Court filings regarding Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) and Joshua intervenrs' proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion and memorandum regarding Majority to Minority Transfer Program (M-to-M) disagreement, 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, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law; District Court, the Joshua intervenors' proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) implementation of the compliance remedy; District Court, combined Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion and memorandum regarding Majority to Minority Transfer Program (M-to-M) disagreement; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) combined motion and memorandum regarding Majority to Minority Transfer Program (M-to-M) disagreement; 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. IJ\T 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 KJ--fIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED JUN - 8 2004 orr,.1~r!ilf DESEGREiiAk,, .,/i~~mmtro LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S PLAIJ\TTIFF DEFENDANTS IJ\TTERVENORS IJ\TTERVENORS PROPOSED FINDIJ\TGS OFF ACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW For its Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Little Rock School District ("LRSD") states: Proposed Findings of Fact 1. On September 13, 2002, the District Court found that LRSD had substantially complied with its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan except with respect to 2. 7 .1 of that Plan. The Court therefore declared that LRSD is a unitary school district in all other respects but set forth a compliance remedy to address LRSD's failure to substantially comply with 2.7.1. Memorandum Opinion, September 13, 2002. 2. LRSD promptly developed a proposed Compliance Plan designed to assure its compliance with the Court's compliance remedy. LRSD provided this proposed Compliance Plan to all counsel in the case and to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring on October 4, 2002. The Page 1 of 10 LRSD Board approved the Compliance Plan on October 10, 2002. The Compliance Plan addresses - each aspect of the Compliance Remedy. 3. LRSD received responses from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and from the Joshua Intervenors concerning its proposed compliance plan. OD M's response, dated October 10, 2002, was in the fom1 of"observations and questions." LRSD responded to each observation and question on October 11 , 2002 in a letter from LRSD lawyer Clay Fendley to all other counsel and Ms. Marshall. LRSD provided a detailed response to Joshua's concerns in a letter dated October 25 , 2002 from Clay Fendley to all other counsel and Ms. Marshall. LRSD concluded its response to Joshua with the following paragraph: 4. If Joshua continues to have concerns about the LRSD's Compliance Plan, Joshua should consider this the LRSD' s written response to alleged non-compliance in accordance with Revised Plan 8. Pursuant to Revised Plan 8.2.4, Joshua has 15 days of receipt of this letter to submit the issue to ODM for facilitation of an agreement. Paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy requires that "LRSD must continue to assess each of the programs implemented under 2. 7 to improve the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students." LRSD met this requirement by preparing comprehensive evaluations of its elementary and secondary literacy programs, and its mathematics and science programs in accordance with its Compliance Plan. 5. Paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy requires that "LRSD maintain certain written records regarding its assessment of each program, including the written criteria used to assess each program, the results of the annual assessments of each program, and the names of the administrators who were involved in the assessment of each program." LRSD has maintained the required records in accordance with its Compliance Plan and much of the required information is set forth in the text Page 2 of 10 of the literacy and the mathematics and science evaluations. 6. Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy requires that "LRSD must use Dr. Nunnery or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations on each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report." The Court held that "all program evaluations that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnery or someone with similar qualifications and approved by the Board" were acceptable. The deadline for preparation and approval by the LRSD Board of these program evaluations was March 15, 2003 . LRSD was required to use the program evaluations to determine the effectiveness of the programs and improving African-American achievement and in determining whether modifications to the programs should be made. 7. LRSD determined that the following evaluations were prepared with the help of outside experts and that, following Board approval, they would be acceptable to the Court: Early Literacy, Mathematics and Science, Charter School, ESL, Southwest Middle School's SEDL Program and Collaborative Action Team. These program evaluations have now been approved by the LRSD Board of Directors. 8. On November 4, 2002, Dr. Lesley reported to the LRSD Board, counsel for Joshua and ODM the status of LRSD's work to implement its compliance plan. Dr. Lesley noted that on October 24, 2002 the Board approved the 1999-2000 and 2001 PreK-2 Literacy Program Evaluation, which was completed with the assistance of Dr. Ross, and the 2000-01 Charter School Program Evaluation, which was completed by Dr. Larry McNeal. Joshua and ODM received copies of all of those evaluations. Dr. Lesley also provided to Joshua and ODM copies of the Collaborative Action Team Evaluation and the Southwest Middle School's SEDL Evaluation. Page 3 of 10 9. On December 3, 2002, Dr. Lesley wrote to counsel for Joshua and to ODM to let - them know that the Board would consider approval of the mathematics and science evaluations for the years 1998 through 2002 on December 19, 2002. Dr. Lesley provided copies of the program evaluation documents to Joshua and ODM. Dr. Lesley also reported to Joshua and ODM that, by the end of December 2002, six of the fourteen program evaluations listed on page 148 of LRSD 's Final Compliance Report will have been approved. 10. In accordance with LRSD's Compliance Plan, the remammg eight program evaluations listed on page 148 ofLRSD's Final Compliance Report were to be completed with the help of outside experts. Those evaluations are Extended Year Schools, Middle School Implementation, Elementary Summer School, HIPPY, Campus Leadership Teams, Lyceum Scholars Program, Onward to Excellence and Vital Link. 11 . LRSD contracted with Dr. Steve Ross, a program evaluation expert approved by the Joshua Intervenors, to prepare guidelines for the completion or revision of these eight evaluations. In late November, 2002, Dr. Ross prepared a document called "Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in the LRSD." Dr. Ross also consulted with Dr. William Moore and Dr. Larry McNeal, consultants who were selected to complete some of the eight program evaluations. See Agreement for Contracted Services between LRSD and Dr. Ross dated January 10, 2003. 12. In accordance with the guidelines prepared by Dr. Ross, Dr. Moore completed evaluations concerning the Middle School Transition and Extended Year Education; Dr. McNeal completed evaluations concerning Lyceum Scholars and Elementary Summer School; and Dr. Ross completed evaluations concerning Vital Link, Onward to Excellence, HIPPY and Campus Leadership Teams. Page 4 of 10 13 . All fifteen of the "page 148" Program Evaluations were approved by the LRSD Board - of Directors and were submitted to the Court on March 14, 2003 in accordance with paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. 14. Some of "page 148" evaluations were of limited use to LRSD for various reasons explained by Dr. Ross and Dr. Lesley. For example, some of the programs had already been discontinued and the data available for some of the other programs provided a greater risk of producing a misleading evaluation result than a useful one. LRSD made the best use it could of the evaluations completed by outside experts in accordance with Dr. Ross' guidelines. 15. Paragraphs D and E of the Compliance Remedy require Joshua and ODM to monitor LRSD' s compliance with 2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan. Joshua was also required to follow the requirements of 8 of the Revised Plan: Joshua must monitor LRSD's compliance with 2.7.1 and must immediately bring to the attention of LRSD all problems that are detected in its compliance with its obligations under 2. 7.1, as those obligations are spelled out in this Compliance Remedy. Thereafter, Joshua and LRSD must use the "Process for Raising Compliance Issues" set forth in 8.2, et seq., of the Revised Plan to attempt to resolve those compliance issues. If those efforts are unsuccessful, Joshua must present the issues to me for resolution, as required by 8.2 .5. Any such presentation must be timely. Memorandum Opinion, September 13, 2002, p. 172. (emphasis in original) 16. On November 1, 2002, Joshua invoked the procedure set forth in 8.2.4 of the Revised Plan regarding the adequacy ofLRSD's Compliance Plan. Joshua presented the following arguments: a. LRSD was not planning to evaluate all of the programs it had identified to fulfill the requirements of 2.7; Page 5 of 10 b. C. The Pre-K-2 Literacy Program evaluation was not adequate for submission to the LRSD Board for approval; LRSD's plan for revising and completing the "page 148" evaluations was inconsistent with policy IL-Rl ; d. LRSD should not use its Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) or obsen1ation survey as it had in previous evaluations because those are administered by teachers who have a potential conflict of interest; e. LRSD's external consultants should write the comprehensive program evaluations in order to avoid a conflict of interest inherent in internal program evaluations; f. Careful consideration should be given to implementation ofremediation activities as a part of the program evaluation process. 