Court filings regarding Joshua intervenors' corrected proposed findings of fact with respect to show cause hearing and witness summaries, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) witness summaries and responses to Court orders, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) notice of no objection to order, 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 filings: District Court, order; District Court, the Joshua intervenors' corrected proposed findings of fact with respect to the show cause hearing of Monday, November 7, 2005; District Court, Joshua's witness summaries; District Court, response to Court's October 31, 2005, order - Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) witness summaries; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) notice of no objection to order; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to order; District Court, Joshua's response to the court's order of November 8, 2005; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to order; District Court, order; District Court, Joshua intervenors' reply to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to the court's order of November 7, 2005; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to the Joshua intervenors; District Court, order; 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. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866-WRW IJTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KA THERINE KNIGHT, et al. ORDER RECEIVED NOV - 3 2005 DE8EBREajV,b~ 8~NITORJNa PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD's Motion for Excused Absence (Doc. No. 3961) is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of November, 2005. Isl Wm. R.Wilson,Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 MIME-Version:1.0 From:ecf_ support@ared.uscourts.gov - o:ared ecf@ared . uscourts.gov 91essage-Id:&lt;5l2094@ared . uscourts . gov&gt; Bee: Subject:Activity in Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Little Rock School , et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al "Order" Content-Type: text/plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing.U .S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered on 11/1/2005 at 10:47 AM CST and filed on 11/1/2005 Case Name: Little Rock School , et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 http : //ecf . ared.uscourts . gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?26052 WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Document Number: 3962 Copy the URL address from the line below into the l ocation bar of your Web browser to view the document: http://ecf.ared . uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_case_doc?3962,26052,,MAGIC,,,2005244 Docket Text: ORDER re (3961] granting Request filed by Pulaski County Special School District for an excused absence . Signed by Judge William R. Wilson Jr. on 11/1/05. (dac ) The following document(s) are associated with this transaction : Document description: Main Document ~ riginal filename: n/a ~ lectronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=l095794525 [Date=ll /1/200 5] [FileNumber=512093-0] [5el74b586773ed0230654b2ff6782410ddaf90592349b8d34ebe9e8fb838193bb8219d5e7deb637 37eb5a09d3233276cfeb29684853d6c3748clfdl47bc9d63b]] 4 : 82-cv-866 Notice will be electronically mailed to: Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com, John Clayburn Fendley, Jr fendleyl@alltel.net, Mark Arnold Hagemeier mark.hagemeier@arkansasag.gov, belecia .bledsoe@arkansasag . gov Christopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec . net; tmiller@fec.net M. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com Stephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, kate.jones@jlj.com Philip E. Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw.net, nmoler@kbmlaw .net Sharon Carden Streett scstreett@comcast.net , scstreett@yahoo . com John W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, lorap72297@aol.com; jspringer@gabrielmail.com _ :82-cv-866 Notice will be delivered by other means to : Clayton R . Blackstock Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers &amp; Sneddon, PLLC 1010 West Third Street Post Office Box 1510 Little Rock , AR 72203-1510 Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense &amp; Educational Fund, Inc. a,9 Hudson Street 9:uite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn, Jr Thompson &amp; Llewellyn, P . A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Office of Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock , AR 72201 William P . Thompson Thompson &amp; Llewellyn , P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 .,I - ,,. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED NOV 7 2005 Off\CE Of DESEGREGAl\OM MOMtlORlMG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' CORRECTED PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT WITH RESPECT TO THE SHOW CAUSE HEARING OF MONDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2005 The Court's Order of June 30, 2004 was explicit and understood by the parties. This is reflected by the fact that no party sought clarification or other action thereon. The LRSD officials appear to oppose the remedy set forth by the Court. It is reflected in their inactions and overt actions as well as set forth below. 1. LRSD's evaluation plan is based in large part upon student achievement data being assembled by the ADE in connection with the "No Child Left Behind" requirements which the Arkansas Department of Education is charged with overseeing. 2. In previous years, the ADE distributed student achievement data in one phase. Those data were normally made available to LRSD and similar districts by July 1 of each year. 3. The LRSD assembled an essentially new staff for the Planning, Research and Evaluation Department (PRE) between September 2004 and November 2004. 4. The LRSD failed to understand the ADE's timing for the release of student achievement data to LRSD regarding the 2004-2005 results. 5. The ADE changed the process during the summer of 2004 in order to address additional grade levels, to establish new "cut-off' scores for determining "proficiency," and for other ADE purposes. 6. Between July 1, 2004 and December 1, 2004, ADE officials created committees to address new testing issues contemplated by the "No Child Left Behind" Act. 7. As of September 23, 2004, three months after the Court's June 30, 2004 Order, the District had not hired Dr. Steve Ross. See notes of Gene Jones, p. 2. Indeed, Dennis Glasgow, Acting Associate Superintendent, reported that sentiment was against using him because he was not an advocate for the LRSD. See G.J. Memo, p. 1. 8. On December 9, 2004 the ADE distributed a video document to LRSD school officials which notified the PRE that test data distribution from ADE would be delivered in two rather than one phase as had been done in the past. The second "phase" was to be distributed in the "fall" of 2005. The ADE was explicit in notifying the LRSD that Phase I data would not be sufficient to allow a determination of appropriate student placement on the benchmark examinations. Phase II data, due in the fall, would allow placement of students into one of four rating categories. A copy of the video is being delivered to the Court by the ADE. 9. LRSD should therefore have known in December 2004 that additional time was . necessary in order for it to comply with the time requirements of the Court's June 30, 2004 Order. 10. That the LRSD knew in December 2004 that additional time was necessary to meet the Court's October 1, 2005 deadline for filing the step 2 evaluations is reflected in the response - for documents to Mr. Phil Kaplan dated October 31, 2005. Therein, Mr. Gene Jones reflects that on December 16, 2004, ODM met with PRE staff and explained that the "states benchmark tests will not be available in electronic format until September of each year. The group thought they should consult with the outside consultants before deciding how to proceed." 11. In February 2005, Mr. Heller wrote Mr. Walker to explain that he intended "to ask the Court to extend the deadline for filing evaluations." See Ex. A, hereto. Heller attached letters from Dr. Stephen Ross and Mr. James Wohlleb at the time. Dr. Ross referenced past time experiences with ADE. Mr. Wohlleb expected the ADE data by mid-July. 12. The Wohlleb and Ross letters reflect that neither they nor PRE had an understanding that the ADE would be providing the data in two phases; and that the necessary electronic data needed for the step two evaluations would not be available until the fall (October) 2005. 13. Ross was not hired until February 1, 2005. Accordingly, he had no contact with the ADE before that and would not have knowledge about the actual dates that he could expect the electronic data necessary for his work. 14. On March 15, 2005, Mr. Heller informed ODM that LRSD would not be requesting an extension of the October 1, 2005 deadline for the reason that LRSD expected to have the data by July 1, 2005. IfLRSD didn't get the data by July 1, then Mr. Heller indicated he would then ask for an extension of time from the Court. 15. Mr. Heller has indicated that he spoke with Joshua Counsel Walker in June or July, 2005 and that Mr. Walker announced opposition to delay. Response to the Court dated October 4, 2005. Mr. Heller took no further action regarding the matter. Opposition by counsel is not a sufficient basis to excuse the District's failure to promptly act. 16. Between March 2005 and September 29, 2005, the District reduced the PRE staff by - three people, all of whom had been previously reported to the Court as "highly trained professional" staff members. They have not been replaced. This is a further indication of the seriousness with which the LRSD addressed the Court Order. 17. Between June 30, 2004 and November 3, 2005, the only contact between Dr. Gail Potter, ADE Associate Director for Curriculum and Research and Dr. DeJarnette involved whether a non certified staff member could hold the position of testing coordinator. That occurred a few weeks ago. Neither Dr. DeJarnette, nor Mr. Heller, made any inquiry of whether the required data could be produced within the time frame approved by the Court. D.r. Potter indicated that it could have been produced although there were some costs associated with earlier production. 18. Dr. Potter further indicated that the LRSD had not met with her or her office staff regarding LRSD's compliance with the Court's June 30, 2004 Order. 19. According to Dr. Potter, the 2003 Legislature required the two phase process for production of Benchmark data. Mr. Heller, therefore, should have known in the fall of 2004 and the spring of2005 that the two phase process would change the time equation set forth by the Court. 20. The reasons proffered by the LRSD establish that they knew, and knew that they should have known, that the deadline of October 1, 2005 for plan compliance could not be met and they deliberately refused to promptly so inform the Court and seek delay. 21. The excuse for failure to seek early Court approval for compliance with its October 1, 2005 deadline is that the district's counsel was busy with another important case. The Court notes that the district counsel are several; that the District is represented by the States's largest law firm, and that other counsel are assigned to work on this case; and that when called upon to reply to the Show Cause Order herein, the District and its lead counsel took it seriously and. promptly complied. They hired not only outside counsel for Mr. Heller but for the District as well. That counsel filed the pleading for the District. The District could equally seriously have addressed the June 30, 2004 Order. Its refusal to do so is contemptuous. The action required was simple; the District's refusal to promptly request an extension oftime was wilful. Respectfully submitted, ls/John W. Walker John W. Walker, AR Bar No. 64046 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Facsimile) Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 2nd day of November, 2005, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF System, which shall send electronic notifications to all counsel associated with this case and by other means to counsel listed below. Clayton R. Blackstock Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers &amp; Sneddon, PLLC IO IO West Third Street Post Office Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Norman J. Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense &amp; Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson &amp; Llewellyn, P.A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 ls/John W. Walker ..,,:;ui. vv1J..J..1Lvvv a."t. ii:vo:'i.J. - zrom to Pl/~ FRIDAY FRIDAY ELDREDGE &amp; CL\RK ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL A VENUE Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 www.fridayfirm.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The infonnation in this facsimile transmittal is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of the transmittal is strictly prohibited. If you receive this transmittal in error, please immediately notify us by telephone, and return the original transmittal to us at the above address via the United States Postal Service. Thank you. Fax To: Fax No: GeneJones 371Q100 Subject: JOSHUA'S WITNESS.SUMN!ARIES. Message: Date: 03 November 2005 5A 11 :08 Pages"Sent: 5 . Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW..JTR Document 3964-1 Filed 11/02/2005 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION LITTLEROCKSCHOOLDISTRICT v. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAJNTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS THE JOSIIlJA INTERVENORS' REPLY TO THE DIRECTIVE OF THE COURT DA TED OCTOBER 31, 2005 The Court seeks as explanation for LRSD' s failure to promptly inform the Court that it needed an extension of time in which to meet the October 1, 2005requirements of the Court's June 30, 2004 Order. The burden is on the District to explain wh.y delay was not promptly sought. The active parties have submitted extensive lists of witnesses through whom the Court's limited concern would be addressed on November 7, 2005. Joshua acknowledges its initial witness list to have had a broader agenda than the issue to be addressed at the hearing. Accordingly Joshua reduces its witness list to the persons called by the defendants and to the following other persons with a summary of their anticipated testimony if they are not called by the LRSD: 1) Dr. Roy Brooks: his involvement in the process was minimal, not an agenda item for him or .the Board and he did not meet Dr. Steve Ross before the show cause order. Further, that Mr. Heller did impress upon him the significance or importance of the Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3964-1 Filed 11/02/2005 Page 2 of 4 time requirements of the Order although they met frequently between July 1, 2004 and October 6, 2005 on other matters. 20 minutes 2) Dr. Hugh Hattabaugh: his involvement in the process was also minimal; not an agenda item for him or the Board and he, too, did not meet Dr. Steve Ross before the show cause order. Further, that Mr. Heller did not impress upon him the significance or importance of the time requirements of the Order although they met frequently between July 1, 2004 and October 6, 2005 on other matters. 15 minutes 3) Dr. Olivine Roberts: (a) the interaction between herself, Dr. DeJarnette, the Joshua Intervenors, the State Department of Education, the PRE staff, the expert witnesses, Ors. Brooks and Hattabaugh and Mr. Chris Heller; (b) her minimal involvement in the process; and, (c) her failw:e to ever meet and discuss any evaluation issue including the need for additional time.for compliance with Joshua.. the ODM or the State Department of Education. 45 minutes 4) Joy Springer: (a) will address Mr. Heller's contentions in his reply dated October 4, 2005. She will establish that Mr. Heller informed Joshua in February 2005 that the Benchmark results would not likely be prepared prior to September 2005; (b) that JWhen Mr. Heller appeared before the Eighth Circuit on April 12, 2005, he presented Dr. DeJamette and Dr. Brooks as he indicated that the district was complying with this Court's Order while appealing; ( c) Joshua's efforts to be involved in the process; (d) that LRSD and Mr. Heller knew long before September 29, 2005 that LRSD would not likely be able to meet the deadline; and (f) LRSD did nothing to advance receipt of the data from the processing sources. 30 minutes 2. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3964-1 Filed 11/02/2005 Page 3 of 4 5) Mr. Dennis Glasgow: he will address his efforts to prevent Dr. Steve Ross' further participation in the evaluation process, and his efforts to delay compliance activities. 30 minutes 6) Mr. Gene Jones: will addtess the knowledge of ODM regarding the process, the advice givei;i by ODM regarding extending the Court ordered time, and the response ofthe LRSD to that advice. 30 minutes Respectfully submitted. ls/John W. Walker: John W. Walker~ AR Bar.No. 64046 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock. AR 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Facsimile) Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 uou; v~, ,.J.i.1 ~vv;.; &lt;:1.. c. .1..i. : .i.v: vo - .i:rom - to Pb/ 5 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3964-1 Filed 11J0212005 Page 4 of4 CERTIFICATE Q)f SERYJCE I hereby certify that on this 2nd day of November, 2005, l electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF System, which shall send electronic notifications to all counsel associated with this case and by other.means to counsel listed below. Clayton R. Blackstock Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner; Ivers &amp; Sneddon, PLLC 1010 West Third Street Post Office Box 1510 Little Rock. AR 72203-1510 Norman J. Cbachkin NA.'\CP Legal Defense &amp; Educational Fund, .Inc. 99 Hudson Street L Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger- Arkansas Attorney General's Office Catlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center. Street Suite200 -Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn. Jr. Thompson &amp; Llewellyn. P:A. 412 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 ls/John w. Walker 4- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RESPONSE TO COURT'S OCTOBER 31. 2005 ORDER - LRSD'S WITNESS SUMMARIES PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS In response to the Court's Order of October 31, 2005, LRSD submits the following summaries of the expected testimony of its witnesses. LRSD estimates that the direct examination of each witness will take thiliy minutes. LRSD does not expect to can Dr. Brooks a,; a witness, as the PRE witnesses who report to Dr. Brooks can provide the same information he would provide. l. Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring l Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Jones is expected to testify that he had primary responsibility within the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to monitor LRSD's implementation of the Court's June 30, 2004 Compliance Remedy; that LRSD' s Department of Planning, Research and Evaluation (PRE) was cooperative and helpful; that he had access to all relevant document,; and notice of all relevant meetings with the possible exception of a recent visit by Dr. Catterall which took place on October - 17, 2005; that LRSD hired qualified experts to perform the required Step 2 program evaluations; that OC:11~ V.)/.1..1./.GVVO a"'t .1.1:01:.L::&gt; - .from to p3/ 11 PRE worked diligently to support those experts in their work; that LRSD also hired experts to perform additional program evaluations not required by the Court's compliance remedy; that he provided regular reports to the Court concerning the status of LRSD' s compliance; that PRE, as far a.c; he knows, provided Joshua access to relevant documents and notice of relevant meetings concerning the Step 2 evaluations with the possible exception of a recent visit by. Dr. Catterall which took place on October 17, 2005; that LRSD changed the subject of one proposed Step 2 evaluation at the request of the Joshua intervenors; that the Step 2 evaluations which were due on October 1, 2005 require data from the Arkansac; benchmark exams for their completion; that such data was not available in a form useful to LR.SD' s experts before October 1; that the reporting of Arkansas benchmarkresults is entirely within the control of the Arkansas Department of Education; that there is nothing LRSD could have done to ha,;ten the reporting of benchmark exam results; that in late 2004 and early 2005 LRSD considered seeking and extension of the October 1, 2005 deadline for four Step 2 evaluations; and that by March, 2005 LRSD had decided to wait to see if the State supplied the test scores from the Spring 2005 testing in time for the District to meet the deadline; that LRSD notified him of that decision and that he notified the Court. 2. Dr. Karen DeJarnette Little Rock School District Planning, Research and Evaluation 3&lt;Yh &amp; Pulaski Streets LiUle Rock, AR 72201 Dr. Karen DeJarnette is expected to testify that she is director of PRE and has been since September 17, 2004; that implementing the compliance remedy has been PRE' s top priority during the time she hac; been it,; director; that she and her staff at PRE have worked diligently to implement the compliance remedy; that LR.SD hired Dr. James S. Catterall, a qualified expert, to evaluate it,; 2 uou&lt;. v~1.1.11 ..cuuo at: .1.L: o,: 4;j - trom - to p4/ ll "I Year-Round Education (YRE) program; that LRSD hired Dr. Steve Ross. a qualified expert, to perform the Step 2 evaluations of SMART/fHRIVE, Compa'is Learning, and Reading Recovery; that Drs. Catterall and Ross were provided copies of the compliance remedy and that they each signed a Memorandum of -Understanding on February 1, 2005 agreeing to conduct the Step 2 evaluations in accordance with the compliance remedy; that they were actively involved in the design and planning of Step 2 evaluations beginning in 2004; that PRE worked cooperatively with ODM and Joshua, providing them access to documents and notice of meetings so that they would be constantly aware of LRSD' s progress in meeting the requirements of the compliance remedy; that, beginning in December 2004 through March 2005, LRSD considered the question of whether to seek an extension of the October 1, 2005 deadline for submission of the Step 2 evaluations so that PRE and the LRSD Board of Directors would have more time to review the evaluations prior to their submission to the Court; that those discussions were predicated on the belief that benchmark exam resultc; would be available in July 2005; that during February or March, 2005, LRSD raised the question of additional time with the Joshua Intervenors and was told that Joshua would oppose any such request; that LRSD decided in March 2005 not to make a request for an extension of time and notified ODM of that decision; that the LRSD Superintendent and Board of Directors expected PRE to meet the requirement,; of the Compliance Remedy; that the Step 2 evaluations which were due on October 1, 2005 required data from the Spring 2005 administration of the Arkansac; benchmark examinations; that in order to be useful to Ors. Catterall and Ross, that data must be in digital form; that the benchmark examination results were not available in digital form before October 1, 2005 although PRE had a good faith belief that they would be available in July 2005; that the reporting of Arkansa,; benchmark examination result'i is entirely within the control of the Arkansa'i 3 ot:;ui, v~1.1J.1:.cvvo a-c .1.1:::&gt;tj : .L4 - rom - to p5/ll Department of Education; that there was nothing LRSD could have done to hasten the reporting of the necessary benchmark examination results; and that no one in PRE or anywhere within LRSD did anything for the purpose of avoiding or delaying compliance with the Compliance Remedy; that the requested extension of time wa,; made in good faith bac;ed on a belief that it is necessary to secure high quality evaluations in accordance with the Compliance Remedy; and that the delay will not reduce the usefulness of the evaluations to LRS_D - they will be used to make any indicated program changes for the 2006-07 school year, just as they would have been used had they been received on October 1, 2005. 3. Dr. James S. Catterall Professor University of California P. 0. Box 951521 Los Angeles, CA 90005 Dr. Catterall is expected to testify in accordance with his Affidavit which was previously filed in this case. Dr. Catterall will be available by telephone on November 7, 2005 at 310--455- 2720. 