Joshua intervenor's comments regarding page 148 "evaluations", motion to withdrawal and substitution of counsel, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tools.

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<items type="array"> <item>

<dcterms_description type="array">

<dcterms_description>District Court, the Joshua intervenors' comments on the submission of page 148 ''evaluations''; District Court, motion to withdraw as counsel and for substitution of counsel; District Court, notices of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tools; Court of Appeals, brief of appellee; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors. . ,:;-:- - b.BD ED -=- u.f sM'rn1c;co,1,mr =-- !;/\'fERN tHTRIQT ARN:\1\l~S IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT oF ARKANSAS APR 1 4 :og, WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-:C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO . 1, ET AL. RECEIVED DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL . KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL . APR 1 ~ 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Joshua Intervenors' Comments on the Submission of Page 14s "Evaluations" INTERVENORS INT ERVEN ORS The Joshua Intervenors comment as follows on the "[LRSD] Notice of Fil i ng Program Evaluations Required by Paragraph c of the Court's Compliance Remedy" and the accompanying "evaluations." This court held that the LRSD did not substantially comply with sec. 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, addressing "Program Assessment/Program Evaluation [at 150)." [At 168] The court noted the importance of this commitment. I find that the purpose of Sec. 2.7.1 was to make sure that the programs promised under Sec. 2. 7 actually worked to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. I further find that LRSD's substantial compliance with Sec. 2.7.1 was crucial to its commitment to improve the academic achievement of African-American students~ for, without performing a rigorous annual assessment of each of the many dozens of programs implemented under Sec. 2.7, it would be impossible to determine which programs were working and should be continued and which programs were not working and should be discontinued, modified, or replaced ~1th new programs. [At 150) The court's "Compliance Remedy" for the Sec. 2.7.1 violation 1 addressed in part "program evaluations on each of the programs identified in page 148 of the Final Compliance Report." [At 170, 171) The court discussed the completion of these evaluations and their submission to the court and the parties, by March 15, 2003, after their approval by the LRSD school board. [At 171-72] The court also required, in effect, additional evaluations of "each of the programs implemented under Section 2.7 to improve the academic achievement of African-American students." [ At 170] These materials are to be submitted on or before March 15, 2004. [At 172] This court also discussed the criteria to govern the LRSD's exiting court supervision. Because LRSD failed to substantially comply with the crucially important obligations contained in Sec. 2.7.1, .it. must remain under court supervision with regard to that section of the Revised Plan until it: Cal demonstrates that a program assessment procedure is in place that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented under sec. 2.1 in improving the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students; ... " [At 110) The LRSD "Notice of Filing" describes the LRSD' s plan to prepare "comprehensive program evaluation[s]" as follows: The District will prepare the following new, comprehensive evaluations: (a) Elementary Literacy, (b) Middle and High School Literacy and (c) K-12 Mathematics and Science. Each evaluation will be prepared in accordance with proposed Regulation IL-Rl and will incorporate all available student assessment data relevant to the program being evaluated. These evaluations will be submitted to the District Court on or before March 15, 2004. [Exhibit A at SJ Joshua Intervenors have raised an issue about the scope of this plan pursuant to Section 8 of the Revised Plan. The page 148 "evaluations" were, as noted, submitted on March 14, 2003. A review of these materials and other relevant documents 2 show that if LRSD is to "[demonstrate} that a program assessment procedure is in place that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented under Sec. 2. 7 in improving the academic achievement of African-American students" -- it will have to be by a future submission. In general, the documents submitted were either not evaluations, or very deficient evaluations. Joshua Intervenors offer the following examples of deficiencies identified in the page 154 "evaluations." Early Literacy (Vol. 1-2] 1 Dr. Ross described the report as "one of the best written reports from LRSD I've read." [At 2] He also discussed "a number of weaknesses .... " [l.s;l.] Dr. Ross' critique includes the following content: "Of greatest concern overall is the writer's obvious efforts to 'prove' gap reduction even where the data support is weak or spurious." (At 3] "Statistically, a very serious weakness is the lack of validity of the 'Percent Improvement' (PI) index." [At 3 J "Another major statistical weakness is emphasizing the comparison of growth ratios (GR) between Band NB students .. The reason is the obvious ceiling effects on most of the measures." [At 4J "Not surprisingly, on the two literacy tests that do .Il.Q.t. have low ceilings -- Writing Vocabulary and ORA -- the Growth Ratios are much less supportive of gap reduction (e.g., seep. 54, bullet 4), and could even be used by critics as showing extensions of the gap in a number of places. 