17. ODM responded on November 4, 2002 that the ODM associate monitor responsible for monitoring program evaluation in the LRSD was unavailable due to injuries suffered in an accident and that ODM would assist with facilitation of the dispute upon his return. The facilitation process began with a meeting at ODM on February 7, 2003. The second and last facilitation meeting was held February 28, 2003. Following that meeting, LRSD's lawyer provided additional information to Joshua on March 4, 2003 and Dr. Lesley provided additional information to Joshua on March 6, 2003 . On April 8, 2003 Joshua sent a letter to Clay Fendley requesting additional information. Joshua concluded the letter with the following sentence: As we are in need of deciding whether to raise any of these matters before the court, we would appreciate a prompt response to this letter. LRSD provided no response to this letter. The facilitation process had failed. Page 6 of 10 18. Joshua did nothing further to pursue the Compliance Plan issues in accordance with - 8 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan until March 10, 2004. On that date, counsel for Joshua wrote to ODM in an attempt to revive the issues Joshua had previously raised concerning LRSD's Compliance Plan. Joshua did not present any of its Compliance Plan issues to the Court in a timely manner as required by paragraph D of the Compliance Remedy. 19. LRSD's decision to continue to implement its Compliance Plan notwithstanding Joshua's objections is in accordance with the terms of the Revised Plan: Unless and until ordered to do otherwise by the District Court, LRSD shall be free to implement the programs, policies and procedures the party [Joshua] alleges failed to comply with this Revised Plan. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan 8.2.6. 21 . The LRSD contracted with Dr. Steve Ross to prepare comprehensive evaluations of the LRSD's elementary and secondary literacy programs. These evaluations, which were combined in a single report, were completed and approved by the LRSD Board in November of 2003 . The cost of the evaluation was approximately $100,000.00. 22. Dr. Don Wold, a program evaluator funded through LRSD's National Science Foundation Grant, along with Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction and Vanessa Cleaver, LRSD's Director of the National Science Foundation Grant, authored the Comprehensive Mathematics and Science Evaluation. The Comprehensive Mathematics and Science Evaluation was completed and approved by the Board in December 2003. The Literacy and Math/Science evaluations were provided to the Joshua Intervenors and to ODM on January 12, 2004. The cost of this evaluation was funded by the National Science Foundation Grant. Page7of 10 23 . The LRSD substantially complied with its Revised Desegregation and Education Plan - and the Court's compliance remedy by implementation of its Compliance Plan. Proposed Conclusions of Law 1. LRSD properly incorporated the requirements of the Compliance Remedy in its Compliance Plan. LRSD's substantial compliance with its Compliance Plan is tantamount to substantial compliance with the compliance remedy. 2. Joshua challenged LRSD's Compliance Plan pursuant to 8 of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. After it was apparent that the ODM facilitation process had failed, Joshua took no action to bring the Compliance Plan issues to the attention of the Court. Joshua failed to present to the Court in a timely manner the compliance issues it first pointed out to LRSD on November 1, 2002. Consequently, LRSD implemented its Compliance Plan for about 18 months without the Court being made aware that Joshua had any objection to it. Joshua has - therefore waived its argument that LRSD's Compliance Plan is insufficient to bring LRSD in line with the Court's compliance remedy. See LRSD v. PCSSD, 921 F.2d 1371, 1387 (8 th Cir. 1990) ("Consent decrees partake of the nature of contracts, as well as of judicial action . . . . ") 3. Given the fact that Joshua abandoned its pursuit of a remedy under 8 of the Revised Plan, it was proper for LRSD to continue to implement its Compliance Plan according to 8.2.6 of the Revised Plan. 4. Even if Joshua had presented the Compliance Plan issues to the Court in a timely manner, I find that the LRSD Compliance Plan appropriately incorporates the requirements of the compliance remedy. I further find that LRSD has followed the requirements of its Compliance Plan and consequently, has met the requirements of the compliance remedy. LRSD v. PCSSD, 60 F.3d Page 8 of 10 435, 436 (8th Cir. 1995) ("The interpretation of a consent decree should be a practical enterprise, e influence, perhaps, by technical rules of construction, but not controlled by them.") 5. LRSD is declared to be unitary with regard to all aspects of its operations, because it has substantially complied with the Court's compliance remedy with respect to 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. All federal supervision and monitoring of LRSD is terminated forthwith. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE &amp; CLARK Christopher Heller ( #81 08 3) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Littl72~201-3e493 :o~ (501~2~ BY:-=-==-c--'-''---~~-""'---"c....MC'----"= Christopher Heller Page9of 10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on the 71h day of June, 2004: Mr. John W. Walker JOHNW. WALKER,P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 021 73 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey &amp; Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON &amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Tim Gauger Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Page 10 of I 0 ' " .. RECEIVED JUN - 8 200't FILED c.u,..-U.S. DISTRICT COURT ~, ERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS OFFICE OF IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUN O 7 2004 A DESEGREGATION MONITORING EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANS~MES W M W WESTERN DIVISION By cCORMACK, CLERK DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-8 66 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. 'LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors' Proposed Findings of Fact "and - Conclusions of Law Concerning the LRSD's Implementation of . the Section 2.7.1 Compliance Remedy - On September 13, 2002, this court held that the LRSD had failed to substantially comply with Section 2.7.1 of the agreed upon desegregation and education plan. [Mem. Opin. at 150-60] Accordingly, the court set forth a "Compliance Remedy." [Id. at 170-72] This court's September 2002 opinion identified the purpose of Section 2. 7. 1, the importance of substantial compliance with its terms, and the capacity which the LRSD must demonstrate as one element of its burden to justify the termination of the court's supervision. This court wrote: .... I find that the purpose of Sec. 2.7.1 was to make sure that the programs under Sec. 2.7 actually worked to improve the academic achievement of African-american . students. I further find that LRSD' s substanti al compliance with Sec. 2.7.1 was crucial to its commitment to improve the academic 1 achievement of African-American students; for, without performing a rigorous annual assessment of each of the many dozens of programs implemented under Sec. 2.7, it would be impossible to determine which programs were working and should be continued and which programs were not working and should be discontinued, modified, replaced with new programs [at 150; emphasis in original] I conclude that the court should continue supervision and monitoring of LRSD' s compliance with this crucially important section of the Revised Plan in order to ensure that LRSD has in place an effective assessment program that will allow it to identify and improve those programs that are most effective in remediating the academic achievement of African American students. [at 168] These elements of the court's opinion help to frame the issues presented by the Joshua Intervenor's opposition to the LRSD effort to be released from court supervision, heard by the court on June 14-15, 2004. Based upon the record, the court enters the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. 1 I. Findings of Fact A. The Lack of Capacity of the LRSD to Perform the Requisite Assessments and Evaluations (1.) Based upon the facts set forth in paragraphs 2 through 26, the court finds that the LRSD has failed to "[demonstrate] that a program assessment procedure is in place that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented under Sestion 2. 7 in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; ... " ["Compliance Remedy," Mem. Opin. at 170; see also id. at 168] [Haney, Hunter, Jones, Marshall testimony] 1 LRSD and Joshua Intervenors' exhibits are cited LRX at --and JX at---, respectively. Witnesses are cited by their last names. 