4. Dr. Steven M. Ross Fadree Professor and Director Center for Research in Educational Policy 325 Browning Hall Memphis, TN 38152-3340 Dr. Ross is expected to testify that he was hired to perform three Step 2 evaluations for the 2004-05 school year in accordance with the Court's June 30, 2004 Compliance Remedy; that he has been hired to conduct three Step 2 evaluations for the 2005-06 school year in accordance with the 4 Sent 03/11/2005 at 11:58 :36 - from - to pS/11 Court's June 30, 2004 Compliance Remedy; that PRE has been cooperative and responsive in supporting his work and providing him any requested assistance; that 2004-05 final benchmark examination results (not raw data) in a usable digital format are necessary for him to complete the Step 2 evaluations which were due on October 1, 2005; that such information is not yet available; and that LRSD has done nothing to hinder or delay his efforts to perform Step 2 evaluations in accordance with the requirements of the June 30, 2004 Order. He will further testify that all of the field work necessary to accomplish the evaluations wa.,; completed in a timely manner and that he was waiting for the benchmark examinations so that the work of integrating these tests scores could complete the evaluations; that it was only the receipt of the exam results which prevented him from completing his a.-;signment. 5. Jim Wohlleb Little Rock School District Planning, Research and Evaluation 3Qlh &amp; Pulaski Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Jim Wohlleb is expected to testify that he began work for LRSD on October 1, 2004-as a statistical research specialist within the PRE Department. Beyond that, his testimony is expected to be substantially the same a,; that of Dr. Karen DeJarnette. 6. Dr. Gayle Potter Associate Director Academic Standards and Assessment Arkansas Department of Education #4 State Capitol Mall, Room 106A Little Rock, AR 7220 I 5 Dr. Gayle Potter is expected to testify that she is Associate Director for Academic Standards and Assessment at the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE); that she is the person within ADE primarily responsible for testing in general and the Arkansac; benchmark examinations in particular; that the benchmark examination results for the 2004-05 school year were originally expected to be releac;ed in July 2005; that on June 23, 2005 ADE issued an informational memo to Arkansas Superintendents notifying them that committees were "working to reset the cut scores for each performance level of the Benchmark Exams" and consequently the examination results would be issued in two phac;es; that Phac;e I would consist of cd' s containing raw score reportc; which would be shipped to districtc; no later than July 1, 2005; that "assumptions about whether a student is proficient cannot be made based on raw scores"; and that "Phase II Reports placing students into new performance levels will be issued in the fall of 2005"; that the digital benchmark data necessary for statistical analysis will be releac;ed in mid-November; that releac;e of the benchmark examination results is entirely within the control of the Arkansas Department of Education and iL'i contractors; that LRSD has done nothing to delay the relea'ie of the results; and that there is nothing LRSD could have done to hasten the release of the digital data required by its experts to complete their Step 2 evaluations. 7. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE &amp; CLARK 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 Christopher Heller will testify that he filed a Motion to Extend Time on September 29, 2005 - ba'ied on a good faith belief, after rea'ionable inquiry, that the matters presented in that Motion were 6 ben~ 03/11/2005 at 11 : 59:25 - from - to p8/ll true; that he filed a response to the Court's September 30, 2005 Order on October 4, 2005 based on a good faith belief, after reasonable inquiry, that the matters presented in that response were true; that, having now had the oppo\tunity to review hundreds of emails and other documents, he believes that the conversation with counsel for Joshua described at page 2 of "LRSD's Response to Order" probably occurred in February or March rather than June or July. The principal reamn for not filing LRSD' s Motion to Extend Time sooner than September 29, 2005 was counsel's intense involvement on behalf of LRSD in Lake View v. Huckabee; that matter was scheduled as follows: May 5, 2005 Arkansas Supreme Court issues Per Curiam Order scheduling oral argument on May 19, 2005; May 19, 2005 Oral Argument; June 9, 2005 Mandate recalled and Masters reappointed; July 8, 2005 Disclosure of witnesses and exhibits; June 28, 2005 Case conference with Masters; July 19, 2005 MUltiple daily depositions begin and continued for several weeks; July 26, 2005 Date of hearing as originally scheduled is rescheduled to begin on August 29, 2005 because parties cannot complete preparations; August 29 through September 9, 2005 Hearings; September 20, 2005 Post Hearing Briefs due. Counsel and PRE had anticipated that electronic data from the State of Arkansas would be available 7 bent 0~11112005 at 11:59:47 - from - to p9/11 in July and that the October 1, 2005 deadline could, therefore, be met. Counsel did receive an e-mail from Dr. DeJarnette on June 30, 2005 setting forth that the state benchmark scores could not be available in July. Counsel did not respond or react to that e-mail in a timely fa'ihion because of his involvement in the Lake View cac;e. Counsel did not recognize until September 2005 that the critical information would not be available, and it was then that the Motion to Extend Time was filed. Counsel will testify that it was an inadvertent but important omission on his part for which he accepts responsibility. Respectfully Submitted, Philip E. Kaplan (68026) :({aplan, Brewer, Maxey &amp; Haralson P.A. 415 Main Street Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 I (501) 372-0400 Pkaplan (q) kbmlaw. net Isl Philip E. Kaplan 8 .:::&gt;t::Ul:. V;j/l.l./,UU::&gt; at lZ:OO:OZ - from - to pl0/11 CERTWICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 3, 2005, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to the foJJowing: mark..hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj.com johnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl Philip E. Kaplan 9 ~eni u~111,~uuo at 11:56:33 - from to pl/ 11 FRIDAY FRIDA\ ELDREUGE &amp; CL\RK ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY P ARTNERSIIlP 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL A VENUE Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-349-J www.fridayflnn.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The infonnation in this facsimile transmittal is legally privileged and confidential information intended onlv for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, dis1nbution or copy of the transmittal is strictly prohibited. If you receive this transmittal in error, please immediately notify us by telephone, and return the original transmittal to us at the above address via the United States Postal Service. Thank you. Fax To: Fax No: GeneJones 3710100 Subject: Attached Response to October 31, 2005 Order Message: Date: 03 November 2005 5A 11 :55 Pages Sent: 11 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-1 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 1 of 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITI'LE ROCK DMSION LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW /JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee ("MR.C'') for approval - of the interdistrict magnet schools' final figures for the 2004-2005 school year and proposed budget for the 2005-2006 school year. The MR.C communicated the budget to the Court in a letter dated September 22, 2005 (attached). I have attached a copy of the budget to this order, and if there are any objections, parties must respond within five days; otherwise, the :MR.C's final budget for the 2004-2005 school year and proposed 2005-2006 budget will be accepted as presented and become effective immediately. IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of November, 2005. /s/ Wm. R.Wilson,Jr, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE , ,,. . "' Case 4:82-cv-,Q0~66-WRVV.~TR ~ocumeJJt 3972-2 Filed 11/08/?005 Page 1 of 16 1V1agnet Kevzew Committee 1 ~ North M!1fn Street, Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 (501) 758-0156 {Phone} (501) 758--5366 {Fax} magnet@magnetschool.com {EMmail} September 22, 2005 The Honorable William R Wilson, Jr. Judge, u. s. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Little Rook, AR 72201 Dear Judge Wilson: Rece,veo w SEP 2 8. 2005 U n,S. R! Wllson .6. .. o. Drstrtct J , Jr. Of Ar'"-anUsadsg e On September 20, 2005, Mark Milholleo, CbiefFimmci.al Officer, Little Rock School District, provided the Magnet Review Cnnmrittee with the final figures for the 2004-05 budget, as well as the proposed budget for the 2005-06 school year. The information is contained in the attachment (Draft 1) and was furwarded to MRC members prior to their vote on Tuesday, September 20, 2005. The Magnet Review Committee, by formal motion and vote of S--0, with the Joshua Intervenors representative absent, approved the final budget for the 2004-05 school year, as well as the proposed budget for 2005--06. Listed below is a recap of the budget information which is now being presented to the Cotnt for approval: 1. FINAL 2004-2005 STIPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGET The total amount originally budgeted, $27,964.934.00, is based on a per-pupil expenditme of $7,237.00, ca1culated from the three quarter average enrollment of 3,864.00 students. Actual attendance records of3,862.90 students set the final budget figure at $27,948,760.00, and the final budget's per pupil expenditure at $7,235.00, or $2.00 less per pupil than originally budgeted. Thii final 2004-05 document reflects actual figures and takes into account the variables (salary, teacher retirement and health insurance changes) that were uncertain when the proposed budget was submitted in July, 2004. Included in the Summary portion of the budget information are the cost breakdowns for each school district and the State during this time period. "Pursue thePossihilities of Magnet Scht&gt;ofEnrollment~ ~ ~ I Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-ilTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 2 of 16 The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. -2- September 22, 2005 2. PROPOSED 2005-2006 STIPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS B~T The total proposed budget for the 2005--06 school year is $28,849,578.00, based on a proposed Average Daily Membership of3,862.90, which results in a perpupil expenditure of $7,468.00 and an increase of $233.00 over the 2004-05 actual rate. This proposed budget has taken into account increased salaries, fiinge ben~ insurance and teacher retirement. Included in the Summary portion of Draft 1 are the cost breakdowns for each school district and the State. The Magnet Review Committee respectfully requests the Court's review and approval of both the 2004-2005 flnaliud budget in the amount of$27,948,760.00, with a per pupil expenditure of$7,23S.OO, as well as the proposed 2005-2006 budget, attached herewith. The Magnet Review Committee is committed~ mahttauring the quality of the Stq)ulation magnet !!Chools. We will continue to work with the host district as we exercise stringent oversight of~ magnet schools' budget in an effort to achieve and ensure efficient management and cost containment to the greatest extent .poS811&gt;1e. , Sincerely, ~~~ Magnet Review Committee SM/DGC:sl Attachments: Actual 2004-2005 Stipulation Magnet Schools Budget (Draft 1) Pt-Qposed 2005-2006 Stipulation Magttet Schools Budget (Draft 1) cc: Office of Desegregation Monitoring . J, .. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 . . 6.0 $574,294 $574,594 $577,006 02 10.0 $700,207 $700.207 10.0 $704187 03 S allsts 40.0 $1,968 829 $1,994125 40.0 $2,060,208 04 Counselors 13.4 $750109 $711,567 13.4 $745,756 05 MedlaS 6.5 $351986 $335,378 6.5 $333386 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 3.0 $132,463 $132409 3.0 $135929 07 Mu 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 7.6 $427,864 $433,041 7.6 $442,679 10 ucatfon 9.6 $457,289 $506 10.0 $621519 11 Glfled 5.4 $294,408 $291 ,443 5.4 $296,023 12 Classroom 194.3 $9,737,515 $10 114 194.3 $9,892,360 13 Substitutes 0.0 $268,000 $257,280 0.0 $293,000 14 Other-Kind arten 16.0 $761,295 $776 058 16.0 $729,204 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 311.7 $16,424.258 $16,827 3122 $16 831.258 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 20.4 $608558 $602,689 20.4 $621 784 STAFF 16 Nurses 6.0 $277,088 $263,501 6.0 $273,520 17 CUstodlans 30.0 $598 78 $572,068 30.0 $572,556 18 nServlces 1.0 494 $52,231 1.0 $65 19 rofesslonals-Other 6.0 $211167 $213,521 6.0 $176869 20 Other--Aldes 23.8 $513183 $598,784 23.8 $490 064 21 F $5446,402 $6,029,813 . $0 TOTAL SUPP 872 $7720170 $7332608 $7744958 TOT $24,144,426 $24159815 $24,576 18 PURCHASED 22 Utilities 590300 620,218 : 589,700 SERVICES 23 Travel 42800 42,698 , . 