, Pulaski Heights, Mann, Cloverdale, Southwest Dunbar and Forest Heights Middle Schools, Brady, Western Hills, Caiver, Forest Park, Dodd, Rightsell, Gibbs and Pulaski Heights Elementary schools. Many of these cases were referred to the office of the Ombudsman. Also see Answer to InteiTogatoiy Nos. 8 and 11. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding Interrogatory regarding incidents of racial discrimination in the imposition of discipline. RESPONSE NO. 6\nSee the files of Dr. Linda Watson, Student Hearing Officer and those of the Ombudsperson, James Washington. Also see Court Exhibits 567, 568 and attached documents. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: On average, about 85% of LRSDs suspensions are of Afiican-American students (See Compliance Report, March 15, 2001, p. 2 Please explain how much of that 85%, if any, you contend results from racial discrimination by LRSD and identify all facts and documents with support that contention? -9-ANSWER NO. 10\nLRSD did not adopt specific compliance standaids for the area of student discipline, or monitor such standard at particular schools exhibiting problems of racial disparity in discipline. LRSD has this obligation under Section 6 of the revised plan. LRSDs failme hr this regard diminishes Joshuas ability to segregate instances of racial disparity in discipline. Not all black children who are disciplined are not included in the discipline reports. Fmtheimore, it is our opinion that when Aftican American students engage in the same conduct as white students, the white students are not disciplined. In addition, the quarterly reports which confirm the continued disparity were withheld by Districts officials. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Please produce all documents pertaining to yom response to the preceding urterTogatory. RESPONSE NO. 7: See response in InteiTogatory No. 10. INTERROGATORY NO. 11: Please identify and describe all incidents involving student discipline which you referxed to the LRSD Ombudsman\nand separately for each such incident, please state: (a) When you became aware of the incident\n(b) When you communicated your knowledge of the incident to the ombudsman\n(c) Whether LRSDs response to the incident complied with the Revised Desegr'egation and Education Plan\nand if not, why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation a Education Plan. -10-ANSWER NO. 11: Joshua handled a number of the cases involving student discipline dm'ing this period for several reasons: 1) the Ombudsman was not allowed to do so initially and 2) the Ombudsman was often working on other matters and was not available. The Ombudsman, James Washington, has reported to Joshua that he has an ongoing investigation of race based misti'eatment at Pulaski Heights Middle School. The following cases were refen'ed to the Districts Ombudsman: 1) Millai'd Russey at Forest Heights Middle School\n2) Alex ONeal at Forest Heights Middle School\n3) Peter Robinson at Hall High School\n4) East End Students attending Pulaski Heights Middle School\n5) Earnest Rump at Soutliwest Middle School\n6) Antonio Jackson at Pulaski Heights Elementary 7) Rodriquez Roy at Pulaski Heights Middle School\n8) Maicus Walker at Horace Maim Middle School\n9) Maim Middle Schools rules regarding participation in extracurricular activities which-are driven by citizenship grades\n10) Cloverdale Middle School regarding its failure to apply appropriate discipline to a white female student, Miracle Null, for use of profanity towards to black teacher\n11) Christopher Mmray at Cloverdale Middle School\n12) Calvin Leonard at Gibbs Elementary\n13) Ewin Parchmann at Meadowcliff Elementary\n-11-14) Justin Simmons at Horace Mann\n15) Marcus Henry at Pulaski Heights Middle\n16) Quention Bellows at Hall High School\n17) Cedi'ic Beasley 18) Antonio Jackson at Hall High School\n19) Antione Bernard at Brady Elementaiy\n20) Tommy Bozemann at ALP - Philander Smith\n21) Felicia Duhail at Western Hills Elementary\n22) Brian Gray at Horace Mann\n23) April Hayes at Paikview\n24) LeeAngelo Jones at Rockefeller Elementaiy\n25) Ronald Payne at Pulaski Heights Middle\n26) Steven Taylor at Hall High School\n27) Peel at Forest Heights\n28) Clevonne Dixon at Hall High School\n29) Marcus Walker at Horace Mann\n30) ClC program implementation (suspensions expunged for white students but not for black students who participated in this program)\nand 31) Letter dated October 9, 2000 regarding disparate treatment of black students bused into Pulaski Heights Middle School. This list may not exhaustive of all incidents of racial discrimination with respect to -12- discipline. Joshua reserves the right to supplement this list. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Please produce all documents pertaining to yom- communicahons with the LRSD Ombudsman. RESPONSE NO. 8: Please refer to the files of the Ombudsman including the attached documents. The attached documents, however, are not inclusive of all communications with the Ombudsman. The majority of our communication with the Ombudsman was through telephone conferences, visits to his office and his visits to this office. Referrals were made during these communications. INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Please identify all facts and documents which support yom objection to LRSDs compliance with Section 2.5 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 12\nThe program, policies and procedm'es identified in the Compliance Plan and the March 2000 and 2001 reports ai^in terms of such a level of generality as to not be meaningful with regaid to achieving compliance with respect to the obligation. Interrogatories Numbers 9 and 11 and Requests for Production related thereto. Also refer to Joshuas Response m Opposition. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding interrogatory. RESPONSE NO. 9: See InteiTogatoiy No. 11 and 12. See also LRSD Compliance Plan, Coml Exhibit 544. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Please identify all facts and documents which -13- suppoil your objection to LRSDs compliance with Section 2.5.1 of the Revised Desegiegation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 13: Refer to responses in Interrogatories Numbers 9 and 11 and Requests for Production related thereto. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: Please produce all documents identified in the preceding mtenngatoiy. RESPONSE NO. 10: Same as Inteirogatoiy No. 13. See also LRSD Compliance Plan, Coml Exhibit 544. INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Please identify all facts and docmnents which support yom- objection to LRSDs compliance with Section 2.5.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 14: Compliance with Section 6 of the revised plan with respct to compliance standards and the Compliance Plan should have yielded data on particpular schools by way of example allowing Joshua, ODM and the Com! to assess compliance. The LRSDs Maich 200 and 2001 reports do not provide any data with respect to this obligation. They report that policies adopted and cases are reviewed by the Assistant Superintendent for Discipline. LRSD has not substantially demonstrated that this provision has been complied with. REQUEST FQR PRQDUCTIQN NQ. 11: Please produce all documents m the preceding interTogatory. RESPQNSENQ. 11: Same as Interrogatory No. 14. -14-INTERRQGATORY NO. 15: Please identify all facts and docmnents which support yoiu- objection to LRSDs compliance with Section 2.5.3 of the Revised Desegiegation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 15: Refer to Court Exhibits 561, 564, and 565. See also documents attached hereto. Please refer to the testimony of James Washington dated August 2, 2001.(Testimony regarding his lack of sufficient resomces and authority). REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: Please produce all documents hr the preceding interrogatoiy. RESPONSE NO. 12: Refer to Answer to Inteirogatoiy No, 15, INTERROGATORY NO, 16: Please identify all facts and documents which support your objection to LRSDs compliance with Section 2,5,4 of the Revised Desegiegation and Education Plan, ANSWER NO, 16: Compliance with Section 6 of the revised plan with respct to compliance standards and the Compliance Plan should have yielded data on paiticpular schools by way of example allowing Joshua, ODM and the Court to assess compliance. The LRSDs March 200 and 2001 reports do not provide any data with respect to this obligation. They report that these cases are referred to the Pupil Services Team. Joshua contends that the LRSD has not substantially complied with this provisions. See attached documents, (Joshua requested data and counsel for the District replied indicating that no data existed). REQUEST FQR PRQDUCTIQN NQ. 13: Please produce all documents in the -15-preceding inteiTogatory. RESPONSE NO. 13: Refer to Answer in InteiTogatory No. 16. INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Please state whether you contend that the Program Evaluation Agenda and/or the Assessment Plan set forth on pages 53-57 in the Interim Compliance Report filed March 15, 2000, complied with LRSDs obligation under Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegi'egation and Education Plan. If not, please: (a) identify and describe in detail all facts and documents supporting yorrr contention\n(b) state when you determined that they did not comply\n(c) when you communicated to LRSD your belief that they did not comply\nand. (d) why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Sectiorr 8.2 of the Revised Desegregation and Educational Plan. ANSWER NO. 17: Evaluation under 2.7.1 was to reach all academic programs implemented pru-suant to Section 2.7. Also those listed in Section 5 of the plan, as well as others implemented by LRSD to fulfil its obligation under 2.7. Joshuas ability to respond to this interrogatory is hindered by the Districts failure to set forth one clear list of all of the programs implemented to comply with Section 2.7. In reviewing pages 53- 57, we do not find mention of the full extent of the revised cmriculum at grades 4 and above. There is no mention of evaluation of the use os SAIPs, or of the programs listed in Section 5 of the plan. Joshua contends that the LRSD has not substantially complied with this provision. Please refer to the testimony of Junious Babbs, Sadie Mitchell, -16-Bonnie Lesley and Superintendent Camine. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14: Please produce all documents pertaining to your response to the preceding interrogatory. RESPONSE NO. 14: See transcript of the July and August, 2001 hearings. INTERROGATORY NO. 18: Please identify and describe m detail all programs, policies and procedures proposed by you perlaining to LRSDs obligations under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. ANSWER NO. 18: DisPict officials and compliance committee members chose not to involve cormsei for Joshua hr the development of programs, policies and procedmes. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15: Please produce all documents pertaining to programs, policies and procedmes proposed by you perlaining to LRSDs obligations under the Revised Desegr egation and Education Plan. RESPONSE NO. 15: Refer to Court Exhibits 552, 554, 560, 563 and attached documents regarding undersigned counsels complaints regarding non involvement hr the development of programs, policies and procedmes. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: Please produce all documents received by you in the ordinary course of business (as opposed to in response to an FOIA request) during the term of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan pertairring to your pmticipation on LRSD committees or hr LRSD activities. RESPONSE NO. 16: The following documents and notices were sent by the -17-District without request: District officials provided Board policies to these offices after they sent to the Board for approval. Quarterly notices were received regarding NSF grant and its agenda for the meeting. Notices of the Bhacial Committee meetings. Notices regar'ding Charter School Committee and agenda. Joshua cormsei and Monitor Springer had to request many of the documents regarding LRSD committees and activities as a part of our ongoing monitoring activities. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: Please produce all documents pertaining to your invoking the process for raising compliance issues pru'suant to 8.2 of LRSDs Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. RESPONSE NO. 17: See attached documents. Also see Comt Exhibits 565,567,568 and 569. Joshua further reserves the right to supplement tire answers provided herein. Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (Tel.) (501) 374-4187 fF-ax) / By: 7 alker, AR Bar No. 64046 -18- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailedpostage prepaid to the following counsel or record, postage prepaid on this Xl day o-f- It\n2001. Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jones, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Ms. Sammye L. Taylor Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 in Walker -19-FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION EASTEUR.SN. DDIISSTTRRIICCTT CAORUKRATN SAS SEP 25 2001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. l,etal.. Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al.. Intervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al.. Intervenors. * * * * ** ** ** ** * JAMEI By:_ DEP CLERK No. 4\n82CV00866 SWW received SEP 2 6 2001 CGHGEOf OE9E68EBSOMOIVITOHiNS ORDER On September 21, 2001, the Little Rock School District filed a motion to compel and request for expedited hearing concerning written discovery served on the Joshua Intervenors. By fax dated September 24, 2001, attached to this Order, counsel for the Little Rock School District has informed the Court that the motion and request for hearing are now moot. THEREFORE, the motion to compel and request for expedited hearing are hereby DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED THIS DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2001 CHIEF JU UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITPHH RRUIALEE 58 AAND/OR 79(a) FRCa ON BY. 4505 I (l eastern FI^ED S.DISTRICTCnii IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS SEP 26 2001 WESTERN DIVISION JAMES By:___M SMnfWnl ERI DEPCLERI LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF 4:82CV00866 SWW NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL RECEIVED DEFENDTYNTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL MRS. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL SEP 2 8 2001 INTERVENORS INTERVENORS vs. OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER Before the Court IS Little Rock School District's motion for contempt against John Walker. A hearing on this issue is hereby scheduled for Tuesday, October 16, 2001, at 9:00 a..m. The deadline for the mutual exchange of witness and exhibit lists shall be no later than October 5, 2001. If the parties desire the Court to examine any documents pertaining to this hearing, those documents shall be submitted to the Court no later than noon on October 12, 2001. The Court advises counsel that it will not be available to conduct this hearing beyond October 16, 2001. IT IS SO ORDERED this i^2/^^^*^^day of September, 2001. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON Chief United States District Judge DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE ' Wl onJ ,ND/OR 79(^)FR BY__ FRCP  n 3 Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1922-1994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR. P.A JOB D. BELL. P.A JAMBS BUTTRY, P.. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. OSCAR B. DAVIS. JR.. P.A JAMES C. CLARK. JR. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A PAUL B. BENHAM lU. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A A WYCKLIPF NISBET. JR. P.A JAMES EDWARD HARRIS, P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL UI. P.A DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A RICHARD D. TAYLOR P.A JOSEPH B. HURST. JR. P.A ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P., CHRISTOPHER HELLER P.A LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A ROBERT S. SHAPER P.A WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN lU. P.A MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A WALTER M. EBEL ITT, P.A KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayflrm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL waUAM WADDELL. JR.. P.A. LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 SCOTT J. LANCASTER P.A M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A ROBERT 3. BEACH. JR. P.A J. LEE BROWN. P.A JAJHES C. BAKER JR. P.A HARRY A LIGHT. P.A SCOTT H. TUCKER P.A GUY ALTON WADE. P.A PRICE C. GARDNER P.A TONIA P. JONES. P.A DAVID D. WILSON. P.A TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 3425 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE. SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72703-4811 TELEPHONE 501-695-2011 FAX 501-895-2147 JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A DAVID M. GRAP. P.A CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR P.A JOHN C FENDLEY. JR. P.A JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGUO. P.A R CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.A GREGORY D. TAYLOR P.A TONY L. WILCOX, P.A FRAN C. HICKMAN. P.A BETTY J. DBMORY. P.A LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A JAMES W. SMITH. P.A CLIPFORD W. PLUNKETT. P.A DANIEL L. HERRINGTON. P.A MARVIN L. CHILDER8 R COLEMAN WBSTBROOR JR ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B. TIDWELL MICHAEL E. KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A IPRAH JAYT. TAYLOR Martin KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS aOBBRT T. SMITH RYAN A BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN $. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON PHILIP B. MONTGOMERY KRISTEN S. RIGGINS ALAN G. BRYAN OP COUNSU. B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A AO. MCALLISTER 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2898 FAX 970-762-2918 September 27, 2001 JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-3323 FAX 501-244-5341 fendly^f\u0026gt;c.n*t Hand Delivered Mr. John W. Walker Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 RE\nLRSD V. PCSSD Dear Mr. Walker: We have received and reviewed your responses to our First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. We find your responses inadequate and respectfully request that you immediately supplement your responses as follows: Interrogatory No. 2: Please provide the name and address of your class representatives. Interrogatory No. 3: Please provide addresses for the monitors identified. Interrogatory No. 4: Your reference to the files of LRSD personnel is nonresponsive. You then identify but fail to describe in detail areas of alleged noncompliance or bad faith implementation. Please describe in detail each allegation. Request for Production No. 2: Please identify the correspondence with. Junious Babbs, Dr. Les Camine, Sadie Mitchell, James Washington and \"other central office administrators\" to which you refer. Your assertion that \"[cjopies of these files have been previously provided to counsel for the District\" is not true if you mean by you. We may have these files, but we have no way of know to what letters within these files upon which you rely. b/t SMr. John Walker September 27, 2001 Page 2 InterrogatorvNo. 