2 The Lack of Adequate Staff (2.) In its ruling of September 13, 2002, this court cited the recognition of the school board and upper ec;::helon administrators that the LRSD had been without the capacity to prepare what the court termed "in-depth and analytic program evaluations." [Mem. Opin. at 156; see id. at 153 (Dr. Lesley); at 156-57 (school board); at 157 (Superintendent Carnine)]; at 159 (Dr. Lesley). (3.) The LRSD Compliance Plan was heavily dependent on actions by former Associate Superintendent Bonnie Lesley. [LRX 3 ("Action Plan Timeline" at 15-16)] Doctor Lesley left the district for employment out-of-state on March 14, 2003. [JX 11 at 5] The slow . pace of filling her position played a substantial part in continuing the lack of adequate staffing for the assessment \ evaluation task. [Id. (ODM notes filling of position on an interim basis on June 26, 2003)] [Jones and Marshall testimony] (4.) Overall, the evidence establishes that subsequent to the court's entry of the Compliance Remedy, the LRSD has continued to have an inadequately staffed evaluation \assessment capacity. [ JX 11 at 2 (third paragraph), 5, 6, 16 (second paragraph) 2 (ODM report, March 30, 2004); Jones and Marshall testimony] 2 The ODM report states in part: "In the summer of 2001, the associate superintendent who led PRE had resigned and that position had remained empty. As a result, the top positions in both PRE and the instructional division were vacant at the critical time for preparing program evaluations. [footnote omitted]" [JX 11 at 16] "PRE" refers to the Department of Planning, Research and Evaluation. 3 The Failure to Identify the Programs Subject to the Compliance Remedy (5.) In the opinion of September 13, 2002, this court found that the LRSD had identified "many dozens of programs [as] implemented under Section 2.7 [of the agreed upon Plan] " [Mero. Opin. at 150] The court's Compliance Remedy provides in part as follows: A. For the entire 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year, through December 31, 2003, LRSD must continue to assess each of the programs implemented under Section 2.7 to improve the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students. . [Mero. Opin. at 170; emphasis added] Nevertheless, despite inquiries from ODM, the LRS D never identified, with clarity, the programs which it deems to be subject to this mandate. [JX 11 at 23 (ODM report, March 30, 2004); Jones testimony] Standards for Conducting Evaluations (6.) In the light of the court's opinion [Mero. Opin. at 151- 52; 153; 156-58], the LRSD properly concluded [LRX 3 at 7 (LRSD Compliance Plan)] that it must each year complete some comprehensive evaluations of key parts of the curriculum "designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African- American students " [Plan Section 2.7] (7.) In 2000, Dr. Ross met with the LRSD Compliance Committee. A part of the discussion is described in the ODM report, March 30, 2004, as follows: .... [Dr. Ross] also described the program evaluation process, which included a classroom observation plan developed at the University of Memphis. The observations were to ensure that programs were being consistently implemented in the classrooms throughout the district 4 . . ... [JX 11 at 3; Jones testimony] (8.) Dr. Ross prepared for the LRSD a document, dated December 3, 2002, regarding the completion of 8 of the 14 "page. 148 evaluations" (that is evaluations listed on page 148 of the March 2002 interim compliance report) . It is titled "Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in Little Rock School Disti:ict." [JX 6] 3 The document articulates, among others, the following premise [JX 6 at l]: Program evaluations that focus predominately on student achievement outcomes while lacking sufficient implementation data have reduced value due to inability to determine the nature of the 'treatment . . ' The study will also fail to inform policymakers about the practicality of the program, how it was used and reacted to by stakeholders, or whether and\or how it needs to be improved to impact at-risk learners. (9.) On October 10, 2002, the LRSD school board adopted Regulation IL-Rl titled "Program Evaluation Agenda." The Regulation sets forth standards and procedures for the content of program evaluations in the LRSD. [JX 2] (a) LRSD Regulation IL-Rl [JX 2 at 3] identifies the need for the evaluation process to satisfy "accuracy standards," including one concerning "program documentation." Program Documentation. The program being evaluated should be described and documented clearly and accurately so that it is identified clearly .. (b) LRSD Regulation IL-Rl also contains the following 3 The LRSD concluded that 6 of the 14 "page 148 evaluations" could be approved by the school board "without additional work .... " [LRX 3 at 5] Dr. Ross' Guidelines addressed the completion of the other 8 "page 148 evaluations." [JX 6 at 1-2] 5 provision: "Program Evaluation Procedures" [JX 2 at 4-5] 6.C. Write a clear description of the curriculum\ instruction program that is to be evaluated, with information about the schedule of its implementation. (c) Regulation IL-Rl provides in part (JX 2 at 5) that "the first meetings [of the evaluation team] will be devoted to the following tasks _D. Agree on any necessary research questions that need to be established in addition to the question, Has this curriculum\instruction program been ineffective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of Afri can-American students?' (See Policy IL, 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, and Judge Wilson's Compliance Remedy.) Thus, LRSD policy recognized that the court's Compliance remedy required a focus on individual programs (". . . thi_s . . . program . "). (10.) LRSD Policy IL ("Evaluation of Instructional Programs") [JX 1) provides that "all program evaluations will follow standards established by the National Joint Cammi ttee on Standards for Education Evaluation." Policy IL-Rl further identifies these standards as The Program Evaluation Standards, 2nd Edition: How to Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs (Thousand Oaks, _CA,; Sage Publications) . [JX 2 at 1] These standards include the following content in the section on "accuracy standards" [at 125, 127-28]: STANDARD The program being evaluated should be described and documented clearly and accurately, so that the program is clearly defined. Overview It is necessary for the evaluator to gain a sol~d understanding of the program being evaluated, including both the way it was intended to be and the way it actually was 6 / implemented, and to convey this description to others. Failure to gain such understanding will lead to an evaluation that, when completed, is likely to be of questionable .use. A valid characterization of a program as it actually was implemented will describe its unique features and component parts in order to facilitate comparisons 0 the program with similar programs. A good description of the program will also facilitate attempts to associate components of the program with its effects. * GUIDELINES A. Ask the client and the other stakeholders to descr.ibe _orally, and, if possible, in writing -- the interided and the actual program with reference to such. characteristics as personnel, cost, procedures, location, facilities, setting, activit~es, objectives, nature of participation, and potential side effects .... C. Engage independent observers to . describe the program if time and budget permit. D. Set aside time at the beginning of the evaluation to observe the program and the staff and participants who are involved. The Literacy Evaluation (filed by LRSD on March 12, 2004) ( 11.) The LRSD offers as one comprehensive evaluation the ttLittle Rock School District Literacy Program Evaluation.tt The LRSD provided or approved a list of research questions for this study not including the question quoted in para. 9(c), identified by the LRSD as a necessary element of any evaluation to be a part of the effort to satisfy the court's Compliance Remedy. 4 Where the focus was to be the impact of individual programs on African American achievement and the possible need for program changes, this omission led to an evaluation with an insufficient focus on 4 See Literacy Evaluation at 1; at 4 (indicating that question most relevant to the Compliance Remedy was given lesser emphasis). 7 particular programs and their impact on the intervenor class. (12.) The Literacy Evaluation contains insufficient description of the program(s) being evaluated to satisfy LRSD or professional standards. See Literacy Evaluation at 10-11; paragraphs 9-10, supra; Haney, Hunter, Jones testimony. This is particularly the case at the middle school and high school levels. [Literacy Evaluation at 11] Interviews of middle and high school teach~rs revealed a lack of knowledge of any literacy plan at those levels. [Literacy Evaluation at 7, 13, 43] (13.) The Literacy Evaluation does not provide senior administrators or the school board in.formation on particular programs adequate to determine whether any particular program should be eliminated, modified, or better implemented. [Hunter and - Jones testimony] There are evaluation models allowing a focus on individual programs. [Haney and Hunter testimony; LRX 16 at 6] (14.) The Literacy Evaluation provides scant information on the extent of implementation of any particular program. As Sec. 2.7.1 refers to "modifying how the program is implemented," this deficiency is highly significant. [Haney, Hunter testimony] ' (15.) The Literacy Evaluation is in the main an evaluation of student test scores, rather than an evaluation of the impact of particular education programs. [Literacy Evaluation at 44-47; Haney and Hunter testimony] The Literacy Evaluation is marked by several technical problems (absence of data on use of teacher questionnaires; lack of demographic information on teachers in focus groups; inadequate data on student whose files were excluded 8 from analyses). [Hunter testimony] (16.) There are at least two problems in the analyses of the trends in African American students' scores on successive version of Arkansas benchmark tests. [Literacy Evaluation at 44-45] There is no discussion of "equating" successive versions (that is, considering whether later versions are of