40,000 (30} 24 Maintenance reements $0 $0 $0 - 25 Other 267,352 251,864 285368 TOTAL 30 900 452 914,780 915,068 MATERIAI..S, 26 sOfl!ce $0 $39 $40 SUPPLIES 27 lassroom 588,910 582,488 811,870 (40) 28 46795 31 586 45,470 29 Other 23,300 27685 , ..~,: 24,273 TOTAL 40 659,005 641,798 881 ,653 CAPITAL 30 211,819 105 033 70315 OUTLAY 31 $0 $0 $0 50 32 Other $0 $488 $0 TOTAL 50 211,819 105,521 70,315 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees 11 541 6,986 7,800 60 34 Other $0 $0 $0 TO 11,541 6,986 7,800 TOT 1782 817 1,669 085 1,874,836 TOT 25 927.243 25,828,900 26,451 052 TOT AL LINE ITEM ECO 2,037,691 2,119,860 :---- ,: $ 2,398,526 :__ "if'. - till ~ t:in~~'st~f MAGBK06.xls. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 4 of 16 .i, ~ ;~-;~:~i,:l;jji w~9 ~ni '~Mt=;~~=M,iJWff 2 :~~~ 6 Jtc Stioends $35 557 $43 227 $29 600 Other Objects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $1 849,008 $1,935 360 $2.194.000 Vocational $32 800 $16,764 $32 800 Athletlcs $81 826 $86.423 $101 626 Gifted Proarams $500 $498 $500 Plant Services $32,000 $31.667 $32,000 Reading $500 $500 $500 ~~ $0 $0 w English $1.500 $1,431 $1 500 Soeclal Education $4,000 $3.990 $4 000 Curriculum $2 000 xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $2.037,691 $2,119 860 $2,398 526 State of Arkansas $13,982467 $13,974041 LRSD $8,842,512 $8,958802 PCSSD $3,352998 $3336,095 NLRSD $1 786,959 $1,679 822 $1,733 20 Total Costs $27964934 $27948,760 $28,849 578 MAGBK06:xls, ' Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 5 of 16 . -:~ -::-:-:-:-::-:-:-:-:-:-; . . .: ...... ?~=:~::::::::~~::: if :: : - . 75 1.0 94,975 STAFF 02 Assl Ptin. 1.0 $ 70,337 70,337 1.0 $ 70,337 03 Specialists 7.0 $ 363,816 370,483 7.0 $ 364,972 04 Counselors 2.0 $ 116,229 87,048 2.0 $ 95,364 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $ 42,588 33,724 1.0 $ 43,n3 06 Art-PerfJProd. 3.0 $ 132,463 132,409 3.0 $ 135,929 07 Muslc 0.0 $0 0.0 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 0.0 09 Vocational 0.0 $0 o.o 10 s I Education 2.0 $ 121,944 $ 121,944 2.0 $ 121,944 11 Gifted 1.0 $ 54,561 $ 54,561 1.0 $ 54,561 12 Classroom 30.6 $ 1,513,308 $ 1,630,112 30.6 $ 1,587,319 13 Substitutes o.o $ 45,000 $ 43,200 0.0 $ 45,000 14 Other-Kin arten 6.0 $ 238,380 $ 275,604 6.0 $ 222,523 TOT AL CERTIFIED SALARY 54.6 $2 793601 $2914396 54.6 $2836,697 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $ 48,344 42,964 2.0 $ 54,128 STAFF 16 Nurses 1 46,709 49476 1.0 $ 49476 17 Custodians 81 000 n;i:31 4.0 $ 82029 18 Information Services 10,918 8,707 0.2 $ 10,928 19 Para rofesslonals-other $0 0.0 20 Other-Aides 121.n3 $ 106,757 6.0 $ 112,330 21 F e Benefits 20 910,605 $ 828,983 .-.. - ..- $ 922,519 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY $1,225349 $1,114,104 13.2 $1,231 411 TOTAL {10-20) $4,018,950 $4,028,500 ~ . $4,068,108 PURC~ED 22 Utllltles 73,000 $ 68,886 -:-:.;::-~:;.::::::-:;~:-'-,:~-: $' 73,000 - SERVICES 23 Travel 5,000 $ 3,243 ...... ..... ; $ 5,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements $0 :~.::::::;:;;::;::::~;::;::::;:;::;~-: ..,.,,, , ... , ... ,,,' 25 Other 31,440 ,..:~.,,..-..,.: '' &lt; $ 30650 TOTAL 30 $109,440 $106,650 MATERIALS, 26 Prln rs Office $0 .. SUPPLIES 27 R ular Classroom 90381 $ 104,328 $ 97,448 (40} 28 Media 9,500 $ 9,354 $ 11,000 29 Other 3,100 $ 3,989 $ 3,812 TOTAL 40 $102981 $117,671 ,:......, .... $112,260 CAPITAL 30 12.000 $ 4336 ,:,-~.y. -- $ 7000 ., ' OUTLAY 31 fr etc. $0 50 32 Other $0 TOTAL 50 $12000 $7,000 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees 2,500 1 000 60 34 Other $0 TOT $2,500 $1 $1 000 TOTAL $226,921 $228,910 TOTAL $4.245,871 .8 $4 7,018 TOTAL LINE ITEM $308 060 0 '' $353,589 : , *-"Atd&amp;N%% .f. .. ::: 'f ~ :m wm .: B!6USN Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 6 of 16 . Aihletic,s $0 $0- $0 ' ' GJfted , $1'63 $1~ RantServtcee $$,~ $6,060 . . .. $237 : . $229 . ~7 --- - -- ..- ------ - - - - UQat!Qn:=- -=--=- ::-..:....=.: :....c...;._ .. - ~ ..=;.:_ :_:_~ - - : ' ---~- - - . . . .. . . : ___ =._ .-. : .... ~- -- -...=..:...-'.:...--- -~---. ---~~~-~::::.... ' - Tota!J.lne Items. t Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 7 of 16 SUPPORT STAFF PURCHASED .SERVICES (30) 05 Med!aS 06 Art-PerfJProd. 12 Classroom 2 13 Substitutes 14 other-Kinde arten TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 15 Secretaries 16 Nurses 11 custodians 18 Information Services 0.2 $ 19 Para rofesslonals-Other 0.0 20 Other-Aides 4.4 $ 21 Fringe Beneflts{20) .~ i $ TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 12.6 TOTAL 10-20 ... ,. ....... . 22 Utflltles 23 Travel 24 Maintenance reements 25 Other TOTAL 30 MATERIALS, 26 ars Offu:e SUPPLIES t-2--7'-+===r;..;;C.,.:tass=roo"'--m---- (40) 28 Media CAPITAL OUTlAY 50 29 Other 30 32 Other TOTAL 40 TOTAL 50 OTHER 60 33 Dues and Fees 34 Other TOTAL LINE ITEM SECOND PA :,,.,, ,,, . '.:'i $0 $0 $0 47,284 n.2sa 928 538 38,000 265,011 $2122,798 88,824 38127 76,000 10,918 $ $0 86,934 $ 716,338 $ $1,017,141 $3139, $0 10,000 $ 1,541 $ $0 1,541 $ $179 751 $3 319,690 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 48,843 1.0 $ 74,295 1.4 1 022,752 21 .3 $ 36,480 0.0 $ 243055 5.0 $ $2,185 709 42.2 80,359 3.0 $ 40116 1.0 $ 70,190 4.0 $ 8,707 0.2 $ 0.0 154,392 4.4 $ 719,525 .... , . $ $1,073,289 $3,258998 53 791 12.6 89,431 ::: :-- 5,337 3903 : 98671 3,268 51,587 nno 937,752 38000 246,487 $2,088,601 82,152 41,328 75503 10,928 97,165 708,611 30 013 --- 95,513 nsoo 7,500 3125 88,125 8,500 8500 1,000 1,000 $193138 $3 297,427 $293,462 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 8 of 16 . e ... Athle.tlcs ..: .:- ::. - - . - xxxxxx - . - - Totaf Une Items - Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 9 of 16 SUPPORT STAFF PURCHASED SERVICJ:S (30} MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTIAY 50 OTHER 60 04 Counselors 1 05 Medias 06 Art-PerfJProd. 12 Classroom 16 13 SUbstltutes 14 Other-Kind arten TOT AL CERTIFIED SALARY 31 15 Secretar!es 1 16 Nurses 1 17 Custodians 18 Information Services 0.2 $ 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 0.0 20 Other-Aides 3.2 $ 21 Frln e Beneffts(20) ~ : $ TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 8.7 TOTAL 10-20 22 Utilltles 23 Travel 24 Maintenance reements 25 Other 29 Other TOTAL 40 30 TOTAL 50 33 Dues and Fees 34 Other TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL LINE ITEMS - SECOND PA 10,918 $ $0 77,786 $ 528,767 $ $765,423 327983 33800 S 3000 $ $0 29140 $65,940 $0 50784 1,795 2,000 54,579 136,519 $0 $0 136,519 500 $0 500 $ $257536 $2,585521 93,472 $0 247,541 51.456 1 61 ,583 1 70,775 54561 817 347 26880 104,205 $1527,820 38,153 28357 64,868 8,707 $741,165 $2,268 986 : 29,733 13,451 1 68,322 54,561 728,828 28,000 105,715 $1,523,399 30736 34548 67,314 10,928 60,630 510,816 27900 $68,900 35800 2,500 1,953 40,253 16904 16,904 1,000 1,000 $127,057 $2 365,429 $179,105 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 . . Filed 11/08/2005 Page 10 of 16' .. : . ./" '!:dl.acatlolil - . -_ff . . - . . , . . . .. . ... . ~:;;::::~::::_; ::_: ::;.::::_ ~ _ _ .:, ...- _- _ - _ --_i f_---,:,:-_-=-_--._ ...~ . ,~~=,-:=,c;:;,,.,:~----=~="1.:-::-- . . . - - - -- -. ... .__ . ---- - . - . .. . . . XXXXX)( _, . ---- - . -- -- ----: . __ ~- --- --- - - -- -- -------~-' l00000t . .. - ' -~:. Total Une Items -_: _ $151.496 . . - $157918 $119105 - - - - ' .:. 'Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 11 of 16 70337 283,755 ors 1 75572 1 05 Media 1 54,443 54,388 1 06 M-"Perf.JProd. 0.0 $0 .o 07 Music 0.0 $0 o.o 08 Fo 0.0 $0 o.o 09 0.0 $0 0.0 10 ducatlon 1.5 $ 54,633 $ 51091 1 75,776 11 2.0 $ 108 026 $ 108026 109,181 12 Classroom 21.0 $ 1010,387 $ 1009 996 21 1,015,873 13 Substitutes 0.0 $ 30,000 $ 28,800 54,000 14 other-Klnd arten 3.0 $ 153,344 153195 154499 TOTA!. CERTIFIED SALARY 36.9 $1934 678 $1,928 736 $1,987.218 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 77,568 $ 80878 86,520 STAFF 16 Nurses 1. 60086 $ 58864 1 58,864 17 Custodians 3. 68,278 $ 62,801 75,355 18 Information Services 0.2 $ 10,918 $ 8,707 10,928 19 Para[&gt;tofesslonals-Other 0.0 $0 20 Other-Aides 4.8 $ 55,023 $' 60,1 59,654 21 F e Beneffts(20} ~ $: 650,230 $ 544,76 660,432 TOTA!. SUPPORT SALARY 12.5 $922,100 $951,752 TOTAL 1Q..20 $2856m $2,938970 PURCHASED 22 Ut!lltles 60,000 60000 - SERVICES 23 Travel 3000 2000 (30) 24 Maintenance reements $0 25 Other 24527 $ 28,205 OTAL 30 87527 $ 90,205 MATERIALS, 26 Office $0 SUPPLIES 27 room 73500 62,520 82,600 (40) 28 7,100 16 4 700 29 3,200 3,084 2,904 83800 65620 90,204 CAPITAL 30 4,300 33,234 ;' : .. 6,911 OUTI.AY 31 Ir, etc. $0 50 32 Other $0 TOTA!. 50 4,300 6,911 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees 1 500 1500 60 34 Other $0 TO 1,500 2,5 1,500 TOT $177,127 $178, $188,820 $3,033,904 $2,922,99 $3127,790 TOT AL LINE ITEM ~ $233,789 $237,34 ;:, B.'1:~' : 111.or :. Qt . ' Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 12 of 16 ' 2005--06 $2150 $0 $260055 $0 Athletf $0 $122 Plant $3793 $59 $0 178 !al Education 237 xxxxxx XXXXXlC Total Line Items $233,789 $237347 $267068 &gt; I Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 13 of 16 as Medias 08 Art-PerfJProd. 07 09 12 Classroom 13 SUbstltutes 14 Other-Kinde arten TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY SUPPORT 15 Secretaries STAFF 16 Nurses PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY 50 OTHER 60 17 Custodians 18 Information Servfces 19 Paraprofesslonals-Other 20 Other-Aides 21 Frfn e Beneffls(20) . .. TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY TOTAL 10-20 22 Ut!Utles 23 Travel 24 Maintenance reements 25 Other TOTAL 30 26 rs Office 27 Classroom 28 Media 29 Other TOTAL 40 30 TOTAL 50 33 Dues and Fees 34 Other TOTAL LINE ITEMS SECOND PA ff:i@JtiS. ...,:. Ut:..Jr' .. 3.0 3.4 3.0 1.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 2.6 2.0 0.0 49.8 0.0 0.0 65.8 5.0 1.0 6.0 0.2 1.0 2.4 $172,922 $61583 $0 $0 $0 152,554 $85872 $0 $2,444329 $64,000 $0 $3401,755 $135,216 $40,000 $110000 $10,918 $25,000 $160107 $133,327 $2553,290 $61440 $3582,022 $140,551 $40 116 $107,978 $8,707 3.4 3.0 1.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 2.6 2.0 0.0 49.8 0.0 0.0 65.8 5.0 1.0 6.0 0.2 1.0 $174,168 $61 ,583 $167,562 $205 870 $2,562,745 $64,000 $3704,589 $144,132 $41 328 $109,965 $10,928 $78,162 $75,288 2.4 $75,615 $1,108,720 $1,057,353 '' : :,,, $1,183,245 $60735 $259,735 $0 $129 600 $6,000 $6,000 $141,600 $26000 $0 $0 $26000 $3,000 $0 $281,814 $124,494 $5790 $6,960 $137,244 $44,358 $44,358 $630 $3,000 $630 $430 335 $464,047 $5,340,106 $5 476,062 $469 490 $4 70, 103 $15,000 $1000 $1,000 $511,469 $5 781,271 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 14 of 16 , - -- ' ' - - , - Attlleb Gffled ~ Edt,u:atfoll . ~ ' : - Gru~ .. , . -: . .-::...:....:: ,,..:....: )OQ0Q0( .c~-=~ - - - .. TatalUnel!ems $470103 .. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW,JTR. ~ Document 3972-2 Filed 11/08/2005 Page 15 of 16 STAFF SUPPORT STAFF 05 MedlaS 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 12 Classroom 13 substitutes 14 other-Kind arten TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 15 Secretaries 16 Nurses 17 Custodians 18 Information Services 9.8 4.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 1.0 0.0 55.1 0.0 0.0 80.9 6.0 1.0 9.5 0.2 19 Para rofesslonals-Other 5.0 PURCHASED SERVICES (30) 20 Other-Aides 3.0 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 24.7 TOTAL 10-20 22 UtllHles 23 Travel 24 Maintenance reements 25 Other TOTAL 30 MATERIALS, ~2;:.;:6;..+:,-Prl.;.;;n'-"'cl=r;.;:;s..;:Offl=ce~--- - SUPPUES 27 R ular Classroom (40) 28 Media 29 other CAPITAL OUTLAY 50 32 Other TOTAL 50 OTHER 60 33 Dues and Fees 34 other $486,691 $514,050 $226 317 $224 976 $50 499 $50 499 $0 $0 $0 $275310 $60020 $0 $3043,074 $63000 $0 $4608,865 $221,944 $45,878 $198 000 $10,905 $186,167 $87,505 $1,531,743 $2,282,142 $6891 007 $168,000 $24,800 $272,933 $80863 $3080,766 $60,480 $4688,522 $219,785 $46,572 $188 995 $8,697 $213,521 $84,946 $2,157,859 $6 846,381 : : $181,796 : $15 972 :._ 4.0 9.8 4.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 1.5 0.0 56.1 0.0 0.0 82.4 8.0 1.0 9.5 0.2 5.0 3.0 $0 $94300 $287,100 $125,483 :-:~ - - - : ' $0 $180,145 $13,400 $5000 $198,545 $23,000 $0 $0 $23000 $2,500 $0 $2,500 $323,251 $39 $146,683 $9930 $6,967 $163 618 $19,837 $19837 $2701 JW% $105,050 $298904 $509,197 $230,123 $50499 $275117 $98,020 $3,059,843 $64,000 $4690 753 $ $10,915 $176,869 $84,670 $307522 $13,400 $6,980 $327942 $16,000 $16,000 $2,300 $511145 $509,406 $625 442 105.6 $7,402,152 $7,355.788 107.1 $7,582,118 62 259 "'.'