Records regarding motion for additional time to file brief and related materials, mandatory filing program evaluations, brief and appendix of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al., Joshua intervenors' motion for extension of time, and notice of filing for Office of Desegregation Management report and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool.

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

<dcterms_description type="array">

<dcterms_description>Court of Appeals, motion for additional time to file brief and related materials; District Court, order; District Court, plaintiff's notice of filing program evaluations required by Paragraph C of the court's compliance remedy; Court of Appeals, notice of filing, brief of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al., and appendix of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al.; District Court, Joshua intervenors' motion for extension of time; District Court, two orders; District Court, notice of filing, Office of Desegregation Management report, ''2002-03 Enrollment and Racial Balance in the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD)''; 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE'EIGHTH CIRCUIT RECEIVED MAR - 7 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT APPELLEE VS. NOS. 02-3867 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. 03 -1147 MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO FILE BRIEF AND RELATED MATERIALS DEFENDANTS APPELLANTS INTER VEN ORS The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move for an order extending the time for the filing of their consolidated brief, addendum and appendix for 14 days (with corresponding adj ustments to the other elemerts of the schedule). The basis for this motion is as fo llows: Joshua Intervenors' lead counsel John W. Walker began a trial, as defense counsel in Case No. CR 00:40, United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, before the Honorable George Howard, Jr. on March 3, 2003. It appears that this trial will not conclude until March 14, 2003. Preparation for this trial and the trial have prevented lead counsel from working with co-counsel Robert Pressman, as well as Norman Chachkin, to complete the consolidated brief. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully pray that the Court grant the requested extension. 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 W. WALKE , .. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 3 74-3 758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) Rickey Hicks, AR Bar No. 89235 Attorney at Law Evergreen Place 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rocle Arkansas 72207 (501) 663-9900 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent by fax and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to the following counsel of record, on this~ day of ~' 2003: Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE &amp; CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union Na.tivnal Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY &amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON &amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 -3472 Mr. Richard Roachell ROA CHELL LAW FIRM 415 North McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas RECEIVED MAR 12 2003 OFACEOF IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION A DESEGREGATION MONITORING W LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al. f.fj" } : ,:J b~~-.. . t- -- --~ .. "-- - ..... .. ...... iTORING ORDER Us oisTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAR 1 1 2003 JAMES W. McCOP.MACK, CLERK By: OEP CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS Now pending is PCSSD's Motion RE Portable Building at Sylvan Hills Middle School (doc. no. 3739). Joshua Intervenors have responded to the motion, indicating that they do not oppose the motion. The motion indicates that the band room at Sylvan Hills Middle School is plagued with standing water and requests permission to temporarily lease a portable building for use as a band room. This motion is GRANTED, and PCSSD may lease and use the portable building as requested through the end of the current school year. ~ IT IS SO ORDERED this/J!::aay of March, 2003. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 ANQ.(__OJ3. 79(a) FRCP. ON 3-l/-O 3 BY~ S?:,99d'. 74 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL RECEIVED 1/ul"Jd- ;Jz/rvue rl MAR 1 4 2003 DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF FILING PROGRAM EVALUATIONS REQUIRED BY PARAGRAPH C OF THE COURT'S COMPLIANCE REMEDY Plaintiff Little Rock School District ("LRSD") for its Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Required by the Court's Order of September 13, 2002 states: 1. On September 13, 2002, the District Court issued its Order finding that the LRSD had substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan ("Revised Plan"), with the exception Revised Plan 2.7.1. The Court's Order set forth a detailed Compliance Remedy as to Revised Plan 2. 7 .1. Paragraph C. of the Compliance Remedy stated: LRSD must use Dr. Nunnerly or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations on each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. I will accept all program evaluations that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnerly or someone with similar qualifications and approved by the Board. All program evaluations that have not yet been completed on the remaining programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report must be prepared and approved by the Board as soon as practicable, but, in no event, later than March 15, 2003. In addition, as these program evaluations are prepared, LRSD shall use them, as part of the program assessment process, to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving African-American achievement and whether, based on the evaluations, any changes or modifications should be made in those programs. In addition, LRSD must use those program evaluations, to the extent they may be relevant, in assessing the effectiveness of other related programs. 2. On October 10, 2002, the LRSD Board of Directors adopted a Compliance Plan - designed to meet the requirements of the Court's Compliance Remedy. A copy of the Compliance Plan is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. As to Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy, the LRSD concluded that the following evaluations had already been completed as required by Paragraph C and only needed to be submitted to the Board for approval: Early Literacy, Mathematics and Science, Charter School, English-as-a-Second Language, Southwest Middle School's SEDL Program and Collaborative Action Team. The Charter School and Early Literacy evaluations were approved by the Board on October 24, 2002. The Southwest Middle School's SEDL Program, 2000 and 2001 ESL and Collaborative Action Team evaluations were approved by the Board on November 21, 2002. The Math and Science and the 2002 ESL evaluations were approved by the Board on December 19, 2002. These evaluations are bound together in volumes I and II attached. 