5: Neither Dr. Camine nor Mr. Babbs acknowledged that the Comphance Plan was not provided to you until Mr. Babbs letter of August 25,2001. In fact, Mr. Babbs' letter states, \"Y ou will find no revision in it comparable to the copy of the draft that was mailed to your attention prior to board submission and adoption.\" Do you deny receiving a draft of the Comphance Plan prior to submission to the Board? Do you deny receiving a copy of the June 10, 1999, version of the Comphance Plan on July 1, 1999? Interrogatory No. 6: As we read your response, your answer ro rhis interrogatory is \"no.\" Please let us know if our imderstanding is incorrect. Please bear in mind that this interrogatory was not Limited to preparation of the Comphance Plan. InterrogatorvNo. 7: As we read your response, your answer to this interrogatory is \"no.\" Please let us know if our understanding is incorrect. Please bear in mind that this interrogatory was not limited to preparation of the Interim Compliance Report. Interrogatory No. 8: You reference your objections to LRSD being granted unitary status. From what we can decipher from your objections, you refer to disparities in the areas of discipline, achievement and special education. For these three areas and any others revealed by monitoring, please state (a) when you became aware of the disparity\n(b) when you communicated your knowledge of the disparity to LRSD\nand (c) whether's LRSD's response to the racial disparity comphed with the Revised Plan\nand if not, why you did not invoke the process for raising compliance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 fo the Revised Plan. As to the \"notes and files\" of LRSD personnel, please specifically identify the documents to which you are referring and/or provide copies of those documents as requested tn Request for Production No. 5. Interrogatory No. 9: Please describe in detail the alleged incidents of racial discrimination in the imposition of disciphne. To the extent you reference correspondence with LRSD personnel, please specifically identify the documents to which you are referring and/or provide copies of those documents as requested in Request for Production No. 6. Interrogatory No. 10: As LRSD understands your response, you answer to this interrogatory is that you do not know. Please let us know if our understanding is incorrect. Interrogatory No. 11: Please state whether's LRSD's response to each incident referred to the Ombudsman complied with the Revised Plan\nand if not, why you did not invoke the process for raising comphance issues pursuant to Section 8.2 fo the Revised Plan. Request for Production No. 8: You indicate we should refer to the files of the Ombudsman. We would hke to be sure that his file is complete by comparing it to your file. Accordingly, please identify and/or provide copies of all correspondence between you and the Ombudsman.Mr. John Walker September 27, 2001 Page 3 Interrogatory No. 12: Your answer is nonresponsive. The obhgation under Section 2.5 was to implement programs, pohcies and/or procedures to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline. The District's discipline pohcies and procedures are outlined very clearly in the Students' Rights and Responsibihties Handbooks for each grade level. Do you contend that these were inadequate\nand if so, please identify ah facts and documents which support your position and provide us copies of any documents identified as requested in Request for Production No. 9. Interrogatory No. 13: Your answer is nonresponsive. The obhgation under Section 2.5.1 was to strictly adhere to the pohcies set forth in the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook. Do you contend that LRSD failed to do so\nand if so, please identify all facrs and documents which support your position and provide us copies of any documents identified as requested in Request for Production No. 10. Interrogatory No. 14: Your answer is nonresponsive. The obligation under Section 2.5.2 was to purge students' discipline records after the fifth and eighth grades. Do you contend that the District failed to do so\nand if so, please identify all facts and documents which support your position and provide us copies of any documents identified as requested in Request for Production No. 11. Interrogatory No. 16: Your answer is nonresponsive. The obhgation under Section 2.5.4 requires LRSD to work with students and their parents to develop behavior modification plans for students who exhibit frequent misbehavior. Do you contend that LRSD failed to do so\nand if so, please identify all facts and documents which support your position and provide us copies of any documents identified as requested in Request for Production No. 13. Interrogatory No. 17: You state your position but fail to identify and describe in detail the facts and documents supporting your position\nplease do so and provide copies of any documents as requested in Request for Production No. 14. Please also identify the testimony of Junious Babbs, Sadie Mitchell, Bonnie Lesley and Dr. Leshe Carnine which you believe supports your position. Interrogatory No. 18: As we understand your response, your answer to this interrogatory is \"none.\" Please let us know if our understanding is not correct. Request for Production No. 16: Please provide copies of all documents responsive to this request.Mr. John Walker September 27, 2001 Page 4 Due to the Court's deadline of November 1, 2001, we respectfully request that the above information and documents be provided on or before October 5,2001. If we have not reached some agreement by that date, we will file a motion to compel on October 8,2001. We agree to reimburse you for the cost of copying the documents requested. We appreciate your cooperation. Sincerely, Fendley, cc: Dr. Ken James Ms. Ann Marshall John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 COPY JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Fax: 376-2147 OF COUNSEL SOBEST McHENRY, P.A. DONNAJ. .McHENRY 8210 Henderson Ro.w Little Rook, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  F. (501) 372-3428 Email\nmchemyd^wbeil-nec September 20, 2001 Mr. Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Clay: We are not involved in litigation as that term is normally used. We are in the midst of an action where, despite our burden of proof, the district is defending its motion to be declared unitary. Accordingly, you are not entitled to inquire of us as to matters that you raise in your interrogatories. What difference does it matter regarding what we know, or knew along the way, regarding the district's performance now that you are at the end of the road for compliance, according to your motion. It really doesn't matter. The question is simply did your client do what it was committed to do now. All of the information regarding compliance is in your hands. I believe that your interrogatories are simply an effort to deflect our attention from acquiring information from you which will further demonstrate the lack of performance of the school district in fulfilling its commitments. I view the interrogatories much like I view your resistance to our e-mail requests, i.e., to place as many obstacles in the path of access to knowledge which you know, as a member of the compliance committee who also wore the hat of lawyer, shows noncompliance. The way I am feeling today, you may as well prepare your motion and that will be another matter that we will have a hearing on. Even if I provide a response to your \"interrogatories\" it will be upon the premises that we object to them because they are not pertinent at all to the issues of the lawsuit and that they are not designed to lead to helpful information to establish the district's case. Therefore, while you are in the process of preparing your motion, would you also request the court to set an expedited hearing on it as well as on your motion for contempt. We can use such a hearing date to determine the further parameters of your case before you proceed in November. It is my position that you cannot use information which was not present at the timePage Two September 20, 2001 of your motion to support your motion. Accordingly, you should soon be prepared to inform me of any additional information which you have developed since March 15, 2001, when your time at bat comes. JWW:lp cc: Ms. Ann Marshall Sincerely, J91^n W. Wl \u0026lt;77 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney Ar Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 OPY Via Fax: 376-2147 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, EA. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Lhtle Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  F.aX (501) 372-3428 Email: niciieiir7di:^wbeil.4iet September 20, 2001 Mr. Clay Fendley Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, .Xrkansas 72201 Dear Clay: We are not involved in litigation as that term is normally used. We are in the midst of an action where, despite our burden of proof, the district is defending its motion to be declared unitary. Accordingly, you are not entitled to inquire of us as to matters that you raise in your interrogatories. What difference does it matter regarding what we know, or knew along the way, regarding the district's performance now that you are at the end of the road for compliance, according to your motion. It really doesn't matter. The question is simply did your client do what it was committed to do now. All of the information regarding compliance is in your hands. I believe that your interrogatories are simply an effort to deflect our attention from acquiring information from you which will further demonstrate the lack of performance of the school district in fulfilling its commitments. I view the interrogatories much like I view your resistance to our e-mail requests, i.e., to place as many obstacles in the path of access to knowledge which you know, as a member of the compliance committee who also wore the hat of lawyer, shows noncompliance. The way I am feeling today, you may as well prepare your motion and that will be another matter that we will have a hearing on. Even if I provide a response to your \"interrogatories\" it will be upon the premises that we object to them because they are not pertinent at all to the issues of the lawsuit and that they are not designed to lead to helpful information to establish the district's case. Therefore, while you are in the process of preparing your motion, would you also request the court to set an expedited hearing on it as well as on your motion for contempt. We can use such a hearing date to determine the further parameters of your case before you proceed in November. It is my position that you cannot use information which was not present at the time izich'ibi't \u0026amp;LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTR-ATIVE DIRECTIVE: KDB Effective: July 16, 2001 continued Process for Obtaining Infornnation through the FOIA  Any citizen of the State of Arkansas may request records open under the Arkansas FOIA from the LRSDs custodian of the record.  The request may be made in person or by telephone, mail, facsimile transmission, electronic mail, or other electronic means provided by the custodian.  To facilitate the retrieval of the records, the request shall be sufficiently specific to enable the custodian to locate the records with reasonable effort.  The requester should indicate whether or not he/she wants to inspect the records or receive copies of the records. The LRSD will copy the requested records when the requester wants copies and it is reasonable for the District to make the copies.  In an effort to be responsive to the public and avoid accounting procedures that are not cost effective, the District will not charge for the first 25 pages that it copies for a citizen unless the total number of copies exceeds 25 in one calendar month. If it requires more than 25 pages of copies to meet a single request for information, or if a citizen makes additional requests for information within the month which would require more than 25 total pages of copies, the District will charge the requester 25 cents for each copy including the first 25 pages. Additionally, the District will charge the requester the actual costs of mailing or transmitting the record by facsimile or other electronic means. Special requests for electronic information will be handled as follows: 1. The District may agree to summarize, compile, or tailor electronic data in a particular manner or medium and may agree to provide the data in an electronic format to which it is not readily convertible. 2. Where the cost and time involved in complying with the requests are relatively minimal, the District may agree to provide the data as requested. If the custodian agrees to a request, the District will charge the requester the actual, verifiable costs of personnel time exceeding two (2) hours 3. 4. 5. associated with the tasks, in addition to copying costs. The charge for personnel time shall not exceed the salary of the lowest paid employee who, in the discretion of the District, has the necessary skill and training to respond to the request. The District will provide an itemized breakdown of charges-for expenses incurred.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE: KDB Effective\nJuly 16, 2001 continued If the estimated fee exceeds twenty-five dollars ($25.00), the District will require the requester to pay the fee in advance.  Requests must be made during normal business hours. Any requests received by facsimile or other means after regular business hours will be considered received at the start of the next business day.  If the information is in active use or storage at the time of the request, reasonable time will be established for the custodian to comply. The custodian will set a time, date, and place within three days at which time the records will be made available. To the extent practicable the custodian will do this in consultation with the person requesting the record for the convenience of both parties. If the person requesting the information does not come at the appointed time, the records may be returned to active use or storage.  In the event that the requester is seeking information regarding a third party, the custodian of the records will within 24 hours make efforts to the fullest extent possible to notify the person about whom the information is being sought. If personal contact cannot be made within the 24 hours, an overnight letter shall be sent to the last known address of the subject of the request. The District may also seek an Attorney Generals opinion about the release of the records. If an Attorney Generals opinion is sought, the records will not be released before the Attorney General has issued his/her opinion.ua/21/ui tKi 14:52 FAA DRAFT  UUJ little rock school district administrative DIRECTIVE\nEGAD Effective: October 1,2001 the use and deletion of electronic mail pi ol'telecommunications throughout istrict recognizes that employees will shift inrormation. and contact others. As staff members\ncommunity, their use of new tools electronic mail and telecommunicatii to the performance of tasks the electronic work place, the the ways they share ideas, transmit are connected to the global employees will learn to _jons tools and apply them m appropriate wavs associated with their positions and assignments. The District encourages staff to make i and contact others in the e'dricational world oectronic communication svstems exnariila tha use of telecommunications to explore systems expedite the sharing of effective practices and lessons across the District and help staff of practice by forming partnerships with others world. stay on the leading edge across the nation and around the Purpose The specific purposes of this directive are: To ensure that the District's electronic mail system, is used appropriately 0 ensure that the District's electronic mail syste.m works efficiently\nand 0 ensure an orderly and efficient process for the ree^nn^hio and purging of extraneous mail. process for the reasonable timely Inappropriate Use Xorte\" '^haviors are inappropriate and are not pemitted on the District A. B. C, Sharing confidential information on students or employees because messages are not entirely secure\nSending or displaying offensive u, uispiaying onensive messages or pictures\nssisting a campaign for election of any person to any office or for the promotion of or opposition to D. E. elections and business\nany ballot proposition including union Using obscene, harassing, or insulting language\nEngaging in practices that threaten the r. may introduce a virus)\nViolating copyright laws\nnetwork (e.g., loading files thatOTTSTTUT PKi i4:s3 rAl DRAFT Iffl UU4 G. H. I. J. Using others' passwords\nTrespassing in others'folders, documents, or files- Employing the network for commercial purposes\nor Promoting, supporting or celebrating religion or religious institutions. Hev.i.ew of Files and Communication-:\nThe Distnct's computer network is the property and responsibilitv of the I non As such network edministratom may review files and cSXniXtons Network administrators will report inappropriate behaviors to the emblovee's supervisor who will take appropriate disciplinary action Any other inannrnnri3+o ..:_i_x\n__ . . /-ktiy uiiier I Idle uiin.,ipiinary action Anv other renort-\nnf e-mail system and/or disciplinary action. may result in a loss of access to the Storing and Deletion of Electronic Messages and Files receive an extremely large volume of e-mail every day. Storage of e-maii in the Microsoft Outlook software has impact on the efficiency of the system. If a great negative or me system. If users want to save files kept in 1 1 Items,\" they must be approoriateiv personal folders or folders in , they must be appropriately stored in one of the other computer programs or drives. n will sX^ri 4 * rfft? administrators from the Microsoft Outlook software fifteen (15) days after it was sent or received^ Any mail or files sS-I h\"eX4^X\"= 5) 9ays or longer will be lost to the user ano will oe irretrievable. '\"'\"9 -ntil October 1, 2001 to allow all users ample time to clean and file any e-mail that they wish to save to folders. the^'richeroT^'^^^'^-^ folders to save e-iiidii. they snouio rererti f ft Jh/r. ? ^^site for steo-by-step directions DeoartmenV'^^^''^ needed, please contact the LRSD Information Services ucpdi Li ileni. e-mail, they should refer toFriday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark HERSCHEl  *lUAV\u0026lt;(vx2.