Court filings: District Court, the Joshua intervenors' objections to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) compliance report and prayer for release from Court supervision; District Court, two notices of deposition; District Court, letter rescheduling deposition; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool This transcript was create using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRJCT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. CASE NO. 4:82CV0866WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRJCT, NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE WRJGHT KNIGHT, ET AL. THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' OBJECTIONS TO LRSD'S COMPLIANCE REPORT AND PRAYER FOR RELEASE FROM COURT SUPERVISION PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS For the reasons which follow, the JoshuaJntervenors object to the LRSD Compliance Report and request to be released from court supervision. See 2004 Compliance Remedy, para. K. 1. The LRSD has not at all relevant times provided the staff in its PRE department required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy. [Compliance Remedy, para. A] 2. LRSD administrators .have during the period of the Compliance Remedy assigned additional duties to PRE staff. This factor has played a role in LRSD's failure to complete tasks required by the 2004 Compliance Remedy and necessary to embed a comprehensive assessment process as a permanent part of the LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. [Compliance Remedy, para. A.; see para. 3 below regarding "school portfolios", "district portfolio", and "data 1 warehouse.") ; see also Attachments hereto A-6, para. 6-7 (Springer Aff., 6-28-06) 3. In the preparation of the 8 "formal step 2 evaluations," PRE staff have not been involved in observing programs, formulating the content of questionnaires, or writing the evaluation reports. See Attachments at 1-3 (cover pages of three draft evaluations for 2005-06 do not include PRE staff among authors of any evaluation).1 These failures violate multiple aspects of the 2004 Compliance Remedy, considered alone or in combination. [Compliance Remedy, para. A (court concerns about abilities of PRE staff with respect to designing and preparing program evaluations); para. B ("comprehensive program assessment process must be deeply embedded as a part permanent part of LRSD's curriculum and instruction program"); other outside consultants hired to prepare these step 2 evaluations; .. . ") It was at all times apparent that 1:milding the abilities of PRE staff to conduct program evaluations without the - assistance of outside evaluators (or to supplement the efforts of outside evaluators; was necessary to embed the program assessment process in the operations of LRSD. 4. LRSD has failed to make feasible and adequate progress in the creation of computer data bases needed to embed the comprehensive program assessment process in the district's instructional programs. [Compliance Remedy, para. BJ a. It is and has been feasible for LRSD to create one or more computer bases allowing ,. compilation and manipulation of at least the following data and variables: [i] student's name; [ii] student's date of birth; [iii] sex; [iv] race; [v] date(s) entering the system; [vi] school(s) attended, by date and grade, including participation in pre-K program; [vii] student absences by date and school year; [viii] free and reduced price lunch status by school year; [ix] special education 1 The fourth evaluation for 2005-06 (of Pre-K literacy program) is not yet available. 2 status, if any, by date and school year; [x] whether limited English proficient by date and school year; [xi] for elementary students, teachers(s) by date and school year; [xii] for elementary students, special programs, such as Recovery, by date and school year; [xiii] for other students, ,.courses and teachers by year; [xiv] for other students, special programs, such as Read 180, by date and school year; [xv] teacher absences by date and school year; [ xvi] results of all standardized assessments by date and school year. b. The data identified in (a) could be manipulated to prepare assessments/evaluations. For example, one could compare test outcomes for similar elementary students from two schools expos~d to two different reading programs, taking into account as well the student and teacher absences in the relevant period. [Additional work might be necessary, such as preparation of program descriptions and observations to determine levels of implementation.] c. The use of questiormaires, which the Court expected ( Page 62, Footnote 39, Compliance Remedy) to be a part of the comprehensive assessmerit process will not be undertaken until the fall of 2006. [Compare Compliance Report of March 1, 2006 at 3 with Compliance Report of June 1, 2006 at 3. (use of questionnaire postponed) See also