Court filings regarding motion to extend time, Little Rock School District (LRSD) compliance report, and Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool.

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

<dcterms_description type="array">

<dcterms_description>Court filings: District Court, motion to extend time; District Court, Little Rock School District (LRSD) compliance report; District Court, order; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) revised compliance report; 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. U,/63/2666 10: 51 5016045321 USDC Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 40481 Filed 10/02/2006 PAGE 01 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LI'ITLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATiiERINE KNIGHT, ET AL MOTION TO EXTEND TIME For its Motion, Plaintiff Little Rock School District states: ~1\-&lt;9t00 F~ PLAINTIFF oEFENDANTS INIERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. In accordance with the June 30, 2004 Compliance Remedy in this case, LRSD has engaged experts to prepare four Step 2 program evaluations for 2005-06 school year. The progress of those evaluations !las been reported to the Court and the parties in quarterly updates filed by LRSD. The evaluations are due to the Court on October 15, 2006. ' 2. Three of the four Step 2 program evaluations, A+, 21st Century Community Learning Centers and Read 180, were previously delayed due to the unavailability of Benchmark Examination results, but it now appears that those evaluations will be filed by the current due date of October 15~ 2006. Sec email from lt,/t,::l/ 2f:l06 10; 51 5016045321 USDC PAGE 02 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4048-1 Filed 10/02/2006 Page 2 of 4 Aaron McDonald, attached as Exhibit A. 3. The fourth Step 2 program evaluation, Pre-K Lileracy, requires data from the Qualls Early Learning Inventory (QELI), which has also been delayed. NORMES, which contracts with the Arkansas Department of Education to store and facilitate access to test data, originally projected posting the QELI data in early July. The NORMES data proved not to be sufficiently detailed to meet the evaluators' needs for the Pre-K Literacy Evaluation, and LRSD has contracted with Riverside Publishing to provide that data. PRE is now in the process of working with Riverside in an effort to get usable QELI data to CREP within the next few days. 4. Dr. Ross, in an email which was provided to the Court on September 29, 2006, says that CREP "will try, by making extraordinary efforts, to complete [ the PreK Literacy] Report by November 15th ." 5. The requested extension of time is necessary to insure the delivery of a useful Pre-K Literacy Program Evaluation which will fulfill the purposes of the compliance remedy. The requested extension of time will not delay any decisions ' about whether to continue, expand, modify or discontinue programs. 6. Mr. Walker's letter to the Court of September 26, 2006 indicates that he understands the need for the requested extension, but counsel for LRSD was unable to 2 10/03/2006 10: 51 5016045321 USDC PAGE 03 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4048-1 Filed 10/02/2006 Page 3 of 4 contact him today to confirm that. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff Little Rock School District requests an extension of time within which it must file the draft Step 2 Program Evaluation of the Pre-K Literacy Program to and. including November 15, 2006. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRlCT Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) Khayyam M. Eddings (#02008) 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 Isl Christopher Heller CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on October 2, 2006, 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 following: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.qr.us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj .com johnwaJkeratty@aol_.com 3 10/03/2006 10: 51 5016045321 USDC PAGE 04 Case 4:82-cv~00866-WRW Document 4048-1 Filed 10/02/2006 Page 4 of 4 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 Christopher Heller 4 l t:l/ t:J;j/ :Lt:lt:lb l !:I: 51 5016045321 US0C PAGE 05 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4048-2 Filed 10/02/2006 Page 1 ~ 1 of 4 Chris Heller - .RE: three evatuatfoas From: To: Date: Subject: CC: Chris, &lt;ajmcdnld@memphis.edu&gt; &lt;smross@memphls.edu&gt;, &lt;HELLER@fcc.net&gt; 10/2/2006 9:16 AM RE: three evaluations &lt;dslawson@memphis.edu&gt; ~ a follow-up to our phone conversation on Friday, I wanted to let you know that we are-planning on sending the drett READ 180 and 21.t CCLC reports to the dlsbid on the 1st". The 21 st CCLC sd1ool that had attendance data anomallee will be excluded from the anafyaia. We are still In the procesa of revleWtng the PreK deta wttt, Jim Wohlleb. Beatrrd, Aaron McOoneld ......... ____________ .....-____ -_______ l'l'Offll Steven M Ross (sml'0$S) Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 4:39 PM To: Chris Heller Cc: Aaron Jeffrey Mcdonald (ajmatnld) - subject: RE: three evaluations Steven M. Ross. Ph.D. Faudree Professor and Director Center for Research in Educational Policy The University of Memphis 325 Browning Hall Memphis, 'IN 38152-3340 file://C:\Document5%20and%20Settina\Brendak\Local%20Settinas\Temo\GWl00002;H... 10/1./2006 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 1 of 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT coURJAECEIVED EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OCT 1 7 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S COMPLIANCE REPORT For its Compliance Report, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. This Compliance Report is filed pursuant to paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy contained in this Court's June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion. 2. LRSD has substantially complied with the Compliance Remedy. This compliance is documented below, as well as in the eight Quarto/,lY Updates which were filed between December 1, 2004 and September 1, 2006, the evaluations of Compass Learning, Smart/Thrive, Reading Recovery and Year-Round Education which were previously. filed, and the evaluations of A+, 21st Century Community Page 1 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 2 of 30 Learning Centers and READ 180 which are filed with this Compliance Report. 3. The progress ofLRSD's efforts to comply with the requirement for an eighth step 2 program evaluation, the Pre-K Literacy evaluation, has been shown in LRSD's Quarterly Updates and status reports to the Court. The final evidence of LRSD's compliance with that requirement will be the evaluation itself, which the evaluator, Dr. Ross, expects to have completed on or before November 15, 2006. 4. LRSD will separately describe below its compliance with each of the requirements of the Compliance Remedy except those which set out the responsibilities of the Joshua Intervenors and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 5. The requirements of paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy are: A. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. These individuals must have experience in: (a) preparing and overseeing the preparation of formal program evaluations; and (b) formulating a comprehensive program assessment process that can be used to detennine the effectiveness of specific academic programs designed to improve the achievement of African-American students. I expect the director of PRE to have a Ph.D.; tq ,have extensive experience in designing, preparing and overseeing the preparation of program evaluations; and to have a good understanding of statistics and regression analysis. I also expect LRSD to hire experienced statisticians and the other appropriate support personnel necessary to operate a first-rate PRE Department. Page 2 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 3 of 30 6. LRSD met the requirements of paragraph A by adding to the PRE team three new professionals who have knowledge and experience in assessment, evaluation, and statistical analysis. The qualifications of the seven people who were employed by PRE as of November 1, 2004 are shown at pages 3 through 5 of the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. The resumes of PRE Director Dr. Karen DeJarnette and statisticians Maurecia Malcolm Robinson, James C. Wohlleb and Dr. Ed Williams are found in Appendix A to the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. This highly trained team of professionals has the qualifications required by paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. 7. There have been a few changes in personnel since the first Quarterly - Update, but PRE has maintained a . highly trained team of professionals. Administrative Assistant Irma Shelton took medical leave in May of 2005. The Administrative Assistant position was eliminated on July 1, 2005. Testing Coordinator Yvette Dillingham left PRE in August, 2005. Dr. Ed Williams temporarily assumed her responsibilities until she was replaced in November 2005 ' ' by Arthur Olds. Olds' resume can be found in Appendix A to the March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update. As reported in the June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, Olds sought reassignment to a teaching possession at Dunbar Magnet Middle School on April 14, 2006. Dr. Williams again temporarily assumed the Testing Coordinator Page 3 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 4 of 30 - responsibilities. LRSD posted the Testing Coordinator position in June, 2006 and interviews were scheduled for August, 2006. See September l, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. A new testing coordinator, Danyell Cummings was hired October 1, 2006. Her resume is attached as Exhibit A to this Compliance Report. 8. The current PRE staff has all of the qualifications listed in paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. LRSD complied with paragraph A of the . Compliance Remedy. 9. The requirements of paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy are: B. The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process. It may take a decade or more for LRSD to make sufficient progress in improving the academic achievement of African-American students to justify discontinuing the need for specific 2.7 programs. For that reason, the comprehensive program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. Only then will I have the necessary assurance that LRSD intends to continue using that process for as long as it is needed to determine the effectiveness of the various key 2. 7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. Part of LRSD's proof, at the next compliance hearing, must include evidence that it has devised and implemented a comprehensive program assessment process, which has been deeply embedded as a permanent part of its curriculum and instruction program. I suggest that LRSD use Dr. Ross to assist in developing this comprehensive program assessment process; then be sure that he approves that process before it is finalized and implemented. 10. LRSD has devised and deeply embedded a comprehensive program Page 4 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 5 of 30 assessment process in accordance with paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. LRSD used Dr. Ross to assist in developing the comprehensive program assessment process. By the time of the first Quarterly Update on December 1, 2004, PRE and Dr. Ross had "developed and shared with ODM and the Joshua Intervenors a program assessment process to be deeply embedded in LRSD's educational operations." December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, p. 6. The final draft of that process is found at Appendix B of the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. This final draft was furnished to ODM and the Joshua Intervenors more than a month in advance of its consideration by the LRSD Board of Directors. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, p. 11. The comprehensive program - assessment process was approved by the LRSD Board on December 16, 2004. March 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 11. The comprehensive program assessment process has become deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. The embedding of the comprehensive program assessment process has included the development of school portfolios. "School portfolios assemble comprehensive data about classrooms, schools, and districts from disparate sources into data bases that are accessible and informative particularly to teachers and administrators as well as to board members, parents, and other stakeholders." September 1, 2005 Page 5 of 19 ' Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 6 of 30 Quarterly Update, p. 3. School portfolios are useful for formative evaluations of student achievement and educational programs. LRSD began implementing school portfolios during the 2005-06 school year.. Id. As part .of the process of the development and implementation of portfolios, four PRE department members attended an institute for data analysis during the summer of 2005, and a consultant "visited LRSD and reviewed its data collection procedures and resources." Id. 12. LRSD has continued to develop the infrastructure to support its comprehensive assessment process. School and district data portfolios are an important part of this infrastructure. These portfolios "allow PRE staff as well as others to more easily analyze data and intersect various types of data sets to answer - research questions about comprehensive school improvement efforts." December 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. During April of 2006, an expert on school portfolios provided professional development for LRSD principals, administrators, and the PRE staff regarding the creation and use of school portfolios. June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 13. As of December 1, 2005, PRE had identified the data to be included in the district portfolio and had designed a draft district portfolio. Id. District administrators and principals were making use of the portfolio and steps were being taken "to allow a more efficient collection of data related to educational Page 6 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 7 of 30 - processes." Id. Dr. Catterall used data from LRSD's portfolio in his step 2 evaluation of the Year-Round Education program. March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 14. The development of portfolios is a continual process. As new data becomes available ( e.g. new test results) they are added to the data base. The infrastructure is in place, and LRSD continues to expand and update its portfolios. See March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 15. LRSD has also sought to deeply embed the comprehensive program assessment process by hmng a consultant, the Janis Group, to help develop a "data warehouse.'