Court filings: District Court, Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT) and Pulaski Association of Support Staff (PASS) motion to compel Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) compliance with Plan 2000, Section F (discipline)

This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors. / ~ :: ::~:.~\; ~:::~:';, . SlJ~.~Y-i\~4)i~ I , ~~ : .~~~ ~- r FILED EA U.S. DISTRICT COURT STERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS OCT 2 ~ ZIJ1JI - U. S. DiSTR[CT JL'CCE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS oc f 2 9 2001 WESTERN DIVISION _~;MES W. McCORMACK, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF DEP CLERK V. No. 4:82CV00866SWW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHoorRECE~,.,eo DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL OCT 3 0 2001 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PULASKI ASSOCIATION OF CLASSROOM TEACHERS {PACTI AND PULASKI ASSOCIATION OF SUPPORT STAFF {PASS) MOTION TO COMPEL PCSSD COMPLIANCE WITH PLAN 2000, SECTION F (DISCIPLINE) The Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers and The Pulaski Association of Support Staff, by and through their Attorneys, Roachell Law Firm, for their Motion to Compel, state: 1. They are Intervenors herein and have standing to bring this motion. 2. In its Order dated February 22, 2000, the Court approved conditionally Plan 2000 submitted by PCSSD and stated: 11 this Court will judge Plan 2000 with the expectations that PCSSD will implement the plan without delay, conscientiously and in all good faith. Should PCS SD fall short of these expectations, the Court will not hesitate to exercise its jurisdiction to compel compliance. 11 3. After repeated w~~s 1Jy PACT and PASS to the Board of Directors as well as to administrative officials, PCSSD has failed to comply with the Court's order and Section F of Plan 2000 as more fully set forth in the PACT and PASS Report and Attachments-PCSSD Desegregation Plan 2000-Section F (Discipline) attached hereto and - incorporated herein word for word as part of this motion. 5. The actions of the district in failing to comply with the Court approved plan 2000 continue from the date of the report to this date. 6. After hearing, the Court should order the district to forthwith comply with the Court's Orders with regard to Section F-Plan 2000 (Discipline) and consider such sanctions as may be appropriate. WHEREFORE, the Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers and the Pulaski Association of Support Staff pray that the Court order PCS SD to comply with Section F (Discipline) of Plan 2000 as ordered by the Court; and that they may be granted all other relief to which they may be entitled. 2 Respectfully submitted: Richard W. Roachell ROACHELL LAW FIRM P.O. Box 17388 Little Rock, Arkansas 72222-7388 (501) 224-1110 ~.c-::;..__ Richard W. Roachell (78132) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard W. Roachell, hereby state that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed via U. S. Mail on this ____ day of October, 2001 to the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated. Mr. John Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 7220 I Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyon, & Jones, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Mark Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor I Union National Plaz.a 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. Friday, Eldredge & Clark First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Richard W. Roachell (78132) 3 Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers and Pulaski Association of Support Staff Report & Attachments PCSSD Desegregation Plan 2000 - Section F (Discipline) July 2001 As Knight Intervenors, the Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT) and the Pulaski Association of Support Staff (PASS) contend that the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) has failed to implement, in a timely manner, the terms outlined in Section F (Discipline) of the PCSSD Desegregation Plan 2000 and, in doing so, has delayed its obligation to bring parity and equity to the discipline administered to both black and white students in the District. This report and attachments are being submitted after efforts by PACT and PASS to make the PCS SD aware that the implementation of Section F (Discipline) has been unsuccessful. INTRODUCTION For several years, PACT and PASS have voiced concerns regarding the inconsistencies in administering discipline to PCSSD students. Teachers became very optimistic in November of 1999 when the PCSSD approved a new desegregation plan that was more process-oriented in the area of discipline; a desegregation plan that would examine all facets of discipline in PCSSD. The Court approved the PCSSD Desegregation Plan 2000 on February 22, 2000. The discipline provisions, as outlined in Section F (Discipline) of Plan 2000, addressed many teacher concerns regarding discipline in the PCSSD schools and contained tirnelines for completion and/or implementation. The specific terms of Section F (Discipline) are as follows: Paragraph 1 initiated the process that was to fully assess the District's efforts to eliminate racial disparities in the imposition of discipline. This involved maintaining discipline records on all students and collecting the relevant data. Paragraph 2 called for the PCSSD to develop criteria for identifying: (i/ teachers and other staff members who are experiencing problems which require attention; (ii) schools which have atypically high discipline rates; and (iii) schools which have atypically high racial disparities in discipline. PCSSD was to submit this information to the Joshua Intervenors no later than 45 days after Court approval of Plan 2000 (May 5, 2000). Paragraph 3 required the PCSSD to provide assistance to school personnel identified by the criteria outlined in Paragraph 2. Paragraph 4 called for the creation of a Discipline Study Panel to consider causes for the high rates of discipline for African-American students and possible 1 remedies. This included: reviewing discipline records; interviewing and/or surveying African-American students; and considering possible relationships between unmet academic needs and discipline rates. A written study was to be completed no later than 150 days after Court approval of Plan 2000 (August 18, 2000) and was to include suggested measures for prevention and intervention. Paragraph 5 required the PCSSD to develop a specific initiative to reduce the rates of discipline in the PCSSD shown in ODM's report dated March 18, 1998. This was to be implemented no later than 150 days after Court approval of Plan 2000 (August 18, 2000). Paragraph 6 required PCSSD to adhere to the policies set forth in its Handbook for Student Conduct and Discipline. The fact that timelines were attached gave Plan 2000 credibility to teachers. PACT and PASS genuinely believed that, for the first time, the District would conduct a full-scale review . of the discipline procedures in a serious and purposeful way, one that would eventually lead to better discipline in the classroom and fair and equitable treatment for students. However, the PCSSD has disregarded established timelines, misinterpreted key components, misrepresented the facts, and generally delayed its desegregation obligations as outlined in Section F (Discipline). DISREGARD FOR EST ABISHED TIMELINES Rather than anticipate Court approval of Plan 2000 and develop a preliminary schedule of meeting dates the way PCSSD did in its Middle School Conversion Plan, the PCSSD chose to wait until the week prior to the August 9, 2000 hearing before the Court to even begin compliance efforts for Section F (Discipline). This was approximately nine (9) months after PCSSD approval of Plan 2000 and approximately five (5) months after Court approval of Plan 2000. By the time compliance efforts for Section F (Discipline) started on August 11 , 2000: 1) The 45-day timeline for developing criteria and submitting it to Joshua as outlined in paragraph 2 had passed; 2) The timeline, as outlined in paragraph 4, for completing a written study on the work done by the Discipline Study Panel (a panel that had not even begun any of its work) was within one (1) week of passing; and 3) The timeline for implementing the specific initiative outlined in paragraph 5 was within one ( 1) week of passing. Once compliance with Section F (Discipline) of Plan 2000 was actually initiated by the PCSSD there was nothing organized or deliberate about its efforts. There was no discipline data relevant to the in-depth study that was to be conducted, and the Discipline Study Panel that was convened on August 11, 2000 could not do any of its work until paragraphs 1 and 2 of Section F (Discipline) had been completed. Moreover, the charge of the Discipline Study Panel changed with every meeting, as did the make-up of the group. The charge went from "conducting a comprehensive study on the disciplining of African-American students" on August 11, 2000, to 2 "developing strategies and criteria to eliminate racial disparities in discipline" on September 8, 2000, to "discussing proposed methods for determining racial disparity in discipline and identifying teachers and staff who are experiencing problems which require attention" on October 31, 2000, to "establishing criteria for identifying i, ii, and iii in paragraph 2" on November 9, 2000, to "continue criteria development" on November 16, 2000. The charge of the Panel changed like the wind to the point that members of the Panel, themselves, were confused as to what they were actually there to do. CHRONOLOGICAL ACCOUNT OF CORRESPONDENCE AND EVENTS (Misinterpretation of Key Components of Plan 2000) (Misrepresentation of the Facts) August 4, 2000 August 11, 2000 August 14, 2000 Memo from Dr. Ruth Herts, Director of Equity, to teachers stating that the first meeting date of the Discipline Study Panel would be August 11, 2000. An excerpt from Section F (Discipline) of Plan 2000 that pertained to the work of the Panel was included with the memo. Letter from Attorney John Walker to Eddie Collins, Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel, stating that Joshua would not be able to effectively participate in the August 11, 2000 meeting of the Discipline Study Panel for several reasons, one of which was "the predicate basis of the work of the discipline study committee [sic] had not been provided." First meeting of the Discipline Study Panel as described in paragraph 4 of Section F (Discipline) of Plan 2000. Dr. Herts provided an agenda for the meeting. The first four items on the agenda were discussed, including the purpose/charge of the Panel as outlined in F (4). Mr. Walker informed the Panel that the District waited too late to get started and that he would file a Contempt of Court Motion. When asked why the District had waited so long to get started, Mr. Collins responded by saying, "The Superintendent wanted to wait until the new Assistant Superintendent for Equity and Pupil Services was on board." The Panel passed a motion to discontinue the meetings until such time as all parties could participate. Memo from Dr. Herts regarding correspondence to Eddie Collins from the Joshua Intervenors urging the PCSSD to respond to requests by Joshua as a "matter of good faith effort on the part of the District." Memo from Karl Brown, Assistant Superintendent of Equity & Pupil Services, stating that the next meeting of the Discipline Study Panel would be August 24, 2000. 