4. The LRSD concluded that the following evaluations needed to be completed by an outside expert before being submitted to the Board for approval: Extended Year Schools, - Middle School Implementation, Elementary Summer School, HIPPY, Campus Leadership Teams ("CLT"), Lyceum Scholars Program, Onward to Excellence and Vital Link. The LRSD sought guidance from Dr. Steven Ross, a desegregation and education expert approved by Joshua. Dr. Ross prepared, "Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in the Little Rock School District," attached hereto as Exhibit B. The LRSD subsequently contracted with experts, including Dr. Ross, to complete the evaluations in accordance with Dr. Ross' guidelines. The Onward to Excellence, CLT, Vital Link and HIPPY evaluations were approved by the Board on February 13, 2003. The Lyceum Scholars Program, Elementary Summer School, Extended Year Education were approved by the Board on February 27, 2003. These evaluations are bound together in volumes III and IV attached. 2 WHEREFORE, the LRSD submits to the Court program evaluations on each of the - programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report as required by Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE &amp; CLARK Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 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 Btrited Stat~s mail on March 14, 2003: - ~,,L cklQ Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Richard Roachell JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Roachell Law Firm 1723 Broadway Plaza West Building Little Rock, AR 72201 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey &amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON &amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 F:IHOME\FENDLEY\LRSD 200 I \dcs-uniwy-March 15-2003. wpd Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Collette D. Honorable Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock, AR 72201 {[-~i ~op hcer H.e~ller t&lt;~ 3 Little Rock School District Compliance Plan Revised Plan 2. 7 .1 Approved by the Board on October 10, 2002 "" EXHIBIT I A B. C. LRSD must maintain written records regarding its assessment of each of those programs. These written records must reflect the following information: (a) the written criteria used to assess each program during the 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year; (b) the results of the annual assessments of each program, including whether the assessments resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs; and ( c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the assessment of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the assessment process (e.g., all fourth grade math teachers; all eighth grade English teachers, etc.). LRSD must use Dr. Nunnerly2 or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations on each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. I will accept all program evaluations that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnerly or someone with similar qualifications and approved by the Board. All program evaluations that have not yet been completed on the remaining programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report must be prepared and approved by the Board as soon as practicable, but, in no event, later than March 15, 2003. In addition, as these program evaluations are prepared, LRSD shall use them, as part of the program assessment process, to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving African-American achievement and whether, based on the evaluations, any changes or modifications should be made in those programs. In addition, LRSD must use those program evaluations, to the extent they may be relevant, in assessing the effectiveness of other related programs. * * * F. On or before March 15, 2004, LRSD must file a Compliance Report which documents its compliance with its obligations under 2.7.1. Any party, including Joshua, who wishes to challenge LRSD's substantial compliance with 2. 7 .1, as specified above, may file objections with the court on or before April 15, 2004. Thereafter, I will decide whether the LRSD has substantially complied with 2. 7 .1, as specified in the Compliance Remedy, and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. 2The Court is clearly referring to Dr. John Nunnery. 2 Board-Approved Compliance Plan On October 10, 2002, the Board adopted this Compliance Plan to meet the requirements of the District Court's Compliance Remedy. Pursuant to this Compliance Plan, the LRSD will: 1. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04; 2. Develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to Revised Plan 2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; 3. Maintain written records of ( a) the criteria used to evaluate each program; (b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs; and (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process; 4. Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan 2. 7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program; and 5. Submit for Board approval the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSD's Final Compliance Report that have been completed, and complete, with the assistance of an outside expert, the remaining evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSD's Final Compliance Report. Each element of the Compliance Plan is discussed in more detail below. 1. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04. The LRSD will implement the 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan. The 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan calls for the administration of the following student assessments in English language arts and mathematics: Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Observation Surveys ( 5) Developmental Reading Assessment Observation Surveys (5) Development Reading Assessment Observation Surveys (3) 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 7-10 Grades 9-11 Grade 10 Grade 11 Development Reading Assessment Norm-referenced test to be identified for gifted/talented screening Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination SAT9 Total Battery Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination SAT9 Total Battery Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination End-of Course Algebra I examination End-of Course Geometry examination SAT9 Total Battery End-of-Level Literacy examination All of these assessments are administered in the spring. Consequently, the final student assessment before March 15, 2004, will be administered in the spring of 2003. 2. Develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to 2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. The Board approved IL-Rl in conjunction with approving this Compliance Plan. IL-Rl sets forth the written procedures for evaluating the 2. 7 programs. 3. Maintain written records of (a) the criteria used to evaluate each program; (b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs; and ( c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process. IL-Rl mandates that the criteria used to formally evaluate a program be identified as the research questions to be answered, the first of which will be, "Has this curriculum/instruction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of AfiicanAmerican students?". Recommended program modifications and the members of the evaluation team are routinely included in formal evaluations. The Compliance Committee originally proposed IL-R2 to cover informal evaluations not 4 The District Court's Compliance Remedy On September 13, 2002, the District Court issued its Memorandum Opinion (hereinafter "Opinion") finding that the Little Rock School District ("LRSD") had substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan ("Revised Plan"), with the exception Revised Plan 2.7.1. Section 2.7.1 provided: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.71 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. The District Court's Opinion set forth a detailed "Compliance Remedy" to be implemented by the LRSD. The Opinion first stated: Because LRSD failed to substantially comply with the crucially important obligations contained in 2. 7 .1, it must remain under court supervision with regard to that section of the Revised Plan until it: (a) demonstrates that a program assessment procedure is in place that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented under 2. 7 in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; and (b) prepares the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report and uses those evaluations as part of the program assessment procedure contemplated by 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. The Opinion then outlined the "details" of the Compliance Remedy as follows: A. For the entire 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year, through December 31, 2003, LRSD must continue to assess each of the programs implemented under 2.7 to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. LRSD now has over three years of testing data and other information available to use in gauging the effectiveness of those programs. I expect LRSD to use all of that available data and information in assessing the effectiveness of those programs and in deciding whether any of those programs should be modified or eliminated. 1Revised Plan 2.7 provided, "LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan." 1 covered by IL-R2. However, the administration decided that IL-R2 was unnecessary and would be redundant of information to be included in the evaluations prepared pursuant to IL-Rl. Rather than a separate written record, the program description in evaluations prepared pursuant to IL-Rl will include a description of program modifications made during each year of implementation satisfying the requirements of Paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. As to the results of annual student assessments, the LRSD will continue to maintain a computer database with the results of annual students assessments administered pursuant to the Board-approved assessment plan. 4. Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to 2.7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. The District will prepare the following new, comprehensive evaluations: (a) Elementary Literacy, (b) Middle and High School Literacy and (c) K-12 Mathematics and Science. Each evaluation will be prepared in accordance with proposed Regulation IL-Rl and will incorporate all available student assessment data relevant to the program being evaluated. These evaluations will be submitted to the District Court on or before March 15, 2004. 5. Submit for Board approval the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSD's Final Compliance Report that have been completed, and complete, with the assistance of an outside expert, the remaining program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSD's Final Compliance Report. The following evaluations will be submitted for Board approval without additional work: Early Literacy, Mathematics and Science, Charter School, ESL, Southwest Middle School's SEDL Program and CAT. If approved by the Board, they will be submitted to the District Court on or before March 14, 2003. The following evaluations will be "completed" by an outside expert and then be submitted for Board approval: Extended Year Schools, Middle School Implementation, Elementary Summer School, HIPPY, Campus Leadership Teams ("CLTs"), Lyceum Scholars Program, Onward to Excellence and Vital Link. These evaluations will be completed as follows: Extended Year Schools. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Middle School Implementation. An outside expert will be retained to rewrite the report 5 and, if possible, prepare an evaluation based on the existing data. - Elementary Summer School. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. HIPPY. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. CLTs. An outside expert will be retained to review the CLT survey data and, if possible, prepare an evaluation based on the existing survey data. Lyceum Scholars Program. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Onward to Excellence. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Vital Link. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. 6 Action Plan Timeline The Compliance Plan will be implemented in accordance with the following timeline. :- - -- ---- ,tl{trii-ite r\n(:;fmi. 'T(:.l.'j ! l 0 fft~-; i 111:t1 ;:, 1 ---- --- -c~--- - -- - - -------- - - - j 1. Place 2002-03 Program October 24, 2002 Ken James Evaluation Agenda on the Bonnie Lesley Board's agenda for review and approval. 2. Place on Board agenda October 24, 2002 Bonnie Lesley for approval two previously Linda Watson presented program evaluations ( early literacy, and charter school). 