~ The Janis Group has "expertise in storing, integrating, and efficiently - accessing data." March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. The data warehouse will support frequent updates of the portfolio and allow timely data reports for purposes of planning, research, evaluation and developing policy. Reports can be generated by program, classroom, school, grade, or district-wide. Id. 16. There was some debate within LRSD about whether to purchase an internet-based data warehouse from a company called TetraData or to continue the in-house design and construction of a data warehouse using the Business Objects software and the database already available to LRSD. LRSD decided, with some dissent from PRE, to continue to use and improve the Business Objects software. Page 7 of 19 Case 4:82~cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 8 of 30 - Business Objects is state of the art software which can be effectively used in the assessment of academic programs. The capabilities of the Business Objects data warehouse, including updating and reporting student data, are shown in the "Business Objects Reporting Tools" document attached as Exhibit B to this Compliance Report. 17. The process of developing school and district portfolios, and creating . a data warehouse, has revealed the need for LRSD to take steps to insure that the data entered into its database is accurate. The accuracy of the data would be a concern whether the district used the Business Objects system, the TetraData system or some other software system. To improve the accuracy of data reporting - within LRSD, LRSD has increased the number of "error checking routines" in its computer software. LRSD also has a full time training coordinator whose job it is to train school registrars and other LRSD personnel in the proper entry of student data, to work with those people to identify and correct recurring data entry errors, and to generally assure the accuracy and completeness of student data within the ' . . LRSD database. The accuracy of the data in LRSD's database, including its portfolios, continues to improve. 18. Finally, as another part of embedding the comprehensive program assessment process, PRE has designed "feasible, ongoing assessments of the four Page 8 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 9 of 30 programs which Drs. Catterall and Ross subjected to step 2 evaluations last year." June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. LR.SD also plans to have PRE conduct ongoing assessments of the programs currently being evaluated by Drs. Ross .and Catterall. 19. LR.SD has devised a comprehensive program assessment process as required by paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. That process has been deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum program. LRSD has complied with paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. 20. The requirements of paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy are: C. During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005-06), LR.SD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four ( 4) formal step 2 evaluations. Each of these step 2 evaluations must cover one of the key 2. 7 programs, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Thus, over the course of the next two academic school years, LRSD must hire outside consultants to prepare a total of eight (8) formal step 2 evaluations of key 2.7 programs. During the recent compliance hearing, Dr. Ross made it clear that LR.SD must conduct these formal step 2 evaluations of the key 2.7 programs in order to continue to make progress in improving the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students. Again, I suggest that LRSD hire Dr. Ross -- to perform the following tasks: (1) identify the four key 2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key 2. 7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2005-06 school year; and (2) prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible. If Dr. Ross cannot prepare all eight of the step 2 evaluations, I recommend that LRSD hire someone that Dr. Ross recommends as possessing the experience and ability necessary Page 9 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 10 of 30 to prepare those evaluations. 21. In accordance with paragraph C, LRSD hired Dr. Ross to "identify the four key 2. 7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key 2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated ;. during the 2005-06 school year," and to "prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible." 22. Dr. Ross was provided a copy of the Compliance Remedy and he endorsed the first Quarterly Update "as representing an accurate portrayal of accomplishments to date and a viable plan for addressing the requirements of the Remedy." December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, Appendix C (p. 45). Dr. Ross - assumed responsibility for preparing six of the required eight fonnal step 2 evaluations. Three of those cover the 2004-05 school year and were filed on February 6, 2006. Two others are for the 2005-q6 school year and will be filed today. The sixth step 2 evaluation being prepared by Dr. Ross, Pre-K Literacy, has been delayed due to the unavailability of necessary data and is expected to be completed no later than November 15, 2006. 23. Two of the required eight formal step 2 evaluations were prepared by Dr. James Catterall. One covered the 2004-05 school year and was filed on February 6, 2006. The other will be filed today. Page 10 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 11 of 30 24. PRE, in collaboration with Dr. Ross, selected Reading Recovery, Smart/Thrive, Compass Learning and Year-Round Education to be fonnally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, pp. 7-9. Those evaluations have been completed. 25. Dr. Ross initially identified the following four 2. 7 programs for step 2 evaluations in the 2005-06 school year: Arkansas A+ School Network; KnowledgePoints; PLATO Learning and Pre-Kindergarten Literacy Development. June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4. At the request of the Joshua Intervenors, and with the agreement of Dr. Ross, 21st Century Community Learning Centers was substituted for PLATO Learning as the subject of an evaluation for the 2005- - 06 school year. Sept~mber 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4 and Appendix C, (pp. 19-21). KnowledgePoints was also replaced as the subject of evaluation by the READ 180 program because the supplier of KnowledgePoints withdrew its support of the program in Arkansas. December 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4. 26. Dr. Ross and Dr. Catterall possess the experience and ability necessary to prepare the eight required step 2 evaluations. Their qualifications are found in Appendix C to the first Quarterly Update (pp. 46-54). They are both familiar with the requirements of the Compliance Remedy and have agreed to prepare their evaluations in accordance with those requirements. LRSD has Page 11 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 12 of 30 - complied with the requirements of paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. 27. The requirements of paragraph D of the Compliance Remedy are: D. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations must answer the following essential research question: "Has the 2. 7 program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of African-American students, as it has been implemented in schools . throughout the district?" The eight step 2 evaluations may also answer as many other research questions as the designers of each evaluation deem necessary and appropriate. Each of the step 2 evaluations must be organized and written in such a way that it can be readily understood by a lay person. I will allow the outside experts preparing each of these evaluations to decide on the appropriate number of years of test scores and other data that need to be analyzed in preparing each evaluation. PRE must: ( 1) oversee the preparation of all eight of these step 2 evaluations; (2) work closely with Dr. Ross and any other outside consultants hired to prepare these step 2 evaluations; and (3) provide the outside consultants with any and all requested assistance and support in preparing these step 2 evaluations. 28. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations answers the essential research question of whether the program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of African-American students, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations also answers other important research questions. Each is organized and written so that it can be readily understood by a lay person. fu each case, the outside experts and the evaluation teams determined the evaluation design, including the appropriate . number of years of test scores and other data necessary to the utility of each Page 12 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 13 of 30 evaluation. 29. PRE has overseen the preparation of all eight step 2 evaluations and worked closely with Drs. Ross and Catterall, and those associated with them, to support their work and provide any and all requested assistance. See June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp.6-7; March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 4; June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, pp. 5-6; September 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 6 and Appendix A. LRSD has met the requirements of paragraph D of the Compliance Remedy. 30. The requirements ofparagraphE of the Compliance Remedy are: E. In order to streamline LRSD's record-keeping obligation, I am going to require that each of the eight step 2 evaluations contain, in addition to the traditional information and data, a special section which: ( 1) describes the number of teachers and administrators, at the various grade levels, who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the key 2.7 program being evaluated; (2) lists each of the recommended program modifications, if any, that were deemed necessary in order to increase the effectiveness of each of the 2. 7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; and (3) briefly explains how each of the recommended modifications is expected to increase the effectiveness of the 2.7 program. This requirement is intended to relieve LRSD of any independent record-keeping obligations under 2. 7 .1 of the Revised Plan and the Compliance Remedy. 31. In accordance with paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy, each of the eight step 2 evaluations contains a section concerning data collection which Page 13 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 14 of 30 describes the number of teachers and administrators at various grade levels who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the program being evaluated. Each of the -eight evaluations also contains recommended program modifications and explains how the recommended modifications can be expected to increase the effectiveness of the program. See March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, pp. 4-5. 32. On April 18, 2006, LRSD convened the four evaluation teams which worked on the 2004-05 evaluations to consider the feasibility and the timeframe for implementing the external evaluators' recommendations. June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. A summary ofLRSD's commitments to the modifications - recommended by the external evaluators is found in Appendix A (pp. 7-11) to the June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update. LRSD will follow the same process of reviewing the evaluators' recommended modifications following receipt of the evaluations for the 2005-06 school year. LRSD has complied with the requirements of paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy. 33. The requirements of paragraph F of the Compliance.Remedy are: F. As soon as PRE and Dr. Ross identify the eight 2.7 programs targeted for step 2 evaluations, PRE must notify the ODM . and Joshua in writing of the names of those eight programs. In addition, after PRE and Dr. Ross have formulated a comprehensive program assessment process and reduced it to a final draft, PRE must Page 14 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 15 of 30 provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua at least thirty days before it is presented to the Board for approval. I expect the Board to approve LRSD's comprehensive program assessment process no later than December 31, 2004. 34. In accordance with paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy, PRE notified ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of.the_ eight 2.7 programs targeted for step 2 evaluations. See June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update; p. 8. PRE also provided to ODM and Joshua a final draft of the comprehensive program assessment process more than thirty days before it was presented to the Board for approval. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, pp. 6 and 11. The LRSD Board of Directors approved the comprehensive program assessment process on December 16, 2004, in advance of the December 31, 2004 deadline. March 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. LRSD has met the requirements of paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy. 35. The requirements of paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy are: G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year. The~e quarterly updates must be delivered to the ODM and Joshua on December l, March 1, June 1, and September 1 of each of those two academic school years. As soon as each of the eight step 2 evaluations has been completed and approved by the Board, LR.SD must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua. 36. In accordance with paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy, Page 15 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 16 of 30 - LRSD submitted quarterly written updates to the Court and delivered them to ODM and Joshua on or before December 1, 2004, March 1, 2005, June 1, 2005, September 1, 2005, December 1, 2005, March 1, 2006, June 1, 2006 and September 1, 2006. Those quarterly written updates reported "the status .. of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations" prepared during the 2004-05 and 2005-06 school years. The quarterly updates also provided information on the status of compliance with other components of the Compliance Remedy. 36. As soon as the four step 2 evaluations for the 2004-05 school year were completed and approved by the LRSD Board, LRSD provided - them to ODM and Joshua. Three of the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year will be filed with the Court and provided to ODM and Joshua on October 16, 2006. The fourth will be filed with the Court and provided to ODM and Joshua on or before November 15, 2006. As soon as the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year are approved by the LRSD Board, LRSD will provide final copies of those evaluations to ODM and Joshua. LRSD has complied with paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy. 37. The requirements of paragraph J of the Compliance Remedy are: Page 16 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 17 of 30 J. The four step program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year must be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2005. The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year must be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2006. 38. The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year were filed with the Court on February 6, 2006 in accordance wjth extended deadlines approved by the Court. Three of the four step 2 program evaluatiohs for the 2005- 06 school year will be filed on today in accordance with extended deadlines approved by the Court. Dr. Ross requires additional time to complete the Pre-K Literacy evaluation because of the delayed availability of necessary testing data. LRSD has requested an extension of time for the filing of that step 2 evaluation to and including November 15, 2006, and expects to file that evaluation by that date. LR.SD has substantially complied with paragraph J of the Compliance Remedy. 