3 August 21, 2000 Memo from PACT President, Deen Minton, stating that the teachers on the Panel would not be able to attend the August 24, 2000 meeting. This was on the fourth day of school and teachers wanted and needed to be in their classrooms early into a new school year in order to "set the tone" for the year. August 28, 2000 Memo from PACT President, Deen Minton, to Karl Brown stating that the teachers on the Panel would not be able to attend a September 8, 2000 meeting. Teachers wanted and needed to be in their classrooms for SAT-9 preparation and testing. August 29, 2000 Memo from Karl Brown to Discipline Study Panel members noting that the August 24, 2000 meeting was officially rescheduled for September 8, 2000. The statecl purpose of the meeting was '"to develop strategies and criteria to eliminate racial disparities in discipline in the District." September 8, 2000 Meeting with administrator representatives on the Discipline Study Panel and Margie Powell of ODM. September 14, 2000 Memo from Dr. Welch, Director of Pupil Services & Athletics, to members of the Discipline Study Panel stating that the next meeting was October 3, 2000. Minutes from the September 8, 2000 meeting stated that '"this committee [sic] is charged with completing an assessment of the objective of eliminating racial disparities in the imposition of school discipline" and that "this committee [sic] also has the responsibility to review discipline records and conduct an interview and/or survey with AfricanAmerican students regarding their experiences in the system in general and in the discipline process in particular." The minutes also reflected that consensus was reached on several paragraphs in Section F (Discipline) of Plan 2000; however, this was a consensus reached at a meeting with only the administrative representatives from the Panel present. September 15, 2000 Memorandum #A-00-035-R from Superintendent Smith, Karl Brown, and Dr. Clowers, Director of Accountability, to all principals revising the collection of data procedures for Section F (Discipline), paragraph 1 of Plan 2000. (a) The memo states that "specific proposals have been sent to the Joshua Intervenors that specify criteria, data collection, . and analysis methodology to address Section F (Discipline), part 2, subsections i and iii of the Plan." The memo disregarded item ii altogether and further specified that the very criteria the Panel was charged with developing had 4 October 3, 2000 supposedly already been sent to Joshua. PACT and PASS representatives on the Panel had no knowledge of, and certainly no input into anything sent to Joshua. (b) This memo identifies "principals or other administrative staff' in the definition of "staff member" as outlined in Plan 2000. Even though the memo referred to administrators as "staff members," the criteria and analysis methodology used solely targeted teachers. The memo implies administrators are included as staff members as per Plan 2000; however, the fact is that they are not. ( c) Attachments to this memo contained a page entitled "Reason Codes" and one entitled "Response Codes." Reason codes are the reasons students are disciplined and should correspond to the rules in the Handbook/or Student Conduct and Discipline. Response codes are the actions that administrators take when a rule has been broken and should correspond to the consequences outlined in the Handbook for Student Conduct and Discipline. These codes do not align with those in the Handbook, thus making data collection using these codes flawed and rendering the data itself useless. Meeting of the Discipline Study Panel. No agenda provided. There was an objection made by PACT and PASS because the make-up of the Panel had changed from the August 11, 2000 initial meeting (two more administrators were present). Panel members inspected a 378-page document titled, "Activity Tracker Detail Report." This was a detailed account of each student's discipline data for the 1999-2000 school year. While reviewing this report, it was noticed that many rule numbers listed did not correlate to those in the Handbook for Student Conduct and Discipline. In other words, students were being suspended for breaking rules that were not delineated in the PCSSD's discipline policies as set forth in the Handbook. Panel members stated that the Computer Center should make sure that all rule numbers and consequences align with the District's policies as described in Handbook for Student Conduct and Discipline, since this is the docwnent that parents and students must sign for every year. The PACT and PASS representatives on the Panel requested to review all referrals written and to be provided with a breakdown of suspensions by rule number violated/gender/race. The Panel was told that there was not enough