3. Place on Board agenda November 2002 Bonnie Lesley for approval the evaluations of Southwest Middle School's SEDL program and the Collaborative Action Team (also conducted by SEDL). 4. Place on Board agenda November 2002 Bonnie Lesley for approval the previously Karen Broadnax presented ESL program evaluations for 1999-2000 and 2000-01, plus the new evaluation for 2001-02. 5. Place on Board agenda December 2002 Bonnie Lesley for approval the three Vanessa Cleaver previously presented Dennis Glasgow program evaluations for the NSF-funded CPMSA program, plus the new Year 4 report for 2001-2002. 6. Issue Request for Mid-October 2002 Bonnie Lesley Proposals (RFPs) from Darral Paradis available external experts to review and complete the eight remaining program evaluations listed on page 148. 7 r--- .. -- .,..c--r~;Jff~- -- ----- - r -i"f~]:i:~1: -- ---- --:r . - - - m:-~f!}Ollt.'ili'i1f! r ~II 1, - - . --- --- --- .. - . - --- ________ J --- --- - - . - J 7. Form a screening team to Late October 2002 determine recommendations to the Superintendent for designating external experts to review and complete the eight remaining program evaluations listed on page 148. 8. Select and negotiate consulting contracts with designated external experts. 9. Assign appropriate staff to each external expert to provide needed information, data, access to program staff, etc. 10. Monitor the work to ensure timely completion. 11. As each paper is completed and ready for circulation, send copies to ODM and Joshua for their review and comments. 12. As each paper is completed, place on the Board's agenda the item to be reviewed and approved. 13. Write Interim Compliance Report relating to programs on page 148 to be completed. 14. Establish staff teams for each of the three programs on the Board's Program Evaluation Agenda to be completed for 2002-2003 (Elementary Literacy, Secondary Literacy, and K- 12 Mathematics/ Science). Mid-November 2002 Mid-November 2002 Mid-November 2002-February 2003 December 2002-February 2003 December 2002- February 2003 March 15, 2003 March 1, 2003 8 Ken James Compliance Team Bonnie Lesley Ken James Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Ken James Bonnie Lesley Attorneys Compliance Committee Bonnie Lesley ~ - , ... - ~~~{ITif[ ., - --- 7'fff.ii-.ffuy~ ~ 11)'111,.&lt;11ii1fiT I ---- - -- --- -- ----~L...~_:_------~'-- - --- . - - - . . j 15. Publish RFPs to March 1, 2003 Bonnie Lesley identify external experts to Darral Paradis serve on each of the two staff teams for the Board's Program Evaluation Agenda (K-12 mathematics/ science external experts are provided by NSF). 16. Establish consulting Late March 2003 Bonnie Lesley contracts with the two external experts required for the Elementary Literacy and Secondary Literacy program evaluations. 17. Train each program May 2003 Bonnie Lesley evaluation team, including the external expert, on the requirements of the approved Compliance Plan and IL-R. 18. Monitor the completion May- October 2003 Bonnie Lesley of the work on all three program evaluations required in the Board's Program Evaluation Agenda. 19. Send copies of the With October 2003 Board Ken James completed Elementary agenda packet Bonnie Lesley Literacy program evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information. 20. Complete the October board meeting, Bonnie Lesley evaluation of the 2003 Pat Price Elementary Literacy program and place on the Board's agenda for approval. 9 - -~\1ifftnt - I' '1tfurr_-gJt,~ -- 'f&lt;[~f!(ofti:..'llhinE&lt; i -- -- --- , - --- ---- - _j --- --- ------ -- - ------- - - _,, ,_ - j 21. Send copies of the With November 2003 Board Ken James Secondary Literacy program agenda packets Bonnie Lesley evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information. 22. Complete the November board meeting, Bonnie Lesley evaluation of the Secondary 2003 Pat Price Literacy program and place on the Board's agenda for approval. 23 . Send copies of the With December 2003 Board Ken James completed CPMSA program agenda packet Bonnie Lesley evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information. 24. Complete the five-year December board meeting, Bonnie Lesley evaluation of the CPMSA 2003 Vanessa Cleaver project (science and Dennis Glasgow mathematics) and place on the Board's agenda for approval. 25. Write Section 2.7.1 March 15, 2004 Ken James Final Compliance Report Attorneys for federal court and file Compliance Team with Court. 1 Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in Little Rock School District Prepared by Steven M. Ross, Ph.D. The present guidelines are based on my review of the Revised Compliance Plan, the LRSD standards for program evaluation, and evaluation report drafts and associated materials related to the eight programs identified as requiring "final" evaluation reports. My analysis of this material, combined with my experiences as an educational researcher and familiarity with the Joshua case as it affected LRSD, was influenced by the following assumptions: Invalid or questionable evaluation results can be much more detrimental than helpful to efforts to improve educational practices, and should not be disseminated without strong cautions and qualifications. Accordingly, studies that lack proper controls against bias or contamination from extraneous factors (e.g., differential sampling, history, diffusion of treatments) have limited value for guiding policies. Program evaluations that focus predominately on student achievement outcomes while lacking sufficient implementation data have reduced value due to inability to determine the nature of the "treatment." The study will also fail to inform policymakers about the practicality of the program, how it was used and reacted to by stakeholders, or whether and/or how it needs to be improved to impact atrisk learners. Evaluations of programs that have been discontinued in the district are of much less interest relative to ones that are presently being implemented or informing ongoing practices. To raise the achievement of African American students in LRSD, attempting to resuscitate existing studies that have insufficient data available, limited relevance to current practices, or require substantial time and resources with little promise of yielding useful information for policy decisions would be less productive than employing the "lessons learned" from the prior evaluation work to support high quality and informative future studies. One such lesson is that the LRSD research department (formerly PRE) was understaffed to perform evaluations of the quality and quantity needed. Based on the above assumptions, I will recommend below a basic strategy for the third-party evaluators to use in preparing the eight identified evaluations for approval by