39. The requirements of paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy are: K. On or before October 15, 2006, LRSD must file a Compliance Report documenting its compliance with its obligations under 2.7.1 of the Revised .Plan, as specified in this Compliance Remedy. If Joshua wishes to challenge LRSD' s substantial compliance, they must file objections on or before November 15, 2006. Thereafter, I will schedule a compliance hearing and decide whether LRSD has met its obligations under the Compliance Remedy and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. 40. LRSD is filing this Compliance Report on October 16, 2006 m accordance with paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy and the Court's July 12, Page 17 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 18 of 30 2006 letter to the parties ( docket no. 4027). WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above and in the eight Quarterly Updates which have been filed with the Court, and on the basis of the completion of eight step 2 program evaluations by Drs. Ross and Catterall, LRSD prays for an order finding it to be in substantial compliance with the Compliance Remedy contained in the Court's June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion, declaring LRSD to be a unitary school district, and releasing LRSD from all supervision and monitoring by the Court. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) Khayyam M. Eddings (#02008) 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 Isl Clrristopher Heller CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on October 16, 2006, 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 following: Page 18 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 19 of 30 mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us sjones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj.com iohnwalkeratty@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 - JudgeJ.ThomasRay U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl Christopher Heller Page 19 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 20 .&lt;?_t 3Q _ . Career Objective: Prefeuional Experience: 1998-Prcaent Educadon: May,2005 December, 1998 May, 1997 Prof ess.lonally Related Activities: Danyell CrutchfleJd Cummlnp S Ben Hopn Cove Little Rock, Arkansas 7221G (501) 407-8097 (501) 447-1737 To utilize proven academic and professional experience to obtain a challenging position as an administrator that will allow for growth and an opportunity to contribute to a progrcssi ve educational environment. High Schools That Work Coordinator J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal Ens]iah Tcacbor !. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal Educational Specialist, Educational Administration and Supervi:iion, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Master of Education, Secondary Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Bachelor of Arts, English, University of Arkansas at Little R.Qck Acting Assistant Principal Section 504 Coordinator CoW1cil of Secondary Education Stakeholder Southern Regional Education Board Literacy Team member Teacher of the Year Educational Specialist Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 References: Linda Young Grants Coordinator (501) 447-3372 work (501) 225--$439 home Jill Brooks Principal David O'Dodd Elementary (,Ol) 447-4300 work (501) 680-3767 home William Broadnax, Ed.D Student Hearing (501) 447-3582 work (501) 407-0817 home Sharon Cauley, Ed.D Assistant Principal J.A. Fair Systems Magnet High School (501) 447-1700 ext. 1710 work (501)666-621_6 home Filed 10/16/2006 ~~1:1 .. ~ ?..! . .O.I. ~0 . ____Ca_se_ _4:8_2-_cv-_00 866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/200~ge 22 ~!}0_ _ ,. .. _______ , . ., .. _ , _________ , Career Objective: Profeuioul Experience: 2004-Present 1998-Prcscnt Educadon: May,2005 December, 1998 May, 1997 Profea,Jonally Related ActMdes: Danyell CrutcbReld Cumminp 5 Ben Hogan Cove Little Rock, Arkanau 72210 (!01) 407-8097 (501) 447-1737 To utilize proven academic and professional experience to obtain a challenging position as an administrator that will allow for growth and an opportunity to contribute to a progressive educational environmmt. High Schools That Work Coordinator J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal English Teacher J. A. Fair Systems Magnet High School Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Randy Rutherford, Principal Educational Specialist, Educational Administration and Supervision, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Master ofEducatioo, Secondary Education, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Bachelor of Arts, English, University of Arkansas at Little R~k Acting Assistant Principal Section S04 Coordinator Council of Secondary Education Slakeholder Southern Regional Education Board Literacy Team member Teacher of the Year Educational Specialist Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 P_9ge g~_qf 30 . References: Linda Young Grants Coordinator (501) 447-3372 work (501) 225-5439 home Jill Brooks Principal David O'Dodd Elementary (S0l) 447 ... 300 work (501) 680-3767 home William Broadnax, Ed.D Student Hearing (501) 447-3582 work (SO 1) 407-0817 home Sharon Cauley, Ed.D Assistant Principal J.A. Fair Systems Magnet High School (501) 447-1700 ext. 1710 work (S01) 666-6216 home Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 24 of 30 81 Platform Little Rock School District Business Objects Reporting Tools Business Objects Enterprise is a scalable, adaptive platform that delivers insight and corporate infonnation to all your end users. With a platform designed to help you confidently deploy and manage your Business Intelligence (BI) implementations, Business Objects provides the Little Rock School District with the extreme insight you need to extend your competitive advantage. . . The BI Platform provides a set of common services to simplify deployment and management of BI tools, reports, and applications. The reporting system at the Little Rock School District includes information delivery in subject areas including Student Demographics, Student Performance, Budget and Finance, Employee Attendance, Child Nutrition, Human Resources, Accounts Payable, Payroll, Procurement, and Procurement Warehouse, to name a few. Flexible Services-Oriented Platform By building the Little Rock School District's BI solutions with Business Objects Enterprise, we have the flexibility to deploy a solution for a single information challenge, while being able to simultaneously expand the deployment as our needs evolve. Designed for Scalability and High Performance Business Objects Enterprise is designed for scalability, reliability, fault-tolerance, extensibility, and 24/7 availability. This platform recognizes the importance of diverse global deployments, supports Unicode, and -~s compliant with Microsoft Windows, Sun Solaris, IBM AIX, HP-UX, and Linux. So you can start with a single BI project on one platform, and easily grow to support an enterprise-wide standardization initiative on multiple platforms. With BI content now being delivered via intranet and extranet, BI platfonn scalability is a key issue. Business Objects Enterprise has the scalability you need to accommodate increasing numbers of users, process growing volumes of information, and scale on a single machine-or clusters of machines- . while maintaining high performance. Proven Reliability This platfonn's key attributes-performance, reliability, and scalability-are proven by extensive, realworld testing and third-party certification. Enterprise is the only BI platform to achieve Microsoft Windows 2003 Datacenter certification. Business Objects Enterprise- covered by a 24/7 technical customer support-has demonstrably installed and run on a 32-processor system, remained stable through rigorous stress testing, and stayed available after being subject to extensive failover conditions. We also continually conduct extensive benchmarking and performance testing to ensure our platform scales to meet the needs of the Little Rock School District today and tomorrow. I. EXHIBIT I ______-.; ;;__i 13----~ LRSD BI Tools ....!,____ .... Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 25 of 30 Reporting Fundamentals The fundamental requirements of any reporting system are a normalized database and a reporting tool. Data from disparate systems and formats is collected in a centralized database platform and transformed into a consistent, well organized reporting database. Many reports have been created and delivered from this reporting database using Crystal Reports as the reporting tool. Normalized Data This data, securely housed at the Little Rock School District Technology Center, has been normalized to 3rd normal form on a Microsoft SQL Server database server. The original database management software is DB2 residing on an IBM AS/400 application server, which hot1ses a majority of the studentbased data. Other student data resides in Microsoft Access or is provided fo the CIS department via Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. Automated processes have been developed and scheduled to update the student data nightly, where required. Processes have also been designed and implemented to update data in key financial, human resources and accounting subject areas. Business Objects provides the industry's leading suite of integrated business intelligence products. The products are categorized into three groups: Reporting allows all levels of the Little Rock School District to access, format, and deliver data as meaningful information to large populations of information consumers like teachers and school administrators both inside and outside the organization. This is provided through detailed reports created using Crystal Reports and accessed via a web browser using the Business Objects Enterprise - Info View application. Query and Analysis tools allow end users to interact with District information and answer ad hoc questions, without advanced knowledge of the underlying data sources and structures. This is provided through a product called Web Intelligence or WEBI. This allows users to create dynamic reports from their desks with little or no required knowledge of the underlying database schema. In-depth analysis is performed using OLAP Intelligence, a powerful OnLine Analytic Processing tool that provides detailed, fast, multidimensional data for sophisticated comparative analysis and reporting. Performance Management products help users align with strategy by tracking and analyzing key business and educational metrics and goals via management dashboards, scorecards, and alerting. This is provided through Performance Manager and Dashboard Manager products that present Key Performance Indicators in user-friendly, interactive graphical tools. Crystal Reports A world standard for enterprise reporting, Crystal Reports is an intuitive reporting solution that helps customers rapidly create flexible, feature-rich, high-fidelity reports and tightly integrate them into web and Windows applications. The Crystal Reports enterprise reporting solution consists of: LRSDBIToou Pagel o/7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 26 of 30 Powerful report design: Report authors can use the visual report designer (with a complete set of layout and design controls), to design highly formatted, interactive, and professional-looking reports. And they can design within the leading .NET and Java development tools without having to step out of their chosen development environment. Flexible application development: Developers can leverage cross-platform support for Java, .NET, and COM development technologies. HTML is generated directly by Crystal Reports, allowing developers to focus on application business logic, rather than tedious, time-intensive hand coding. Separation of application development and report design tasks allow developers to focus on application development, while the report authors can focus on report design. Report management and delivery: Reports are easily published to the web, for better business decisions in all areas of the Little Rock School District. Reports can be exported and repurposed to the electronic fonnats used by most end users ( e.g. PDF and Excel). IT can centralize the management of operational reporting while distributing the report authoring function out to departments of the District that need them. The following themes are an overview of what features are available in Crystal Reports XI: Powerful data access and report design Enhanced productivity and maintenance Report management and delivery Dynamic and Cascading Prompts Report prompts can be based on dynamic values. This means that report designers no longer have to maintain static prompt value lists within individual reports. Instead, they can reuse existing prompts stored in the repository. HTML Preview The iterative report design/view process is streamlined, with a new HTML preview that allows report authors to see how reports will look when published to the web. Editable RTF Format This new feature is ideal for report export editing. It delivers reports to end users in a new RTF format, so they can easily make their own document modifications. Report Export Configuration The report designer can save report export configuration information within the report itself so that the end user forgoes the time and trouble of reconfiguring the export each time a report is run. Dependency Checker With the new dependency checker, report authors can quickly find broken links, formula errors, and dependency issues. Tiris greatly reduces the time spent on QA. Business Views Speed Report Design and Maintenance Cycles Crystal Enterprise Business Views helps you better manage reporting across multiple data sources and applications by simplifying data access, change management, and data-level security processes. An lRSD Bl Tools Pnge J o/7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 27 of 30 optional service in Crystal Enterprise, Business Views allow you to integrate data from disparate sources, handle promotion/demotion between development and production environments, and control security at both the row and column level. Simplified Data Access Data access is one of the most fundamental, yet difficult aspects of designing a report. Locating the right data, joining tables appropriately, and filtering the data to focus on a specific subject area requires an indepth knowledge of the underlying data structures. The Business View Manager allows you to simplify data access for your report designers by insulating them from the raw data structures. You can build connections to multiple data sources, join tables, alias field names, create calculated fields, and then surface this simplified structure as a .Business View in Crystal Enterprise. Your report designers can then connect to Crystal Enterprise and use the Business View as the basis for their report, rather than accessing the data directly and building their own queries. Business Views helps administrators pull data together from disparate sources. Data Connections (created visually or with complex SQL statements) can be integrated into a Data Foundation. Once the Data Foundation is built, Business Elements (a collection