11 [At 5) "The present data are 1 This segment is based upon a critique by Dr. Ross, titled "Review of Year 2 Evaluations." It was submitted to counsel _ang Mrs , Marsha 11 of ODM, by counsel for the LRSD, on October 2 s , 2 o o 2 . 3 I I I I I I I I I I II suggestive of definite early progress made by LRSD in improving - All students' literacy performance. There are also indicators of some progress in gap reduction in certain skills. However, given that we are dealing with teacher-administered tests having very low ceiling levels, the overall evidence is weaker than this report conveys. There is no reason to reduce the credibility of the findings by presenting them with such an obvious positive bias." [At 7] "Conduct more studies that examine implementation quality and impacts on the school and the classroom." [At 8] charter school [Vol. 1-2] "Performance data for the program evaluation were not disaggregated by race. The student body, however, was 87 percent African American." [Vol. 1-2 at l; Dr. Lesley) Southwest Middle School's SEDL Program [Vol. 1-2) - The "evaluation" documents produced by the Southwest Educational Development Lab contain neither a detailed description of the program implemented at Southwest Middle School, nor student achievement data. [Vol. 1-2 at 243-63] Collaborative Action Plan [Vol. 1-2] "Although the 249-page study produced by SEDL that evaluated the project included student achievement data, those data were not disaggregated by race, and LRSD' s short-term ( one year) participation in the project would not predict that the involvement of this relatively small group of parents and community volunteers would result in improved student performance." [Vol. 1-2 at 528; Dr. Lesley) 4 ..... Extended Year schools [Vol. vol. 4J "Unfortunately, the present evaluation design does not seem sufficiently sensitive to detect effects that might be attributable to EYE. specifically, usage of whole-school data compared descriptively to district norms gives only a very surface examination of the schools' progress, with susceptibility to contamination by student mobility, differences in SES, etc." (Exh. Bat S: Dr. Ross] "The external evaluator's conclusion was that 'Unfortunately, the limited nature of the original design and existing data do not afford us an opportunity to answer in a rigorous manner the key evaluation question of_ the extent of impact of the initiative on black student performance.'" [Vol. 4 at 1732; Dr. Lesley: see also Vol. 4 at 1813 (Youth Policy Research Group, Inc.] Middle School Implementation [Vol. 4] "The study conducted by the external evaluator did not attempt to draw any conclusions related to this research question [impact on African-American achievement] since the student performance data available for the study were 'baseline', and there are serious questions about the appropriateness of the achievement measures and about the validity of some of the other performance outcome measures." [Vol. 4 at 1870; Dr. Lesley] "The data presented in the original report does not support the interpretation of program effects on student performance. It provides a baseline for examining future effects, but needs to be extended and verified." [Vol. 4 at 1911; Youth Policy Research 5 I \ . Group, Inc. ) ~lementary _summer school [Vol. 3] There is a lack of II implementation data to describe the program strategies and the degree to which they were actually used by teachers." There is not "an adequate control group or norms to which the achievement scores of the summer school students could be compared." (Eh.Bat 3; Dr. Ross] "Unfortunately, there are no additional details in the evaluation that describe the precise treatment afforded the students in the program. Missing is any indication of precisely how much of the curriculum was delivered, how and when it was del i vered, and neither by whom, nor its relationship to the previously identified objectives." [Vol. control group or norms " [Vol. Education and Management Associates, Inc.] HIPPY [Vol. 3 J at--] "No adequate at -- ] [ By Quality "A limitation of the study, wh i ch unfortunately cannot be remedied retroactively, is the lack of implementation data to describe the fidelity with which HIPPY program components were actually used." [Eh . Bat 4; Dr. Ross] "Conclusions are difficult due to limitations of the study." [Vol. 3. at 1554; Dr. Lesley] "A third weakness is the gap between the HIPPY experience and the achievement scores analyzed .... By that time, several years had elapsed subsequent to the HIPPY interventions." [Vol. J at 1567; Dr. Ross] 6 campus Leadership Teams [Vol. 3] " However, the 'evaluation data' collected to date consist of only results from two district-wide surveys that assessed team members' reactions to various activities. No information exists to verify the representatives of the samples, the validity of the data collection in general, or the implementation of the CLTs at the various schools." [Eh. Bat 5; Dr. Ross) "These surveys were not intended to be a program evaluation., although they were mistakenly characterized as such in the District's compliance report to the court. No student performance data were collected, and, therefore, no conclusions could be drawn as to whether the Campus Leadership Teams' work has resulted in improved academic achievement