|\u0026lt;*4i wtuuAM H. SUTTON. P A nviOH M. EISCMAN. JR. P A JOE 0. BELL. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A FREOeRiCX S. URSERY. P.A. ^SCAR E. OAVIS. JR.. P.A. VMBS C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS F. LEGGETT. PA. JOHN OeWEY WATSON. P.A. TAUL a, RENHAM III. P.A. Larry w.auftKS. r.A. A. WYCKJ.JFFNISaET.JIL. P.A. Jambs Eowaro harius. .^.x J. rruuLtP maLCOKL P.a, JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES XL SAXTON, P.A. J. SHEPKERO RUSSELL Hl. P.A. DONALD H. SACON. P.A WILLIAM THOMAS UAXTER. P.a. HARRY E. COFUN. P.A. RICHARD O. TAY1.0a. h.*. jOSnrii u. HURST. JR.. P.A. eulZABSTH ROBKN MURKav. P.a. CKRJSTQPKEK HELUS*. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBCHr S. SHAPER. P.A. WILUAM M. CaiFFtN JU. P.A .M1CHa81,S. MOORE. P.A QIANS $. MACKEY, P.A. Walter jh, sbel iil p.a. JUiVlH A. CXASS. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT UAW A UIMITEO LIAeiUlTY PARTNERSHir www.rrldaynrm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WESTCAP1TOL wiLUAM WAOQSLU. /X., f.. LITTLE ROCX. ARKANSAS 72201-3433 JEFFREY M. MOORE. P A. OAVIO H CRAP. P.A.  CAIU.A GUNNELS SCAINHOUR. f.A. JOHN C PCNOLdr. JR . .*.A. JONANN EUZABETH CUNlCLlO. P.A. R. CHRXSTOPHER LAWSON. P a. GREGORY O. TAYLOR. P.A lOSS^H r MCKAV AiF.YANOlU A. UV r. TAYUJt IFRAH TONY WILCOX. r.A. SCOTT J. LaHCasteil f.a. .M. CaTLS CORLEY. P.A. ROEERT V, OBACH. JR.. P.A. J. use uhOWN. P.A. JAMBS C aAKCR. JR.. P.A. Marry a. ljoht, SCQTT H. TUCKER. P.A. OUY ALTON WADE. P.A PRIGS C. GAXONCX r.A. TONIA P. JONES. P.A OAVtO o. WILSON. r.A, telephone 501-378-2011 PAX 501-376-2147 3125 NORTH FUTRALL ONIVE. SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 727a3-|11 TCLSFMONE 501-405-2011 FAX 501.405-2147 nUN C HICKMAN. r.A. EETTYJ. OCMOKY. r.A, LYNOA M. JOHNSON. f.A. JAMES W. SMITH. r.A. CUFTOXO W. FLUNXUTT. T A. OANtEL L. liEXMNCTON. F.a. .MARVIN L. CHILOQU X. COLZMAN weSTAROOIL JR. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLZN M. OWENS JASON . HENOREH ftftucz a. noweLL MICHaSL S. KARNEY XRU.V MURPHY MCQUEEN MaXTIN a. kUkSTEN aXYAN W. OUKE losvrnc Kicwoi.s MOAEAT T, SMITH *rAH A. qowmak TIMOTHY c. EZELL T MICHELLE ATOR Karen s. halsext Sarah m. cotton fHlLlF a. -MONTCOMEXY taiJTEN J. UCGINS alan g. aavAN 20B NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAa 72316 TELEPHONE aro.7B2\u0026gt;zaa PAX a70.Ta2.2S18 I'lF in'iUNdCL 8.S. CUXRX WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JK H.T. LARZaUlXC. P.A JOHNC. ECHOLS. P A, A IX. .wCalIJSTSR September 12, 2001 JOHN C. FENOLEY. JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL iai-37Q.332S FAX tonUlayOlwc.nat ( Via Facsimile/l^'Iail) Mr. John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Dear Mr. Walker\nWe are in receipt of your letter dated September 12,20(Jk We agree that our communication on this issue should be in wnting. Accordingly, please provide us a written proposal for a Protective Order. We will not make any e-mails responsive to your FOIA requests to principals available for your review until we reach an agreement on a Protective Order, Sincerely, JOO JCF/bgb P:\\HOM8\\0 BrDwntFenOlcjMJLSC^wwker Itwpd John C. Fendley, Jr. iwriurxcLr:. l_MU) r irxi'l bll SEP 'Ml 11:56 DI THE UNITED 5IAES DISTRICT com EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL, INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS REVISED REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS PROPOUNDED TO SEPT. LES CARNINE Come now the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, for their Request for Admissions Propounded to Superintendent Les Gamine, as Chief Compliance Officer regarding Little Rock School Districts compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, state as follows: REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO 1 You did not establish a committee of staff members to regularly meet with the Joshua Intervenors in order to discuss compliance issues. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: You represented to the public, Little Rock School District Board of Directors and the Joshua Intervenors that the commitments of Revised Desegregation and Education Plan had been met. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: You did not ask the Arkansas Department of Education to assist the Little Rock School District in meeting its obligations under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan between March, 1998 and March, 2001. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: There is no writing from you which reflects i II ^*4X0 I wrii_i\\crc. UMU) f IKri fell HMJ/U4 SEP 28 01 11:56 at you requested the Arkansas Department of Education to monitor the Little Rock School Districts compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: You and District counsel, Christopher Heller requested the Arkansas Department of Education to forgive the Little Rock School Districts indebtedness to the Arkansas Department of Education of the 20 million dollar loan. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: You and District counsel, Christopher Heller represented to the Department of Education Director, Ray Simon, that the Joshua Intervenors approved the Districts efforts to obtain loan forgiveness. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: You and District counsel, Christopher Heller represented during the negotiations with Arkansas Department of Education on loan forgiveness that you and counsel Heller were authorized to represent the interest of the Joshua Intervenors. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: The subject of loan forgiveness was inappropriate for the Little Rock School District Board of Directors to address in an executive session under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: The Little Rock School District Board of Directors never passed a motion or resolution regarding the Districts requested loan forgiveness to Arkansas Department of Education. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: Neither you nor the Little Rock School District Board of Directors ever determined in a public meeting of the Board that the remediation of achievement disparities as contemplated by the original Settlement Decree and the rulings of the Court of Appeals was impossible to achieve. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: The Ombudsperson did not have any role in the development of policies, programs or procedures wilh respect to the Revised Desegregationwriurxcr. UHW riKI'l bll Ha4ZU4 btH iib 'W1 ll:b7 and Education Plan. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501)374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (fax' By: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a^py of the foregoing has been counsel of record, on this of September, 2001. MUtd acuveiTed to the following Mr. M. Samuel Jones, HI Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 Ms. Ann S. Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr, Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jones, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Mark Hagemeiemr Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Joi . Walker i_HW r iKfl fall Hk)l/W4 bhH 28 'UI 11:56 J^OHN W. WALKER, PA. Attorn^ at Lok 1723 Broadwe^ Little RjocE-Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET ''Date-. To: 'Pax: 2,'JI-OIOD Pz: Sender: YO U SHO ULD RECEIVE ] (including cover sheet)] PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL \"\u0026lt;(501) 374-3758\u0026gt;\"^- The infotmaiion contained in this facsimile message is attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for die use of the individual or entity name\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1715","title":"Court filings concerning ADE's motion for approval of monitoring plan, LRSD's interim compliance report, LRSD status report on magnet school issues, LRSD's request for affirmative relief, ODM report, ''1999-00 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["2000-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","Arkansas. Department of Education","Little Rock School District","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School enrollment","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning ADE's motion for approval of monitoring plan, LRSD's interim compliance report, LRSD status report on magnet school issues, LRSD's request for affirmative relief, ODM report, ''1999-00 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1715"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["27 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion for approval of monitoring plan; District Court, memorandum brief in support of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion for approval of monitoring plan; District Court, two orders; District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) interim compliance report; District Court, Little Rock School District (LRSD) status report on magnet school issues; District Court, two orders; District Court, motion for extension of time to file reply brief in support of Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion for approval of monitoring plan; District Court, order; District Court, reply brief in support of Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) motion for approval of monitoring plan and in opposition to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) request for affirmative relief; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''1999-00 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; District Court, motion to extend time and for referral  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION MAR 6 2000 OFflCE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL LRSD'S RESPONSE DEFENDANTS INTER VENERS INTER VENERS TO ADE'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF MONITORING PLAN LRSD, for its Response to ADE's Motion for Approval of Monitoring Plan, states: 1. LRSD admits the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 3 of ADE's Motion. 2. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraphs 4 and 5 of ADE's Motion . . 3. ADE has failed to comply with its monitoring obligations originating in Section III.A. of the Settlement Agreement. See ODM Report dated December 18, 1997, \"Report on the Arkansas Department of Education's Monitoring of the, School Districts in Pulaski County.\" 4. ADE's proposed Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan (\"DMAP\") will not further LRSD's efforts to comply with its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\") for the following reasons: a. Under LRSD's Revised Plan, LRSD may be released from court - supervision at the conclusion of the 2000-01 school year. LRSD must submit a compliance report to the Court and the parties on or before March 15, 2001 . However, the DMAP does not even contemplate a monitoring report being filed until October 1, 2000. This is too late to be of any benefit to LRSD; b. LRSD now has in place its own internal monitoring processes specifically related to LRSD's Revised Plan. It objects to being required to provide information to ADE so that ADE can reformat the data and give it back to LRSD in the form of a \"monitoring report.\" 5. ADE's motion should also be denied for the following reasons: a. ADE's monitoring no longer needs to be \"independent\" ofLRSD. ODM provides independent monitoring of LRSD. See the \"Allen Letter\", \"We anticipate that the enclosed plan may be modified ... after we learn more about the monitoring role that will be undertaken by Eugene Reville.\"). Moreover, ADE monitoring ofLRSD does not make sense given the status of the parties. LRSD is the plaintiff in this case. ADE represents the \"remedial vehicle\" for constitutional violations committed by the State of Arkansas and other governmental bodies. LRSD v. PCSSD, 597 F.Supp. 1220, 1228 (E.D. Ark. 1984)(\"Other branches of the State, as set forth in this court's earlier opinion, [LRSD v. PCSSD, 584 F.Supp. 328, 352-53 (E.D. Ark. 1984)], share responsibility for these constitutional violations, but the State Board must be the remedial vehicle for their constitutional violations as well.\"); b. ADE's monitoring was part of the State's \"continuing role in satisfactorily remediating achievement disparities.\" See Settlement Agreement, Section III.A. The other part was State funding of compensatory education programs. Based on this State funding, ADE's monitoring served to ensure \"fiscal accountability to the tax payers [sic] of Arkansas.\" See the \"Allen Letter\", p. 1. However, LRSD no longer receives State funding for compensatory 2 education programs through the Settlement Agreement. Thus, the State's interest in seeing that LRSD spends the State's money in a fiscally responsible manner is substantially reduced. 6. The facts and circumstances set forth above justify modification of ADE's monitoring obligations. As noted above, the Settlement Agreement recognized that ADE was to have a \"continuing role in satisfactorily remediating achievement disparities.\" See Settlement Agreement, Section III.A. At least with regard to LRSD, that role should shift from one of monitoring to one of active participation in the district's efforts to eliminate the achievement disparity between African-American and other students. This Court should order ADE to meet with LRSD and, if possible, reach an agreement as to how ADE can best assist LRSD in achieving this goal. ADE should be required to provide LRSD resources, in the form of either personnel or funding, at least equivalent to the resources which ADE planned to devote toward - monitoring of LRSD. 7. Additionally, since ODM now provides the independent monitoring which under the Settlement Agreement and the Allen Letter was to be performed by ADE, ADE should be ordered to reimburse the districts for the cost of ODM for the current year and to pay for ODM in the future. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that ADE's Motion for Approval of Monitoring Plan be denied; that ADE be ordered to meet with LRSD and, if possible, reach an agreement as to how ADE can best assist LRSD in eliminating the achievement disparity between African-American and other students; that ADE be required to provide LRSD resources, in the form of either personnel or funding, at least equivalent to the resources which ADE planned to devote toward monitoring ofLRSD; that ADE be ordered to reimburse the districts for the cost of ODM for the 3 current year and to pay for ODM in the future; that LRSD be awarded its costs and attorneys' fees expended herein; and that LRSD be granted all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served f the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on this ~ay of March, 2000. Mr. John W. Walker JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION MAR 6 2000 OFFICE Or DESEGREGATION MONITDRJNQ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF LRSD'S RESPONSE DEFENDANTS INTER VENERS INTER VENERS TO ADE'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF MONITORING PLAN ADE represents the \"remedial vehicle\" for constitutional violations committed by the State of Arkansas and other governmental bodies. LRSD v. PCSSD, 597 F.Supp. 1220, 1228 (E.D. Ark. 1984)(\"Other branches of the State, as set forth in this court's earlier opinion, [LRSD v. PCSSD, 584 F.Supp. 328, 352-53 (E.D. Ark. 1984)], share responsibility for these constitutional violations, but the State Board must be the remedial vehicle for their constitutional violations as well.\"). As such, ADE agreed to monitor and evaluate LRSD's compensatory education programs as a part of ADE's \"continuing role in satisfactorily remediating achievement disparities.\" See Settlement Agreement, Section III.A. and the \"Allen Letter.\" No such monitoring and evaluation ever occurred. See ODM Report dated December 18, 1997, \"Report on the Arkansas Department of Education's Monitoring of the School Districts in Pulaski County.\" ADE's failure to comply with its monitoring obligations, in conjunction with the other facts and circumstances outlined in LRSD's Response, justify modification of the Settlement Agreement. Given that nature of the ADE's monitoring obligations and the modifications sought by LRSD, the Supreme Court's decision in Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 112 S.Ct. 748, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992), provides the relevant legal standard. In that case, the Supreme Court held: [A] party seeking modification of a consent decree bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree. If the moving party meets this standard, the court should consider whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstance. Id., at 393, 116 L.Ed.2d at 886. A myriad of changed circumstances may justify modification under Rufo. See,~ Jacksonville Branch, NAACP. v. the Duval County School Board, 978 F.2d 1574, 1582 (1 Ith Cir. 1992)(\"Modification [of a consent decree] may be considered when (1) a significant change in facts or law warrants change and the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the change, (2) significant time has passed and the objectives of the original agreement have not been met, (3) continuance is no longer warranted, or (4) a continuation would be inequitable and each side has a legitimate interest to be considered.\"). The modifications proposed by LRSD are suitably tailored to the changed circumstances outlined in LRSD's Response in that they further the underlying purpose of ADE's monitoring: to eliminate the achievement disparity between African-American and other students. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 56 F.3d 904, 914 (8th Cir. 1995)(approving the closing oflsh Incentive School because it advances the goal of desegregation); Heath v. DeCourcy. 888 F.2d 1105, 1110 (6th Cir. l 989)(Modification of a consent decree will be upheld \"if it furthers the original purpose of the decree in a more efficient way, without upsetting the basic agreement between the parties.\"). 2 ADE may object to the modifications sought by LRSD arguing that they increase the financial obligation of the State. Even if this is true, this objection is without merit because ADE has been adjudged a constitutional violator. Compare Lorain NAACP v. Lorain Bd. of Educ., 979 F.2d 1141 (6th Cir. 1992). In Lorain, the Sixth Circuit reversed a district court order modifying a consent decree and substantially increasing the financial obligations of the State of Ohio for desegregation of the Lorain City School District. The linchpin of the Sixth Circuit's decision was the fact there had been no adjudication of a constitutional violation by the State. Id., at 1153 . The Sixth Circuit concluded: In the absence of an adjudication or admission of [a] constitutional violation, the district court's authority to impose additional obligations on a defendant is constrained by the terms of[the] agreement entered by the parties to the consent decree. Id. In the present case, the State of Arkansas was adjudicated a constitutional violator. Therefore, subject to satisfaction of the Rufo standard, this Court has discretion to modify ADE's monitoring obligations in a manner that increases the financial obligation of the State. Therefore, LRSD respectfully requests that ADE's Motion for Approval of Monitoring Plan be denied; that ADE be ordered to meet with LRSD and, if possible, reach an agreement as to how ADE can best assist LRSD in eliminating the achievement disparity between AfricanAmerican and other students; that ADE be required to provide LRSD resources, in the form of either personnel or funding, at least equivalent to the resources which ADE planned to devote toward monitoring ofLRSD; and that ADE be ordered to reimburse the districts for the cost of ODM for the current year and to pay for ODM in the future. 