ofrelated fields from the Data Foundation) can be created and combined into a Business View. The modular architecture of Business Views also allows you to readily re-use various components of one Business View to build other Business Views. A single, broad data foundation can serve as the basis for multiple, specialized Business Views. Used carefully, these capabilities allow you to minimize the number of changes required to introduce new data, fields, or formulas into your system. Granular Data-level Security Many reporting scenarios involve complex security requirements. Each user is entitled to see a slightly different slice of District data, based on their School, Department or level of seniority. Data in the Little Rock School District is commonly segregated by School and Teacher-based information. Business Views allow teachers to view data regarding their students and prevents them form seeing data regarding students that are NOT assigned to them. Rather than creating a number of different reports to meet this need, we can create a single report and use the security features ofBusiness Views to filter data appropriately for each user. Using the Business View Manager, you can set up row- or column-level filters and map these filters to users or user groups stored in your existing LDAP, Active Directory, or Windows authentication provider. This security is then consistently applied at the data level, ensuring that any report design based on a Business View will respect the underlying data security. You can then choose to schedule the report to run regularly. Or you can allow users to refresh it on demand. Regardless, Crystal Enterprise can generate a master instance of the report (with all the data included if you run the report under an administrator context) and then filter the report every time a user views it. All exporting, printing, and report modification requests will also return only the data the user is entitled to see. LRSD Bl Tools Pag~4of7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 28 of 30 Change Management and Re-use Maintaining a large set ofreports is often more time-consuming and complex than new development. Activities such as making small changes in response to user needs, updating business calculations, changing fonnatting, and moving your reports between development and production data sources all delay you from addressing new requirements. Business Views includes two key features to help you spend less time on report maintenance. First, you can use Dynamic Data Connections to store connections to multiple instances of the same database (e.g., development, test, and production). By passing a parameter when you're designing (or scheduling) the report, you can select which data source the report runs against. Second, you can store commonly-used functions, text objects, and logos directly in your data foundation. This allows you to easily roll changes across multiple reports by changing the object once. Business Objects Enterprise Info View Business Objects Info View is a completely redesigned web interface that enables user to navigate, create, and interact with District information. Integrated search and navigation tools allow users to easily find the infonnation they need. Users can also personalize their interactions to simplify consumption of District information. Info View is built to support Java and Microsoft based web servers, to easily fit within you're the Little Rock School District IT infrastructure. Web Intelligence Many organizations find it difficult to access information not contained in standard reports. And requests to IT for new infonnation simply add to the report backlog. Even when ad hoc query capabilities are available, they're typically difficult to use and don't provide your non-technical users with a simple method of exploring information, to really understand the business issue at hand. With Business Objects Web Intelligence, both self-service access to information and data analysis are available in one product, helping your users turn educational analysis into effective decisions. Users can create a query from scratch, format the information retrieved, and analyze it to understand underlying trends and root causes. If the full power of query capabilities is not required, users can simply analyze information in existing reports-formatting and exploring them to meet specific needs. CLAP Intelligence Business Objects OLAP Intelligence is a powerful and easy-to-use tool that allows you to access and analyze data stored in the leading OLAP servers. It uniquely satisfies the analysis requirements of both information analysts (power users) and less sophisticated knowledge workers (business users). With OLAP Intelligence, power users can slice and dice, drill, rank, sort, filter, create calculations on the fly, and perform speed-of-thought data exploration. And business users can interact with pre-built OLAP workbooks that contain highly intuitive, graphical views of educational activity, guided navigation and worktlows, and flexible ad hoc analysis. Its advanced analysis capabilities, shared security, and relational drill-through allow you to standardize on Business Objects for all of your BI needs. OLAP Intelligence delivers: Best-of-breed ad hoc OLAP Managed OLAP authoring and distribution Integration with the market leading, trusted BI platform LRSD Bl Tools Page5 of7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 29 of 30 Best-of-Breed Ad Hoc OLAP The primary driver for implementing an OLAP database is to provide users with fast access to multidimensional data. IT develops focused OLAP cubes to provide users with a structured data environment, optimized for analysis. But in order for users to take advantage of the pre-aggregated data within an OLAP cube, they require an interface that allows them to drill, slice, and dice while leveraging the response times that the predefined OLAP cube environment offers. Speed-of-Thought Analysis OLAP Intelligence provides an intuitive, web-based interface that allows users to select dimensions and members from a query panel as well as perform similar analysis from integrated Windows, Microsoft Excel, and ActiveX client interfaces. Users can interact with their data and ask sp&lt;;mtaneous questions to uncover trends and identify anomalies. And because OLAP Intelligence talces advantage of the power of the OLAP cube, users are guaranteed speed-of-thought response time. Intuitive. Function-Rich Interface The OLAP Intelligence interface is both intuitive and function-rich. Common functions such as ranking, filtering, highlighting, quick calculations, zero suppression, and axis swapping are available with a single click of the mouse. More advanced analyses are only a few mouse clicks away and provide an uncluttered, intuitive user interface that requires minimal training. With OLAP Intelligence, users can also asymmetrically display data and hide specific dimensions that are irrelevant to data exploration. Deep. Open Access to Microsoft, Hyperion, and SAP OLAP Servers With OLAP Intelligence, you get best-of-breed, ad hoc OLAP for today's leading, multidimensional database servers-Microsoft SQL Server Analysis Services, Hyperion Essbase, IBM DB2 OLAP, and SAP BW. For example, native Hyperion Essbase 7.x support for free-fonn calculations and cube actions means that organizations are maximizing their OLAP server investments and taking advantage of key enhancements and optimizations. Managed OLAP Authoring and Distribution OLAP Intelligence goes further than most OLAP clients on the market today by not only providing powerful ad hoc analysis, but also delivering a flexible, managed OLAP environment. With OLAP Intelligence, you can easily create sophisticated workbooks that exploit the power of the underlying OLAP server, and enable users to build in predefined navigation paths and workflows. Then you can securely deploy and deliver the workbooks live to business users who don't necessarily fit the powerdata analyst profile. These OLAP workbooks may contain custom buttons and multi-page reports that .recipients can view and interact with over the web. Publish Live OLAP Workbooks to Business Users When users view an OLAP Intelligence workbook over the web, it may appear as a dashboard with custom functionality specific to one area of the business, or as an ad hoc interface that allows them to perform advanced analysis. Because OLAP Intelligence has a flexible design and was created to meet powerful ad hoc and managed analysis needs, the deployment possibilities are limitless. . Built-In Guided Navigation and Data Exploration LRSD Bl Too/3 Page6of7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4050 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 30 of 30 With OLAP Intellj,gence you can guide users through the OLAP data navigation and exploration process. For example, a user can highlight a group of cells in a report, click a custom analysis button, and view a new graph that has drilled down on the chosen group, displaying variances as a worksheet and chart. A show trend analysis button could then be made available that displays a new page in the workbook with a year-over-year comparison. Open drill-through capabilities in OLAP Intelligence empower users to drill from aggregated OLAP data down to relational details. This means that users can navigate and explore summarized information, and drill through and pass context to more detailed Crystal Reports or Business Objects Web Intelligence documents. This contextual drill-through technology pro:Vides users with intelligent navigation without the need to understand the complexities of underlying data and metadata structures. LRSD Bl Toois Page 7 o/7 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. I, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER RECEIVED OCT 2 o 2006 OFACEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS LRSD's Motion for an Extension of Time (Doc. No. 4048) is GRANTED. Accordingly, LRSD's draft Step 2 Program Evaluation of the Pre-K Literacy Program must be filed by 5 p.m., Wednesday, November 15, 2006. IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of October, 2006. Isl Wm. R.Wilson Jr. UNITED ST A TES DISTRJCT JUDGE New York, NY 10013 Timothy Gerard Gauger &amp;-kansas Attorney General ' s Office Wi,tlett-Prien Tower Building 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock , AR 72201-2610 James M. Llewellyn , Jr Thompson &amp; Llewellyn , P.A. 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. Th ompson Thompson &amp; Llewel lyn , P .A. Post Office Box 818 Fort Smith , AR 72902-0818 MIME-Version:1.0 From:ecf_support@ared . uscourts.gov To:ared_ecf@ared.uscourts . gov A:~~age-Id :&lt;767706@ared . uscourts.gov&gt; ~ bject:Activity in Case 4 : 82-cv-00866-WRW Little Rock School , et al v . Pul aski Cty School, et al "Order on Motion to Extend Time " Content-Type : text/plain***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** You may view the filed documents once without charge . To avoid l ater 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 10/19/2006 at 9 : 55 AM CDT and filed on 10/18/2006 Case Name: Little Rock School , et al v . Pulaski Cty School , et al Case Number: 4 : 82-cv-866 http : / /ecf . a red . us courts. gov/ cgi-bin/DktRpt . pl ?2 6052 WARNING : CASE CLOSED on 01/26/1998 Docume nt Number : 4053 Copy the URL address from the line below into the location bar of your Web browser to view the d ocument : http : //ecf . ared. uscourts . gov/cgi-bin /show_case_ doc?4053 , 26052 , , MAGIC ,,, 2005489 Docket Text: ORDER granting [4048] Motion to Extend Time ; LR$D ' s draft Step 2 Program Evaluation of the Pre-K Literacy Program must be filed by 5 p.m. , Wednesday, November 15 , 2006 . Signed by Judge William R. Wi lson Jr. on 10/18/06 . (mkf, ) The following documen t (s) are associated with this transaction: Document description: Main Document Original filename: n/a a lectronic document Stamp : - STAMP dcecfStamp_ ID=l095794525 [Date= l 0/19/2006] [FileNumber=767705-0] [b3ec8779c91ae546773eb22665c07b6afe5b 95858074548ablf66cdblb0e7c7bcafb4796bdlde8a 537ae2ba51becd736a5c7340c96eeef5323b45b8d3lb59545]] 4 : 82-cv-866 Notice will be electronically mailed to: Clayton R . Blackstock cblackstock@mbbwi . com Mark Terry Burnette mburnette@mbbwi . com John Clayburn Fendley , Jr clayfendley@comcast . net , yeldnef@yahoo.com Mark Arnold Hagemeier mark . hagemeier@arkansasag.gov, a ngela . dover@arkan sasag.gov Christopher J. He ller 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; linda . calloway@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@gabriel mail.com -4 : 82-cv-866 Notice will be delivered by other means to : Norman J . Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense &amp; Educational Fund , Inc . - New York 99 Hudson Street Suite 1600 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 1 of 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED OCT 2 7 2006 Qffl:Eff llUBATIONIO'-IU"""maG-LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINEKNIGHT,ET AL DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S REVISED COMPLIANCE REPORT For its Re;,visectC0mpliance'Report, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. This Compliance Report is filed pursuant to paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy contained in this Court's June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion. The reason for revising the Compliance Report is to correctly reflect the fact that school portfolios, as opposed to the district portfolio, have not been implemented in LRSD. The substantive changes from the initial Compliance Report are found in paragraphs eleven through sixteen. 2. LRSD has substantially complied with the Compliance Remedy. This Page 1 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 2 of 30 compliance is documented below, as well as in the eight Quarterly Updates which were filed between December 1, 2004 and September 1, 2006, the evaluations of Compass Learning, Smart/Thrive, Reading Recovery and Year-Round Education which were previously filed, and the evaluations of A+, 21 st _Century Community Learning Centers and READ 180 which are filed with this Compliance Report. 3. The progress ofLRSD's efforts to comply with the requirement for an eighth step 2 program evaluation, the Pre-K Literacy evaluation, has been shown in LRSD's Quarterly Updates and status reports to the Court. The final evidence of LRSD's compliance with that requirement will be the evaluation itself, which the evaluator, Dr. Ross, expects to have completed on or before November 15, 2006. 4. LRSD will separately describe below its compliance with each of the requirements of the Compliance Remedy except those which set out the r~sponsibilities of the Joshua Intervenors and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. 5. The requirements of paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy are: A. LRSD must promptly hire a highly trained team of professionals to reinvigorate PRE. These individuals must have experience in: (a) preparing and overseeing the preparation of formal program evaluations; and (b) formulating a comprehensive program assessment process that can be used to determine the effectiveness of specific academic programs designed to improve the achievement of African-American Page 2 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 3 of 30 students. I expect the director of PRE to have a Ph.D.; to have extensive experience in designing, preparing and overseeing the preparation of program evaluations; and to have a good understanding of statistics and regression analysis. . I also expect LRSD to hire experienced statisticians and the other appropriate support personnel necessary to operate a first-rate PRE Department. 