comparable rigor). There is no consideration of whether the pattern reported at upper grades is attributable to the dropping out, disproportionately, of black students with weaker achievement levels. [Haney and Marshall testimony; JX 13] (17.) To satisfy professional standards for evaluations, a report that addresses progress on standardized tests should include other data bearing on the presence or absence of academic progress, such as grade to grade progression data (that is, whether students are being promoted or retained) and drop out data. [Haney and Marshall testimony] ( 18.) The Literacy Evaluation is deficient when measured against the standards earlier articulated by Dr. Ross. See paragraphs 7-8. The text of the Literacy Evaluation shows that it "focus [es] predominately on student achievement outcomes while lacking sufficient implementation data . " The description of programs is .exceedingly terse and, at grade l1=vels 10-12, almost non-existent . [Literacy Evaluation at 10-11] It reflects no observation of classrooms by outside observers to assess actual program implementation. The latter problem is a consequence of the schedule for the evaluation adopted by the LRSD, as well as the 9 inadequacy of funding (not sufficient to pay for classroom observation) . This study can not help to answer the question "whether and\or how [the literacy program] needs to be improved to impact at-risk learners." LRSD Regulation IL-Rl [JX 2] includes as one criterion for i denti fying evaluation topics the following question [at 4]: "Can the .results of the evaluation influence decisions about the program?" See also LRX 16 at 6 (memorandum by Dr. Ross dated April, 2004 recognizing the parameters of the Literacy Evaluation). The Math-Science Ev aluation (filed by LRSD on March 12, 2004) (19 .. ) The LRSD offers as one comprehensive evaluation "An Evaluation of Mathematics and Science programs in the Little Rock School District from 1998 to 2003. The Math-Science Evaluation contains insufficient description of the program ( s) being evaluated to satisfy LRSD or professional standards. See Math-Science Evaluation at 5-10; paragraphs 9-10, supra; Haney, Hunter, Jones testimony] (20.) The Math-Science Evaluation does not provide senior administrators or the school board information on particular programs adequate to determine whether any indi victual program should be eliminated, modified, or better implemented. [Hunter and Jones testimony] (21.) The Math-Science Evaluation identifies methods for determi ning the extent of implementation of educational programs, but does not provide results for the math-science program. [MathScience- Evaluation at 11] As Sec. 2.7.1 refers to "modifying how 10 the program is implemented," this deficiency is highly significant. [Haney, Hunter testimony] (22.) The Math-Science Evaluation is in the main an evaluation of student test scores, rather than an evaluation of the impact of particular education programs. [Math-Science Evaluation at 25-103; Han~y and Hunter testimony] (23.) There are at least two problems in the analyses of the trends in African American students' scores on successive version of Arkansas benchmark tests. [~, Math-Science Evaluation at 30- 34] There is no discussion of "equating" successive versions (that is, considering whether later versions are .of comparable rigor) . There is no consideration of whether the pattern reported at upper grades is attributable to the dropping out, disproportionately,. of black students with weaker achievement levels. [Haney and Marshall testimony; JX 13] (24.) To satisfy professional standards for evaluations; a report like the Math-Science Evaluation that addresses progress on standardized tests should include other data bearing on the presence or absence of academic progress, such as grade to grade progression data and drop out data. [Haney testimony; Marshall testimony] Other Factors (25.) The overall weakness of the Page 148 evaluations also evidences the lack of capacity of the LRSD to fulfill paragraphs (a) and (A) of the Compliance Remedy. See infra, paras. 27-28 and Mem. Opin. at 170-71. 11 (26.) The ODM report of March 30, 2004, states: "Contrary to the spirit of the regulation for program evaluation, the [LRSDJ literacy evaluation team's involvement was limited to tacit approval of the evaluation plan and assisting with data collection." [JX 11 at 16] In a memorandum written in April 2004, Dr. Ross wrote: "I was never contacted during the entire study period by any literacy evaluation team member." [LRX 16 at 4] The lack_of involvement of LRSD personnel is a negative factor in terms of the system's internal capacity for conducting evaluations and assessments -- a criterion for assessing compliance with the courtordered remedy. B. The Preparation of the Page 148 Evaluations (27.) The LRSD did not comply in substance with .the requirement of the court-ordered remedy that it [prepare] the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report . [Compliance Remedy, Mero. Opin. at 170] (28.) The evaluations filed by the LRSD on March 14, 2003 do not satisfy the standards for evaluations adopted by the LRSD on October 10, 2002 [JX 2], or the professional standards on which they are based. See "The Joshua Intervenors' Comments on the Submission of Page 148 ' Evaluation,'" filed April 14, 2003; JX 11 at 21 (ODM R~port, March 30, 2004) (citing views of Dr. Ross about 8 of the 14 evaluations "that, for the most part, the evaluations of the subject programs 'were worthless'" and "that the evaluations we:re of little or no use to the district"); LRX 16 (memorandum written by Dr. Ross in April 2004) ("all [eight] were woefully 12 ! I I inadequate and seemingly 'worthless' for informing policy or - practice"). See JX 5(a)-(c) (memoranda by Dr. Lesley for the school board identifying deficiencies in 3 of the remaining 6 evaluations) . C. The Use of Evaluation and Assessment Results (29.) The LRSD provided no discussion of any use made of the results of evaluation\assessment in the science area until furnishing an exhibit for these hearings. [JX 11 at 15 (ODM report, March 30, 2004); LRSD Exhibit List, April 21, 2004, LRX 17] (30.) The LRSD did not use the "page 148 [evaluations]" "as part of the program assessment process, to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving African American achievement and whether, based on the evaluations, and changes- or modifications should be made in those programs." [Compliance Remedy, Mem. Opin. at 171-72] There is no suggestion of such use iri either the March 2003 or the March 12, 2004 submissions of the LRSD; see also JX 11 at 22 (ODM report, March 30, 2004). D. The Failure of the LRSD to Provide Information (31.) Subsequent to the court's entry of the Compliance Remedy, the LRSD has acted in a manner limiting the availability of information about its compliance activities. (a) LRSD Policy IL-Rl ("Program Evaluation Agenda") adopted by the LRSD in October, 2002, provides in part [JX 2 at 5, emphasis added] that the "team leader" for each evaluation shall G. Plan ways to provide regular progress reports (e.g., dissemination of meeting minutes, written progress reports, oral reports to the Superintendent's Cabine~ and\or Compliance 13 I I !I I I team) to stakeholders, including the Associate Superintendent for Instruction, the Superintendent of Schools, the Office of desegregation Monitoring (until Unitary Status is received), and the Joshua Intervenors (until Unitary Status is achieved). Thereafter, the LRSD did not implement this provision. [LRSD exhibits for this hearing; Jones and Marshall testimony] (b) On April 8, 2003, as part of the Section 8 process, counsel for the Joshua Intervenors directed a letter to the LRSD concerning the plan for carrying out evaluations and the provision to Joshua of information on observation of the educational program within several schools. [LRX 15] The LRSD ignored this letter. [LRSD exhibits for this hearing; testimo~y to be adduced] (c) On October 27, 2003, the LRSD provided a terse, nonsubstantive status report to ODM and counsel for Joshua Intervenors (John W. Walker). [JX 7; Marshall testimony] (d) The LRSD school board approved the Literacy Evaluation in November, 2003. The school board approved the Math-Science Evaluation in December, 2003. [LRSD Compliance Report, March 12, 2004, at 3-4] The LRSD did not provide these evaluations to counsel for the Joshua Intervenors until January 12, 2004 (and then provided them only to John W. Walker). [LRX 8] E. Other Factors (32.) The data in the Literacy and Math-Science evaluations shows the extent to whi ch African American achievement lags behind white student achievement. This data demonstrates the importance of the LRSD's having the capacity to assess and evaluate individual education programs in terms of effectiveness for blac~ students and the need to better implement, modify, or replace programs. 