Attachments at A-6, para. 6 (Springer Aff.) d. PRE's "quarterly written updates" show work on "school" and "district portfolios" -- compilations of some of the data listed above in paragraph 4 (a). [E.g., 9-1-05 at 3; 12-1-05 at 3; 6-1-03 at 3] [i] Although LRSD first mentioned "school portfolios" in its quarterly report of 9- 1-05 at 3, corrections in the ~'Little Rock School District's Revised Compliance Report" of October 25, 2006," early in the 2006-07 school years," show that "LRSD expects to ,., .J ~ the creation of school portfolios during the 2007-2008 school year." [At 7, para. 15; emphasis added] [ii] The quarterly report dated 12-1-05 states: "Data to be included in the district portfolio was identified during the last quarter and a draft district portfolio was designed. As new data becomes available, PRE staff members add them to the portfolio." [At 3] At present, one can not determine the state of completeness of the "district portfolio," compared to what needs to be accomplished. [See Revised Compliance Report, 10-25-06 at 6-7] _ e. The quarterly report of 12-1-05 states (at 3): "PRE is also investigating the costs and benefits of an internet-based data warehouse system that would store all data collected by the district within one database, support its tabulation and analysis, and enable its electronic access at any time. The data warehouse would advance the district portfolio that PRE staff members are currently developing." The quarterly report of3-1-06 states (at 3): "To support the portfolio 's expansion, frequent updates, and future utility, PRE is designing a 'data warehouse' which LRSD staff and others can consult on a 'real-time' basis." PRE identified a data warehouse system which could have been functioning as of the LRSD's recent submission of its compliance reports. See Attachment at A-15 ["Compliance History" prepared by PRE at page 2, para. 3 (a)]. Upper level LRSD administrators rejected this proposal. One consequence of this action is that facts about students and teachers participating in particular programs continue to be difficult to retrieve. [Id., A-15 at para. 3 ( c )] f. Additional work is necessary to insure the accuracy of LRSD data needed for assessments and evaluations. [Id., A-14, para. 2; A-15 at para. 4 (PRE Compliance History")] 4 g. Professional development in the area of program assessments and evaluations has not been and is not now a high priority for the district. See Attachments at A-5 to A-6, para. 5 (Springer Aff.). 5. With regard to the 2005-06 evaluations, at least the evaluations of the Read 180 program and the 21 st Century Community Learning Centers program contain insufficient description of the program being evaluated to meet LRSD's own standards and the court's order. [See 2004 Compliance Remedy, paras. C and D ("Has the Section 2.7 program being evaluated improved the academic achievement of African American students; as it has been implemented in sch?ols throughout the district?" [emphasis added)]; Attachments A-19 to A-22 (Joshua Intervenors 's Comments on inadequate program descriptions in these evaluations)] 6. While the LRSD submitted eight quarterly reports, some LRSD representatives censored the eighth report prepared by PRE to minimize notice of compliance problems noted in this docm.ent. See 2004 Compliance Remedy, para. G; and Attachments at A-15 ["Compliance History" prepared by PRE a:t page 2, para, 4] 7. The LRSD superintendent interfered with the flow of information to ODM, in violation of paragraph H of~he 2004 Compliance Remedy. See Attachments at A-16 ["Compliance History" prepared by PRE at 3, para. 7 (a) "The Superintendent threatened . . . [the] dismissal [ of PRE Director] if she shared information with ODM and Joshua."] 8. LRSD impeded Joshua Intervenors' ability to monitor the remedy. See Attachments at A-22 (no response made to this letter seeking information on PRE staff); see also paragraph 7 of this submission (threat of PRE's Director). [Compliance Remedy, para. I] 9. The LRSD reorganization in 2005 created a conflict situation for PRE staff and the 5 school system regarding the content and priority of assessments/evaluations. PRE previously - reported directly to the Superintendent. As a result of the reorganization, PRE now reports to the Associate Superintendent in charge of instructional programs. This violates the district's policy regarding evaluations. 10. The LRSD administration also has de-emphasized the importance of its policy with respect to evaluations. Members of evaluation teams have been coached, if not instructed, not to actively participate in the evaluation team meetings. Members have been instructed not to communicate concerns regarding the evaluation process in the presence of Joshua repres~ntatives. Moreover, team member part1cipation has been sporadic to nonexistent over the past year. See Attachments, k7, para. 10 (Springer Aff.). 