6. LRSD met the requirements of paragraph A by adding fo 1 th,e PRE team three new professionals who have knowledge and experience in assessment, evaluation, and statistical analysis. The qualifications of the seven people who were employed by PRE as of November 1, 2004 are shown at pages 3 through 5 of the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. The resumes of PRE Director Dr. Karen DeJarnette and statisticians Maurecia Malcolm Robinson, James C. Wohlleb and Dr. Ed Williams are found in Appendix A to the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. This highly trained team of professionals has the qualifications required by paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. 7. There have been a few changes in personnel since the first Quarterly Update, but PRE has maintained a highly trained team of professionals. Administrative Assistant Irma Shelton took medical leave in May of 2005. The Administrative Assistant position was eliminated on July 1, 2005. Testing Coordinator Yvette Dillingham left PRE in August, 2005. Dr. Ed Williams temporarily assumed her responsibilities until she was replaced in November 2005 Page 3 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 4 of 30 by Arthur Olds. Olds' resume can be found in Appendix A to the March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update. As reported in the June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, Olds sought reassignment to a teaching possession at Dunbar Magnet Middle School on April 14, 2006. Dr. Williams again temporarily assumed . the :resting Coordinator responsibilities. LRSD posted the Testing Coordinator position in June, . 2p96 and interviews were scheduled for August, 2006. See September 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. A new testing coordinator, Danyell Cummings was hired October 1, 2006. Her resume is attached as Exhibit A to this Compliance Report. 8. The current PRE staff has all of the qualifications listed in paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. LRSD complied with paragraph A of the Compliance Remedy. 9. The requirements of paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy are: B. The first task PRE must perform is to devise a comprehensive program assessment process. It may take a decade or more for LRSD to make sufficient progress in improving the academic achievement of African-American students to justify discontinuing the need for specific 2.7 programs. For that reason, the comprehensive program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. Only then will I have the necessary assurance that LRSD intends to continue using that process for as long as it is needed to determine the effectiveness of the various key 2. 7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. Part of LRSD's proof, at the next compliance hearing, must include evidence that it has devised and implemented a comprehensive Page 4 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 5 of 30 program assessment process, which has been deeply embedded as a permanent part of its curriculum and instruction program. l suggest that LRSD use Dr. Ross to assist in developing this comprehensive program assessment process; then be sure that he . approves that process before it is finalized and implemented. 10. LRSD has devised and deeply embedded :i coII1prehensive program assessment process in accordance with paragraph B of the Compliance . Remedy. LRSD used Dr. Ross to assist in developing the comprehensive program assessment process. By the time of the first Quarterly Update on December 1, 2004, PRE and Dr. Ross had "developed and shared with ODM and the Joshua Intervenors a program assessment process to be deeply embedded in LRSD's educational operations." December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, p. 6. The final draft of that process is found at Appendix B of the December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update. This final draft was furnished to ODM and the Joshua Intervenors more than a month in advance of its consideration by the LRSD Board of Directors. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, p. 11. The comprehensive program assessment process was approved by the LRSD Board on December 16, 2004. March 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 11. The comprehensive program assessment process has become deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. The embedding of the comprehensive program assessment process has included Page 5 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 6 of 30 the development of a school district portfolio. As part of the process of the development and implementation of the portfolio, four PRE department members attended an institute for data analysis during the summer of 2005, and a consultant "visited LRSD and reviewed its data collection procedures anq resources." Id. 12. LRSD has continued to develop the infrastructure to 'supP.ort its comprehensive assessment process. A district portfolio is an important part of this infrastructure. The portfolio will "allow PRE staff as well as others to more easily analyze data and intersect various types of data sets to answer research questions about comprehensive school improvement efforts." December 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 13. As of December 1, 2005, PRE had identified the data to be included in the district portfolio and had designed a draft district portfolio. Id. District administrators and principals were making use of the portfolio and steps were being taken "to allow a more efficient collection of data related to educational processes." Id. Dr. Catterall used data from LRSD's portfolio in his step 2 evaluation of the Year-Round Education program. March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 14; The development of the district portfolio is a continual process. As new data becomes available (e.g. new test results) they are added to the data base. Page 6 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 7 of 30 The infrastructure is in place, and LRSD continues to expand and update its portfolio. See March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. 15. During April of 2006, an expert on school portfolios provided professional development for LRSD principals, adminis_trators, and the PRE staff regarding the creation and use of school portfolios. June 1, 2006 _Qll;arterly Update, p. 3. LRSD expects to begin the creation of school portfolios during the 2007-08 school year. 16. LRSD has also sought to deeply embed the comprehensive program assessment process by hiring a consultant, the Janis Group, to help develop a "data warehouse." The Janis Group has "expertise in storing, integrating, and efficiently accessing data." March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. The data warehouse will support frequent updates of the portfolio and allow timely data reports for purposes of' planning, research, evaluation and developing policy. The data warehouse will allow reports to be generated by program, classroom, school, grade, or districtwide. Id. 17. There was some debate within LRSD about whether to purchase an internet-based data warehouse from a company called TetraData or to continue the in-house design and construction of a data warehouse using the Business Objects software and the database already available to LRSD. LRSD decided, with some Page 7 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 8 of 30 dissent from PRE, to continue to use and improve the Business Objects software. Business Objects is state of the art software which can be effectively used in the assessment of academic programs. The capabilities of the Business Objects data warehouse, including updating and reporting student. data, are shown in the "Business Objects Reporting Tools" document attached as Exhibit . B, to this Compliance Report. 18. The process of developing school and district portfolios, and creating a data warehouse, has revealed the need for LRSD to take steps to insure that the data entered into its database is accurate. The accuracy of the data would be a concern whether the district used the Business Objects system, the TetraData system or some other software system. To improve the accuracy of data reporting within LRSD, LRSD has increased the number of "error checking routines" in its computer software. LRSD also has a full time training coordinator whose job it is to train school registrars and other LRSD personnel in the proper entry of student data, to work with those people to identify and correct recurring data entry errors, and to generally assure the accuracy and completeness of student data within the LRSD database. The accuracy of the data in LRSD 's database, including its portfolios, continues to improve. 19. Finally, as another part of embedding the comprehensive program Page 8 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 9 of 30 assessment process, PRE has designed "feasible, ongoing assessments of the four programs which Drs. Catterall and Ross subjected to step 2 evaluations last year." June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. LRSD also plans to have PRE conduct ongoing assessments of the programs currently being evaluat~d by Drs. Ross and Catterall. 20. LRSD has devised a comprehensive program assessment process as required by paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. That process has been deeply embedded as a permanent part of LRSD's curriculum program. LRSD has complied with paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. 21. The requirements of paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy are: C. During each of the next two academic school years (2004-05 and 2005-06), LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four (4) formal step 2 evaluations. Each of these step 2 evaluations must cover one of the key 2. 7 programs, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Thus, over the course of the next two academic school years, LRSD must hire outside consultants to prepare a total of eight (8) formal step 2 evaluations of key 2. 7 programs. During the recent compliance hearing, Dr. Ross made it clear that LRSD must conduct these formal step 2 evaluations of the key 2.7 programs in order to continue to make progress in improving the academic achievement of AfricanAmerican students. Again, I suggest that LRSD hire Dr. Ross -- to perform the following tasks: (1) identify the four key 2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year and the four key 2. 7 programs that should be formally evaluated during the 2005-06 school year; and (2) prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible. If Dr. Ross cannot prepare all eight of the Page 9 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 10 of 30 step 2 evaluations, I recommend that LRSD hire someone that Dr. Ross recommends as possessing the experience and ability necessary to prepare those evaluations. 22. In accordance with paragraph C, LRSD hired Dr. Ross to "identify the four key 2.7 programs that should be formally evaluated _ during the 2004-05 school year and the four key 2. 7 programs that should be formally. F-Y~uated during the 2005-06 school year," and to "prepare as many of the eight step 2 evaluations as possible." 23. Dr. Ross was provided a copy of the Compliance Remedy and he endorsed the first Quarterly Update "as representing an accurate portrayal of accomplishments to date and a viable plan for addressing the requirements of the Remedy." December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, Appendix C (p. 45). Dr. Ross assumed responsibility for preparing six of the required eight formal step 2 evaluations. Three of those cover the 2004-05 school year and were filed on February 6, 2006. Two others are for the 2005-06 school year and will be filed today. The sixth step 2 evaluation being prepared by Dr. Ross, Pre-K Literacy, has been delayed due to the unavailability of necessary data and is expected to be completed no later than November 15, 2006. 24. Two of the required eight formal step 2 evaluations were prepared by Dr. James Catterall. One covered the 2004-05 school year and was filed on Page 10 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 11 of 30 February 6, 2006. The other will be filed today. 25. PRE, in collaboration with Dr. Ross, selected Reading Recovery, Smart/Thrive, Compass Leaming and Year-Round Education to be formally evaluated during the 2004-05 school year. December L: 2004 Quarterly Update, pp. 7-9. Those evaluations have been completed. 26. Dr. Ross initially identified the following four 2.7 programs for step 2 evaluations in the 2005-06 school year: Arkansas A+ School Network; KnowledgePoints; PLATO Leaming and Pre-Kindergarten Literacy Development. June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4. At the request of the Joshua Intervenors, and with the agreement of Dr. Ross, 21 st Century Community Leaming Centers was substituted for PLATO Leaming as the subject of an evaluation for the 2005- 06 school year. September 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4 and Appendix C, (pp. 19-21). KnowledgePoints was also replaced as the subject of evaluation by the READ 180 program because the supplier of KnowledgePoints withdrew its support of the program in Arkansas. December 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp. 3-4. 27. Dr. Ross and Dr. Catterall possess the experience and ability necessary to prepare the eight required step 2 evaluations. Their qualifications are found in Appendix C to the first Quarterly Update (pp. 46-54). They are both familiar with the requirements of the Compliance Remedy and have agreed to Page 11 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 12 of 30 prepare their evaluations in accordance with those requirements. LRSD has complied with the requirements of paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. 28. The requirements of paragraph D of the Compliance Remedy are: D. Each of the eight step 2 evaluatio:q.s must answer the following essential research question: "Has the 2. 7 program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of African-Americ~ students, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district?" The eight step 2 evaluations may also answer as many other research questions as the designers of each evaluation deem necessary and appropriate. Each of the step 2 evaluations must be organized and written in such a way that it can be readily understood by a lay person. I will allow the outside experts preparing each of these evaluations to decide on the appropriate number of years of test scores and other data that need to be analyzed in preparing each evaluation. PRE must: (1) oversee the preparation of all eight of these step 2 evaluations; (2) work closely with Dr. Ross and any other outside consultants hired to prepare these step 2 evaluations; and (3) provide the outside consultants with any and all requested assistance and support in preparing these step 2 evaluations. 29. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations answers the essential research question of whether the program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of African-American students, as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. Each of the eight step 2 evaluations also answers other important research questions. Each is organized and written so that its findings and recommendations can be readily understood by a lay person. In each case, the outside experts and the evaluation teams determined the evaluation design, Page 12 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 13 of 30 including the appropriate number of years of test scores and other data necessary to the utility of each evaluation. 30. PRE has overseen the preparation of all eight step 2 evaluations and worked closely with Drs. Ross and Catterall, and thos~ associated with them, to support their work and provide any and all requested assistance. See Jun~, 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, pp.6-7; March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 4; June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, pp. 5-6; September 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 6 and Appendix A. LRSD has substantially complied with the requirements of paragraph D of the Compliance Remedy. 31. The requirements of paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy are: E. In order to streamline LRSD's record-keeping obligation, I am going to require that each of the eight step 2 evaluations contain, in addition to the traditional information and data, a special section which: (1) describes the number of teachers and administrators, at the various grade levels, who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the key 2. 7 program being evaluated; (2) lists each of the recommended program modifications, if any, that were deemed necessary in order to increase the effectiveness of each of the 2.7 programs in improving the academic achievement of African-American students; and (3) briefly explains how each of the recommended modifications is expected to increase the effectiveness of the 2. 7 program. This requirement is intended to relieve LRSD of any independent record-keeping obligations under 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan and the Compliance Remedy. 32. In accordance with paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy, each of Page 13 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 14 of 30 the eight step 2 evaluations contains a section concerning data collection which describes the number of teachers and administrators at various grade levels who were interviewed or from whom information was received regarding the effectiveness of the program being evaluated. Each of.the ejght evaluations also contains recommended program modifications and explains how the reConm,iended modifications can be expected to increase the effectiveness of the program. See March 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, pp. 4-5. 33. On April 18, 2006, LRSD convened the four evaluation teams which worked on the 2004-05 evaluations to consider the feasibility and the timeframe for implementing the external evaluators' recommendations. June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update, p. 3. A summary of LRSD's commitments to the modifications recommended by the external evaluators is found in Appendix A (pp. 7-11) to the June 1, 2006 Quarterly Update. LRSD will follow the same process of reviewing the evaluators' recommended modifications following receipt of the evaluations for the 2005-06 school year. LRSD has complied with the requirements of paragraph E of the Compliance Remedy. 34. The requirements of paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy are: F. As soon as PRE and Dr. Ross identify the eight 2.7 programs targeted for step 2 evaluations, PRE must notify the ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of those eight programs. In Page 14 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 15 of 30 addition, after PRE and Dr. Ross have formulated a comprehensive program assessment process and reduced it to a final draft, PRE must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua at least thirty days before it is presented to the Board for approval. I expect the Board to approve LRSD's comprehensive program assessment process no later than December 31, 2004. 35. In accordance with paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy, PRE .. . notified ODM and Joshua in writing of the names of the eight 2.7 programs targeted for step 2 evaluations. See June 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 8. PRE also provided to ODM and Joshua a final draft of the comprehensive program assessment process more than thirty days before it was presented to the Board for approval. December 1, 2004 Quarterly Update, pp. 6 and 11. The LRSD Board of - Directors approved the comprehensive program assessment process on December 16, 2004, in advance of the December 31, 2004 deadline. March 1, 2005 Quarterly Update, p. 3. LRSD has met the requirements of paragraph F of the Compliance Remedy. 36. The requirements of paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy are: G. PRE must submit quarterly written updates on the status of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations that will be prepared during the 2005-06 school year. These quarterly updates must be delivered to the ODM and Joshua on December 1, March 1, June I, and September I of each of those two academic school years. As soon as each of the eight step 2 evaluations has been completed and approved by the Board, LRSD must provide a copy to the ODM and Joshua. Page 15 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 16 of 30 37. In accordance with paragraph G of the Compliance Remedy, LRSD submitted quarterly written updates to the Court and delivered them to ODM and Joshua on or before December 1, 2004, March 1, 2005, June 1, 2005, September 1, 2005, December 1, 2005, March 1, 2006; June 1, 2006 and September 1, 2006. Those quarterly written updates reported "the status of the work being performed on the four step 2 program evaluations" prepared during the 2004-05 and 2005-06 school years. The quarterly updates also provided information on the status of compliance with other components of the Compliance Remedy. 38. As soon as the four step 2 evaluations for the 2004-05 school year were completed and approved by the LRSD Board, LRSD provided t11:~m to ODM and Joshua. Three of the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year will be filed with the Court and provided to ODM and Joshua on October 16, 2006. The fourth will be filed with the Court and provided to ODM and Joshua on or before November 15, 2006. As soon as the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 school year are approved by the LRSD Board, LRSD will provide final copies of those evaluations to ODM and Joshua. LRSD has complied with paragraph G of Page 16 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 17 of 30 the Compliance Remedy. 39. The requirements of paragraph J of the Compliance Remedy are: J. The four step program evaluations for the 2004-05 school year must be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2005. The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005-06 ~choo~ year must be filed with the Court no later than October 1, 2006. 40. The four step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-05 schooi year were filed with the Court on February 6, 2006 in accordance with extended deadlines approved by the Court. Three of the four step 2 program evaluations for the 2005- 06 school year will be filed on today in accordance with extended deadlines approved by the Court. Dr. Ross requires additional time to complete the Pre-K Literacy evaluation because of the delayed availability of necessary testing data. LRSD has requested an extension of time for the filing of that step 2 evaluation to aJ?:d including November 15, 2006, and expects to file that evaluation by that date. LRSD has substantially complied with paragraph J of the Compliance Remedy. 41. The requirements of paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy are: K. On or before October 15, 2006, LRSD must file a Compliance Report documenting its compliance with its obligations under 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, as specified in this Compliance Remedy. If Joshua wishes to challenge LRSD's substantial compliance, they must file objections on or before November 15, 2006. Thereafter, I will schedule a compliance hearing and decide whether LRSD has met its obligations under the Compliance Remedy and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. Page 17 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 18 of 30 42. LRSD is filing this Compliance Report on October 16, 2006 in accordance with paragraph K of the Compliance Remedy and the Court's July 12, 2006 letter to the parties ( docket no. 4027). WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above and in the eight Quarterly Updates which have been filed with the Court, and on the basis of the completion of eight step 2 program evaluations by Drs. Ross and Catterall, LRSD prays for an order finding it to be in substantial compliance with the Compliance Remedy contained in the Court's June 30, 2004 Memorandum Opinion, declaring LRSD to be a unitary school district, and releasing LRSD from all supervision and monitoring by the Court. Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge &amp; Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) Khayyam M. Eddings (#02008) 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493, (501) 376-2011 Isl Christopher Heller Page 18 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 19 of 30 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on October 25, 2006, 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 following: 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 Christopher Heller Page 19 of 19 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 20 of 30 Career ObJecttve: Pnd'euJonaJ Experience: 2004-PIOSCD! 1998-Proent Edacadon: Danyell Crufchffeld CuDIIDIDil S Bm Hopn Cove Little Rock. ArbDIU 7211G {501) 407-8497 (501) 447-1737 To utillzo proven academic and profoaiOJW oxpienco to obtain a . : , chUcrnging po1itioa as an admiailltrator that will allow fer growth and an opportuni1)' to contribute to . proareqivo educatiooal environmcm. High Schools That Wo'fk Ccordinafor J. A. Fair Sytcml Magnet Higb School Little Rock. Arbmas 72210 Randy Rlahc,dord, Principal Bqliah Tcadior 1. A. Fair Symim Masaet Hi&amp;h Sohool Little .Rookt Arbnsu 72210 Randy Ruthafo:d, Principel May, 2005 Educational Specialist, Educ.atiou.l Administration and Supcmion, University of .Amnsas at Little Rock Docomba', 199! Muter of Education, Scoondary Edue&amp;tioo. Univel'lfty of Aibmal at Utde Ro" May, 1997 Bichel of Ans, English, Univc:rafty of Arlamsu at Little Rook ProtN.lloPally .R.elattcl .Acdvitfa: Actina Aasiatant 'Principal Scetioa 504 Coordinator Council ofSecondaey Edacatlon Slakcbolder Southern Realoaal Education Board U&amp;eracy Team mombcr Teacher oftbe Year Bdu(lational Spul!st Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 21 of 30 ----- -------- .. --- --. -. - Refcreuca: Linda Young Granta Coo.rdilultor (501) 447-3372 work (501) 225-$439 home Till Brooks Principal David O'Dodd Bl.cmcutary (501)447-4300 work (501) 680-3767 home William Broadnax, Ed,D -Student Hearillg . (SO]) 447-3582 work (501) 4070817 homo Sharon Cawcy, EdJ&gt; Assistant Prin0ipal 1.A. Fair Syscems Magnet High School (SOl) 447-1700 ~ 1710 work (501)6~6-6216 homo Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 . Page 22 of 30 -------- "------~----------- Educailon: DaayeU Crutchfilld Cummlap 5 Bea Hogan Cove Llttle Rock, Aruu,u 72210 (501) 407--8897 (501) 447-1737 To utilize proven academic and p-ofossional cxpericncc lo obcain a ' challenging position u an administrator that will allow (or growth and an opportunity to contnl,utc w a pl'OjJ'Cluivc educational onvinimncut. High Schools That Work Coordinator 1. A. Pair Sy1lcms Mapet Hlgb School Little Jlgok, Arb.mu 72210 Randy Rutherford. Principal EnsJish Tcachet J. A. Fair Syn:ms Magnet Bish School Littlo Rode, Arwsu 12210 Randy Ruthcrford,_Priuclpal May, 2005 Educational Spec!llist, Educational Administration and SUpezviaio,; University of Arbnsa1 at Little R.oclc D'"mber, 1998 , M..t ofBducatioa, Sooonday ROJCation, Univonlty of Arbasas at Little Rook May, Im Bachelor of Art,, Bnglllh, l'rvleu!onaDy Rtlated ActMtlu: University of Arkansai at Little Rode ActiJJa Auismit Prillcipll Section 504 Comlioator Couocil of Secondary Education S1akcboldet Southom Regional Bducatioa Board Lkenlcy Team member Teacher oflhe Year BduoadOllll Spoclalist Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 23 of 30 __ .. ,, .. ---- llercraca: LindaY01111g Gram Coordinator (501) 447-3372 work (501) 225-5439 homo mi Brooks PrincJpal David O'Dodd Elementary (-'01) 447-4300 work (501) 680-3767 home William Bt0adnlx, Bd,D Student Hearinl (501) 447.3532 work (501)4-07.0817 homo SbaroD Cauley, Bd.I) Aasiatant .Principal J.A. Fair S)'ICcml ~ot High School (501)4471700 c:xt. 1710 W0C'k (SOI) 666-621.6 home Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 24 of 30 Bl Platform Little Rock School District Business Objects Reporting Tools Business Objects Enterprise is a scalable, adaptive platform that delivers insight and corporate infonnation to all your end users. With a platform designed to help you confidently deploy and manage your Business Intelligence (BI) implementations, Business Objects provides the Little Rock School District with the extreme insight you need to extend your competitive advantage. The Bl Platform provides a set of common services to simplify deployment and management ofB[ tools, reports, and applications. The reporting system at the Little Rock School District includes infoanation delivery in subject areas including Student Demographics, Student Performance, Budget and Finance, Employee Attendance, Child Nutrition, Human Resources, Accounts Payable, Payroll, Procurement, and Procurement Warehouse, to name a few. Flexible Services-Oriented Platform By building the Little Rock School District's BI solutions with Business Objects Enterprise, we have the flexibility to deploy a solution for a single infonnation challenge, while being able to simultaneously expand the deployment as our needs evolve. Designed for Scalability aod Hlgll Performance Business Objects Enterprise is designed for scalability, reliability, fault-tolerance, extensibility, and 24n availability. This platfonn recognizes the importance of diverse global deployments, supports Unicode, and is compliant with Microsoft Windows, Sun Solaris, mM AIX, HP-UX, and Linux. So you can start with a single BI project on one platfonn, and easily grow to support an enterprise-wide standardization initiative on multiple platfonns. With BI content now being delivered via intranet and extranet, BI platfonn scalability .is a key issue. Business Objccta Enterprise has the scalability you need to accommodate increasing numbers of users, process growing volumes of infonnation. and scale on a single machine-or clusters ofmachineswhile maintaining high performance. Proven RellabUlty This platfonn's key attributes-performance, reliability, and scalability-are proven by extensive, real world testing and third-party certification. Enterprise is the only BI platform to achieve Microsoft Windows 2003 Datacenter certification. Business Objects Enterprise- covered by a 24/7 technical customer support-has demonstrably installed and run on a 32-processor system, remained stable through rigorous stress testing, and stayed available after being subject to extensive failover conditions. We also continually conduct extensive benchmarking and perfonnance testing to ensure our platfomi _:_:_~_/'/i_~_m_ee_t_th_e_n_ced__o_f_th_e_Li_tt1_c_R_oc_k_S_c_hoo_l_D_is_tn_c_t-to_da_y_an_d_to_m_o_rr_o_w_. ___,.