the school board. Four of the evaluations concern programs that are no longer in use by LRSD and have limited or no relevance to programmatic decisions (Lyceum Scholars, Elementary Level Summer Schools, Vital Link, and Onward to Excellence). Of the remaining four evaluations, two have limited available data (Middle School Transition and Campus Leadership Teams) that, even with supplementary analyses, would not permit confident (valid) decisions to be made about program effectiveness 1 ' EXHIBIT B 2 in general or about African American student achievement resulting from program participation. A seventh evaluation (Extended Year Education) could possibly yield informative evidence about an ongoing program, but to be sufficiently refined would require time and resources extending significantly beyond the current conditions for project completion. An eighth evaluation (HIPPY) also deals with an ongoing program, but unlike the others could possibly provide useful evidence through revisions completed within the available time frame. Accordingly, the HIPPY report is currently being rewritten by Dr. Ed Williams from LRSD. The suggested plan for the third-party evaluators is presented below followed by a brief review of each evaluation. A. Submit the current evaluation report as an attachment to a supplemental document as described in B-D. B. The supplement should begin with an expanded description of the program, its goals, and its history in LRSD. It should then describe the evaluation methodology and summarize and interpret the key findings. C. Most importantly, the supplement should discuss the limitations (and any strengths where indicated) of the evaluation with regard to: (a) informing current practices in LRSD; (b) using appropriate methodology; and (c) addressing student achievement effects, especially in reference to African American students. D. Finally, the supplement should present suggestions for conducting stronger studies of similar programs in future evaluation studies. 1. Middle School Transition (Moore) This evaluation is in near-completed form and needs mostly editing and expansion. Because the middle school program is current and continuing, this evaluation study can be useful (mostly for guiding professional development and implementation improvement) for informing district strategies. The achievement results are fairly minimal and uninformative, but at the time of the evaluation (1999-2000), only baseline data existed. Thus, aside from providing additional description of the results (the tables and the narrative are sparse) and a more meaningful interpretation of trends (especially with regard to African American vs. Caucasian students), there is probably little more that needs to be done for this essentially baseline time period. The survey data appear to be reasonably analyzed and reported, but the interpretation and discussion should be extended to provide more meaningful conclusions and recommendations. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 3 2. Lyceum Scholars (McNeal) The Lyceum Scholars' High School Program, which was evaluated in 1998-99 and 1999- 2000, is no longer being implemented in LRSD. The latter consideration, coupled with the obvious limitations of the evaluation design with regard to rigor, depth, and meaningfulness of the data, substantially reduce the value of the study and the need for devoting more than minimal resources to it, beyond perhaps a supplemental summary and explanation. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 3. Elementary Level Summer School (McNeal) Similar to the Lyceum Scholars' High School Program (#2 above), the Elementary Level Summer School program is no longer being implemented in LRSD. In addition, the evaluation study conducted in the summer of 2001 is limited in its design and methodology. Among the major concerns are the lack of: (a) implementation data to describe the program strategies and the degree to which they were actually used by teachers, (b) an adequate control group or norms to which the achievement scores of summer school students could be compared, and ( c) qualitative data to describe the experiences of students and teachers in the program. Due to "differential sampling" the multiple tables provided are neither overly meaningful nor informative regarding the progress of summer school students in general and African American summer school students in particular. Seemingly, there is little useful information to be gained for informing future policies by investing substantive resources in revamping the study. While more suitable control samples might be established using archival data, the absence of implementation assessments would still make the "treatment" essentially unknown. Therefore, suggestions similar to those made for the Lyceum Scholars program are also offered here. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 4. Vital Link (Ross) The Vital Link program, designed to provide students with on-the-job experiences, was offered to 394 middle school students in the summer of 1999. Because the program was of very limited duration ( only one week) and is not focused on either academic curriculum or learning strategies, it is highly unlikely to have affected students' academic achievement. Although such a program would still potentially serve a useful purpose for fostering student motivation to achieve and complete school, it is no longer being implemented in LRSD. Further, the evaluation study conducted was so limited (a brief post-test only, closed-ended survey) that the policy implications of the results are minimal and even potentially misleading if derived. Therefore, suggestions similar to 4 those made for the Lyceum Scholars Program and the Elementary Level Summer School Program (#'s 2 and 3 above) are again offered here. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 5. Onward to Excellence CSRD Program (Ross) The OTE model was implemented at Watson Elementary School for several years, starting in 1999. It has since been discontinued and was never formally evaluated, except for achievement data reports sent by the principal to ADE. Thus, in essence, there is no longer any program in LRSD to evaluate and no evaluation report to revise, expand, or redraft. It would seem wasteful of resources to reexamine historical data from this program, especially since implementation data are lacking. That is, if positive or negative results were found, it would be impossible to determine whether OTE or numerous others factors were the main cause. Suggestions, therefore, are similar to those for #'s 2-4 above. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 6. HIPPY (Ross) Because HIPPY is a continuing program, this evaluation can be potentially useful to LRSD by providing initial program results on student achievement and benefits to African American children. A limitation of the study, which unfortunately cannot be remedied retroactively, is the lack of implementation data to describe the fidelity with which HIPPY program components were actually used. The quantitative achievement results must therefore be viewed cautiously, but should still be at least suggestive regarding program influences. Substantive expansion and revision, however, are needed to increase the readability and meaningfulness of the report. For example, there is inadequate description of the program, context, methodology, and analysis design. Tables and findings need to be presented in a more readable ("user-friendly") manner. Suggestions: A. Reorganize and expand the introduction and methodology to be in line with district evaluation standards (i.e., more context, more detailed methodology, clearer questions and organization). B. Ed Williams needs to run the revised analysis and write up results by January 31, 2003. A program description needs to be provided. Results need to be disaggregated, if possible, for African American and Caucasian students. Expand the Results sections to provide more informative reporting of outcomes, clearer tabular presentations, etc. C. Expand the Conclusions section to: (a) directly address whether there are implications for the achievement of African American and other disadvantaged groups (there probably are not at this stage), (b) more fully discuss implications and recommendations associated with the findings, and ( c) propose further evaluation research that will validly determine both implementation quality and influences of HIPPY on student achievement. D. The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy in expanding this report. 7. Extended Year Education (EYE) Report (Moore) 5 The EYE program is relevant to LRSD's current interests in improving academic achievement of its students. Unfortunately, the present evaluation design does not seem sufficiently sensitive to detect effects that might be attributable to EYE. Specifically, usage of whole-school data compared descriptively to district norms gives only a very surface examination of the schools' progress, with susceptibility to contamination by student mobility, differences in SES, etc. A more precise analysis would match students at the three schools to similar students at comparable schools not using EYE, and then examine progress using a multivariate-type (regression or MANOV A) analysis. It is questionable, however, that such analyses could be completed in the time remaining for the required submission of the final report. Also, the findings would be limited by having only two years of post-program data. Aside from the design limitations, the organization of the report is difficult to follow due to the many tables and brief but not very informative narrative descriptions. The survey data might be interpretable, but also need a much clearer and better organized presentation. Suggestions: The th1rd-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 8. Campus Leadership Teams (Ross) This initiative seems highly relevant to current and future goals ofLRSD. However, the "evaluation data" collected to date consist of only results from two district-wide surveys that assessed team members' reactions to various activities. No information exists to verify the representativeness of the samples, the validity of the data collection in general, or the implementation of the CLTs at the various schools. The aggregate survey results on the 24 combined items (14 in the team member survey; 10 in the certified/noncertified staff member survey) do not appear overly interesting or meaningful with regard to informing practice. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 12/3/02 II II II II II -,II -.. -- VOLUME IV RECEIVED MAR 1 4 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING II : VOLUME II II 1111 II II II -- -- \ - ~ III RECEIVED MAR 1 4 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MDNITDRING I I : I VOLUME I I II I ,I I RECEIVED I MAR 1 4 2003 I OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING I I I la I ' - - - - I I VOLUME I I I I 'II ' II II I I I I I RECEIVED MAR 1 4 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Mr. Michael E. Gans, Clerk United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse 111 S. 10th St., Room 24.329 St. Louis, MO 63102 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. A'ITORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Overnight Delivery March 20,. 2003 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 HENDERSON ROAD LITILE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72210 PHONE: (501) 372-3425 FAX (501) 372-3428 EMAIL: mchenryd@swbell.net RECEIVED '-ktl'JJ r D,?,/, vu tJ MAR ;vZ,)003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Re: Little Rock School District, Appellee v. Pulaski County Specia.l School District No.l, Defendants, Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al., Appellants, Katherine Knight, et al., Intervenors; Appeal Nos. 02-3867, 03-1147 Dear Mr. Gans: Enclosed you will find ten copies of Brief of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al. and Addendum and three copies of the Appendix of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al. for filing in the above matter. Also enclosed you will find a diskette as required by the rules. JWW:lp cc: All Counsel of Record I I I -I I I I I I I I I I I I IN THE UNITEffSTATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APPEAL NOS. 02-3867, 03-1147 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE V. R~S~'-Y0 MAR 2 o 2003 :l ; {fJ.-P PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL., DEFENDANTS OFFICE Of DESEGREG~llOM MOK\lORlMG MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., APPELLANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. BRIEF OF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. Elaine R. Jones President &amp; Director-Counsel Theodore Shaw Norman Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013-2897 212-965-2200 Rickey H. Hicks 1100 North University Suite 240 Little Rock, Ark. 72207 501-663-9900 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Ark. 72206 501-374-3758 Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Mass. 02421 781-862-1955 II II ---- II I I I II II I I I I IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APPEAL NOS. 02-3867, 03-1147 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE V. RECEIVED 1-1i,11-'ld - &amp;. f, -. eri--l PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL., DEFENDANTS MAR 2 O 2003 :Pfl--P OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., APPELLANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. BRIEF OF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. Elaine R. Jones President &amp; Director-Counsel Theodore Shaw Norman Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013-2897 212-965-2200 Rickey H. Hicks 1100 North University Suite 240 Little Rock, Ark. 72207 501-663-9900 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Ark. 72206 501-374-3758 Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Mass. 02421 781-862-1955 I le I I I I I I ,I , I I I I I I I I IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APPEAL NOS. 02-3867, 03-1147 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE v. RECEIVED (-h,.,d- /Je/,.,-t ..