11 . The work of PRE staff has been frustrated by the failure of senior administrators and counsel to communicate and provide direction regarding how to proceed in meeting commitments within the Compliance Remedy. See Attachments, A-16, para. 7 (PRE "Compliance.History"). For example, we understand the view of Dr. Roberts, Associate Superintendent for Instructional Programs, to be that some of the key Section 2.7 programs were not included in those evaluated. If correct, _this evidences a significant area of non compliance as the court stated that: "LRSD must hire one or more outside consultants to prepare four (4) formal step evaluations. Each of these step 2 evaluations must cover one of the key Section 2.7 programs as it has been implemented in schools throughout the district. ( Compliance Remedy, Part C, page 63) 12. The Compliance Remedy required the filing of four (4) step 2 program evaluations for the 2004-2005 school year with the Court no later than October 1, 2005. The four program 6 evaluations for the 2005-2006 school were to be filed with the Court no later than October 1, .!. 2006. The Court reluctantly granted the LRSD extensions of time for filing of the latter group of evaluations. Joshua submits that the draft evaluation documents for 2005-2006 school year filed by the LRSD to date do not comply with the requirements of the remedy. 13 . The LRSD, under the current school administration, has refused to implement fully the Compliance Remedy, thereby minimizing the extent to which key LRSD educational programs can be expected to improve the achievement of African American students compared to white students. The administration of the LRSD undertook a major administrative reorganization without consideration of its impact on the Compliance Remedy. The reorganization has had a negative effect on the implementation of the Compliance Remedy. Release from court supervision is inappropriate for this reason and those previously stated. There is the prospect of a premature release from court supervision adversely affecting the LRSD financial resources at a time when the achievement of African American students continues to be less than desired. 14. As shown by the foregoing discussion, the implementation of the 2004 Compliance Remedy by LRSD representatives has been marked by bad faith. 15. The LRSD is submitting the draft Pre-K literacy evaluation on or about November 15, 2006 (today). By letter of October 31, 2006, Joshua representatives requested counsel of the LRSD to provide certain information bearing upon compliance with the 2004 Compliance Remedy. While counsel agreed to provide the requested information, it has yet to be received. Given these two factors, Joshua Intervenors request the opportunity to supplement these objections should the content of information later received indicate the need for supplementation. 7 CONCLUSION Respectfully, the Court should reject LRSD's request for a finding of substantial compliance with the 2004 remedy and its prayer for release from court supervision and the Court should require the LRSD to show cause why it is not in contempt of Court. Joshua points up that the LRSD Board of Directors have not been fully informed of the requirements of the Court by counsel and are not fully aware of their obligations under the Order or the authority which they have to take action and direct their administration with respect to the agreed upon remedy. Accordingly, Joshua requests that the school administration and district counsel be enjoined to fully i"'.1form the Board of Directors of the Court's orders, the duties and expectations ofthe Board and that LRSD administrators with respect to the Compliance Remedy. In addition, the Court is also requested to enjoin the LRSD administration and the Board of Directors from' punishing PRE staff for attempting to in'iplement the court ordered remedy in good faith. Finally, the Joshua Intervenors request that PRE, after the court hearing, report directly to the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District for the next two years while the process of program assessments and evaluations is being embedded as directed by the Court. LRSD should remain under court supervision for a minimum of two additional years and be required to comply fully with those aspects of the 2004 remedy to which compliance has been inappropriate. ls/Robert Pressman Robert Pressman 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 8 ls/John W. Walker John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that on this 15th day of November, 2006 a copy of the foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which shall send notification of such filing to all counsel of record and in addition a copy has been mailed by U.S . mail to: Mr. Gene Jones Office of Desegregation Monitoring 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Isl John W. Walker 9 - ATTACHMENTS TO JOSHUA