.' : . , .,,,:: . 296 Q!P.J.ii ~ 'YWM ,.Ml\ Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3972-2 Page 16 of 16 ~ . _ , - ', , v .;, .v. . .,.-. 2004-05 2004-05 2005-08 ,500 $17,655 20750 $0 0 $0 Indirect $539n2 $556,534 $640,484 Vocational $18 513 $9,410 $18,611 Athletics $46,609 67851 $80 774 G rams $0 $0 $0 Plant $9,342 $9,106 $9,342 Read! $146 $144 $146 I $0 $0 $0 $438 $412 I Education $1168 $1147 Curriculum xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items $621,488 $662,259 $n2,296 1,110.82 M. SAMUEL JONES, Ill DIRECT DIAL 501 688 881 2 11!: MAIL S.JONll!:S@MWSGW,COM LAW O FF IC ES MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES &amp; WOODYARD, P.L.L.C. 425 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 1 800 LITTLE ROCK , ARKANSAS 72201 3525 TELEPHONE 501 6888800 FAX 5016888807 November 10, 2005 Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. United States District Court 600 W. Capitol Ave., Rm. 423 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al. U.S .D.C. No. 4:82CV00866WRW/JTR Dear Judge Wilson: RECEIVED NOV 1 4 2005 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONR'ORING !541 4 PINNACLE POINT DRIVE, SUITE 500 ROGE"R8, ARKAN BA 72758 81 31 TELE~HONII!: 479484 5650 FAX 479484 !5880 I have the Court's Order dated November 8, 2005, respecting the MRC budget. On behalf of the PCS SD let me please state that it has no objection to the proposed budget. MSJ:ao cc: Hon. J. Thomas Ray Counsel of Record Office of Desegregation Monitoring Cordially yours, MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES &amp; WOODYARD, P.L.L.C. cf ~ones, III i. er Documents "2-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 U.S. District Court Eastern Districf of Arkansas I \J"otice of Electronic Filing / fhe following transaltion was received ;om Jones, M. entered on 11/10/2005 at 4:20 PM :ST and filed on 11/10/2005 ' Case Name: Little Rock School, et al v. Pulaski Cty School, et al Case Number: 4:82-cv-866 Filer: Pulaski County Special School District WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 .cument Number: 3974 Docket Text: IBSPONSE re [3972] Order, by Pulaski County Special School District. (Jones, M.) fhe following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stam-p: :sTAivlP dcecfStamp_ID=1095794525 [Date=l 1/10/2005] [FileNumber=520387-0 I [2b05c454b6626b279aaab8d9a110b52b6c7db27b72252a7882ceb0e89371e18c2ea )28d381e846109b4bd340956d9750d5a162780ela98686576276197543ee0]] t:82-cv-866 Notice will be electronically mailed to: \.1ark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi.com, Clayburn Fendley, Jr fendleyl@alltel.net, \1ark Arnold. Hagemeier mark.hagemeier@arkansasag.gov, .ecia.bledsoe@arkansasag.gov :hristopher J. Heller heller@fec.net, brendak@fec.net; tmiller@fec.net vi. Samuel Jones, III sjones@mwsgw.com, aoverton@mwsgw.com ;tephen W. Jones sjones@jlj.com, kate.jones@jlj.com )hilip E. Kaplan pkaplan@kbmlaw.net, nmoler@kbmlaw.net ;baron Carden Streett scstreett@comcast.net, scstreett@yahoo.com rohn W. Walker johnwalkeratty@aol.com, lorap72297@aol.com; springer@gabrielmail.com l:82-cv-866 Notice will be delivered by other means to: ...,layton R. Blackstock ~chell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers &amp; Sneddon, PLLC l O 10 West Third Street )ost Office Box 1510 ~ittle Rock, AR 72203-1510 -.J" orman J. Chachkin -.J"AACP Legal Defense &amp; Educational Fund, Inc. }9 Hudson Street ;uite 1600 -.J"ew York, NY 10013 timothy Gerard Gauger \rkansas Attorney General's Office :atlett-Prien Tower Building ;23 Center Street ;uite 200 jttle Rock, AR 72201-2610 -'ames M. Llewellyn, Jr rhompson &amp; Llewellyn,.P.A. . i aW South Eighteenth Street ~t Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 8ffice of Desegregation Monitor 8ne Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 William P. Thompso~ Thompson &amp; Lleweltyn, P.A. i 12 South Eighteenth Street Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3976 Filed 11/11/2005 R!CftVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL LRSD'S RESPONSE TO ORDER NOV 14 2005 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONA'OIDNG PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS For its response to the Court's November 8, 2005 Order regarding the Magnet Review Committee Budget, LRSD states that it has no objection to the budget and agrees that the budget should become effective immediately. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE &amp; CLARK 2000 Regions Bank Bldg. 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 Isl Christopher Heller Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3976 Filed 11/11/2005 Page 2 of 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 11, 2005, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/EC. system, which will send notification of such filing to the following: mark. hagemeier@ ag. state. ar. us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@ jlj .com johnwalkerattv@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitols, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Black stock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl Christopher Heller R:x Dat e/Time 5013744187 P.002 NO'v . 15. 2005 NOV J. ~ LOO~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CASE NO. 4:82CV866WRW.JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. JOSHUA'S RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S ORDER OE NOVEMBER 8, 2005 PIAINTIFF DEFENDANT INTERVENORS INTERVENORS In response to the Court's Order of November 8, 2005, the Joshua Intervenors oppos~ the budget as presepted. I. There is no explanation for the increase in special education costs. 2. There is no e:xplanation for the substantial increase in the regular classroom material and supply costs. 3. There is no explanation for the material increase in the indirect costs. 4. To approve the budget as it is written by increasing costs will tend to favor students in racially balanced schools and disfavor students in majority black schools . This is so because double funding has materially been eliminated in the racially identifiable schools being closed (Mitchell and.Rightsell) and the district has engaged in budget cuts whi~h reduce services and - educational programs to the students who are enrolled in. o.onmagnet schools. Rx Date/ Time NOV-15-2005(TUE) 08:59 5013744187 " NOV': f's. 2005 g : 30AM JOHN W WALKER P A NO. 163 L Wherefore, Joshua requests that the court set this matter for hearing. Respectfully submitted, Isl John W. Walker John W. WalkeJ;, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) Email: johnwalkeratty@aol.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing response has been filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF sytsem on this 14th day of November, 2005. LsUohn Y{. Walker P. 003 Rx Date/Time NOV-1 5-2005CTUE) 08: 59 ~ NOV. 15.2005 9:29AM JOHN W WALKER PA 5013744187 N0 . 163 JOHN W WALKER, P.A .. Attorney at La.v 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET Date: November 15, 2005 To: Donna Creer Fax: 758-5366 Re: MRC Budget Sender: John W. Walker P.l/3 YOU SHOULD RECEIVE [ _ (including cover sheet)] PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVERSHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVEALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL ''&lt;(501) 374--3758&gt;'1 The infonnation contained in this facsimile message is attorney privileged qnd confidential infonnation intended only for tho use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediate notify us by telephone, and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. P. 001 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 1 of s IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION UTILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL LRSD'S RESPONSE TO ORDER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS The Little Rock School District (LRSD), for its response to the Court's bench ruling of November 7, 2005, states: 1. The Court has directed LRSD to file "a proposed order which would - outline how this one matter will be handled until. we get the final evaluations as LRSD has agreed to do." 2. Dr. Ross now has all of the data he needs to complete the Compass Leaming, SMART/TIIRIVE and Reading Recovery evaluations. Dr. Ross expects to be able to produce preHminary evaluations of those three programs by December 21, 2005 and ''final drafts" by mid-February, 2006. See November 11, 2005 letter from Dr. Ross to Dr. DeJamette attached. as Exhibit A. 3. Dr. Catterall requires scale scores from the 2005 benchmark exams in order to complete his evaluation of Year-Round Education. LRSD expects that the Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 2 of 5 scale scores needed by Dr. Catterall will be available within the next seven days. If that can be done, Dr. Catterall expects to produce a draft report by December 31, 2005 and a final report not later than February 3, 2006. See November 9, 2005 letter from Catterall to DeJarnette, attached as Exhibit B. 4. LRSD has a regulation (IL-R) which applies to the review and completion of program evaluations. A copy ofregulati.on IL-R is attached~ Exhibit C. The LRSD Planning, Research and Evaluation (PRE) Department estimates that the requirements ofregulation IL-R can be met within the following amounts of time after a draft evaluation is received from an external consultant: a. The evaluation team meets with the evaluator to review the report and provide feedback - one week; b. The evaluator incorporates the feedback provided by the evaluation team and produces a "near-final" draft- one week; c. The stakeholders, including Joshua, ODM and the LRSD cabinet and Board review the near-final draft - 30 days; d. The LRSD Board discusses the report with the evaluator at the Board meeting immediately following completion of the 30 day review and approves the final evaluation report. 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 3 of 5 5. Given the time required by Drs. Ross and Catterall to complete their work, and for the review and approval process required by LR.SD regulation IL-R. LRSD proposes that the Court's Order concerning the completion of the 2004-05 Step 2 program evaluations contain the following language: a. LRSD will file with the Court and serve upon ODM and Joshua the preliminary evaluation reports for Compass Learning, SMART ffHRlVE and Reading Recovery as soon as LRSD receives those reports from Dr. Ross. LRSD expects to receive those reports by December 21, 2005. b. LRSD will file with the Court and serve upon ODM and Joshua the preliminary evaluation report concerning Year-Round Education as soon as it receives that report from Dr. Catterall. LRSD expects to receive that report no later than December 31, 2005. c. If LRSD learns th.at it will not receive any preliminary evaluation report from Dr. Ross or Dr. Catterall by the dates set forth above, it will immediately so inform the Court and the parties. d. Upon receipt of the preliminary evaluation repons discussed above, LRSD will review the evaluations and approve them in 3 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 4 of 5 accordance with the process set forth in LRSD regulation IL-R. Upon completion of that process, which is expected to result in Board approval of all four evaluations at the February 23, 2006 Board meeting, LRSD will file the final Step 2 evaluations with the Court and serve them upon ODM and Joshua. e. If it appears to LRSD that the final evaluation repo~s may be delayed for any reason, LRSD will so inform the Court and the parties. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, LRSD prays for an order regarding the completion of the required four Step 2 evaluations for the 2004-05 school year in accordance with the proposals set forth in thisResponse to Order. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE &amp; CLARK 2000 Regions Bank Bldg. 