-ci PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL., DEFENDANTS MAR 2 O 2003 JI, , z-r " OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., APPELLANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. APPENDIX OF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. Elaine R. Jones President &amp; Director-Counsel Theodore Shaw Norman Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013-2897 212-965-2200 Rickey H. Hicks 1100 North University Suite 240 Little Rock, Ark. 72207 501-663-9900 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Ark. 72206 501-374-3758 Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Mass. 02421 781-862-1955 (&lt;- I I I I I I I I r I I I 'I IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APPEAL NOS. 02-3867, 03-1147 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE v. RECEIVED /b1Jc tJ./, ,eo,/ PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL., DEFENDANTS . MAR 2 0 2003 J{ : f2f) OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., APPELLANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. ADDENDUM OF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. Elaine R. Jones President &amp; Director-Counsel Theodore Shaw Norman Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013-2897 212-965-2200 Rickey H. Hicks 1100 North University Suite 240 Little Rock, Ark. 72207 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Ark. 72206 501-374-3758 Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Mass. 02421 781-862-1955 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/ PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCTNO. 1, ET AL. RECEIVED DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERJNE KNIGHT, ET AL. MAR 21 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING JOSHUA INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME The Joshua Intervenors, by and through their counsel, John W. Walker, P.A., respectfully move the Court for an extension of time in which to respond to Little Rock School District's Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Requested by Paragraph C of the Court's Compliance Remedy, and for cause states: 1. On March 14, 2003, LRSD served a Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Required by Paragraph C of the Court's Compliance Remedy on the Joshua Intervenors. 2. Due to undersigned counsel 's heavy trial schedule, including an extensive jury trial in federal district court over the past two weeks and the beginning of another jury trial on Monday, March 17, 2003 , in the matter of State v. Tyrone Gamble, Craighead County Circuit Court: CR-2000-0078 before the Honorable John Fogleman. It has become apparent that this matter will continue well into next week which precludes counsel from responding to the submission in a timely manner. .., .) . Therefore, undersigned counsel requests an extension of time to respond to LRSD's submission up to and including April 13, 2003. 4. There is no prejudice to any party by the granting of the delay. WHEREFORE, Joshua Intervenors respectfully request an extension of time of twenty _(20) days, up to and including April 13, 2003 , in which to respond to LRSD's Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Required by Paragraph C of the Court's Compliance Remedy. 12~J,~ 6 Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 Respectfully submitted, J . J . , .A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) Rickey Hicks, AR Bar No. 89235 Attorney at Law Evergreen Place 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 (501) 663-9900 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing hm~s~nt by fax and U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to all counsel of records, on this;;t' day of 00/4... , 2003: J~er ,.., .) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MRS. LORENE JOSIIDA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On March 14, 2003, LRSD_filed its Notice of Filing Program Evaluations as required by Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy in my September 13, 2002 Order. On March 20, 2003, Joshua Inte.rvenors filed a Motion for Extension of Time in which to r&lt;:spond. Counsel for Joshua cites a heavy trial schedule which would preclude him :from responding in a timely mwmer. No parties object to the extension. Therefore, Joshua's Motion (doc. no. 3747) is GRANTED, and Joshua Intervenors have until 12:00 p.m. on Monday, April 14, 2003, in which to respond to LRSD's Notice of Filing Program Evaluations. ~ IT IS SO ORDERED this~ day of March, 2003. ~~nJDGE FILED EAS U.S. DISTRICT COURT TERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAR 2 5 2003 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ~~:MES W. McCORMACK, CLERK WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED MAR 2 7 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD filed its motion for approval of a middle school site in Maumelle on October 22, 2002. Joshua raised certain questions concerning the proposed new school in its response - filed December 6, 2003, and the Court wrote a letter on January 28, 2003, to all of the parties making certain inquiries, particularly concerning recruitment to the new school for the proposed 200 seats that would be reserved for transferring M-to-M students. The parties have now responded, via pleadings, to the Court's letter. By and large, the following enumerated points are drawn from the supplemental responses of the parties, particularly those of PCSSD. On March 19, 2003, the Court circulated these enumerated points as a proposed order. All parties were given until March 24, 2003, at 12:00p.m. in which to file objections to the contents of the proposed order. As of today, March 25, 2003, no objections have been received. Therefore, I conclude that none of the parties have any objections to the proposed order. PCSSD's motion is hereby granted and the parties are directed