room to hold all the referrals written and that there were problems with the "people downstairs" in that 5 October 12, 2000 October 23, 2000 October 31, 2000 November 9, 2000 they were having trouble getting data from the Computer Center. PACT and PASS representatives on the Panel stated that without the requested data, the Panel could not do what it was responsible for doing. Mr. Brown responded by saying, "We are out of compliance anyway, so there's no need to rush." Dr. Welch sent copies of PCSSD Annual Disciplinary Report Summaries for 1997-98, 1998-99, and 1999-00 to the members of the Discipline Study Panel. These reports did not contain a breakdown of suspensions by rule number/race/gender as requested. Memo# A-00-081 from Dr. Welch to members of the Discipline Study Panel stating that the next meeting was October 31, 2000. Meeting of the Discipline Study Panel. Agenda provided. Mr. John Walker and Ms. Joy Springer attended part of the meeting. Mr. Walker stated that it was the District's responsibility, not the Panel's, to develop and submit to Joshua the criteria for identifying teachers and other staff experiencing problems and schools with high discipline rates. He stated that this had not been done. Dr. Clowers said that he had talked to Sam Jones and that the criteria and method used for evaluating the criteria had been sent to Joshua on August 29, 2000. Before he left, Mr. Walker stated that the Panel was not to be administrator-controlled. Brenda Bowles, Coordinator for Multicultural Curriculum, stated that "we" could do paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of Section F (Discipline) and submit it to Joshua. No vote was taken. Meeting of the Discipline Study Panel. Agenda provided. Dr. Welch was elected Chair of the Panel and Georgia Norris was elected as Recorder. The first item on the agenda was to establish criteria for identifying i, ii, and iii in paragraph 2 of Section F (Discipline). The Panel was now being asked to develop criteria that had already been sent to Joshua. (See Memorandum #A-00-035-R dated September 15, 2000 and October 31, 2000). Brenda Bowles prepared a "Criteria" sheet for identifying schools, based on discussions by the Panel. The Panel passed a motion that all rules must align with those in the Handbook for Student Conduct and Discipline. PACT and PASS continued to stress the importance of aligning reason codes and response codes with the PCSSD's discipline policies set forth in the Handbook/or Student Conduct and Discipline. In order to conduct a comprehensive study on discipline, it is imperative to have complete and accurate data. Student disciplinary records must reflect the correct rule 6 that was broken and the actual discipline imposed in order to determine whether students are disciplined in a fair and equitable manner. PACT and PASS have no knowledge that an alignment of the codes with the Handbook bas yet occurred. Heated discussions centered on Dr. Clowers' method of identifying teachers and other staff members who are experiencing problems. Dr. Clowers interpreted this to mean ''those teachers and staff members who send atypically large numbers of students to a building administrator for disciplinary referral." The PACT and PASS representatives strongly disagreed with his interpretation and the formula he developed for several reasons: 1. The term "problem" needs to be clearly defined; 2. Dr. Clowers' formula creates an automatic bias against the teachers. It makes discipline problems appear to be the result of some failing on the part of the teacher and it singles-out teachers because teachers are the only ones who write disciplinary referrals. The Disciplinary Referral Form is the negotiated form used by teachers when excluding a student from class for disciplinary reasons. Although administrators are considered "other staff members," they take action on the referral, they don't write it. Therefore, the administrator would never be identified as "experiencing problems" using Dr. Clowers' formula. 3. Teachers do not impose consequences for discipline (suspensions, Saturday school, expulsion, etc.), administrators do. Yet, nowhere in Dr. Clowers' formula are the building level administrator's actions on the referral taken into account or analyzed. 4. When reviewing a teacher's referrals, violations need to be categorized as "classroom infractions" versus "other Handbook infractions" because there are many infractions that are beyond a teacher's control (i.e., fighting, possessing a weapon, smoking, etc.). 5. It is unclear whether Dr. Clowers' formula actually identifies teachers who write atypically large numbers of referrals or who send atypically large numbers of students to the office. In either case, his method does not provide the data that is necessary to address the underlying intent of Section F (Discipline) of Plan 2000, which is to eliminate racial disparities in the imposition of school discipline. 