3 Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on this ~ay of March, 2000. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 7220 l Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 FILED EAsrMk\\ 13',i~~',g. ~2~sAs IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAR O 7 2000 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS - WESTERN DIVISION ~~ME,fv.~Mc R~ACK ~LERK , ~\\AJlJL~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * o P C1:ffiK Plaintiff * vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * * ORDER No. LR-C-82-866 The Little Rock School District moves the Court for an Order authorizing a special millage election to be held May 9, 2000 [docket no. 3339]. The District states it has a pressing need for additional funds to meet desegregation commitments associated with the construction, renovation, and maintenance of its school facilities. Additionally, the District explains it must plan for the needed expenditures by May 2000 and cannot wait for the annual school election (scheduled for September 2000) to place the proposal before the electorate. After careful consideration, the Court finds that the proposed special election should be authorized. See Liddell v. Missouri, 731 F.2d 1294, 1321 (8th Cir. 1984). THEREFORE, the Court hereby authorizes a special millage election to be held in the Little Rock School District on May 9, 2000 for the purpose of placing before the electorate a proposal to increase the millage rate in the Little Rock School District by 5 mills. FURTHER, the millage election authorized by this Order shall have the same force and effect under Arkansas law as if it were a regular school election. IT IS SO ORDERED TIDS 1%A Y OF MARCH, 2000 ~~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 fHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN ::C.;MPUANC;.,ZTH RULE 58 AN~R~(a) FRCP ON ;!i'.25 t7D BY _ j IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * VS. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I, et al., Defendants, No. LR-C-82-866 l\\1RS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., Intervenors, * * * * * * * * * * * MAR l O zmm KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. ORDER v'C1, :'I\"\\,C,. vr~rC DESEGREGAT!CN MONITOmNQ Previously, the Court held in abeyance its decision regarding the Little Rock School - District's motion to modify the parties' settlement agreement with respect to the number of magnet school seats within each magnet school. The Court directed the parties to brief the Court whether under the settlement agreement, the stipulated number of state-funded seats for individual magnet schools may vary (providing the total number of state-funded seats remains at 4,065) without disrupting the substantive commitments contained in the agreement. 1 The State responded that the \"Settlement Agreement specifically limits the State's financial obligation for students attending the six original magnet schools\" and \"ties the limits to the State's financial obligation to a maximum number of students for each of the six magnet schools.\"2 According to the State, the parties ' decision to delineate specific seating limits for each magnet school supports a finding that the limits are substantive commitments under the 1 Docket no. 3308. 2 Docket no. 3320. - agreement, which may not be modified absent a showing of significant change in circumstances. LRSD filed a motion for more time to respond to the Court's request for briefing, and the Court granted the motion. However, the extended time for responding has passed and LRSD has not filed a response. The Court provides the LRSD to and including 5 days from entry of this Order to file a response. If a response is not forthcoming, the Court will conclude LRSD does not object to the State's response and enter an Order denying LRSD's motion to modify the parties' settlement agreement [ docket no. 3292]. JA.- IT IS so ORDERED THIS_%_ DAY OF MARCH, 2000 CHIEF JUD E UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COUPUAN~~ITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP 'JN 3 -9 L q;:, _ !Y t1::;-----; . - 2 HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY 11922 1994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON , P. A . BYRON M. EISEMAN , JR .. P.A. JOE 0. BELL, P. A.  ES A . BUTTRY , P.A . DERICK S. URSERY , P . A . ARE . DAVIS , JR., P. A . MES C . CLARK, JR., P. A . THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P. A . JOHN DEWEY WATSON , P.A . PAUL 8 . BENHAM Ill , P. A . LARRY W . BURKS , P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR., P. A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS, P. A . J. PHILLIP MALCOM, P. A . JAMES M . SIMPSON , P. A . JAMES M . SAXTON . P. A . J . SHEPHERD RUSSELL Ill, P. A . DONALD H. BACON , P.A . WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER , P. A. BARRY E. COPLIN , P.A. RICHARD 0 . TAYLOR , P. A . JOSEPH 8 . HURST, JR ., P. A . ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY, P.A . CHRISTOPHER HELLER, P. A . LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P.A. ROBERTS . SHAFER, P.A . WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN Ill , P. A . MICHAELS. MOORE, P.A . DIANE S. MACKEY, P. A. WALTER M . EBEL Ill , P.A. KEVIN A . CRASS, P. A. WILLIAM A . WADDELL, JR ., P. A. SCOTT J . LANCASTER , P. A . M. GAYLE CORLEY , P. A. ROBERT 8 . BEACH , JR ., P. A . J . LEE BROWN, P. A . JAMES C . BAKER, JR . , P. A . HARRY A . LIGHT , P.A. Mr. James W. McConnack FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 3493 TELEPHONE 501 -376 -2011 FAX NO . 501376  2147 March 15, 2000 RECEIVED MAR 15 2000 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING SCOTT H. TUCKER , P.A . GUY ALTON WADE , P.A . PRICE C. GARONER. P.A . TONIA P. JONES, P.A. DAVID 0 . WILSON , P.A . JEFFREY H. MOORE , P.A . DAVID M. GRAF , P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR , P.A . JOHN C. FENOLEY , JR ., P.A . JONANN CONIGLIO FLEISCHAUER, P. A . R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON, P. A. GREGORY D. TAYLOR, P. A . TONY L. WILCOX . P. A . FRANC . HICKMAN , P.A . BETTY J . DEMORY, P. A . LYNDA M. JOHNSON, P.A . JAMES W. SMITH CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT DANIELL . HERRINGTON K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR. ALLISON J . CORNWELL ELLEN M . OWENS HELENE N. RAYDEA JASON 8 , HENDREN BRUCE 8 . TIDWELL CHRIS A . AVERITT KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A . IFRAH MARTIN A. KASTEN ROBERT T. SMITH a, COUNSU WILLIAM J . SMITH B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON , JR . H. T. LARZELERE . P. A . JOHN C. ECHOLS, P. A. WAIT(A 'S DIAfCT NO . (501) 370-3323 United States District Court Clerk 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 402 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 RE: Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. I, et. al.; Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et. al.; Katherine Knight, et. al. United States District Court, Eastern District, Western Division No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Mr. McCormack: Enclosed please find the original and copies of plaintiffs Notice of Filing LRSD's Interim Compliance Report to be filed in the captioned case. Please file the original of record and return the extra file marked copies to me in the enclosed envelope. By copy of this letter, I am forwarding a copy of the enclosed pleading to counsel for the defendant. JCF/bgb enclosure(s) cc: Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Steve Jones F:IIIOMEIJEANNE\\Barbaraljcf  lrsd v. pcssd clcrlc-lt.wpd Since~ly, {tjj) l1tC~.~ Jopn C. Fendley, Jr. Mr. Richard Roachell Ms. Ann Brown (hand delivered) Mr. Timothy G. Gauger IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING LRSD'S INTERIM COMPLIANCE REPORT The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") hereby gives notice of filing the attached Interim Compliance Report outlining the programs, policies and procedures implemented in accordance with LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on this 15th day of March, 2000. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 JnC. Fend~y 2 RECEIVED MAR 15 2000 Olt!CE OF Interim Compliance Report DESEGRE6',TION~roNrrrr,ms Little Rock School District March 15, 2000 HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1922 -199'1 WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P .A . - YRON M . EISEMAN , JR. , P.A . OED. BELL, P.A. AMES A . BUTTRY, P . A . FREDERICKS . URSERY, P. A. OSCAR E. DAVIS, JR q P . A . JAMES C. CLARK , JR . , P. A . THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P .A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON , P .A. PAUL 8 . BENHAM Ill . P . A . LARRY W . BURKS . P. A . A . WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR . , P.A . JAMES EDWARD HARRIS , P.A . J . PHILLIP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M . SIMPSON , P . A . JAMES M . SAXTON, P . A . J . SHEPHERD RUSSELL Ill, P .A. DONALD H , BACON, P. A . WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER, P.A . BARRY E. COPLIN , P. A . RICHARD 0 . TAYLOR , P . A . JOSEPH 8 . HURST, JR . , P .A . ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY, P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER , P . A . LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P.A . ROBERTS. SHAFER, P.A . WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN Ill, P .A. MICHAEL$. MOORE. P. A . DIANE S . MACKEY, P. A . WALTER M . EBEL Ill. P.A. KEVIN A . CRASS , P.A . WILLIAM A . WADDELL, JR . , P.A . SCOTT J . LANCASTER, P . A . M . GAYLE CORLEY , P. A . ROBERT 8 . BEACH , JR. , P . A . J . LEE BROWN, P.A . JAMES C . BAKER, JR ., P . A . HARRY A. LIGHT , P.A . FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK , ARKANSAS 72201 3493 TELEPHONE 501 -376-2011 FAX NO. 501-376-2147 March 17, 2000 RECEIVED MAR 2 0 2000 Mr. James W. McCormack District Court Clerk 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 402 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al. USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Mr. McCormack: SCOTT H . TUCKER , P.A . GUY AL TON WADE , P.A . PRICE C . GARONER, P.A . TONIA P. JONES , P.A. DAVID 0. WILSON , P.A. JEFFREY H . MOORE, P.A . DAVID M . GRAF, P.A . CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR , P.A . JOHN C . FENDLEY , JR. , P.A. JOHANN CONIGLIO FLEISCHAUER . P. A . R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON , P. A . GREGORY 0 . TAYLOR , P.A . TONY L . WILCOX , P.A. FRANC . HICKMAN, P.A . BETTY J . DEMORY, P. A . LYNDA M . JOHNSON, P.A . JAMES W . SMITH CLIFFORD W . PLUNKETT DANIEL L . HERRINGTON K . COLEMAN WESTBROOK, JR . ALLISON J . CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS HELENE N . RAYOER JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE 8 . TIOWELL CHRIS A . AVERITT KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A . IFRAH MARTIN A . KASTEN ROBERT T . SMITH Of COUN SEL WILLIAM J. SMITH S . S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON , JR . H . T. LARZELERE , P.A . JOHN C. ECHOLS, P.A . WAITIEll ' S OIAECT NO . (501) 370 - 1506 Enclosed please find the original and three copies of Status Report in the above-captioned case. Please file the original and return copies of same to me bearing your file mark. By copy of this letter I am forwarding copies of same to the attorneys of record. Thank you for your assistance. CH/pch Enclosures cc w/enc.: Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Mr. Mr. John W. Walker Richard Roachell M. Samuel Jones Ann Brown Timothy Gauger Steve Jones IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL LRSD STATUS REPORT ON MAGNET SCHOOL ISSUES RECEIVED MAR 2 0 ZOGO OfRGHt oESGREGATIOH OITORIMG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS For its Status Report, the Little Rock School District states: 1. In May of 1999 the MRC asked the Court to approve a change in the grade structure and number of seats at the Magnet - Schools for the 1999-2000 school year. The proposed change was in response to LRSD's reorganization of its school grade structure into a new configuration which includes middle schools. The MRC proposal led to a disagreement between the Arkansas Department of Education and LRSD about whether the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement limits either the total number of magnet seats or the number of seats at any particular magnet school for which ADE can be required to contribute funding. 2. LRSD and ADE have resolved their disagreement. They are in the process of drafting a Memorandum of Understanding to reflect the resolution of these issues. A Memorandum of Understanding will F:IHOME\\BRENDAK\\lr\u003ed\\PCSS-sl\u003e!Us. rep. wpd be filed with the Court as soon as it has been completed and signed by the parties. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Christopher Heller John C. Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas (501) 37 By: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following on this 17th day of March, 2000: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 M. Samuel Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 NationsBank 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 F:IHOME\\BRENDAK\\lrsdlPCSS-SUIUs.rep. wpd 2 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72 201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAR 2 0 2000 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAMES WESTERN DMSION By:-----'Y--~~.,J..J.J.~~~ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., Defendants,  MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., lntervenors, KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * * ORDER MAR 2 2 2000 OtEm0F DESEGRE6A1IDll1MlNlTORING The Little Rock School District (LR-SD) filed a status report, informing the Court that the LRSD and the State have resolved their differences related to the State's magnet school funding obligations.1 Currently, the LRSD and the State are finalizing a Memorandum of Understanding to be filed with the Court at a later date. Accordingly, the Court finds that the LRSD's motion to modify the parties' settlement agreement should be, and it is hereby, DENIED AS MOOT [docket no. 3292]. -fA_ IT IS SO ORDERED THIS cl\u003c? DAY OF MARCH, 2000 C1~Jk- CIDEF JUDGE ~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 Docket no. 3345. fHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPUANC./CITH RULE 58 ANO/OR 79(1) FACP 'JN 3SJ 00 . _ BYtzt: __ 3346 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * Intervenors, * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * Intervenors. * ORDER MAR 20 2fQJ By previous Order, this Court conditionally approved a revised desegregation plan submitted by the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCS SD\"). 1 The Court directed PCSSD to provide members of the Joshua Class with notice of the proposed revised plan and set March 15, 2000 as the deadline for receiving objections from class members. The time for filing objections has passed and no member of the Joshua Class has submitted comments or objections regarding the revised plan. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23( e ), the Court has carefully reviewed the revised plan and finds it to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interest of the Joshua Class. Additionally, the Court finds that counsel for Joshua provided class members adequate representation during negotiations related to the revised plan. 1 Docket no. 3337. Therefore, the Court finds that PCSSD's motion for approval of Plan 2000 should be, and it is hereby, GRANTED [docket no. 3309] Further, the Court finds that PCSSD's motion for additional findings of fact and conclusions oflaw regarding the Court's denial of PCSSD's petition for release from court supervision should be, and it is hereby, DENIED AS MOOT [ docket no. 3287]. fR IT IS SO ORDERED THIS t2.o DAY OF MARCH, 2000 ~#-,~d' CHIEF JUDG UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN C( .1MPUA~0ITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP , ON 3 t, Qo_ ,. BY J7t:: _-' 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED MAR 2 1 2000 uFFICE OF  :f SEGREGATION MONITOR/NG LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ADE'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF MONITORING PLAN The Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\") hereby moves the Court for a short extension of time, to and including March 24, 2090, within -which to file a combined reply brief in .... - . support of its motion for approval of a new monitoring and assistance plan and opposition to LRSD's - own request for modification of the Settlement Agreement The motion is made on the following grounds: 1. On February l, 2000, ADE filed a motion for approval of a proposed Desegregation Monitoring and Assistance Plan (\"DMAP\") as replacing and superceding the \"Allen Letter.\" After securing an extension of time within which to respond to AD E's motion, the LRSD filed its response on March 6, 2000. In its response LRSD asserts thatADE's motion should be denied and requests modifications of the Settlement Agreement marlc.edly different than the modifications sought by ADE. 2. ADE desires to file a combined reply brief in support of its motion and opposition to the relief sought by LRSD. Treating LRSD's response as a motion for affirmative relief, AD E's response would be due on or before March 20, 2000. However, due to the press of other business, counsel for ADE will need an additional four days, to and including March 24, 2000, to file such a brief. 3. Counsel for ADE has cont.acted LRSD's counsel concerning this motion and is authorized to st.ate that LRSD does not oppose the extension of time sought herein. WHEREFORE, ADE respectfully requests that the Court enter an order permitting ADE to file a combined reply brief in support of its motion for approval of the DMAP and opposition to LRSD's request for modification of the Settlement .Agreement, on or before March 24, 2000. Respectfully Submitted, MARK PRY "}],"pages":{"current_page":46,"next_page":47,"prev_page":45,"total_pages":155,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":540,"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}}]}}