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock. AR 72201 501/376-2011 Isl Christqpher Heller 4 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/1712005 Page 5 of 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 17, 2005, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Oerk of the Court using the C.M/BC. system, which will send notification of such filing to the following: mark.hagemeier@ai,State.ar.us sjones@mwsr7.com sjones@jlj.com johnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol~ Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W, Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 5 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl Christopher Heller Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 1 of 1 THE UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS November 11, 2005 Dr. Karen DeJamette Director, PRE Department Little Rock School District 3001 s. Pulaski little Rock. AR 77W6 Dear Dr. DeJamette: Center for Research in EdUC!ltfonal Policy A lermenee Center of exce11ence 32S ~Ing Hall Memphis, Tennessee 38152-3340 Offlca: 901.678.2310 Toll-Free: 866,670.6147 Fex: 901.678.257 www mtrnPhlS.egu/s,p The spring 2005 benchmark scores have arrived for students in the three programs we are . evaluating for the Little Rock School District-Compass Leaming. SMARTITHRIVE. and Reading Recovery. While they do not include students' scale scores, the raw scores and perfonnance levels appear sufficient for our evaluations. In the nen few days. we will complete a review of the data files; assumina they are in usable form. we will then combine the benchmark scores with data collected during the past school year in preparation for our statistical analyses. Dr. Canen.11 and I agreed earlier that six weeks appears to be enough time for managing the data, analyzing the data, and writing our reports for your considaation. That means that the draft report will be ready for initial review during the Decemba holidays (target dau:: December 21. 2005) and our discussion of it will occur in January. ff there arc not extensive changes required. we plan to have the final drafts ready for you by mid-February. If we encounter any unanticipated problems or delays, we will notify you immediately on ~currence. Please contact me if you have any concerns or questions about this plan. Sincerely, Steven M. Ross, PhD. Faudree Professor and Director Center for Research in Educational Policy I Case 4:82-cv--00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 1 of 1 _u_N_IVE_R_s__m_ o_ F_c_A_LIF_o_R_N_IA_._L__os _A_ N_c_E_L_E_s____ _ --. . H:~~ ... k&amp;O.CT 1M.V19 1ll\llNC I.OIMICll.11 a1vs-&amp; !AH DIieo 1AH Fl...0!800 ....,,_ - ~ - ~-- November 16, 2005 Karen DeJamett.e, Ph.D. Director, PRE Department tittle Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Utiie Rock. AR 77206-28'73 Dearl&lt;aren: Onidua1c ScllOol off.duQl!on &amp; Jnfornlion Studies r.o.Box951s,t LosAt1gdQ.CA 90095-1511 I understand that the 200S Benchmark iesults or studenfB participatf:ng in Year-Round P.ducatian have a:rlved at LRSD. They .include ~dents' raw scores and performance levels but not the 1eale scores. &amp;cause of the need tQ link 2005 test scores with prior year test &amp;cores a.s the only way to uses., progress in the YRE schools&gt; I will need 2005 Benchmark scale scor~, l!1'\d not taw test sco,:es to complete my analyses. As I stated earlier, the daia review, 8tatistical 8Nlyses, and composition of my draft :report will require about six week,. I still anticipate delivering a draft teport to you within 6 weeks of ~eivhig usable scale scares. A,suming these score, become available to m.e in the coming days, I would have a draft report to you by year'3 end and a final report to you not later than F~bruary 3, 2006. Sin&amp;:erely, /\~ 'Pt:dsor Vole~ (310) 8%$-S5'71 Pu: ($10)206-6293 l:;-m1il: jamucOgscla.11~la.cdu = EXHIBIT t Pi I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ---- Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 1 of 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IL-R PROGRAM EVALUATION AGENDA Purpose The purpose of these regulations is to provide guidance to the staff fnvolved in the evaluation of pr0grams required in the Board's Program Evaluation Agenda. They do not necessarily apply to grant-funded programs if the funding source requires other procedures and provides funding for a required evaluation. Criteria for Program Evaluations J Policy IL specifies that the evaluations of programs approved In its Board-approved Program EvaJuation Agenda will be conducted according to the standards developed by the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. {See Joint Committee on Standan:ls for Educational Evaluation, James R. Sanders, Chair (1994). The Program Evaluation Standards, T1 Edition: How to Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.) There are four attributes of an evaluation: UIIIH)' (U) - e'ialuatlons are lnfcrmatM, timely, and influential Fauiblllty (F) - eveluations must be operable In the natural setting and must not consume more resourees then necessary Propriety (?) right:5 of Individuals must be protected Accuracy (A) evaluations should produce sound lnfOrmatlon Prospective, controlled, summative evaluations are at one end of a spectrum of actMties that review District operations. Other activities in this continuum include fonnative and less formal and rigorous evaluations, regular and occasional assessments, and fast or brief snapshots". As rigor and fom,ality diminish along the range of reviews, fewer standards apply. Examples of how the standards apply are found following table, adapted from The Program Evaluation Standards, pages 18 and 19: Checklist for Applying the Standards The reader should interpret the information provided in this table with reference both to the Standards (cited above) and the peculiar circumstances of given program reviews. Double plus signs(++} indicate that standards are fully addressed. Single pluses(+) mean that the standard is a concern but not necessarily fully addressed, and zeros (0) point to standards not usually applicable. Not all summative evaluation will fully satisfy every standard, and o1her examples may observe more standards than indicated here. Note. however, that all reviews fully observe human rights and impartial reports, ,_~ ,xH-I - ,--. 1 1c Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 2 of 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ILR Fonna1lw Standard SUmmative lnfolmal Evaluation Procen evaluations Assessments {School Portia/las) Snaashots U1 Stakeholder Identification ++ ++ 0 0 U2 Evaluator Credibility ++ ++ + 0 U3 Information Scope &amp; Selection ++ 0 + + U4 Values Identification ++ + ++ + us Report Clarity ++ ++ + + U6 Report Timeliness &amp; Dissemination ++ + + 0 U7 Evaluation Impact ++ + + + F1 Practical Procedures ++ + + ++ F2 PolltJcal Viabillty ++ 0 0 0 F3 Cost Effectiveness ++ + + + P1 Service Orientation ++ ++ + + P2 Fonnal AQreements ++ + 0 0 P3 Rights of Human Subjects ++ ++ ++ ++ P4 Human Interaction ++ + 0 0 PS Complete &amp; Fair Assessment ++ ++ + + P6 Disclosure of Findings ++ + + + P7 Conflict of Interest ++ 0 + 0 P8 Fiscal Responsibility ++ ++ 0 0 A1 Proaram Documentation ++ + + + A2 Context Analysis ++ + ++ + A3 Described Purposes and Procedures ++ ++ + + A4 Defensible Information Sources ++ + + ++ AS Valid Information ++ + + + A6 Reliable Information ++ + + + A7 Systematic Information ++ ++ + + AS Analysis of Quantitative Data ++ . ++ 0 + A9 Analysis of QualitatiVe Data ++ ++ + + A 1 o Justified Conclusions ++ + + + A 11 Impartial Reporting ++ ++ ++ ++ A 12 Meta-evaluation ++ 0 0 + 2. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 3 of 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ILR Program Evaluation Procedures The following procedures are established for the evaluation of programs approved by the Board of Education in its annual Program Evaluation Agenda: 1. The Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Department will recommend to the Superintendent annually, before the budget for the coming year is proposed, the curriculum/instruction programs for comprehensjve program evaluation. The recommendation will include a proposed budget. a description of other required resources, and an action plan for the completion of the reports. Criteria for the proposed agenda are as follows: A. Will the results of the evaluation influence decisions about the program? B. Will the evaluation be done in time to be useful? C. Will the program be significant enough to merit evaluation? (See Joseph S. Wholey, Hany P. Hatry, and Kathryn Newcomer (1994). Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco. CA:. Jossey-Bass Publishers. 5-7.) 2. The Superintendent will recommend to the Board of Education for approval the proposed Program Evaluation Agenda-with anticipated costs and an action plan for completion. 3. For each curriculum/instruction program to be evaluated as per the Program Evaluation Agenda, the Director of PRE will establish a staff team with a designated leader to assume responsibility for the production of the report according to the timelines established in the action plan approved by the Board of Education. 4. Each team will include. at a minimum, one or more specialists in the curriculum/instruction program to be evaluated. a statistician, a programmer to assist in data retrieval and disaggregation. and a technical writer. If additional expertise is required. then other staff may be added as necessary. 5. An external consultant with expertise in program evaluation. the program area being evaluated, statistical analysis, and/or technical writing will be retained as a member of the team. The role of the external consultant may vary, depending upon the expertise required for the production of the program evaluation. 6. The team leader will establish a calendar of regularfy scheduled meetings for the production of the program evaluation. The first meetings will be devoted to the following tasks: 3 I I I I I I I I I I I Case 4:82-cv~00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 4 of 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: IL-R A Provide any necessary training on program evaluation that may be required for novice members of the team, induding a review of the Board's policy IL and all of the required criteria and procedures in these regulations, IL-R. B. Assess the expertise of each team member and make recommendations to the Director of PRE related to any additional assistance that may be required. C. Write a clear description of the curriculum/instruction program that is to be evaluated, with information about the schedule of its implementation. 0. Agree on any necessary research questions that need to be established in addition to the question, Has this curriculum/instruction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of African-American students E. Generate a list of the data required to answer each research questlOn, and assign responsibility for its collection and production. All available and relevant student perfonnance data should be included. {See Judge Wilson's Compliance Remedy.) F. Decide who will be the chief writer of the program evaluation. G. Plan ways to provide regular progress reports (e.g., dissemination of meeting minutes, written progress reports, oral reports to the Superintendent's Cabinet) to stakeholders. {See Joellen Killion (2002). Assessing Impact: Evaluating Staff Development. Oxford, OH. National Staff Development Council (NSOC); Robby Champion (Fall 2002). "Map Out Evaluation Goals." Journal of Staff Development. 78-79; Thomas R. Guskey (2000). Evaluating Professional Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press: Blaine R. Worthen, James R. Sanders, and Jody L. Fitzpatrick (1997). participant-Oriented Evaluated Approaches. Program Evaluation: Alternative Mproaches and Practical Guidelines; 153-169; Beverly A. Parsons (2002). Evaluative Inquiry; Using Evaluation to Promote Stude!J! Success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press; and Joseph S. Wholey, Hany P. Hatry, and Kathryn E. Newcomer (1994}. Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.) 7. Subsequent meetings of the program evaluation team are required for the following tasks: 4 - - Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 5 of 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL Of STRICT NEPN CODE: IL-R to monitor the completion of assignments; to collaborate in the interpretation and analysis of data: to pose any necessary new questions to be answered; to review drafts and provide feedback to the writer; to formulate recommendations, as required, for program improvement, especially to decide if a recommendation is required to modify or abandon the program if the findings reveal that the program is not beingsuccessful for the improvement of African-American achievement; to assist in final proofreading; and to write a brief executive summary, highlighting the program evaluation findings and recommendations. 