7 6. PCSSD 'Policy and the negotiated Master Contract hold teachers responsible for the behavior of students and expect that, "when and where unacceptable behavior occurs to take appropriate action." This creates a Catch-22 situation for teachers. Teachers who are "unable to assist the student to maintain proper controls of his behavior" are to refer that student to the appropriate administrator using a Disciplinary Referral Form. However, for each referral form written, the teacher receives a "tally mark." Too many '<tally marks" will result in a teacher being "redflagged" and identified as possibly having a problem with discipline. Administrators are using the '<tally marks" to intimidate teachers to not write referrals. While this intimidation might decrease the actual number of referrals written, thereby looking good on paper, the results are: 1) student discipline is not improved; 2) student misbehaviors are not corrected; and 3) disparities in discipline are not addressed. But, because the PCSSD can point to fewer referrals written, it once again can pat itself on the back for a job-well-done when in. fact, it has done absolutely nothing to address, much less achieve, its actual goal of eliminating racial disparities in the imposition of discipline. 7. The PACT and PASS believe that the inequities causing a disparity in discipline exist in the actions taken by the administrator, not in the number of referrals written by a teacher. This actual example was discussed at one of the Panel meetings to show that inequities in administrative actions do exist: Two male students, one black and one white, were both referred by a teacher for violating Rule #3. The teacher wrote two referrals; therefore she received two "tally marks". The administrator suspended one of the male students and only conferenced with the other. The inequity is in the consequence imposed, not in the number of referrals written. However, using Dr. Clowers' criteria and analysis methodology, these administrative actions are not recorded or analyzed anywhere. November 16, 2000 Meeting of the Discipline Study Panel. No agenda provided. Dr. Welch told the Panel that there were still problems "downstairs" so the data that was requested was still not available. PACT and PASS requested that all principals in the District submit to the Panel ALL discipline forms, other than the negotiated referral form, that are being used in their buildings. The Panel needed to see what other forms individual building principals are requiring teachers to use to report discipline infractions in order to clarify how data was being collected. This inf orrnation was never 8 March 19, 2001 April 3, 2001 May 3, 2000 provided. The District continued to collect data from only one form when, in reality, some schools use other forms. Again this leads to inaccurate data collection. The Panel reviewed all referrals written at Sylvan Hills Jr. High throughout the 1999-2000 school year to get an understanding of how consequences were administered. It was stated that the next meeting would be the last week of November or the first week of December. Dr. Welch would notify Committee members when it would be. Memo from Dr. Welch stating that the next meeting of the Discipline Study Panel would be on April 3, 2001, approximately four ( 4) months after the Panel said it would next meet. Meeting of the Discipline Study Panel. No agenda provided. Dr. Welch gave Panel members a seven-page document containing the six (6) paragraphs of Section F (Discipline) indicating responsibilities, specific tasks, etc., and a discipline data collection grid. Dr. Welch stated that the criteria that would be sent to Joshua would be "that little grid coupled with Clowers' formula for identifying schools as significant or not significant." It was agreed that no names would ever be released; however, identification of teachers was not discussed. Discussion centered on each school's Equity Monitoring Team reviewing school data for item iii of paragraph 2. No vote was taken. The Computer Center complied with the October 3, 2000 request for a breakdown of suspensions by rule number, gender, and race. Dr. Welch had only one copy of this report titled, "SAS System Breakdown by Rule/Gender/Race." He stated that he would send each Panel member a copy later. Panel members have yet to receive their copies. Dr. Welch generated a status report on the progress of the Discipline Study Panel. This report stated that, "At the April 3, 2001 meeting of the Discipline Panel, it was agreed to go forward with the following proposal as agreed to by the Panel" and that the Panel worked together to develop criteria for Section F (Discipline), paragraph 2, subsections i, ii, and iii in Plan 2000. It was further stated that these criteria had been "agreed upon" by the Panel. Much of the material contained in this report is false. The Panel did not agree to Dr. Clowers' criteria or his formula for identifying "teachers and other staff members experiencing problems which require attention." PACT and PASS representatives repeatedly stated, for the record, that the Knight Intervenors reserved the right to submit a separate report. The 9 May 7, 2001 Panel did not disagree with the use of Dr. Clowers' method of identifying schools with high discipline rates and high racial disparities. Dr. Clowers explained that a school would be identified as "significant" or "not significant" using a statistical calculation known as a "large-sample confidence interval for the difference of two proportions." The criteria for identifying schools as "significant" or "not significant" was discussed in detail. This report was presented to the PCSSD School Board at its May Board Meeting. At this School Board meeting the PACT President pointed out to the School Board which parts of the report were inaccurate or misleading and expressed PACT and PASS concerns with the Discipline Study Panel and with the implementation of Section F (Discipline) of Plan 2000. PACT and PASS Panel members received another report, dated May 7, 2001, on June 7, 2001. This report contained some infonnation that was never even discussed in any of the Discipline Study Panel meetings. The material, which was sent to Karl Brown by Dr .. Welch, regarded Plan 2000 Discipline Criteria. This packet of material contained three (3) separate documents, prepared by Dr. Clowers, describing the criteria and procedures that he was going to use to address Section F (Discipline), item 2, subsections i, ii, and iii of Plan 2000. Two of these procedures are word-for-word what they were on November 9, 2000 when the Panel discussed them. One procedure was agreed to (subsection iii) and one was strongly disagreed to (subsection i). The third procedure, (subsection ii), had never before been seen by the PACT and PASS representatives on the Panel. PACT and PASS have no idea why 5% was used and had never seen the graphs and charts that accompanied the document. However, it was erroneously reported that there had been "meaningful input by all concerned parties". CONCLUSION The Knight Intervenors are deeply concerned by the PCSSD's minimal efforts to comply with Section F (Discipline) of Plan 2000 and are disturbed by the PCSSD's dictatorial behavior throughout the process. Even though a Discipline Study Panel was indeed formed per Section F (Discipline), its composition changed often and it was given charge after charge. However, decisions made by the Panel were ignored and the PCS SD essentially worked in isolation of the Panel. The PCSSD continues to disregard established timelines, misinterpret key components, and misrepresent facts surrounding its efforts to comply with Section F (Discipline) of Plan 2000. In Section F (Discipline) of Plan 2000, the PCSSD committed to eliminate "racial disparities in the imposition of school discipline." This commitment was made twenty (20) months ago and approved by the Court sixteen (16) months ago, yet the PCSSD has still not completed or implemented provisions contained in Section F (Discipline). The very foundation of the PCSSD's compliance efforts, the collection of accurate and/or complete data, has yet to be carried out. Mathematicians would agree that solving any problem in statistics involves the following three steps: (1) definition of the problem; (2) collection of the data; and (3) analysis of the data. If the problem is misinterpreted and is not clearly defined and if the data collected is inaccurate and/or incomplete, then the analysis will most likely be flawed. Such is the case in Dr. Clowers' misinterpretation of the "problem" and his subsequent analysis methodology. Dr. Clowers interpreted paragraph 2, subsection i, "teachers and other staff members who are experiencing problems" to mean those teachers and staff members who send large numbers of students to a building administrator for disciplinary referral. The PACT and PASS representatives on the Panel strongly disagreed with Dr. Clowers' interpretation of subsection i and just as strongly objected to his analysis methodology. The Knight Intervenors see the "problem" as the racial disparity that exists in the imposition of discipline, not the total nwnber of referrals written. In other words, a disparity could exist whether 2 or 200 referrals were written because the disparity is not in the number of referrals written by the teacher, the disparity exists in the nature of the discipline imposed by the administrator (suspension, Saturday school, expulsion, etc.). Dr. Clowers' statistical analysis does nothing to identify true problems. (See November 9, 2000 under "Chronological Account of Correspondence and Events) Contrary to information contained in the May 3, 2001 and the May 7, 2001 status reports, the Discipline Study Panel was never involved in the development of, and certainly never agreed to the criteria for identifying "teachers and other staff members who are experiencing problems" as described in paragraph 2, subsection i of Plan 2000. How could the Panel "develop and agree to" criteria that was supposedly submitted to the Joshua Intervenors on August 29, 2000 when, in reality, the Panel had only met one time prior to that date (August 11, 2000) and had not addressed that topic at all? (See August 11 , 2000 and September 15, 2000 under "Chronological Account of Correspondence and Events") ODM, in its report dated March 18, 1998, made several recommendations to the PCSSD on ways to improve discipline procedures and reduce racial disparities in the imposition of school discipline. A few of the suggestions included: 1) offering staff development activities and training based on demonstrated need, rather than routine offerings; 2) modifying discipline plans if they are faulty, "don't wait too long to determine why;" 3) holding district-wide discipline summits where everyone can get the same information at the same time; 4) encouraging shared decision-making; and 5) sharing reports and other relevant discipline information with all employees. Had the PCSSD taken any or all of the suggestions made by ODM nearly three years ago, the PCSSD could have quite possibly achieved its objective of eliminating racial disparities in the imposition of school discipline. However contrary to ODM recommendations, currently teachers receive no training whatsoever from the PCSSD in the area of discipline; site-based shared decision making is discouraged; and the PC