OBJECTIONS TO LRSD'S COlVIPLIANCE REPORT A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 A-6 A-7 A-8 A-9 . A-10 A-11 A-12 A-13 A-14 A-15 A-16 A-17 A-18 A-19 A-20 A-21 A-22 Cover Page of Draft Evaluation for Read 180 Cover Page of Draft Evaluation for 21 st Century Community Learning Centers Cover Page of Draft Evaluation for A+ Springer Affidavit of June 28, 2006 Dr. Karen DeJarnette's Letter to Dr. Mitchell dated November 3, 2006 PRE Compliance History starting with Cover Page Joshua Comments regarding the 20005-2006 Draft Evaluations Letter to Dr. DeJarnette dated December 1, 2005 Case 4)32-cv-00866-WRW Document 4051 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 2 of 132 '- CREP C,mtu for R~earch in Etlucadonai Polir:y Center for Research in Educational Pciicy The Universily of Memphis 325 Brownin all Memphis Tennessee 3 52 Toll ree Little Rock School District Read 180 Evaluation DRAFT TECHNICAL REPORT October 2006 Clif Mims, Ph. D. Deborah L. Lowther, Ph .D. J. Daniel Strahl, M.S. Center for Research in Educational Policy John Nunnery, Ph.D. Old Dominion University Attachment 1 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4051 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 1 of 112 CREP Cilnter for Rueardr in EducationaJ Policy Center for Research in Educational Policy The University of Memphis 325 Brownin all Memphis Tennessee 3 52 Toll ree -------- Evaluation of 21 st Century Community Learning Center, Little Rock School District, 2005-06 Technical Report DRAFT October 2006 Heidi Kenaga Jerry A. Bates Fethi lnan Center for Research in Educational Policy John Nunnery Old Dominion University Attachment 2 Case 4:82-cv-00866-WRW Document 4052 Filed 10/16/2006 Page 1 of 56 The A+ Education Program At Woodruff Elementary, Little Rock School District An .Assessment of Educational Effectiveness With a Focus on African-American Student Achievement Draft-Report for Review and Comments Only October 16, 2006 .James S. Catterall Professor UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies .Los Angeles~ CA 90095-1521 jamcsc/@.gscis.ucla.edu Note: The opinions expressed in this report Dre t ho~e of the author and not necessarily tho5e of Little Rock School District or Woodruff School personnel. The profes~iona l schools find colle~es or the Univer~ity ofCallfornin do not tnke official positions 011 prog!"llm cvnluntion stlltements of faculty ~nd do not officinlly endorse nonaffilh1tc.d progn1ms. Attachment 3 IN THE UNITED STATES D.ISTRICT COURT EASIBRN DISTRJCT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRJCT PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERJNE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. CASE NO. 4:82cv00866WRW/JTR AFFIDAVIT OF JOY SPRINGER Comes now the affiant, Joy Springer, who states under oath: PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS 1. My name is Joy Springer and I have been assigned by counsel for the Joshua Intervenors to monitor the Little Rock School District's compliance with. the court's order.of June 30, 2004 (iater referred to as the Compliance Remedy). 2. I have previously submitted affidavits herein indicating that I have a two Bachelors degrees, one in General Business and the other in Elementary Education. I have a Masters degree in Education Administration fro:rn U ALR. I have monitored the district's compliance with its various commitments in this case for the past 15 years .. 3. I have been regularly monitoring program evaluation compliance before and especially since the court's order of June 30, 2004. My monitoring has involved the following activities: 1 Attachment 4 a) attendance at meetings when given notice by the LRSD on the subject of program .:. evaiuations; b) conversations with PRE staff , the ODM and CREP headed by Dr. Steven Ross; c) review of PRE's quarterly reports regarding the compliai.,ce remedy; d) review ofLRSD's board agendas and minutes; e) conversations with board members; f) discussions with teachers and administrators; and g) discussions with counsel for Joshua, John W. Walker and Robert Pressman, regarding the program assessment and evaluation in the LRSD. 4. I.have regularly bought to the attention of the PRE, in the presence of ODM; what I understood to be a court directive, that program assessment be comprehensive, focused and ' ' deeply embedded into the district's curriculum and instruction programs. 