to do the following: 1. The M-to-M stipulation, adopted as an order of this Court, presumes that transferring children entering the receiving district at one organizational level will continue DEP CLERK - their education at the next available organizational level and will be encouraged to do so. Hence, pursuant to the M-to-M stipulation, it is presumed that LRSD transferring students who have elected to attend Crystal Hill, Pine Forrest and Oak Grove elementary schools will continue their education in PCSSD at the next organizational level. The PCSSD shall look first to the number of transferring LRSD students currently attending the three elementary schools in PCSSD which would feed the Maumelle middle school. Further, the Court is informed that Sylvan Hills Middle School no longer has the capacity to accommodate all 6th grade M-to-M students who attended Clinton Interdistrict School through the 5th grade. Those students should be informed of their opportunity to attend the new middle school in Maumelle. Also, the seats proposed for reservation at the new Maumelle school shall not be limited to Little Rock students but should include eligible students from North Little Rock as well. 2. The Court is informed that Little Rock currently takes the laboring oar in educating students in the LRSD about the opportunities at Crystal Hill. Most of the student body from Little Rock at Crystal Hill represents those students who were unable to gain entry to Gibbs , Booker, Williams or Rockefeller and who elected to come to Crystal Hill. Since the PCSSD hosts those students for several years, including some who currently enter as pre-K students and leave currently as sixth grade students, the PCSSD has a daily audience of 400 Little Rock M-to-M students and frequent contact with their parents and guardians sufficient to sustain "on-going" recruitment for the middle school from the time these children enter Crystal Hill. Thus, while the PCSSD will continue to rely upon the LRSD to initially - encourage children to attend Crystal Hill, the PCSSD will assume principal responsibility for 2 convincing those children to continue, consistent with the M-to-M stipulation, their education at the Maumelle middle school. 3. The Court is informed that efforts will be made to recruit M-to-M students attending Crystal Hill, Oak Grove, Pine Forest, Clinton elementary schools, and Oak Grove Junior High School (7th grade). Parents of 4th , 5th , and 6th grade LRSD M-to-M students attending Crystal Hill, Oak Grove, and Pine Forest, 4th and 5th grade Clinton M-to-M students, and Th grade M-to-M students attending Oak Grove Junior High School will be informed of the District's intent to build a middle school at the proposed Maumelle site. The District's website will provide information to parents from the three Districts about the plans and progress of the proposed middle school. Parents and teachers will be surveyed to identify needs, concerns, and expectations . Data from the parent and teacher surveys will allow input from the District's internal and external publics into the planning and implementation process at the Maumelle middle school. Parents of 4th and sch grade African American students in LRSD and NLRSD will also receive information about the new middle school in the Maumelle area. The Magnet Review Committee will also assist with recruitment. 4. The LRSD personnel primarily responsible for recruitment and assignment to stipulation magnet schools will continue to be those persons principally responsible for educating LRSD children regarding Crystal Hill. Once the children reach Crystal Hill (as well as Pine Forrest and Oak Grove elementary schools), the teachers and counselors who work in those buildings will have principal responsibility for discussing the middle school with children and their parents and guardians. The PCSSD Department of Equity and Pupil Services and the Student Assignment Office will work with LRSD, NLRSD, and Magnet 3 - Review Committee personnel to recruit African American students for the proposed middle school. 5. LRSD will give PCSSD recruiters full access to students and parents through the LRSD schools. 6. The LRSD will be responsible for making sure that transportation for transferring students is adequate. 7. A parent/teacher committee drawn from the existing Maumelle middle school facility committee has been formed to evaluate and recommend unique and attractive programs to attract M-to-M students. A representative from Joshua will be invited to participate. This Committee will evaluate and recommend unique and attractive programs with, as a starting point, determining whether the current program at Crystal Hill Elementary School should be extended to the middle school. This program emphasizes communications with an emphasis upon technology and basic skills. 8. The PCSSD will follow the middle school plan previously developed and presented to the Court with appropriate refinements and additions. The final middle school plan was approved by this Court on June 4, 2001. 9. Given the foregoing, the PCSSD's proposal to acquire a site at the intersection of Murphy and Carnahan Drive for a new middle school is hereby approved. IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of March, 2003. DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE ' ~ll~~~~L,,f1 ~8 AN~RCF --='~0/~BY ~D~ United States District Judge Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. 4 I ie i I i -i -I,_ I I I I I I ~ I E 2002-03 ENROLLMENT AND RACIAL BALANCE IN THE PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Ann S. Marshall Federal Monitor March 26, 2003 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Polly Ramer Office Manager UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED MAR 2 7 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 AD E's Project Management Tool for March 2003 . Respectfully Submitted, MIKE BEEBE Attorney General ~~ COLETTE D. H0NRABLE#96016 Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-8123 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Colette D. Honorable, certify that on March 25, 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 ~ ColetteD.Honora 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED MAR 2 7 2003 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 ADE's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS A. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of March 31 , 2003 Basedonthe .informatitinavafiab(e a.i F~bri}arY:-2a, :20O3,:the Ap ~-caicuiated 'the EqUaiizatiori Funding for:FX.02103):JiuB1ed fo per,adic.aei}ustments: 8. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 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>