14 l l (33.) The Joshua Intervenors set forth concerns regarding the LRSD's implementation of the Compliance Remedy in a letter to Ms. Ann Marshall, ODM, on March 10, 2004 (with a copy to counsel for the LRSD) . [ See The Joshua Intervenors' Memorandum in Support of Their Opposition, April 15, 2004, Attach. BJ (34.) LRSD submissions subsequent to the court's entry of the compliance Remedy do not show that in that period the LRSD worked with the Arkansas Department of Education to remediate the racial academic achievement disparities which continue to exist in the system. See for example the achievement data in the Math-Science evaluation. The LRSD did not comply with the requirements of the Pulaski County School District Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement, March 1989 (as revised September 28, 1989), Section I.II- (a, c), III-G. II. Conclusions of Law ( 1.) This court held that the LRSD did not substantially comply with Section 2.7.1 of the agreed upon remedial plan. [Mem. Opin., 9-13-02, at 150-160] As a consequence of this noncompliance, the court's compliance remedy placed the burden of demonstrating compliance with the remedy on the LRSD. [Id. at 170, preface] (2.) In order to decide whether the LRSD has substantially complied with the Compliance Remedy, the court must determine whether the deficiencies alleged by the Joshua Intervenors "were serious enough': (1) to constitute 'substantial noncompliance'; and ( 2) ' to cast doubt' on LRSD' s ' future compliance with the 15 I i i j \I :I ,I 1 constitution.'" [Id. at 77] Once again, the LRSD has the burden of proof with regard to substantial compliance. (3.) The record establishes: (a) On the whole, t~e "page 148 evaluations" do not support a determination that the LRSD substantially complied with the Compliance Remedy. (b) Because the Literacy and the Math-Science evaluations have a li~ited or non-existent focus on individual programs, they do not permit a determination of whether any particular program should be modified, or replaced. (c) Due to the gathering and presentation of inadequate information on program implementation, the Literature and MathScience evaluations do nor permit a determination of whether individual programs should be implemented in a different manner. (d) Multiple elements of the record establish that the LRSD . has not "demonstrate[d] that a program assessment procedure is in place that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented under Sec. 2.7 in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; . II (4.) The LRSD has failed to establish substantial compliance with the Compliance Remedy by a preponderance of the evidence. ( 5.) Th_e "LRSD has [not] substantially complied with [Plan] Section 2. 7 .1, as specified in [the court's] Compliance Remedy" [Mem. Opin., Sept. 13, 2002, at 172] Therefore, the LRSD must continue to be subject to further supervision and monitoring of its implementation of the court-ordered remedy, until it demonstrates 16 j I l substantial compliance with that remedy for a period of two additional school years, at minimum (the period of additional jurisdiction must be sufficient to allow ac:Iequate evaluations) . Additional court supervision of this duration will afford the LRSD the time needed to achieve compliance with the remedy; and, as well, give the Joshua Intervenors, ODM, and the court the time to insure that compliance t merely transitory. --ll-~.....,,_,,...c:;:...-=..:..._.,__-=!)7.---'-1~9" n 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 17 t,/ John W. Walker Rickey Hicks John W. Walker , P . A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 I I I ,I :1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served, via U.S . Mail, postage prepaid to the following individuals: Hon. Judge J. Thomas Ray Mr. Chris Heller United States Magistrate Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 600 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Regions Center I Little.Rock, AR 72201 Littie Rock, AR 72201 I Mr. Scott Smith, General Counsel Ms. Ann Marshall I Arkansas Department of Education ODM I #4 Capitol Mall, Suite 404A 124 W~st Capitol, Suite 1895 I Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock; AR 72201 I Mr. John C. Fendley, Jr. Mr. Mark Hagemeier I I John C. Fendley, P.A. Mr. Timothy Gauger 51 Wingate Drive 323 Center Street I - Little Rock, AR 72205 Little Rock, AR 72201 I I Mr. M. Samuel Jones Mr. Stephen W. Jones Wright Lindsey &amp; Jennings JACK, LYON &amp; JONES 200 West Capitol, Suite 2200 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnett Mitchell &amp; Blackstock 1010 West 3rd Little Rock, AR 72201 !dalt!&amp; IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT I V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGijT, ET AL. COMBINED PCSSD MOTION AND MEMORANDUM REGARDING M-TO-M DISAGREEMENT The PCS SD for its combined motion and memorandum, states: PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS RECEIVEJ JUN - 8 20011 OFFlCE OF DESEGREGATION fiiO:: .. : ::,J 1. To promote brevity, the PCSSD is combining its motion and memorandum into one document. 2. This dispute centers around different interpretations of the M-to-M stipulation by the PCS SD and the LRSD. The PCS SD is concerned that these disagreements will not be resolved in time to permit all current M-to-M students and applicants to actually transfer for the impending year and be guaranteed transportation. Hence this motion. 3. Counsel is informed that the LRSD is requiring existing M-to-M students to resubmit an application to it to reaffirm school choices and M-to-M status as these students matriculate from one organizational level to the next. 504196-v1 4. Rather than requiring reapplication, the PCSSD has developed a "tracking form", attached as Exhibit A, which should suffice for LRSD's needs but not require a reapplication. 5. While the tracking form is very similar to the M-to-M application, it avoids the disruption and concern expressed by students and parents that a reapplication jeopardizes their , M-to-M status by promoting unnecessary delay and prncedures. The PCSSD believes that the current LRSD process and procedures are inconsistent with Paragraph 6 of the M-to-M stipulation, attached as Exhibit B, which states: The commitment to accept a student shall be for the duration of the student's voluntary participation. Once a student exercises his or her right to participate, the student will continue in the initially selected school for at least one full school year or until the student graduates or affirmatively withdraws from participation as herein set out. Students will not have to transfer each year or exercise a transfer choice to remain in the host district. Students shall be encouraged to continue to participate at their initial school of choice. It is expected that the student will follow the pattern of assigned schools for the resident students in the school in which the transfer student first enrolls. 5. The PCSSD has proposed a solution to these issues but as indicated by its memorandum dated May 25, 2004, attached as Exhibit C, the LRSD has not agreed. 6. PCSSD interprets Paragraph 6 of the M-to-M stipulation to mean that once an LRSD student acquires M-to-M status in the PCSSD, then that student becomes, for all purposes, a PCS SD student unless or until the student affirmatively seeks to withdraw. In that sense, the PCSSD believes that these former LRSD students acquire the same rights as to future school assignments as are enjoyed by indigenous PCSSD students. This includes not only mandatory assignment patterns but the availability of assignment via the PCSSD's intra- 504196-v1 2 district voluntary transfer programs as well as the privilege to apply for PCSSD specialty schools pursuant to the rules which apply to all PCSSD students. 7. Upon information and belief, LRSD's contract with Laidlaw requires that all M-to- M students be identified and "processed" sometime this summer. Obviously, if the process is not finalized by then, these students may be denied transportation and hence will not transfer. 8. Upon information and belief, the LRSD is "holding" tracking forms until this dispute is resolved. (Please seen Exhibit C). WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an order of this Court directing the parties to comply with the language of Paragraph 6 of the M-to-M stipulation and to conform their I current policies and procedures to the M-to-M stipulation so that the M-to-M process may - proceed smoothly and without creating unnecessary concern on the part of M-to-M students and their parents and for all proper relief. 504196-v1 Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY &amp; JENNINGS LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX: (501) 376-9442 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June 7, 2004, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following : Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 504196-v1 4 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General . Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little. Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Massachusetts 02173 PAGE 06/06 05/04/2004 ,15: 24 5014901352 EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE -..., ,' .: ... '" PCSSD (M to M) STUDENT TRACKING FORM ',, lbis form is to track (M to M) student movement to the next grade and or organizational level. If . the student wishes an alternative placement other than the pattern of assigned schools for resident students, these assignments will be made with consideration of space available at the requested school and other ~ctors, such as racial composition of the requested school. STUDENT'S NAME: ____________ StudentID # ___ _ STUDENTS RESIDENCE ADDRESS: ______________ _ City: _____________ State: _____ _,Zip Code:, ____ _ GRADE LEVEL AS OF SEPT. 2004: DATE OF BIRTH: __ SEX: __ RACE:_ SCHOOL ATTENDED DUR.lNG THE 2003-04 SCHOOL YEAR: --------- PARENT OR GUARDIAN HAVING CUSTODY OR CHARGE OF THE STUDENT __ _ PARENTS'S MAILING ADDRESS: ________________ _ City:. __ --:'."::"'.""-:------------State: ______ .Zip Code: ____ _ PARENT'S IIOMEPHONE NUMBER __________ _ PAREN'I''S WORK PHONE NUMBER OTHER NUMBER WHERE PARENT C_AN_B_E_RE_A_C_HED ____ SCHOOL REQUESTED ___________________ _ DOES nns STUDENT REQUlRE TRANSPORTATION ___ YES -----'NO DOES TIIlS STUDENT REQlT.IRE SPECIAL SER VICES ___ YES ------'NO IF YES, PLEASE INDICATE HOW SERVICES ARE RECEIVED: HEALrn: PLAN ____ IBP/SPECIAL EDUCATION ---SE_C_11-:::0N 504 ACCOMMODATION PLAN ___ SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION I give permission to the school in which my child is currently enrolled to release any information or school records necessary to complete the requeste~_transfer. PARENT'S SIGNATURE: ______________ DATE: ___ _ Form completed by: _____________ Counselor's office Forward to the OFFICE OF EQUITY AND PUPIL SER VICES DATE APPROVAL DATE TRANSFER APPROVED:______ DATES OF ATTENDANCE _____ _ SCHOOOL TO WHICH TRANSFER APPROVED: ____________ _ EXHIBIT A ,,,, ------- - --------- \ , ... .. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. PLAINTIFF INTERVENORS vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL, SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS STIPULATION FOR PROPOSED ORDER ON VOLUNTARY MAJORITY TO MINORITY TRANSFERS Plaintiff Little Rock School District ("LRSD"), and defendants Pulaski County Special School District ("PCSSD"), . North Little Rock School District ("NLRSD"), and Arkansas State Board of Education ("State Board"), being in agreement on the voluntary majority-to-minority transfers, submit the following stipulations for the proposed order: 1. Beginning in the 1987-88 school year and continuing thereafter, LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD will permit and encourage voluntary majority-to-minority interdistrict transfers. The three districts will cooperate in the development of programs to acquaint parents, guardians and students with interdistrict opportunities. The implementation 0 majority-to-minority transfer provisions i s contingent upon the implementation of all other provisions of the remedy ordered by the Court. 2 . Eligibility: EXHIBIT 6 ------- ------------------ a . Black students who are members of the raci~l m~jority at a school in any participating district which district is 50 peicent or more bl~ck in its enrollment shall be eligible to transfer voluntarily to a school and district in any other participating district in which school and district they would be in the racial minority. .. , b. White students who are members of the racial majority at a school in a particip~ting district which c. district is more than 50% white in its enrollment shall be eligible to transfer voluntarily to a school and district in any other participating district in which they would be in the raci,al minority . Prior to the transfer of ' any stud.ent, the home district shall issue a statement that the transferring student is in good standing. If the student is not in good st~nding, the student may be permitted to transfer on a provisional basis. 3. Students wishing to transfer shall file applications with their home districts. Applications must be filed before May 1 of the preceding school year and a student may not transfer more than once in any school year. The home district will process all applications and forward copies to the host' districts. The home district will furnish its complete file on each student with his/her application . 2 4. Transfer assignments will be made subject to av a1abi li ty of space in schoo-ls and grade levels, and the host districts' ability to comply with state startdards. 5. The host district shall honor the placement for the students as certified by the ho"me district, which shall be communicated to the parent or' guardian prior to transfer. If, during the first semester, testing, performance, remedial efforts, and consultati6n indicate that an adjustment of placement should be made, it shall be made after the first semester in consultation with the student's parent or guardian. 6. The commitment to accept a student shall be for the duration of the student's voluntary participation. Once a student exercises his or her right to participate, the student will continue in the initially selected school for at least one full school year or until the student graduates or affirmatively withdraws from participation as herein set out. Students will not have to transfer each year or exercise a transfer choice to remain in the host district. Students shall be encouraged to continue to participate at their initial school of choice. It is expected that the student will follow the pattern of assigned schools for the resident students in the school in which the transfer student first enrolls. 7. Students who have elected to transfer shall remain students of the host district until they choose to return to the district where they reside . 3 8. Host districts shall not have the authority t6 ' remand tr tsfer students to the home district. Host districts shall have the authority to discipline, -suspend or expel a transfer student using the same due process procedures applicable to resident students. 9. On~e admitted, transfer students will be expected to meet the same_ general standards, a':cademic and other, as applied to students of the host district. 10. Information about each district's academic and disciplinary policies and procedures will be made available to prospective transfer students on request ; This should include information on pupil-teacher ratios, promotion and retention; I . counseling assistance, grading, student code of conduct, disciplinary action, and suspensian and expulsion. 11. The host district shall respond to the educational needs of students without regard to their status as a transfer or resident student . Transfer students shall be eligible and encouraged to part{cipate in all school programs funded and sponsored by the host district (academic, athletic, extra-curricular and other) and shall not suffe r any disability or ineligibility because they are voluntary interdistrict transfer students. Participation in after-school activities will be fac i litated by the provision where needed of extra-curricular buses or other forms of transportation which will be available to all such transfer students, the cost of which shall be. borne by the State as provided in paragraph 12. 4 ' 12. The State Board shall pay the full cost of t1tisporting students opting for interdistrict transfers. However, the State Board shall have the option .of (1) paying the school districts for transporting the students or (2) contracting for the services or (3) transporting the students with a state operated system. 13. The State Board shall pay the home and host districts ih accordance with the following procedures: a. Each year school districts shall calculate and certify to the State Board of Education their cost per student in regular schools (grades K-12) including -all add-ons for special education, TAG, vocational education and other purposes. The cost per student shall include all costs for instruction and support services minus student transportation, food serv i ce, and restricted federal program costs. (To the extent that the host district does not receive pro~rata increases in restricted federal program costs by hosting transfer students who are eligible to participate in federal programs, the cost per student shall be increased on a pro-rata basis for such transfer students.) The State shall pay the , costs for full-time equivalent students who have been transferred to the host district. Payments made for the current year shall be based on costs for the 5 previous year. The host district shall report each transfer student on forms as required by the State Department of Education. b. Each host district shall estimate the full-time equivalent of transfer students and transmit such estimate, along with the names of the students, to c. the State in September &amp;f each year when payment begins. A correction wili be made in January of each year. Payments shall be ~ade by the State monthly through forward funding to each district based upon the September estimate as corrected. The students transferred to the host district shall not be counted , I in the number used to calculate regular state aid for the district. Each home district shall receive from the State for each student who voluntarily transfers from his/her home district to a host district one-half of the State a{d (table rate) it would have received had the student remained in his/her home district. Information about these students shall be reported on forms as required by the State Department of Education and shall be reported at the same time as the reports are made by the host district. The students transferred from the home district shall not be counted in the number used to calculate regular 6 state aid for the home district. All transfers' of handicapped students shall be contingent on the availability of appropriate programs and resources, as identified in the IEP, at the host school. d. The provisions contained herein do not apply to magnet schools and ' programs. 14. All parties to this stipulation recognize that the present racial balance of the North Lit t le Rock School District approximates that of the entire county and they are desirous of n~t upsetting that balance through the operat i on of the Majority to Minority Transfer Program. The parties further recognize that any court approved student assignment plan by any party could be compromised if the Majority to Minority Transfer Program caused significant changes in student assignment plans. To avoid this result, all parties agree that any party may choose to include or not include said Majority to Minority transfer students for purposes of student assignment under any court order. Further, all parties recognize that substantial participation in the Majority to Minority program could have the result of creating technical departures from targeted I student ratios at one or more schools. All parties agree that any such departure resulting from the lawful operation of th~ Majority to Minority program shall not give rise to a claim or contention that such departure from targeted ratios constitute 7 ' violations of any law or regulation and, specif i cally, shall ne be urged or suggested as grounds for liability in this or similar litigation. Additionally, any such resulting departures from targeted ratios shall not require the districts affected to reconstitute or recompose ,the stdent body of any affected school~ ,, Agreed this 26~h day of August, 1986. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NOR DIS 2258L 8 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ARKANSAS STATE BOARD OF ~~ 06/04/2004 16:24 5014901352 EQUITY PUPIL SERVICE PAGE 04/06 NAY 2 6 20015 LITTLE ROC:K SCHOOL DISTRJCT 501 SHERMAN STREET Lrrn..E ROCK, AR. 72202 STIJDENT REGIS TR.A TION OFF'Ic;E Phouc (501) 447.2950 Fax: (501) 447-2951 May 25, 2004 TO: FROM: THROUGH: Karl Brown, Assistant Superintendent for Eq'!-ljty and Pupil Services Julie Wiedower, D~tor of Student Registratio~ ~ Junious Babas;,,Associate Superintendent for .Administrative Se~ces RE: PCSSD Tracking Forms Last week we received copies ofa l'CSSD Tracking Form for current M to M students who will be changing organizational levels for the 2004-05 scho0l year. In looking over these forms we identified a variety of concerns and questions regarding specific students. Other questions arose regarding the status of the assignments - some fonns are signed, some are not- and a number offonns list a LRSD school yet the parents have not completed a M to M Withdrawal form. In fact, some of the tracking forms are on students who are not even on our database as M to M transfer students! Clearly, we need to sit down aod go over the form so we can understand how your district intends to utilize it and how we can address some of these issues. However, at this point such a meeting would be premature. Our district has received a draft "Memorandum of Understanding Between the LR.SD and the PCSSD Regarding Majority to Minority Tra.,sfers" but we have not agreed to this Memorandum. Since the PCSSD Tracking Fonn is a part of this yet-unsigned document, I have asked Becky Rather to "hold" the forms until agreement is reached. Once that occurs we look forward to a meeting to iron out the aforementioned difficulties with the forms. Hopefully tb.e Memorandum will be addressed before the middle of June so accurate data will be available as our transportation routes are created. Cc: /or. Brenda Bowles, Director of Equity and Pupil Services Donna Creer, Executive Director, Magnet Review Committee Chris Heller Becky Rather EXHIBIT ---- --------- - ------------ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. 4:82CV00866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED JUN If ;:004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S COMBINED MOTION AND MEMORANDUM REGARDING M-TO-M DISAGREEMENT Comes now, Little Rock School District (hereinafter, "LRSD") by and through their undersigned attorneys, Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark, for Response to Pulaski County Special School District's ("PCSSD") Combined Motion and Memorandum Regarding M-to-M Disagreement states: 1. LRSD does not require existing M-to-M students to resubmit an application to it to reaffirm M-to-M status at the conclusion of one organizational level to the next. According to the Stipulation for Proposed Order on Voluntary Majority to Minority Transfers ("Stipulation"), attached as Exhibit B to PCSSD's motion, students who elect to transfer via the M-to-M program remain students of the host district until such time as they choose to return to the district where they reside. 2. Rather, LRSD asks students who participate in the M-to-M program progressing from one organizational level to the next (i .e., from elementary school to middle school or from middle school to high school) to submit a form affirming the school choice site. LRSD implemented this process for two reasons: (1) to ascertain the space available in each of its schools to accommodate the LRSD attendance zone population each year, and (2) to ascertain the M-to-M students attending schools at the next organizational level outside of established PCSSD feeder patterns. This process does not violate the provisions of Paragraph 6 of the Stipulation. 3. The "tracking form" the PCS SD speaks of in its Motion and Memorandum is strikingly similar to the M-to-M application, as PCS SD concedes. Because of the similarity between the two documents, several parents wishing to withdraw their students from the M-to-M program are misguided regarding their student 's school assignment. 4. As an example, in the tracking forms attached hereto as Exhibit A, the PCSSD's Assistant Superintendent's approval stamp has given many parents the impression that their student has been assigned to the school requested upon completion of the tracking form . This, - notwithstanding the fact that (1) the students have not submitted M-to-M withdrawal forms; (2) the students do not reside in the requested school's attendance zone; (3) the school requested is a LRSD specialty magnet school and the student has not applied for admission to the specialty magnet, thinking that the PCSSD tracking form is the application; or (4) the requested school is not a school in the LRSD. See Exhibit A. 5. Moreover, LRSD believes PCSSD's interpretation of Paragraph 6 of the M-to M stipulation to be clearly violative of the plain language of Paragraph 2 of the same stipulation which, in pertinerit part, states: a. Black students who are members of the racial majority at a school in any participating district which district is 50 percent or more black in its emollment shall be eligible to transfer voluntarily to a school and district they would be in the racial minority. b. White students who are members of the racial majority at a school in a participating district which district is more than 50% white in its 6. enrollment shall be eligible to transfer voluntarily to a school and district in any other participating district in which they would be in the racial minority. Among the specialty schools the PCSSD speaks ofin Paragraph 6 of its Motion and Memorandum are College Station Elementary, Fuller Middle School and Mills High School. 7. During the 2003-2004 school year, each of the aforementioned school sites was more than 50 percent black. LRSD, therefore, believes that to assign an indigenous LRSD student to a PCS SD school that is more than 50 percent black via an M-to-M transfer contravenes the plain language in Paragraph 2 of the M-to-M stipulation and the goals of the M-to-M program as a whole. WHEREFORE, the LRSD prays for an order directing the parties to comply with Paragraph 2 of the Stipulation and for all other proper relief Respectfully submitted, Christopher J. Heller Khayyam M. Eddings FRIDAY, ELDREDGE &amp; CLARK, LLP 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-2011 FBAX: (501) ~7 -214~~- y: ~---- Khayyam dings (020 Attorneys for Little Rock School District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June 17, 2004, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey &amp; Jennings, LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Bank Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnette 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Massachusetts 021 73 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June 17, 2004, a copy of the foregoing was served via U.S . mail on each of the following: Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey &amp; Jennings, LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Bank Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Assistant Attorney General Arkansas Attorney General's Office 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnette 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, Arkansas 7220 I Mr. Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, Massachusetts 02173 PCSS (M tt M) ~TU:ENT TRACKING FIHlM This form is to track (M to M) student movement to the next grade and or organizational level. If the student wishes an alternative placement other than the pattern of assigned schools for resident students, these assignments will be made with consideration of space available at the requested school and other factors, such as racial composition of the requested school. STUDENT'S NAME STUDENTS RESIDE City: L, ..\-\ State: Alf) Zip Code: -Z. GRADE LEVEL AS OF SEPT. 2004: -3L_DATE OF BIRTH:oi /z.~EX:_r_RACE: / SCHOOL ATTENDED DUR.t"'NG T'".dE 2003-04 SCHOOL '{EAR:~ ,\ 1 \00 'o"1'{\5:)V"\ }v~ \ cld .Q PARENT OR GU G CUSTODY OR CHARGE OF THE STUDENT __ _ . ss: l3r&gt;to LA h lsc::i n (6 cL - City. L1 +I\ R riucK State: &amp;\'2. ( Zip Code: :2 L-Z.05 s~ PARENT'S HOivlE PHONE NUMBER fu, J seo s- :sc:&gt;"3.~ rv" ~ PARENT'S WORK PHONE NUMBER 5 \RCf -35 I~- -~~r OTHER NUMBER WHERE PARENT CAN BE REACHED ~~ ~ , ~ SCHOOL REQUESTED Cenrz1J ~\ ~V ) Q/.Y ~ DOES THIS STUDENT REQUIRE TRANSPORTATION v / YES ____ 0 DOES THIS STUDENT REQUIRE SPECIAL SERVTCES ___ YES V: NO IF YES, PLEASE INDICATE HOW SERVICES ARE RECEIVED: _____ HEALTH PLAN ____ IEP/SPECIAL EDUCATION __ SECTION 504 ACCOMMODATION PLAN ___ SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION I give permission to the school in which my child is currently enrolled to release any information or school records necessary to co plete the requeste tr sfer. Form completed by: ----~R., l-rf-l5- -----Counselor's office Forward to the OFFICE .OF EQUITY AND PUPIL SER VICES j/ ~l\ D--LR B ~_; APPROVAL DATE 5, 3/vf DATE I TRANSFER APPROVED: ______ DATES OF ATTENDANCE _____ _ SCHOOOL TO WHICH TRANSFER APPROVED: ____________ _ .. j EXHIBIT !g A ~ --..