( _I _B _EXHI_M _r ) Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 25 of 30 Reporting Fundamentals The fundamental requirements of any reporting system arc a normalized database and a reporting tool. Data from disparate systems and formats is collected in a centralized database platform and transformed into a consistent, well organized reporting database. Many reports have been created and delivered from this reporting database using Crystal Reports as the reporting tool. Nonnalized Data This data. securely housed at the Little Rock School District Technology Center, has been nonnalized to 3rd nonnal form on a Microsoft SQL Server database server. The original database management software is DB2 residing on an IBM AS/400 application server, which houses a majority ofti,.e studentbased data. Other student data resides in Microsoft Access or is provided to the CIS department via Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. Automated processes have been developed and scheduled to update the student data nightly, where required. Processes have also been designed and implemented to update data in key financial, human resources and accounting subject areas. Business Objects provides the industry's leading suite of integrated business intelligenco products. The products are categorized into three groups: Reporttnz aUows all levels of the Little Rock School District to access, format, and deliver data as meaningful information to large populations of information consumers like teachers and school administrators both inside and outside the organization. This is provided through detailed reports created using Crystal Reports and accessed via a web browser using the Business Objccta Enterprise Info View application. Query and Analysis tools allow end users to interact with District infonnation and answer ad hoc questions, without advanced knowledge of the underlying data sources and structures. This is provided through a product called Web Intelligence or WEBI. This allows users to create dynamic reports from their desks with little or no required .knowledge of the underlying database schema. In-depth analysis is pcrfonncd using OLAP Intelligence, a powerful OnLine Analytic Processing tool that provides detailed, fast, multidimensional data for sophisticated comparative analysis and reporting. Performance Management products help users align with strategy by tracking and analyzing key business and educational metrics and goals via management dashboards, scorecards, and alerting. This is provided through Perfonnance Manager and Dashboard Manager products that present Key Performance Indicators in user-friendly, interactive graphical tools. CrystaJ Reports A world standard for enterprise reporting, Crystal Reports is an intuitive reporting solution that helps customers rapidly create flexible, feature-rich, high-fidelity reports and tightly integrate them into web and Windows applications. The Crystal Reports enterprise reporting solution consists of: LBSDB/To1 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 26 of 30 Powerful report design: Report authors can use the visual report designer (with a complete set of layout and design controls), to design highly formatted, interactive, and professional-looking reports. And they can dciign within the leading .NET and Java development tools without having to step out of their chosen development environment. Flexil&gt;le application development: Developers can leverage crossplatform support for Java, .NET, and COM development technologies. HTML is generated directly by Crystal Reports, allowing developers to focus on application business logic, rather than tedious, time-intensive hand coding. Separation of application development and report design tasks allow developers to focus on application development, while the report authors can focus on report design. Report management and delivery: Reports arc easily published to the web, for better busip.ess decisions in all areas of the Little Rock School District Reports can be e,cported and repurposed to the electronic formats used by most end users (e.g. PDF and Excel). IT can centralize the management of operational reporting while distributing the report authoring function out to departments of the District that need them. The following themes are an overview of what features are available in Crystal Reports XI: Powa-ful data access and report design Enhanced productivity and maintenance Report management and delivery Dynamic apd Cascading Prompts Report prompts can be based on dynamic values. This means that report designers no longer have to maintain natic prompt value lists within individual reports. Instead, they can reuse existing prompts stored in the repository. HTML Preview The iterative report design/view process is streamlined, with a new HTML preview that allows report authors to sec how reports will look when published to the web. Editable RTF Format This new feature is ideal for report export editing. It delivers reports to end users in a new RTF format, so they can easily ma1ce their own document modifications. Report Ewort Copflguntlon . The report designer can save report export configuration infonnation within the report itself so that the end user forgoes the time and trouble of reconfiguring the export each time a report is run. Dependency Checker With the new dependency checker, report authors can quickly find broken links, formula cm&gt;rs, and dependency i,sues. Thia greatly reduces the time spent on QA. Buslness Views Speed Report Design and Maintenance Cycles Crystal Enterprise Business Views helps you better manage reporting across multiple data soun:es and applications by simplifying data access, change management, and data-level secwity processes. An LIISD Bl Tool# Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 27 of 30 optional sc:rvicc in Crystal Enterprise, Busim:ss Views aUow you to integrate data from disparate sources, handle promotion/demotion between development and production environments, and control security at both the row and column level. Simplified Data Access Data access is one of the most fundamental, yet difficult aspects of designing a report. Locating the right data, joining tables appropriately, and filtering the data to focus on a specific subject area requires an indepth knowledge of the underlying data structures. The Business View Manager allows you to simplify data access for your report designers by ~ulating them from the raw data structures. You can build connections to multiple data sources, join tables, alias field names, create calculated fields, and then surface this simplified structure as a Business Viow in Crystal Enterprise. Your report designers can then connect to Crystal Enterprise and use the Business View as the basis for their report, rather than accessing the data directly and building their own queries. Business Views helps administrators pull data together from disparate sources. Data Conncctipns (created visually or with complex SQL statements) can be integrated into a Data Foundation. Once the Data Fo1D1dation is built, Business Elements (a collection of related fields from the Data Foundation) can be created and combined into a Business View. The modular architecture of Business Views also allows you to readily ro-use various components of .one Busmcss View to build other Business Views. A single, broad data foundation can acrve as the basis for multiple, specialized Business Views. Used carefully, these capabilities allow you to minimize the number of changes required to introduce new data, fields, or formulas into your system. Granular Data-level Security Many reporting scenarios involve complex security requirements. Each user is entitled to see a slightly different slice of District data, based on their School, Department or level of seniority. Data in the Little Rocle School District is commonly segregated by School and Teacher-based information. Business Views allow teachers to view data regarding their students and prevents them form seeing data regarding students that arc NOT assigned to them. Rather than creating a number of diff ercnt reports to meet this need, we can create a single report and use the security features ofBusiness Views to filter data appropriately for each user. Using the Business View Manager, you can set up row- or column-level filters aIJd map these filters to users or user groups stored in your existing LDAP, Active Directory, or Windows authentication provider. This security is then consistently applied at the data level, ensuring that any report de.sign based on a Business View will respect tho underlying data security. You can then choose to schedule the report to run regularly. Or you can allow users to refresh it on demand. Regardless, Crystal EntCIJ)rise can generate a master instance of the report (with all the data included if you run the report under an administrator e-0ntext) and then filter the report every time a user views it All exporting, printing, and report modification requests will also return only the data the user is entitled to see. UISDBITPou Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 28 of 30 Change Management and Re--use Maintaining a large set of reports is often more time-conswning and complex than new development. Activities such as making small changes in response to user needs, updating business calculations, cluipging fonnatting, and moving your reports between development and production data sources all delay you from addressing new requirements. Business Views includes two key features to help you spend less time on report maintenance. First, you can use Dynamic Data Connections to store connections to multiple instances qfthe same database (e.g., development, test, and production). By passing a parameter when you're designing (or scheduling) the report, you can select which data source the report runs against. Second, you can store ~nly-used functions, text objects, and logos directly in your data foundation. This allows you to easily roll changes across multiple reports by changing the object once. Business Objects .Enterprise InfoVfew Business Objects Info View is a completely redesigned web interface that enables user to navigate, create, and interact with District information. Integrated search and navigation tools allow users to easily find the infoID1ation they need. Users can also personalize their interactions to simplify consumption of District infonnation. Info View is built to support Java and Microsoft based web servers, to easily fit within you're the Little Rock School District IT infrastructure. Web lntelllgence Many organizations find it difficult to access information not contained in standard reports. And reque&amp;ts to IT for new infonnation simply add to the report backlog. Even when ad hoc query capabilities are available, they're typically difficult to use and don't provide your non-technical users with a simple method of exploring information, to really understand the business issue at hand. With Business Objects Web Intelligence, both self-service access to information and data analysis are available in one product, helping your users tum educational analysis into effective decisions. Users can create a query from scratch, format the infonnation retrieved. and analyze it to understand underlying trends and root cawes. If the full power of query capabilities is not required, users can simply analyze information in existing reports-fonnatting and exploring them to meet specific needs. OLAP lntellf gence Busin=is Objects OLAP Intelligaice is a powerful and easy-to-use tool that allows you to access and analyze data stored in the leading OLAP servers. It uniquely satisfies the analysis requirements of both information analysts (power users) and less sophisticated knowledge workers (business users). With OLAP Intelligence, power users can slice and dice, drill, rank, sort, filter, create calculations on the fly, and perform. speed-of-thought data exploration. And business users can interact with pre-built OLAP workbooks that contain highly intuitive, graphical views of educational activity, guided navigation and worktlows, and flexible ad hoc analysis. Its advanced amlysis capabilities, shared security, and relational drill-through allow you to standardize on Business Objects for all of your BI needs. OLAP Intelligence delivers: Best-of-breed ad hoc OLAP Managed OLAP authoring and distribution Integration with the market leading, trusted BI platform I.RSD II Tool, Pq,So/7 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 29 of 30 Best-of-Breed Ad Hoc OLAP . The primary driver for implementing an OLAP database is to provide users with fast access to multidimensional data. IT develops focused OLAP cubes to provide users with a structured data environment, optimized for analysis. But in order for users to take advantage of the pre-aggregated data within an OLAP cube, they require an interface that allows them to drill, slice, and dice while leveraging the response times that the predefined OLAP cube environment offers. Speed-of-Thought Analysis QI.AP Intelligence provides an intuitive, web-based interface that allows users to selcct-dimep.sions and members from a query panel as well as perfonn similar analysis from integrated Windows, Microsoft Excel, and ActiveX client interfaces. Users can interact with their data and ask spontaneous questions to uncover trends and identify anomalies. And because OL.AP Intelligence takes advantage of the power of the OLAP cube, users are guaranteed speed-of-thought response time. Intuitive, Function-Rieb Interface The OLAP Intelligence interface is both intuitive and function-rich. Common functions such as ranking, filtering. highlighting, quick calculations, zero suppression, and axis swapping are available with a single click of the mouse. More advanced analyses are only a few mouse clicks away and provide an 1D1cluttered, intuitive user interface that requires minimal training. With OLAP Intelligence, users can also asymmetrically display data and hlde specific dimensions that are irrelevant to data exploration. Deep. Open Access to Microsoft, Hyperion, and SAP OLAP Servers With OLAP Intelligence, you get best-of.breed, ad hoc OLAP for today's leading, multidimensional database servers-Microsoft SQL Server Analysis Services, Hyperion Essbase, WM DB2 OLAP, and SAP BW. For example, native Hyperion Essbasc 7.x support for free-form calculations and cube actions means that organizations are maximizing their OLAP server investments and taking advantage ofkey enhancements and optimizations. Managed OLAP Authoring and Dlstn'"bution OLAP Intelligence goes further than most OLAP clients on the market today by not only providing powerful ad hoc analysis, but also delivering a flexible, managed OLAP environment. With OLAP Intelligence, you can easily create sophisticated workbooks that exploit the power of the underlying OLAP server, and enable users to build in predefined navigation paths and worldlows, Then you can securely deploy and deliver the workbooks live to business users who don't necessarily fit the powerdata analyst profile. These OLAP workbooks may contain custom buttons and multi-page reports that recipients can view and interact with over the web. Publish Live OLAP Workbooks to B.usJoess Users When users view an OLAP Intelligence workoook over the web, it may appear as a dashboard with custom functionality specific to one area of the business, or as an ad hoc interface that allows them to perfomi advanced analysis. Because OLAP Intelligence has a flexible design and was created to meet powezful ad hoc and managed analysis needs, the deployment possibilities are limitless. Built-In Guided Navigation and Data Emloratlon LJISD BJ TOIIU Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4055-1 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 30 of 30 With OLAP Intelligence you can guide users through the OLAP data navigation and exploration process. For example, a user can highlight a group of cells in a report, click a custom analysis button, and view a new graph that has drilled down on the chosen group, displaying variances as a worksheet and chart. A show trend analysis button could then be made available that displays a new page in the workbook with a year-over-year comparison. Open drill-through capabilities in OLAP Intelligence empower users to drill from aggregated OLAP data down to relational details. This means that usen can navigate and exj:)lore-.summariz.ed infoonation, and drill through and pass context to more detailed Crystal Reports or Business Objects Web Intelligence documents. This contextual drill-through technology provides users with intelli~t navigation without the need to understand the complexities of widerlying data and metadata structures. LRSDBJTooJ, l'qa7o/7 uFILi=o -.