5. In my work, I have had an occasion to review district publications which report activities underway with respect to professional development. I observed that professional ' ' deveiopment in the ar.ea of program assessments and evaluations has 'hot been and is not now a high priority for the district. This is demonstrated, for example, by the district's professional development calendar for the year's 2004-2005. The first mention by LRSD in the periodic reports required by the court remedy of the offering of professional development for district staff on program assessment and evaluation occurs in the sixth report citing an event of April 18-20, 2006, approximately three weeks before the end of the second school year addressed in the compliance remedy [and almost two years after entry of the remedy]. Moreover, while the LRSD in the quarterly report to the court dated June 1, 2006 alludes to this training [at 3], even for those 2 Attachment 5 dates, it does not mention the number of staff who received professional development with ~ respect to embedding program assessment and evaluation into the district's curriculum: This leads me to believe that relatively few staff have received professional development in the area. 6. It is further noted that the use of questionnaires, which the Court expected (Page 62, Footnote39 of the Compliance Remedy) to be a part of the comprehensive assessment process will not be undertaken until the fall of 2006. Compare Compliance Report March 1, 2006 at 3 with Compliance Report of June 1, 2006 at 3. (Use of questionnaire postponed) 7. I have further observed that the PRE contemplated the use of a "data warehouse" to either ~upplant or complement the use of the portfolio assessment for embedding the comprehensive assessment process into the instruction programs. LRSD Compliance Ryport March 1, 2006 at 3 .. It is uncertain this data base will be readily available for the PRE's use. [Interview with Dr. DeJarnette on June 13, 2006] This eventuality will frustrate the court's requirement that the district have a PRE department i..11 the foreseeable future that would oversee the 2.7.1 program assessment/evaluation process (Page 68, of the Compliance Remedy). 8. Various factors suggest that the vision of the current administration of the LRSD de-emphasizes the importance of PRE and the compliance remedy. Before March, 2005, PRE reported directly to the Superintendent. The purpose of that was to ensure that district staff would realize the importance of the compliance remedy ordered by the Court. In March 2005, Dr. . Brooks assigned Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction, Dr. Olivine Roberts, to supervise PRE. Thereafter, Dr. Roberts and Dr. Brooks imposed additional responsibilities upon PRE that diminish the ability of the PRE staff to make the compliance remedy their major focus .. These responsibilities included the preparation school improvement plans for a large 3 Attachment 6 number of schools as well as developing and carrying out surveys required as part of the school improvemeii.t effort. I understand PRE's major focus to relate to the devising of a comprehensive assessment process, the carrying .out of required assessments and evaluations, and the embedding of a comprehensive assessment process in LRSD's curriculum and instruction program. 9. In the two years post decree Joshua monitoring, to my observation, Dr. Olivine Roberts has seldom been present at PRE meetings to which Joshua was given notice. The first meeting I recall her to be present was on April 18, 2006. I have never seen LRSD Superintendent Dr. Roy Brooks at a PRE meeting. I am not aware of any writings that Dr. Broo~ has made -i1th respect to PRE and program assessment/evaluation. 10. Another example of the district's de-emphasizing the importance of the PRE was reflected during evaluation team meetings. For the_2005-2006 Step 2 evaluations, district participation consisted, for the most part, of only members from PRE and the outside evaluators. During the comparable 2004-2005 meetings, there was relatively active pa..rticipation by other district staff who had the responsibility of actually implementing the programs being evaluated. 11. A third example of PRE' s diminished importance by the district is the failure of the district to maintain a strong PRE staff. The Testing Coordinator of the PRE, Ms. Yvette Dillingham, left the district prior to the beginning of the 2005-2006 school year after having her contract diminished from 11 months to 10 months as a result of the district's "reorganization." Almost six months later, the district later hired a replacement Testing Coordinator (November, 2006, Mr. A.i-thur Olds).[Compliance Report March 1, 2006] He resigned a.i-"t:er approximately 3 months on the job.[Compliance Report June 1, 2006 at 3] The Testing Coordinator's position has not been filled. It is my understanding that one of PRE's statisticians, Dr. Ed Williams, has 4 Attachment 7 been assigned the added responsibilities of the Testing Coordinator. In checking the district's website for job vacancies, the Testing Coordinator position has not been posted as of June 15, 2006. 