for any students, nor specifically for African American students." [Vol. 3 at 1256; Dr. Lesley] "There was no formal evaluation of CLT by the LRSD." [Vol. 3 at 1259; Dr.. RossJ Lyceum scholars Program [Vol. 4) "Approximately one-half of the students participating in this small program ( 8 to 10 students total) were African American. Because the numbers were so small, neither performance data nor survey data were disaggregated by race. Neither the staff study nor that of the external evaluator could determine whether this program had any positive benefit on the academic performance of African American students." [Vol.4 at 1607; Dr. Lesley; see also at 1635 (inadequate description of treatment provided students in program; 7 Dr. Ross)] onward to Excellence (Vol. 3) The program "was never fornally achievement data reports sent by the evaluated, except for principal to ADE." As "implementation data are lacking," "if positive or negative results were found, it would be impossible to determine whether OTE or numerous other factors were the main cause." [Eh.Bat 4; Dr. Ross) "In view of these factors, there is no basis for evaluating the 'study,' since none existed." [Vol. 3 at 1217; Dr. Ross] Vital Link [Vol. 3] "Further, the evaluation study conducted was so limited (a brief post-test only, closed-ended survey) that the policy implications of the results are minimal and even potentially misleading if derived." [Eh.Bat Jr Dr. Ross] There is "(i]nsufficient description of the program and its implementation." There is a "[l)ack of pre-program (pretest) data for judging change following program completion." "No examination of results for different subgroups (e.g., by ethnicity) . 11 [Vol.3 at 1542: Dr. Ross) 8 conclusion The need for high quality evaluations, if the LRSD is to exit court supervision, is clear. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 Mass. 405900 Attorney at Law J n John P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 Ark. 64046 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rock, AR 72207 501.-663-9900 9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleadilf.: been mailed, postage pre-paid, to all the counsel of record this .-~ (i._ day of ,t, , fJ , ?oc:S, ~ ~ ?fa ~~~ ohnw.Wall&lt;er .1 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. MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL AND FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL RECEIVED APR 2 5 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education, by and through their attorneys, Attorney General Mike Beebe and Assistant Attorney Mark A. Hagemeier, for their Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel, state: 1. Assistant Attorney General Colette D. Honorable left state employment effective April 10, 2003. 2. This matter has been reassigned to Assistant Attorney General Mark A. Hagemeier, who now represents Defendants and should be substituted as counsel of record. 3. Defendant requests that the Court and parties direct all future services and correspondence to Mark A. Hagemeier. WHEREFORE, premises considered, Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel and that Mark A. Hagemeier be substituted as their counsel of record . .l By: Respectfully Submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General Assistant Attorney eral 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 (501) 682-3643 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, certify that on April 24, 2003, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey &amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, AR 72205 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mark A. Hagemeier 2 --- ..... . .)_ RECEIVED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF ARKANSAS MIKE BEEBE APR 2 5 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORlNG Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Mr. M. SamuelJones,m Wright, Lindsey &amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Plaza West Building 415 N. Mc.inley, Suite 465 Little Rock, AR 72205 April 24, 2003 Direct dial: (501) 682-3643 E-mail: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.us Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. et al. U.S. Dist. Ct. No. 4:82-CV-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: Enclosed please find a copy of Separate Defendant Arkansas Department of Education's Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and for Substitution of Counsel, Notice of Filing and ADE's Project Management Tool sent for filing in the above-referenced matter. MAH/jle Very truly yours, ~.){ . MARK A. HAG~R Assistant Attom~::ral 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 FAX (501) 682-2591 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ Cc: Mr. Ray Simon D. Scott Smith Mr. Louis Ferren Ms. Charity Smith .l UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED APR Z 5 1003 OFFICE OF DESEGREG"i\OM MOMliORlMG LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of ADE's Project Management Tool for March 2003. Respectfully Submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General Assistant Attorney eneral 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-3643 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education #94127 .l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark A. Hagemeier, certify that on April 24, 2003, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. M. Samuel Jones, ID Wright, Lindsey &amp; Jennings 200 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, AR 