-- :c ., PCSSD (M to M) STUDENT TRACKING FORM This fonn is to track (M to M) student movement to the next grade and or organizational level. If the student wishes an alternative placement other than the pattern of assigned schools for resident students, these assignments will be made with consideration of space available at the requested school and other factors, such as racial composition of the requested school. STUDENT'SN p S'S MAILING ADDRE 'i' J City: L:+-H::e. 12 oJc. Zip Code:7 J-..iu-y P ARENT' S HOME PHONE NUMBER _i:,;........,.,L;z'-'"9._-...1...fJ .,&lt;/-~ --L-1_,_7 _____ PARENT'S WORK PHONE NUMBER 7 S 3 , 5' SE; g OTBER NUMBER WHERE PARENT CAN BE REACHED SCHOOL REQUESTED ~ r{\C i'l e. ~ -'---"'--='-----=--=---------+-,--tt--- DOES TIIlS STUDENT REQUIRE TRANSPORTATION V .,. YES---~ DOES THIS STUDENT REQUIRE SPECIAL SER VICES ___ YES ___ _ IF YES, PLEASE INDICATE HOW SERVICES ARE RECEIVED: ____ HEALTH PLAN ____ IBP/SPECIAL EDUCATION __ SECTION 504 ACCOMMODATION PLAN ___ SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION I give permission to the school in which my child is currently enrolled to release any information or school records necessary to complete the reques,ryd transfer. PARENT'S SIGNATURE: th(L,'\),\_ r::_,c_,Ju;:!J DATE: 4 .::23. O'j Fann completed by: --------------Counselor's office Forward to the OFFICE OF EQUITY AND PUPJL SER VICES : I . - &lt; o/\---R B ~ APPROVAL TRANSFER APPROVED: ______ DATES OF ATTENDANCE _____ _ SCHOOOL TO WHICH TRANSFER APPROVED: -------------- PCSSD (M to M) STUDENT TRACKING FORM This form is to track (Mto M) student movement to the next grade and or organizational level. If the student wishes an alternative placement other than the pattern of assigned schools for resident students, these assignments will be made with consideration of space available at the requested school and other factors, such as racial composition of the requested school. STUDENT'SNAME~StudentID # .So 14 g STUDENTS RESIDENCE ADDRESS:~ /_J J/r '-II&lt;~ City: u+H &lt; ~:&lt; /k State: (}d-,_ _ Zip Code: ';7 .zc// ,. GRADE LEVEL AS o'F SEPT. 2004: __yz_DATE OF BIRTH: 7/i4/9,3~EX:_..J::_RACE: i-if:1fthi1 SCHOOL ATTENDED DURING THE 2003-04 SCHOOL YEAR: Lt&gt; , {_, , n-itY\ fl lw;,{'J ~,-t.-- p AREN GE OF THE STUDENT ,J City: L-- ,(, u:..., - ~~ate: _13(2_,,_-~------=----Zip Code:/ )--,.?-{,Cf PARENT{S~bME PHONE NUMBER ']-/ )- :7(C:; --'-,--~~--"'---'~----,---- PARENT'S WORK PHO NE Nillv IB ER iu J .)-V)-'t X~- 1,,;_, .1g.~,=;-if{. :-' J ; OTHER NUMBER WHERE/~ARENT ~~ BE RpACHED :'fi r t ' 1&lt;/ 7(-.,S - I:: J / :, - B"t! // 17 d l &gt;I .) SCHOOL REQUESTED .f-1''!&amp;:..r .::&gt; f-n-:,e c - ./ --- , ,, u 1\ t L V DOES THIS STUDENT REQfuRE TRANSPORTATION ; /- YES ___ T" ~_-\-flo L- I-.___, DOES THIS STUDENT REQUIRE SPECIAL SERVICES __ YES L --- NO~~ IF YES, PLEASE INDICATE HOW SERVICES ARE RECEIVED: ~ r-1-.t, ____ HEALTHPLAN ____ IEP/SPECIALEDUCATION c:::?"1311L-1.I __ SECTION 504 ACCO:MMODATION PLAN ___ SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION I give permission to the school in ~J:li'?h my child is currently enrolled to release any information or school records necessary to ~/9~plet~_ th~/eqtie~;ied l ,axsfer., , / /' _I -, , - ; I /fl . I~ PARENT'S SIGNATURE: // ik.~i-_(:: _/L,, (j l -f::.[-[ 1,.._'-I,(._ i, ,,, ..-! / / I ~/ ,, .... ~ Form completed by: ______________ Counselor's office Forward to the OFFICE OF EQUITY AND PUPIL SERVICES }.' ;( w.X )3 ~A__) APPROVAL DATE 7 TRANSFER APPROVED: ______ DATES OF ATTENDANCE _____ _ SCHOOOL TO WHICH TRANSFER APPROVED: ____________ _ PCSSD (M to M) STUDENT TRACKING FORM This form is to track (M to M) student movement to the next grade and or organizational level. If the student wishes an alternative placement other than the pattern of assigned schools for resident students, these assignments will be made with consideration of space available at the requested school and other factors, such as racial composition of the requested school. STUDENT' S N 1.-f"r----.,-Student ID # ___ _ STUDENTS RESIDENCE ADDRESS: ur:::due C.1 cc \-e..., City: CY:) State: Al?) Zip Code: r) ?..,,'2.DLj GRADE LEVEL AS OF SEPT. 2004: C/+i=DATE OF BIB.TH: ~-15 -9 /SEX:../'.D_ RACE:_6 SCHOOL ATTENDED DURIN"G THE 2003-04 SCHOOL YEAR: G:\d:c:: \ th 11 b ke:i;::11{;, _( P OR GUARDIAN HAVING CUSTODY OR CHARGE OF 1HE STUDENT ___ d City: _ __,__..___ _________ State: -'---=-----Zip Code: --1'----'-"'==--+---1-1- p ARENT' S HO:rvJE PHONE NUMBER ~ ~~LP~'S-- ':/~?(_Jq _____ PARENT' S WORK PHONE NUMBER ~::&gt;...,__'1-'-4.-- '---=2..=t&gt;::...5.:-,::_4...,__ ____ OTHER NUMBER WHERE PARENT CAN BE REACHED (-t -+-'-'---- --r..-tir--M-~---r.::#:.:t-l SCHOOL REQUESTED ' I H-C DOES THIS STUDENT REQUIRE TRANSPORT A ION-~_ YES _ __ _ DOES THIS STUDENT REQUIRE SPECIAL SERVICES ___ YES -~-- IF YES, PLEASE INDICATEEo,v SERVICES APE RECEIVED: ____ HEALTH PLAN ____ IBP/SPECIAL EDUCATION __ SECTION 504 ACCOMMODATION PLAN ___ SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION I give permission to the school in which my child is currently enrolled to release any information or school records necessary to complete the requested transfer. PARENT'S SIGNATURE: C1 _r~ 0 ~ _C'\ y - Form completed by: -------------Counselor' s office Forward to the OFFICE OF EQUITY AND PUPIL SERVICES j/ J\ 0vJ:. J3 ,I....Q,,u,)::::r\. ) APPROVAL DATE I TRANSFER APPROVED: _____ DATES OF ATTENDANCE _____ _ SCHOOOL TO WHICH TRANSFER .APPROVED: ____________ _ PCSSD (M to M) STUDENT TRACKING FORM MAY D 7 2004 This form is to track (M to :M) student movement to the next grade and or organizational level. If the student wishes an alternative placement other than the pattern of assigned schools for resident students, these assignments will be made with consideration of space available at the requested school and other factors, such as racial composition of the requested school. STIJDENT'S NAME Student ID # 5 {)dl /.p STUDENTS RESIDENCE ADDRESS: 0 K It=. - k IV City: N LR. State: . Zip Code:::,....C.C&gt;&lt;l...-:1........,__,.,.. GRADE LEVEL AS OF SEPT. 2004: },Q__ DATE OF BIRTH/1 /'7 i".13SEX: - RACE:_ SCHOOL ATTENDED DURING THE 2003-04 SCHOOL YE : C Lf t-ITOITELFMENtAR_ V PARENT OR G GCUSTODY OR CHARGE OF THE STUDENT --- { rvE I give permission to the school in which my child is currently enrolled to release any information or school records necessary to mplete the requested transfer. PARENT'S SIGNATURE: -+l--&lt;--"'--rra__'---r_'i._f\ ._ _;_f;n--.d'----=~-1--=--lc._R__! __D ATE #+ .......................... II ~ Fonn completed by: _____________ Counselor's office Forward to the OFFICEpF EQUITY AND PUPIL SER VICES !J wJ! j3 . 7\ ~ ~ APPROVAL DATE TRANSFER APPROVED: _____ DATES OF ATTENDANCE _____ _ SCHOOOL TO WHICH TRANSFER APPROVED: -------------- 04/15/2004 08:15 5013709755 QUALITYSECURITY PAGE 02 PCSSD (M to M) STUDENT TRACKING FORM This form is to track (M to M) student movement to the next grade and or organizational level. lf the student wishes an alternative placement other than the pattern of assigned schools for resident students, these assignments will be made with consideration of space available at the requested school and other factors, such as racial mposition of the r uested school. STUDENT' S N STIIDENTS RESIDENCE ADORES . City: L,''1/-{ ICCJeJ&lt;.. --"C:~...._--"""-'~~--=-'--"------::------ GRADE LEVEL AS OF SEPT. 2004: SCHOOL ATTENDED DURING -04 SCHOOL P ODY OR CHARGE PARE t , City: /.-_,.fife KJe ,t State: _.,__._.__._ _ Zip Code: 7 ,Po2c:J .;2..,. PARENT'S HOME PHONE NUMBER 5 c, / - ,Z!lr./ - ~ I 5 8' PARENT'S WORK PHONE NUMBER .So I~ 3 :2&lt;2 'l 15 1/ OTHER NUMBER WHE13Ji_P ARENT CAN BE REACHED SCHOOL REQUESTED J )u.nba..r /YJ . Sc.)----- --1-.,.....;t-t-""-""--......,..,,.. DOES THIS STIJDENT REQUIRE TRANSPORTATION __ YES v DOES THIS STIJDENT REQUIRE SPECIAL SER VICES ___ YES v-7 IF YES, PLEASE INDICATE HOW SERVICES ARE RECEIVED: NO NO _____ HEALTH PLAN ____ IBP/SPECIAL EDUCATION __ SECTION 504 ACCOMMODATION PLAN ___ SPECIAL TRANSPOR TATTON I give permission to the school in which my child is cun-ently enrolled to release any information or school records necessary to complete the requested transfer. -- - Form completed by: _____________ Counselor's office Forward to the OFFICE QF EQUITY AND PUPIL SERVICES i) B . ,,,... fi I i\ 00_.!( ..A--Q..,v\..,"'1-y&lt;.__) APPROVAL DATE ' TRANSFER APPROVED: _____ DATES OF ATTENDANCE ____ _ SCHOOOL TO WIITCH TRANSFER APPROVED: ____________ _ Arkansas DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 4 STATE CAPITOL MAU. . LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 -1071 (SOI) 682-4475 hllp:/ / arkedu.state.ar.us Dr. Kenneth James, Director June 30, 2004 Mr. M. San1uelJones,III Wright, Lindsey &amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers &amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen Vf. Jones Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED JUL 1 - 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION r110NITORlNG RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Marshall: Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I an1 filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of June 2004 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, IA Wa,i ~ Tripp Walter Staff Attorney Arkansas Department of Education TW:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair - JoNell Caldwell, Little Rock Vice Chair - Shelby Hillman, Carlisle Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro Calvin King, Marianna Randy Lawson, Bentonville MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff Jeanna Westmoreland, Arkadelphia An Equal Opportunity Employer ..' . ~ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DNISION RECENEO JUL l - 1uu~ off\Ct Or R\RG tltStGPitG~i\Oti i,10ti\i0 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for June 2004. Respectfully Submitted, ~~ ,, 6# ,, '1./~711 Alexis Tripp Walter, Bar # 2003183 Attorney, Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501 -682-422 7 .. ' . .. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Tripp Walter, certify that on June 30, 2004, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey &amp; Jennings 200 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers &amp; Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon &amp; Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 ~ a, "~/'M/~JZf Alexis Tripp Walter 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>