12. On Tuesday, June 13, 2006, I met with members of PRE and Gene Jones of the ODM at the Instructional Resource Center (IRC) of the LRSD. The purpose of the meeting was for PRE staff to update Joshua and the ODM regarding the status of the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) providing the necessary test data for the Step 2 evaluations due on October 1, 2006. PRE Director, Dr. DeJarnette reported that the timing of ADE's provision of the data would be such that an extension of the date for submitting the Step 2 Evaluations would likely be needed. Dr. DeJarnette stated that she would provide the necessary information to the LRSD counsel for the filing of a Motion for Extension of Time of the October 1,. 2006 deadline. While at this meeting, I inquired regarding the status of the district embedding the assessment process into its curriculum and instruction programs. I learned that members of PRE were not sure that they would have liberal access to the "data warehouse" in formulating future assessments/ evaluations of the programs referenced in 2.7.1_. Based upon this communication and information contained in paragraphs 5,6, 8, 9, 10 and 11, supra, I communicated to the LRSD's PRE staff members and the ODM representative, Gene Jones, that because the district was not in -compliance in "embedding program assessments" into its curriculum and instruction programs as contemplated by the Compliance Remedy, Joshua would bring these matters to the attention of the Court for review and appropriate relief. 13. I am informed that ODM staff has communicated similar reservations to the LRSD's PRE staff. 5 Attachment 8 14. Following informing Dr. DeJarnette, PRE Director, that Joshua would invoke the court's att~ntion, the district's three top administrators, Dr. Roy Brooks, Dr. Hugh Hattabaugh and Dr. Olivine Roberts sought a meeting with ODM to explain its activities and intentions regarding the PRE. They met vvith l\tfr. Jones thereafter. It is noteworthy that they did not include PRE Director D_eJarnette in the meeting. Although I have repeatedly asked that Joshua be fully involved iri. these discussions, the district chose to involve only ODM. 15. I am of the view that the LRSD has continued to violate the letter and spirit of the court's order of June 30, 2004 in the matters set forth above and in other respects that will likely be disclosed during a hearing. For example, it appears to me that Dr. DeJamette is no longer involved in PRE decisions. She has indicated as rri.uch during our meetings. It also appears that LRSD h~ no definitive plan for the use of "assessments" being generated by the Compass Learning programs. Furthermore, the school district's administration has not acted in keeping Joshua and the court informed through timely reports, of the necessity for more time, and for . modifi(?~tion of the schedule for finalizing the Sep 2 evaluations which are on October 1, 2006. In this respect, on June 13, 2006, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) did not have the data expected for use by the experts for completion of their evaluations and assessments. The district has yet to request relief from the court which appears to be warranted by the ADE's failure t? provide the necessary data. Affiant saith nothing further. 6 Attachment 9 7 Attachment 10 November 3, 20Q6 Dr. Katherine Mitchell, President Board of Directors Little Rock School District 1605 Welch St. Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Dr. Mitchell: Little Rock School District Planning, Research, and Evaluation 3001 South Pulaski Street Little Rock, AR 72206-2873 FAX 501/447-7609 In preparation for the session you have requested regarding compliance status, PRE has written the accompanying summary of our experience during the past two years. Since we believe that the Board of Directors has not received important information directly from PRE on some occasions, this unusual delivery should insure that our thoughts are delivered for this session with some time for thorough review prior to the meeting. One of the occasions when we fear the Board did not receive this department's thoughts 'was the last quarterly written update (September 1, 2006). The version delivered to the Superintendent's office for the Board's review at the August agenda meeting is Appendix A of the accompanying document. The version submitted to ODM (Appendix B) omitted nearly all of section Band much of section C, (pp. 3-6 of PRE's version). On these pages PRE described obstacles to the District's "embedding" and sustaining timely and accurate assessments of its programs. The description demonstrated the District's critical, earnest effort at achieving this responsibility required by the Court; and it provided a basis for actions leading to the District's full compliance. Its omission from the update allows a reader's false impression that the District has progressed further than it in fact has. Another reason for submitting this document to you is the probable absence by two of our department's members on November 9 due to previously scheduled leave. If the board desires, they might join the discussion via a telephone connection. Our department engaged enthusiastically when we began two years ago to carry out the compliance remedy, and we sustained our energy since then. Due to this effort and its results, the District can demonstrate its sincere engagement in removing barriers and Attachment 11 introducing procedures which will establish trustworthy assessments as usual procedures. We ar.