8. A near-final copy of the program evaluation must be submitted to the Director of PRE at least one month before the deadline for placing the report on the Board'.s agenda for review and approval. This time is required for final approval by staff, for final editing to ensure accuracy, and for submission to the Superintendent. 9. When the program evaluation is approved for submission to the Board of Education for review and approval, copies of the Executive Summary and complete report must be made for them, for members of the Cabinet. 10. The program evaluation team will plan its presentation to the Board of Education on the findings and recommendations. 11. The Director of PRE wilt prepare the cover memorandum to the Board of Education, including all the required background information: A. If program modifications are suggested, the steps that the staff members have taken or will take to implement those modifJcations. If abandonment of the program is recommended, the steps that will be taken to replace the program with another with more potential for the improvement and remediation of African-American students. B. Names of the administrators who were involved in the program evaluation. C. Name and qualifications of the external expert who served on the evaluation team. 5 --' NOV.18. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3978 Filed 11/17/2005 Page 6 of 6 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NEPN CODE: ILR D. Grade-level desaiptions of the teachers who were Involved In the assessment process (e.g., all fourth~grade math teachers. all eighth grade English teachers, etc.). 12. When the program evaluation is approved by the Board of Education, the team must arrange to have the Executive Summary and the full report copied and design a plan for communicating the program evaluation findings and recommendations 1o other stakeholders. This plan must then be submitted to the Director of PRE for approval. 13. Each program evaluation team will meet with the Director of PRE after the completion of its work to evaluate the processes and product and to make recommendations for future program evaluations. (See "Joellen Killion (2002). Evaluate the Evaluation.N Assessing Impact Evaluating Staff Development. Oxford. OH: National Staff Development Council. 46, 123-124.) Approved: December 2004 6 NOV.18.2005 1:22PM JOHN W WALKER PA Date: To: Fax: Re: JOHN W WALKER, P.A. A.rtorney ar Lczy,; 1723 Broadway Litrle Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374~4187 FAX TRANS:MISSION COVER SHEET rt/n/oo - . MPI,t f~f / ~ 1i-ria a 11 -o, oo Sender: YOU SHOULD RECEIVE l _ ,(including cover sheet)] PAGE(S). INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES. PLEASE CALL ''&lt;(501) 374 .. 37S$&gt;" -- The information contained in tltis facsimile message is atmmey privileged and confidential information interui~d only for th.e usci of the individual or entity named above. ff the read.er of this message is nor the intended recipient, or me employee oi- ~ent responsible ro deliver it to the inten&lt;1ed recipient, you are hereby notified that any dis3emimtion, disiribmion or copying of this communicirtion is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediate notify us by telephone, and rerurn tbe original message to us at.the above address via the TJ.S. Postal Seivice. Thruuc you. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1~ ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER RECEIVED NOY 2 8 2005 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS I have changed my mind on the Rule 11 ruling made orally at the close of the November 7, 2005 hearing -- it is set aside and held for naught. As was mentioned at the hearing, LRSD will not pay any part of Mr. Kaplan's attorney's fees or expenses. IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day ofNovember, 2005. /s/ Wm. R. Wilson.Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DEC. 5. 2005 4 :18PM JOHN W WALKER PA NO . 409 P.2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW~JTR Document 3981 Filed 11/23/2005 P::.igP. 1 ,:if 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DIS1R.ICT COURT .nA:s n::.KN Vl::STRl.CT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTIE ROCK SCHOOL DlSTRICT VS. CASE NO. 4:82CV00866WRW/JTR PULAKSICOUNTYSPECIAL .~rwnnr nY&lt;::'Tl)rr-r l:'T ,. r --------- .... ~'-""_. , ...,.., ra..1.,1. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA. ET AL. KATHER1NE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. PLJ.ThTTIFF IJ.t..t' .t..NLJANT~ INTER.VENO RS INTERVENORS JOSHUA INTERVENORS REPLY TO LRSD S RESPONSE TO THE COURT S ORDli'."A 01" NQVJ,.1'-fflER "!. 20~ Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, ieply to the LR.SD s response to the court s order as follows: 1. LRSD shall identify all members of the evaluation team and provide a written description for each of them of their respective roles and resp0Il3ibilities in the evaluation process. 2. LRSD shall identify the schools where each program being evaluated is being implemented. and it shall further set forth by school: (a) explain the current status of the program under evaluation; and (b) the number of students participating in each program by grade, race and gender. It shall also set forth budgetary information regarding each of the programs at each of the schools. DEC. 5.2005 4:18PM JOHN W WALKER PA NO.409 P.3 Case 4:82~cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3981 Filed 11/23/2005 Page 2 of 3 3. LRSD should be required to set forth a schc~e of dates for the steps that each evaluator and others will take to canplete the assi~ent of each evaluator. Specific, separate schedules are reeded for each expert because information provi~ by LRSD regarding Dr. Ross does not appear to be congruent. Compare paragraph 2 at page 1 (re final draft in midFebruary) with paragraph S(d) at pages 3-4 (Board approval of all four evaluations at Fehn1:ny 23, 2006 meeting). 4. The Joshua Intervenors and the ODM shall be provided access to the staff members of PRE and t.o the experts without limitation and they shall be entitled to receive any writings regarding the evaluation process that are generated by any of the IRSD and expert witness participants. The participation and presence of LRSD counsel is neither required nor disallowed during such exchanges of infonnation. 5. Joshua proposes that item S(d) should read: Upon receipt of the preliminary evaluation reports discussed above, LR.SD tl:cugh. PP~ *ulll w.~t witrJ. the; OD?v1 , Jv:;huii, wU i.hc. experts to .~~i-,;,; and "owld,;1 ik: wwm1;ni.:i of foshua and ODM r~gardmg thi. iha.ft lcpUl~. Joshua awi ODM shall aiso have tile right to 5u.l.11uiL tucw.er comments up until the time of Board action. jos.ilua Shall have the right to appear before the school board prior to the board action regarding the reports. lt is expected that the board members shall engage m open dialogue regarding any concerns that are voiced by Joshua or ODM at any meeting which the board holds regarding the subject. 6. After the time of final approval of the evaluatiom, Joshua shall have the right to comment to LRSD regarding the use being made of the evaluations. LRSD shall promptly respond to any such comments or inquiry. 2 DEC. S.2005 4:18PM JOHN W WALKER PA N0.409 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3981 Filed 11/23/2005 Respectfully submitted, W John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. i 723 Hroadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 (fax) Email address: inhnw11lkP.M1tty(n1ac!.cc"' 22 Lvcust A ven.ue Lcxiugiun, MA 02421 iBl-862-1955 P. 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE _I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing Response has been electronically fifod with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/EC S)Stem which will send.notifi~tfon !(I such filing !C ill counsel of record, ls/John W. Walker 3 DEC. 5.2005 Date: To: FQ)C: Re: 4: 17PM JOHN W WALKER PA Tn1-lhT TJ"7 U"'-"..&amp;.....Lt ,,. Attorney at Law ] 723 'RrMdway T.itrl~ x,,.,.1i, J,,.1,,,..,.~,.~ 7-,-,11~ - ~ - - -----, ...,..M..., I MVV T:lepl,onc (50lj J74-37J8 Fw; (50lj ji4-4187 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET December 5, 2005 Office of Desegregation Monitoring 371-0100 --NO.409- P.1 . D A 1 . .ft. . Sender: John W. Walker YOU SHDrn,n RP.r'li'.rrn:. [ (fr:c!ud:ng CC".,'~ .:h~ot}] PACE(S), INCLUDlNG T'.rilS COVER S.'f.!EET. IP YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, ?LE.ASE CALL "..;.(Svij 37-,.3758&gt;:, The infonnation contained in this facsimile message is attomeyprivilegedand confidential infonnation intended wtly for the use of the imJMdllal or entity named above. If the reader of this message is l10t the intended r~~lp~ or we empioyee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you arc hereby notified ihit 'iw.} ~tion, w.stn"bution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have ~i-.-::d :!ii, wwmunlcatiuii. iii error, piease immediate notify us by teiephone, and return the original message to ~ :.t :he =c: ~asi via .hu U .. S. Posual Sc,rvice. T'.nank you. Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3982 Filed 11/23/2005 PagRttE\\JED NO'J 2 8 100~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION Qff\CEOf IDllG OESEGREGAl\ON M0~\10 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS LRSD'S RESPONSE TO THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS For its Response to "Joshua Intervenors Reply to LRSD' s Response to the Court's Order of November 7, 2005," the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. Rule 4.2 of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct states: In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized to do so by law. 2. On August 20, 2001, this Court directed counsel for the ioshua Intervenors, for the second time, "to go through counsel for the Little Rock School District when seeking information from the district or district officials and personnel that is pertinent to the case." Order, August 20, 2001 (attached). 3. Counsel for Joshua has violated the Court's August 20, 2001 Order and Rule 4.2 of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct. Consequently, on Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3982 Filed 11/23/2005 Page 2 of 4 November 18, 2005, counsel for LRSD wrote counsel for Joshua to make the following request: "I request that you immediately cease communication with LRSD administrators about any matter in which you represent a person whose interests are potentially adverse to the Little Rock School District." Counsel for LRSD also addressed the question of Joshua's role as a monitor in this case: With respect to your representation of the Joshua Intervenors, I understand that the District Court expects Joshua to continue to fulfill its traditional role of monitoring LRSD' s compliance obligations. As I have told you before, this monitoring should be done in a way that does not violate Rule 4.2. If you will identify Joshua's monitors, I will make sure that those people have appropriate access to LRSD personnel and documents so that they can fulfill the Court's expectations. Any communications from you concerning LRSD v. PCSSD, or any other matter in which you are representing a client, should be directed to me. November 18, 2005 letter from Heller to Walker (attached). 4. In compliance with the Court's November 7, 2005 bench ruling, the Joshua Intervenors filed today a Reply to LRSD' s pleading of November 17, 2005. In paragraph 4 of that Reply, Joshua proposes that the Court enter an order which contains the following language: The Joshua Intervenors and the ODM shall be provided access to the staff members of PRE and to the experts without limitation and they shall be entitled to receive any writings regarding the evaluation process that are generated 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3982 Filed 11/23/2005 Page 3 of 4 by any of the LRSD expert witness participants. The participation and presence of LRSD counsel is neither required nor disallowed during such exchanges of information. 5. Without telling the Court what they are doing, and without providing the Court the relevant information set forth above, the Joshua Intervenors are asking the Court to overturn its August 20,2001 Order and the requirements of Rule 4.2 of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct. Joshua seeks access to PRE staff members "without limitation." Joshua requests that the "presence of LRSD counsel" not be required. The Court has already ruled on this issue, and Joshua should not be allowed to change that ruling, particularly without telling the Court what it is trying to do. 6. Many of the PRE staff are unavailable to help provide a further response to the pleading filed today by the Joshua Intervenors. LRSD expects that it will supplement this response upon their return after the holiday. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that any order issued by the Court concerning the completion of the evaluations required of LRSD not contain the language in paragraph 4 of the Reply filed by the Joshua Intervenors on November 23, 2005. 3 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3982 Filed 11/23/2005 Page 4 of 4 Respectfully submitted, UTILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE &amp; CLARK 2000 Regions Bank Bldg. 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-201 l Ls{ Christopher Heller CERTIEI.CATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 23, 2005, I have electronically filed the foregoing with the Cleik. of the Court using the CMJEC. system. which will send notification of such filing to the following: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar. us fil_ones@mws~w.com ~ones@ilj.com i9hnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Judge J. Thomas Ray Gene Jones U.S. District Courthouse Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitols, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 7220 l ~/ Christopher Heller 4 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Case4:82"-cv-=00666..-\VRW JTR . ... Document 3982 Doetm ,ent a483 Filed 11/23/2005 Filed 0S/20t20Q1 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STA~DISTRICT COURT ~~~SA8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS AUG_ i O 2001 WESTERN DIVISION LITI'LEROCKSCHOOLDISTRIC1, p~ vs. PULASKI COUN'IY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, etal., 'Defendants; MRS. LORENE JOSHUA. et al., ' Intervenors, * . KATHERINE KNIGlIT, et al., Intervenoni. ORDER No. 4:82CV00866 SWW On August 17, 2001&gt; the Cowt held a telephone conference in this matter toaddreS$ -several pending motions. For the. reasons stated at the telephone c:onference, the Court takes the following action on these motions: The Joshua Intervcnors' motion for pre1imimuy injunction [docket no. 3471] is hereby DENIED. Counsel fortbc-Joshua Intcrvenors aud Pulaski County Special School District have . .. . '. . indicated their intent to adibss., substance of the Josbualntcrvenors' related com:cted motion for relief from orders~ on April 27; 2000 and May9, 2001 by defendant Gary Smith . . . ' [docket no. 3473] without_tbis Court's ~ce; therefore, the Court'directs the Joshua . . . Intcrvenors to inform the Cowt no later than October 17, 2001, whether it is necessary for the . . l Court to ruJe on tbia_motion or whed1c:r the moti~ should.be rcDl?ved from the Court's docket. Little Rock School bisuict's motion for protective order and.for' emergency hearing Court's considedion... (docket no. 3477] is bcrcl?YDF.NIED wrraour~ICE beaiuse itis not~ 11 !'for-th.e.--....._ ..._ , . EXHIBIT -.f ti: . Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3982 Filed 11/23/2005 Page 2 of 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3483 Filed 08/20/2001 Page 2 of 4 .., Little Rock School District's motion for conteUlpt [docket no. 3480} is hereby DENIED WITHOUTPREIUDICE. To cls.rify its previous Order, the Court.directs counsel for Joshua Jnterveuors to go through counsel for die Little Rock School District when seeking infomiation. from the district or district officials and pcrso~ that is pertinent to the ca.e. and to infon:n . .. counsel for~ Little RO&lt;ik School District prior w oontacting district officials and personnel about matters not currently before the Court. Con. cerning 11 Baker Recruitment Plan [docket no. 3456]; the Pulaski C.o unty Special ' J School District js directed to filo mrJ supplemental.information no later than Tuesday, August 21, 2001, and the Joshua Interveno.rs arc directed to respond 10 any supplement within five days from the date the supplcmcnt is filed. . -,J.._ _ . . IT IS SO ORDERED nns i/Jl_DAY OF AUOUST, 2001 UNITED STATES DISTRlct COURT iHIS OQCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COM~UANCE Wl1lf RULE 58 ~DIOB.ll{I) FRCP ON 2&lt; -a ,. . ol ,..av_..JA__~.. ---- 2: Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3982 Filed 11/23/2005 Page 1 of 2 .W&amp;UCltU.H.tlJ~W(lnf1,..) MICIU.&amp;&amp;.LMQOALP-.4 IYIOKM. 111aMM1.JL P.4. WALTDll. UILJU.r.A. JAMES A. MJTil1". I . A.. DV1N A. 0l.UI. f ,A. Pkl.DU.la.&amp;. UUllY.P..A. WIU.UMA. WADOSU..,._.,,A.. OaG\l I. CAVIL JL. P.A. ICOT'J' J. UJK:A&amp;UL P.A. J4 .... C, CXAU. .. P.&gt;.. IDUlT t. UACK. a., f ,A. TIIOMAII, LIOOlff, P.A. /. I.UUOWW.f..t. JOIUI MWIT WATIGII. P.A. I.U,U C. 1.UU. I&amp;.. f.A f4U1,&amp;u,ria[AJ,(1D,P,A. KAllYA.1.IORT, P.A. u..a.av w. auau. 1.1,,.. ,con x. ruca;u. r.A. 4. WYCICU1' )llUlr. JL. I.A. 0UY IJ.roN WUI, J.A.. MMU IDWAUll,U,all, I.A. IIICIC.OA&amp;D- P.&gt;.. J4MU M. 100-'0II, f.l.. TOIILU, /OIIU. I .A. IAMU W. AXTON. P,4. MYID D. WJUOIC. P.A. J. SKltKlm IUIHU. n&amp;. P,-', IIHU't JI. GOU. P.A. OO&gt;IA&amp;.D a. MCOJII. P.A. MVRa II. OILU. I .A. WJWAW t'MO.._., U.ffU, P.A. CAM.A OUHJrillU IPAillCOUL f.4. JOUl'KI, IUUf, 11.. P.A.. JOWAJfNC. aw.u,.1.A. lUZ.UlfM.0.IIIIMU&amp;&amp;AY,J, . .\. .L 000ff0111D.LA.'WION. P.A. CIWlto,t&amp;ll Hllll:1. P.Jt- KTfl' I, 0DmlY1 P.A. 1.4\aA NIMUY IMU'11. P.A. 1'11104 K JOKNIOlt. P,A.. M&gt;NA1 I, SHARL P.A. U.WU II, IMIT&gt;L I .A. WU.LU.M ... GWPIN n&amp;. P.A. CIJ'INl&amp;O w. rt..UNanT. f . A. VIA Fax Mr. John Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Re: LRSD Dear John: FRIDAY El.DREDGE &amp; CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW A UMITliD I.IAIUTY PARTIIERSHIP www.fridayflrm.ec1n1 o4GO WEIT CAPITOL AVlNUI, :SUITE~ LITTLEROCIC, AIUCAHSA.s 722Cl1-M22 TELEl'NONli .at-371-2011 n.X501376-2U7 1421-TH 'UTIIALL DIIIV&amp;, IUJTI 1U P4Ylffll/1WI, 4,._ 1270Mlt1 nu,HONI &lt;IJ'I-M .. i011 ,,x '1Mtf~ltU November 18, 2005 'D,UIW.1..UUllfOTON.1,i,. I. IG&lt;=XAIL J'JCIIJIXI. , ,,,_ M-UYIII L OIU.IIIU I. COLIW.UI WUTUOO&amp;. /Lo P.&gt;.. Jol.lJIOlll. C0alnrllL,1.A. iu.z.NM. OWIJll, P-A. IAIIINl, JmlDaDl,P.4. JWIICJI&amp; TlllftLI.P.A. JOIIPH MC'XAY. P..A, AW.umu.A, IPLUL P.&gt;.. JAY f , fAYloOI, P,&gt;.. .MAffnl ... lilTIII IJ:r All W, DUU ,OIIPIIG, IIICIIClU aona T, lMlT&gt;I ).YAHA.~MA&gt;l 1IIIOTIIY C. IZE1L T, MICll&amp;Ull .. 101 XAUII L HAUU.7 l.u.AJI M. CDTTOH UJaTUI' $. IOWl,..,UIDS Au.Jlf G. a&amp;Yil l.Ol01&amp;Y WIT~ t.0UMCa JCf.\YYAMK.GIIDflll JCJIDI J. llllll&amp;ICII .uwm.+.CAPPI- IU\IIN L IDOU 1.W4'TNIY11UMII.JI. -1111,nwo-.. IWI-Yll,loUIPl11-.. Wl.&amp;1T U/411 C. IMffll ... -...wona, IITWILMAJ'4U DaC L CUUIJJII UIUGO'laa L OOX IATftaYN 4. laUl4mC1t J. ADAM'nU-1 &amp;.WMl,.u,JJ.Y .. - WlWMIII.IClnOtl.P.I.. WIW'AM~n&amp;&amp;Y WIWAM L PATTON, lL ._T, U,UII.I.J.LP.~ CMIUttofN&amp; MIU.la Ll?Tl.l ROC~ T&amp;LH1-a11MI P.Altlt1- .. ,..,.,_.,, It has been reported to me that you have been communicating directly with Little Rocle School District Administrators during the course of your representation of various clients, including the Joshua Intervenors. You lmow that the Little Rock School District is represented by Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark. Your direct commllDication with our clients violates Rule 4.2 of the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct. I request that you immediately cease communication with LRSD administrators about any matter in which you represent a person whose interests are potentially adverse to the Little Rock School District With respect to yolU' representation of the Joshua Jntervcnors. I understand that the District Court expects Joshua to continue to fulfill its traditional role of monitoring LRSD's compliance obligations. As I have told you before, this monitoring should be done in a way that does not violate Rule 4.2 If you will identify 1 oshua's monitors, I will make sure that those people have appropriate access to LRSD personnel and documents so that they can fulfil the Court's expectations. Any communications from you concerning LRSD v. PCSSD, or any other matter in which you arc representing a client, should be directed to me. CJH/bk Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW-JTR Document 3982 Filed 11/23/2005 Page 2 of 2 Mr. John Walker November 18, 2005 Page2 cc: Dr. Roy Brooks Dr. Karen DeJ amette Olivine Roberts IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTR1CT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER RECEIVED DEC 1 - 2005 OFACEOf DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VEN ORS Pending is LRSD's Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. No. 3938). A hearing was held on November 7, 2005 to discuss, among other things, the merits of the motion. Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law made in the hearing, the motion is GRANTED. The following is directed: 1. LRSD has until 5 p.m., Friday, January 6, 2006, to file and serve the preliminary evaluation reports for Compass Learning, SMART/THRIVE, Year-Round Education, and Reading Recovery. 2. Upon receipt of the preliminary evaluation reports, Joshua will have fourteen (14) days to submit written comments to LRSD and PRE. Simultaneous copies must be sent to ODM and the Court. Before any Board action, Joshua will also have the opportunity to appear before the LRSD School Board to address their concerns, objections, or support regarding the evaluations. Joshua should promptly notify the LRSD school board if they intend to take - advantage of this opportunity. 3. lfLRSD learns that it will not receive a preliminary evaluation report from Dr. Ross or Dr. Catterall by the date set forth above, it will immediately inform the Court and the parties. 4. Upon receipt of the preliminary evaluation reports, LRSD will review the evaluations and approve them in accordance with the process set forth in LRSD regulation IL-R. After the completion of that process, which is expected to result in Board approval of all four evaluations at the February 23, 2006 Board meeting, LRSD will file the final Step 2 evaluations and serve them on ODM and Joshua. 5. IfLRSD learns that the final evaluation reports may be delayed for any reason, LR.SD must promptly inform the Court and the parties. IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of November, 2005. Isl Wm. R.Wilson Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2 Arkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4STATE CAPITOL MALL LITLE ROCK, ARKAJ",SAS 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http://arkedu.state.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Commissioner of Education November 30, 2005 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers &amp; Sneddon P. 0 . Box 151-0 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones III RECEIVED DEC 1 - 2005 OFFICE OF DESEQREQATIOH MONITORING Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates &amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. US. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: 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 November 2005 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 STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - Dr. Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia, Vice Chair- Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff Members: *Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro *Shelby Hillman, Carlisle * Dr. Calvin King, Marianna *Randy Lawson, Bentonville *MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock *Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED DEC 1 - 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW 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 AD E's Project Management Tool for November 2005. Respectfully Submitted, co mith, General Counsel, 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 November 30, 2005, 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. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers &amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr.M. SamuelJones,III Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates &amp; Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION REC'EIVED DEC l_-:- 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW 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 November 30, 2005 sa'se'8'"6'ii".'tfi '"1a/,j~iW?M iIa61&amp;aFoaot&gt;'Erri3:1r;?200 ~tat~fFo~n~d "~ :rnr~$s700WJ~t~:12e=--=:.........-.=--==. ....... 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>