72205 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mark A. Hagerne'e 2 .l 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 April 30, 2003 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. Raymond Simon Director s: ate Board of -Education Shelby Hillman, Chair Carlisle JoNell Caldwell, Vice Chair Uttfe Rock Luke Gordy Van Buren Robert Hackler Mountain Home Peggy Jeffries Fort Smith Calvin King Marianna - ane Rebick Uttfe Rock Lewis Thompson, Jr. Texarkana Jeanna Westmoreland Arkadelphia Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capilol Mall, Liltle Rock, AR 72201-1071 501-682-4475 May 30, 2003 MAY 3 1 2003 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey &amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, AR 72205 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of April 2003 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION 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 the ADE's Project Management Tool for April 2003. Respectfully Submitted, j~1t~~ Scott Smith, 251 Attorney, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on May 30, 2003, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr.M. SamuelJones,III Wright, Lindsey &amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, AR 72205 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Scott Smith 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 KATHERINE 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 May 31, 2003 !ii!ii~h.tii\ii~,i~miiii%~iliti!!1f.1,a11gy1~t;~r'i&amp;~ B. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT NOS. 02-3867 AND 03-1147 RECEIVED - '/ /rJ d - (} It 'v?:h d, JUN0 1 8 2003 - ., tJZ l l'VI OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. !JNIUO!INOW N0l!V93H93S3a :10 3~1:1:10 Appellants EOOZ 8 1 Nnr v. 03Al3~3H LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., District Judge BRlEF OF APPELLEE CHRISTOPHER HELLER JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. FRlDA Y, ELDREDGE &amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 l (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Appellee SUMMARY AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT This appeal arises out of the interdistrict desegregation case filed in 1982 by the Little Rock School District ("LRSD") against the Pulaski County Special School District ("PCSSD"), the North Little Rock School District (''NLRSD") and the State of Arkansas. Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al., ("Joshua") intervened during the remedy phase after a liability finding in favor of the LRSD against all of the defendants. In 1998, the LRSD and Joshua agreed to anew desegregation plan for the LRSD, lmown as the "Revised Plan." The Revised Plan entitled the LRSD to a declaration of unitary status if it substantially complied with the plan and no party objected. The - Revised Plan provided that any party objecting would bear the burden of proof. Joshua objected to the LRSD being granted unitary status. Hearings were held on Joshua's objections. The district court found that the LRSD had substantially complied with all but one section of the Revised Plan and granted the LRSD partial unitary status. Joshua then moved to disqualify the Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. based on 28 U.S.C. 455(b)(2). That motion was denied. Joshua appeals the district court's grant of partial unitary status and denial of the motion to disqualify. The LRSD respectfully requests at least thirty minutes of oral argument due to length and complexity of the proceedings below and the substantial public interest in this case. Raymond Simon Director s: ate Board of Education Shelby Hillman, Chair Carlisle JoNell Caldwell, Vice Chair Little Rock Luke Gordy Van Buren Robert Hackler Mountain Home Peggy Jeffries Fort Smith Calvin King Mananna eRebick ock Lewis Thompson, Jr. Texarkana Jeanna Westmoreland Arkadelphia Arkansas Department of Education #4 CapiJol Mall, LiJtle Rock, AR 72201-1071 501-682-4475 http:/ larkedu.state.ar.us RECEIVED June 30, 2003 JUL 1- 2003 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey &amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller OFFICE OF Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, AR 72205 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of June 2003 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, (} r} lJL~ ~~L Scott Smith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION RECEIVED JUL 1 - 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for June 2003. Respectfully Submitted, 9-&gt;~vtc LtiA b f v,) Scott Smith, #92251 7 Attorney, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - I, Scott Smith, certify that on June 30, 2003, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depo~iting a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, ad~~~ ;VED each of the followmg: tiC\., Cl Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey &amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, AR 72205 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 JUL 1 - 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUL 1 - 2003 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 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 KATHERINE 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 AD E'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, 2003 l!i.iii~ll~1111.~ili!lliil~lf~ili!iii!lrs.itiwct:.lli~ 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.</dcterms_description>

</dcterms_description>

</item>
</items>