~ therefore eager to d.is_!?uss these matters with the Board. P: .....-.'-..-~- Karen DeJarnette Director xc: Board of Directors Mr. Heller Office of Desegregation Monitoring Joshua intervenors Attachment 12 - ------- -------------- Compli~nce History 2004 - 2006 Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department November 3, 2006 Attachment 13 PRE' s Compliance History 2004-2006 Background The Compliance Remedy of June 30, 2004 issued by the U.S. District Court (USDC) established the main tasks and orientation for the Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department (PRE). The Remedy's requirements included the following: 1. Rejuvenation of PRE, which LRSD initially accomplished by hiring an additional PhD-level statistician as director and adding two master-level statisticians 2. Eight "step-2" evaluations of LRSD programs, which external evaluators have undertaken under PRE's oversight 3. Embedding assessment into the operations ofLRSD, which PRE started with a new assessment policy (approved by Board of Directors), first draft of a LRSD portfolio (with three of five types of desired information), and a plan for a data warehouse which a leading vendor represented could be implemented by summer 2006 with corrected data 4. Eight quarterly updates by PRE to ODM, which PRE prepared in time for Board consideration and approvals 5. Cooperation (non-adversarial relations) with Joshua by LRSD, which has increasingly occurred between Joshua and PRE 6. Compliance Report by LRSD; which it submitted October 16 when due. Difficulties with compliance There have been multiple challenges to complying with these requirements: 1. Rejuvenation of PRE , While LRSD initially boosted PRE staff, PRE's resources subsequently dwindled: a. Reorganization in 2005 eliminated both PRE's secretary and its test coordinator assistant, so PRE became the only department with professional staff who enjoy no secretarial support. b: LRSD in 2005 decreased the test coordinator to 11 months (rather than 12), and the seasoned test coordinator resigned. LRSD next reduced the position to nine months then restored it to 12 again. PRE went without a full-time person for more than 12 months (with a half FTE for a few months). Many test infractions-unprecedented in recent LRSD history-occurred during that period, due probably to inadequate staff. Investigations by the state will likely continue throughout this school year with threats to some employees' certifications. 2. Eight evaluations by external experts External evaluators have .undertaken the eight required evaluations but discovered numerous errors in LRSD data. a. Not surprising, no policy and no comprehensive procedures for managing LRSD data exist. Very competent people input and process data for LRSD, but they work without a coordinated plan which seeks out errors, corrects them, and guards use and integrity of LRSD information. b. The extent of data errors is unknown, so results based on LRSD information have uncertain accuracy and validity. c. In the October 2006 compliance report, filed with the USDC, LRSD disclosed that it has begun efforts to monitor more closely for errors new information entering the Pagel of5 Attachment 14 LRSD data base. However, PRE knows of no efforts to check and correct old data. d. LRSD has not enlisted PRE to assess or develop a policy for its data. 3. Embedding assessments-in LRSD operations For supporting LRSD's obligation to embed assessment, PRE began planning a "data warehouse" late in 2004 with nationally eminent experts in school information and launched additional assessments not mandated by the Compliance Remedy. a. LRSD rejected PRE's plans, which would have had the data warehouse functioning by the due date of the Compliance Report required by the Court. b. Instead, LRSD chose a firm which develops data warehouses for retail commercial applications. That firm's software, Crystal Objects, was implemented in schools in Orange County, Florida, which do not assess programs as LRSD has committed to do. c. When the vendor will finish enough of its "data cube!' to support PRE's data needs is unknown, although it is partially ready and easily usable in its incomplete state. d. LRSD enlisted PRE superficially and late in construction of this data base but not in its design. A simple example is PRE's ongoing request, starting in January 2006, for tagging student and teacher records (allowing LRSD to identify their participation in key programs and track their progress later). LRSD has not tagged records. e. LRSD has also undermined PRE's efforts to operate professionally. For example, LRSD refused PRE' s scientifically valid surveys of stakeholder opinions, which are important information for the dis.trict portfolio. f. With the aid of a consultant and encouragement from a state ACSIP coordinator, PRE positioned LRSD to lead the state's school districts in responding to Arkansas' newrequirement for a wellness priority in its annual ACSIPs. Yet, LRSD opposed this project without reason. g. Thus, during the past two years, LRSD has impeded compliance with embedding assessment in itsoperations. 