-, E4sret DISrRt~ co .: IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT AA~SAs -} 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 DCT27 2CQ; .: JA~ M By~&lt;~~~~.gL,,_ ~AINTIFF"2:Jge',i, DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee ("MRC'') for approval of the interdistrict magnet schools' final figures for the 2005-2006 school ~ear and proposed budget for the 2006-2007 school year. The MRC communicated the budget to the Court in a letter dated September 28, 2006 ( attached). I have attached a copy of the budget to this order, and ifthere are any objections, parties must respond within five days; otherwise, the MRC's final budget for the 2005-2006 school year and proposed 2006-2007 budget will be accepted as presented and become effective immediately. IT IS SO ORDERED this~ay of October, 2006. A1~ -:::::::;;2.-&lt;---- ~ DISTRICT JUDGE Magnet Review Committee 1920 North Main Street, Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 (501) 758-0156 {Phone} (501) 758-5366 {Fax} magnet@magnetschool.com {E-mail} September 28, 2006 The Honorable W11Iiam R. Wllson. Jr. Judge, U. S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 7220 I Dear Judge Wtlson: On September 26, 2006, Marte Milhollen, Chief Financial Officer, Little Rock School District, provided the Magnet Review Committee with the actual expenditures for 2005-06, as well as the proposed budget for the 2006-07 school year. The information is contained in the attachment (Draft 2) and was presented to MRC members for their review on Tuesday, September 26, 2006. The Magnet Review Committee, by formal motion and vote of 6-0, approved the final budget (actual expenditures) for the 2005-06 school year but are withholding their vote for approval of the proposed 2006-07 budget until all parties have been given the opportunity to review the proposed budget. The Magnet Review Committee has scheduled their next meeting for October 17, 2006 to vote on the proposed budget at that time. Listed below is a recap of the budget information which is now being presented to the Court for approval: FINAL 2005-2006 STIPULATED ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGET The total amount originally budgeted, $28,849,578 .00, was based on a per-pupil expenditure of$7,468.00, calculated from a projected three quarter average enrollment of 3,862.90 students. Once the actual attendance (3,831.12) and expenditure ($29,224,702.00) numbers were determined, the final per pupil amount was calculated to be $7,628.00, which was $160.00 more than originally budgeted. This increased cost is primarily attributable to the adjustments in the school funding formula as a result of the recent Lakeview decision. A Funding By Source schedule is shown on Page 2 of the attachment presenting the costs allocated to each of the four ( 4) parties. "Pursue the Possibilities of Magnet School Enrollment" The Honorable William R. Wilson. Jr. September 28, 2006 The Magnet Review Committee respectfully requests the Court's review and approval of the 2005-2006 finalized budget in the amount of $29,224,702.00, with a per pupil expenditure of $7,628.00, attached herewith. Even though the budget Draft 2 contains figures for the proposed 2006-2007 budget, the Magnet Review Committee is not asking the Court's approval at this time. The proposed 2~2007 budget will be submitted to the Court after representatives ftom each party bring their recommendations to the Magnet Review Committee meeting on October 17, 2006. .. , The Magnet Review Committee is committed to maintaining the quality of the Stipulation magnet schools. We will continue to work with the host district as we exercise stringent oversight of the magnet schools' budget in an effort to achieve and ensure efficient management and cost containment to the greatest extent possible. Sincerely, ~~ Sadie Mitchell, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee SM/DGC:sJ Attachment: Final 2005-2006 Stipulation Magnet Schools Budget Actual Expenditures (Draft 2) -..oc: Office ofDesegregation Monitoring Magnet Review Committee '.:- : ;;:~r~;..;1~:[~~~:m ~~~:~v~r:~ti:m 1:r:~~ !~~~~~m~: CERTIFIED 01 Principal 6.0 $577,006 $590,057 6.0 $605,528 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 10.0 $704,187 $719,586 10.0 $739,257 03 Soecialists 40.2 $2,060,208 $2,095,071 40.2 $2,178,546 04 Counselors 13.5 $745,758 $755,548 13.5 $819,990 05 Media Spec. 6.5 $333,386 $342,566 6.5 $369,766 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 3.0 $135,929 $138,721 3.0 $147,146 07 Music 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Forei~in Lanq. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 7.9 $442,679 $452,002 7.9 $506,912 10 Soecial Education 15.5 $621,519 $624,198 16.5 $700,071 11 Gifted 5.4 $296,023 $302,527 6.4 $353,735 12 Classroom 202.9 $9 892,360 $10,105,508 201 .9 $10,247,836 13 Substitutes o.o $293,000 $347,950 0.0 $310,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 15.0 $729,204 $782,522 15.0 $772,934 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 325.9 $16,831,258 $17,256,256 326:9 $17,751,721 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 21.4 $621,784 $640,002 21.4 $686,358 STAFF 16 Nurses 6.0 $273,520 $280,670 6.0 $292,918 17 Custodians 28.9 $572,555 $576,668 28.9 $612,444 18 Information Seivices 1.0 $65 554 $66,547 1.0 $68,780 19 Paraorofessionals-Other 4.0 $176,869 $182,943 3.0 $163,884 20 Other-Aides 26.0 $490,064 $474,617 28.2 $560,984 21 FrinoeBenefits(20 "' $0 $5,189,424 '''''' "' $5,830,809 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 87.3 $7,744,958 $7,410,871 88.5 $8,216,177 TOTAL(10-20l , ,,,, ,,, $24576,216 $24,667,128 $25967,898 PURCHASED 22 Utilities ' -- .,., $ 589 700 $ 719,885 .,., ., " ,, , ' $798 500 SERVICES 1-2::::3:-+.:T:-"ra"'"v""'e:-"I- -------fiii.:. i.'m- "m:~: / $ 40,000 $ 46,655 ' .. , ., , ., . $35,500 po) 24 Maintenance Aareements . ~ - _:, $0 $0 , --~ ,. .... , $0 MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) ' CAPITAL OUTLAY (50} OTHER (60) 25 Other ' ' $ 285 368 $ 259,970 '-' " ,, :: ' $237, 130 TOTAL(30) 26 Princioal's Office 27 Regular Classroom 28 Media 29 Other TOTAL(40) 30 Equioment 31 Buildina Reoalr etc. 32 Other TOTAL (50) 33 Dues and Fees 34 Other -. . $ 915,068 $ 1 026510 ""'':'"''" $ 1071,130 ;:~ : !~:E~ : a:::E ltll s::~:~ ., ._,, ,, '' $ 24,273 $ 27,819 .";w. '. $ 28,873 "'" $ 881,653$ 916,962 ''.:' . . , .... '. $ 749,125 , " $ 70,315 $ 215,126 :--,. ' ' $ 57 200 , . , . , '' '' $0 $0 ., , ... , '' '" . $0 ., ....... ... , ., $0 $0 .,,. ,, $0 '."''" .: , ";" $ 70,315 $ 215,126 : $ 57,200 : . ,.,, , $ 7,800 $ 3,390 , $ 4,856 .. ,., ' . - . $0 $0 ' ' "., ....... ' $0 TOTAL (60) '' .,., "' ,,.,, $ 7,800 $ 3,390 "" "" "' $ 4,856 TOTAL (30-60) =-~,~t- ~r ~i - $ 1,874,836 $ 2 161 988 S 1,882,311 TOTAL (10-60} 413.1 $ 26,451,052 $ 26,829,116 415.3 $ 27,850,209 ro.TAL LINE ITEMs ttl~~~!~=~irAU\llt~l~Ji,fJ:: - ri,: 1111~~:;i:~;:: i1:;:it1:iJ;: 1:;;;,;, ,., :?::;::: r: mi~~i:,i MAGBK07A ~i,i~ijf~ttt'hJ,~f,',f~J iftte.1Q~1stl ~if #fJf4t~Iit;l~:tl~ ij~f : .' :~~~:.:, ,,,. ,'ij ~rb:fi;iai,Vk~ii~~~I~tm4ll~l~t~~-i~ 2005-06 2005-06 2006-07 Stipends $29,600 $52 951 $41,250 Other Obiects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $2,194,000 $2 227,287 $2,312,522 Vocational $32,800 $32,712 $32,800 Athletics $101,626 $60,936 $65,799 Gifted Proorams $500 $500 $500 Plant Services $32,000 $13,201 $32,000 Reading $500 $500 $500 Science $0 $0 $0 English $1,500 $1,500 $1.500 Soecial Education $4,000 $4,000 ~ .000 Curriculum $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 )00()()()( )()()()00( Total Line Items $2,398,526 $2,395,586 $2 492,871 Rii.!;:_ : .:~t~~~-i li~P~t -_' .. : .} ..:~ ~!~ ,862.90 3 3,831.00 E~~J~'.B~'.~~i~!$(1!~liji ~1~.t~~~'f.\i~r, rb':iiM~af.lJt,11i): f~Ji:ieffi'~ ~l~ $'.!i~m'.Billl.:!J,~tt1~:if~~~!~i)]@!)~. 2005-06 2005-06 2006--07 Slate of Arkansas $14 424 069 $14,611,930 $15,171,275 LRSD $9,248,057 $9,260,815 $9,614,975 PCSSD $3 443,532 $3,567,768 $3,704,342 NLRSD $1 733,920 $1,784,189 $1,852,488 Total Costs $28,849,578 $29,224,702 $30,343,080 MAGBK07A - t0~~1J~ l~l~~t(~S~h}fm! O!t~t~fsll.t:i~ (i'.,i${%\:.t; 1!:l';b,,6~~ ~~~i~{ij)pt(l~}\,fmfi _ ;.,p.r.~ei~t1ik~i~~~iw JWt~~~a~Ht.;}:a,, ~tf'~I::~ r~~~ffiJ.tiojii1:iJtttJ CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $ 93,186 $ 95 068 1.0 S 97,930 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $ 70,837 $ 72,120 1-0 $ 74,401 03 Specialists 8.0 $ 405 782 $ 419,228 8.0 $ 434,292 04 Counselors 2.0 $ 107,304 S 109,708 2.0 S 115,886 05 Media Soec. 1.5 $ 59,967 S 67,117 1.5 $ 70,377 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 0.0 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 0.0 09 Vocational . 0.0 0.0 10 Soecial Education 1.0 $ 51,587 $ 52,678 1.0 $ 11 Gifted 77,720 $ 78,956 1.4 $ 12 Classroom 937,752 $ 949,474 21 .5 $ 13 Substitutes $ 38,000 s "45,797 0.0 $ 14 other-KinderQarten 246,467 $ 254,281 5.0 S TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY $2,088,601 $2, 144 426 42.4 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 82,152 $ 84,582 3.0 $ STAFF 16 Nurses 41,328 $ 42,204 1.0 $ 17 Custodians 75,503 $ 74,193 4.0 $ 18 Jnfonnation SeMoes 10,928 $ 11 ,093 0.2 $ 19 Paraprofessionals-other $0 $0 I 0.0 20 other-Aides 97,165 $ 92,145 5.2 $ 21 708,611 $ TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 13.2 $1 ,015,687 $1,009,939 13. TOTAL(10-20) '" ,,,. $3,104,289 $3,154,365 ., ... , ._,._, 58,500 $ 7,000 $ $0 PURCHASED Z2 Utilities .. $$ 69,185 ,, " .,. ,~ $ SERVICES 23 Travel 14,276 ,.,. ,. " $ (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements $0 .,, ...... '."'. 25 other . . : _. $ 30,013 $ 29,566 ., .,,, ' - $ TOTAL(30) ' , ' $ 95,513 $ 113,027 _,,., ,, ., $ i--,-MA-:-:-::TE=R.,.,IAL,..,..,,S,.., ..,...,26=-t::p,-ri,..nci""'i-p,a""'r,..s-=o"'ffi:-ce-"-''--~----m! $0 ;, '"~":'. : . SUPPLIES 27 Reqular Classroom " . -~ $ (40) i-;2~8+M;;;edw,;i;.;;a:;;,_;;==~----f,, ~;r.,;,-t: '. $ 29 other '.' :', ... . '"' $ CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) TOTAL (40) 30 Equipment 31 Building Repair, etc: 32 other TOTAL(SO) 33 Dues and Fees 34 Other TOTAL(60) TOTAL (30-60) TOTAL (10-60) TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) .,,,.,,.,-,: :': : ', $ __ ,,; ._,.,,,., $ ,.: ; P'V ;.,, . . ~ ....... .. .. ,. -; .. , ... ,,,, $ :ii,;,}~ $ ,, ,.,,., ,, '. $ 55.6 $0 77,500 7,500 3,125 88,125 8,500 $0 $0 8,500 1,000 $0 1,000 $193,138 $3,297,427 $293,462 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 77,766 '" '.:'/"? '' $ 4,915 . ,, $ 4,206 ,_::: .... :. $ 86,888 " " $ 2,747 '. ::''.' $ $0 : ,:: ' ' '' $0 .... ,, -",, ,; 2,747 .: .. : ' __ ' $ 680 , , . '.',' ' $ $0 ::"'~ -~, 680 :~:'.'. ' " ,,,. $ $203,342 ' ,... ,. '. ' $3,357,707 55.8 $298,017 ,,,, ................ ,,., 55,473 82,401 912,879 45,000 282,919 $2,171,558 89,904 44,784 81,606 11,466 $0 102,011 739,450 $1,069,220 $3,240 778 75 800 5000 $0 20,113 100,913 $0 87,057 5,500 3,827 96,384 6,000 $0 $0 6,000 1,000 $0 1,000 $204,297 $3,445,075 $314,693 ~ ~~l~*r,{l~~fifi';t.'t{~,,~m~1t 2005-06 2005--06 2006--07 Stipends $4,250 $5,336 $8,750 Other Obiects $0 $0 $0 Indirect Costs $283,903 $269,788 $300,610 Vocational $0 $0 . $0 Athletics $0 $0 $0 Gifted Proarams $133 $134 $134 Plant Services $4141 $1,716 $4,160 Reading $85 $65 $85 Science SO $0 SO Enqlish $194 $195 $195 Special Education $518 $520 $520 Curriculum $259 $260 $260 )00()()()( XXXlOOC Total Line Items $293,462 $298,017 $314,693 655 724 $3,759,769 - ~ -ffC!~~$jI 1:tit~~1ff'l)${11JirmwR IJtil'~llU@J~m,;:~;f))i ]1!'.~ ~ i. ii~~}~'M1rrt~~~ - WF;tTs~ ri \7,~~~~ri;,'p~~t{1I1tmmt~iiU\tm,f&gt;f~ 'i'*~i1:~ ~g~P,ffi~mi$ CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $ 93,172 $ 96,557 1.0 $ 97,781 STAFF 02 Asst Prin. 0.0 $0 $0 0.0 $0 03 Specialists 6.8 $ 329,753 $ 291,812 6.8 $ 330,833 04 Counselors 1.0 $ 53,465 $ 56,201 1.0 $ 57 448 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $ 61,583 $ 63 000 1.0 $ 64,947 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 0.0 07 Music 0.0 o.o 08 FOfeign Lang. 0.0 0.0 09 Vocational 0.0 0.0 10 Special Education 1.5 $ 68,322 $ 69 765 1.5 S 73,956 11 Gifted 1.0 $ 54,561 $ 55 932 1-0 $ 57,557 12 Classroom 16.2 $ 728,828 $ 719,117 152 $ 703,820 13 Substitutes 0.0 $ 28000 $ 27,763 0.0 $ 25000 14 Other-Kinder&lt;1arten 2.0 $ 105,715 $ 106 393 98,338 TOTAL CERTIFIED SAL.ARY 30.5 $1,523 399 $1486541 $1,509,680 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 1.4 $ 30,736 $ 27 792 1.4 $ 33,016 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $ 34 548 $ 36,886 1.0 $ 39,046 17 Custodians 3.0 $ 67,314 $ 68,316 3.0 $ 70,869 18 Information Services 0.2 $ 10,928 $ 11,093 0.2 $ 11,466 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 0.0 so $0 0.0 $0 20 Other-Aides 4.3 $ 60,630 $ 65,456 4.3 $ 62,761 21 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 9.9 $714,972 $676,423 9.9 $730,034 TOTAL (10-20\ ... ,. $2,238 372 $2,162,963 ,, ' : ' _ $2,239,714 PURCHASED 22 Utllities ... . :: . $ 34 000 $ 47,642 '" ' " ,,.,.. $ 49,000 SERVICES 23 Trawl ~:.:;,..,_,. $ 7 000 $ 12 457 ' ,, $ 5,000 (30} 24 Maintenance Agreements ~ ' :iciii'' $0 $0 ,, H-.-: $0 25 MATERIALS, 26 ~:::: . ~:Ill. .~:;: ~ : : ' " $ 35 8~~ $ 40 :,~ . ::' :~ ,,, ' $ 36,:S Other ..... ' $ l-,----c==.,,...,...,,,.,_.,....,,..,,4,,,-,--,---,,-.:.'f.,:::O,:..:TA..::L:..J(..::;30;;,Jl\:._ _ -m_ :: Principal's Office SUPPLIES 27 (40) 28 29 CAPITAL 30 OUTLAY 31 Regular Classroom Media Other TOTAL(40) $ 2,500 $ 1 604 "' " ~'. ' ,... $ 2,500 $ 1,953 $ 2581 " '"' _.,,. $ 3,174 $ 40,253 $ 45,091 . . . $ 42,262 EQuipment '..: ' ,,. $ 16,904 $ 141288 ' "" ,, , $ 11,500 Building Repair, etc. .,.,, /'! ,, . $0 $0 i ' ~ ~ 1 .~ $0 {50) 32 OTHER 33 (60) 34 ---=-,.,....,..=---.---+Oth-,----er---=T_O_TA_L_(._50__.1)~..-.-.,1". ...... ....- -.. $$ 16,~ $ 141,2: ~ ~'~ $ 11,5: Dues and Fees 1,000 $ 499 '.'.::.~ .. &gt; $ 500 Other . . ... . $0 $0 :':' : $0 TOTAL(60) ,., , " s 1,000$ 499 , .. ,, .,., , $ 500 TOTAL (30-60) ' : .. ' $127,057 $269,824 ' ... .. ,, ,~ $132,000 TOTAL (10-60) 40.4 $2,365,429 $2,432,788 39.4 $2,371,714 TOTALUNEITE 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>