4. Eighth quarterly update In its final quarterly update, PRE noted errors in LRSD's data, the absence of a data management system, and their threat to sound decisions based on such info1mation. a. LRSD and/or its counsel withheld PRE's version (Appendix A) from the Board at its scheduled agenda meeting, when the Board would have normally considered it, and eliminated this and other parts from PRE's final update without the Board's knowledge. (Appendix B has the revised version submitted to ODM and Joshua.) b. Unaware of any changes and apparently without reading the revised update, Board members approved the revised quarterly update at its regular meeting. c. However, PRE sent its original version to ODM and Joshua when sending it to the Board for its review and discussion. So ODM and Joshua know that LRSD altered PRE's update, but the Board may not know it. 5. Cooperation between LRSD and Joshua During the 2004-05 year, relations between PRE and Joshua were professional but not very cooperative--consistent with the history of the two parties. a. However, during the next school year, the "chill" between PRE and Joshua began to thaw on one hand, while PRE experienced less and less responsiveness from LRSD counsel on the other hand. b. A directive from LRSD's counsel not to meet with Joshua in the absence of LRSD counsel seemed at odds with USDC's 2004 remedy, but PRE's plea to LRSD and its Page 2 of 5 Attachment 15 counsel for clarification of this directive went unanswered. c. Moreover, LRSD and its counsel attended few evaluation sessions, of which PRE notified Joshua, ODM, LRSD, and its counsel. d. In these circumstances, PRE felt estranged (if not driven) from LRSD's and its counsel's rapport and progressively cooperative with both ODM and Joshua: e. With encouragement from ODM, PRE shared openly with ODM its efforts and discussed them. 6. Compliance report While LRSD counsel submitted on its due date the compliance report mandated by USDC's 2004 remedy, the report contained significant errors. a. After PRE's prompt notice (with documentation) of the report's errors (Appendix C), counsel corrected some of them and submitted a revised report to USDC. 7. Behavior of PRE's director and LRSD's senior officials Quite regrettably, the relation between LRSD and PRE's director has deteriorated. a. The superintendent threatened her dismissal if she shared information with ODM or Joshua. b. Informatiop from the administration to PRE about actions vital to PRE's duties has lessened. c. Senior administrators have directed other PRE staff without her knowledge. d. LRSD's counsel became unresponsive and evasive. e. She engaged a law firm for advice in the absence of LRSD's legal counsel. f. She filed a grievance through LRSD's Human Resources Department. The grievance alleged (and documented) interference on the part ofLRSD with her duties understood from the Compliance Remedy and from interviews at the time of her hiring. She expressed her fear of possible penalties by the USDC as a result of noncompliance by LRSD. g. Violating its.policy for prompt attempts to resolve grievances, LRSD has neither tried remediation nor informed its Board of the situation. Recommendations Several possibilities for resolution of these difficulties include the following. A Restoration of administrative support and addition of test coordinators, based on a review of responsibilities: i. An administrative assistant will expedite much processing of department business, inciuding preparing reports and processing surveys. ii. Testing seems to require at least a full-time administrative assistant and two assistant test coordinators. iii. These needs ~ould be substantiated and clarified by an expert audit. B. Comprehensive study of LRSD data accuracy and implementation of policy and procedures for managing LRSD information and guarding its accuracy, use, and fidelity: i. Since LRSD does not seem to employ data system experts, it may need to hire consultants, who should be knowledgeable about public school data requirements from cybernetic, legal, organizational, community, and possibly other viewpoints. ii. The comprehensive system intended here is not the same as data processing, which the Computer Information Services Department performs very well. This Page 3 of5 Attachment 16 department understandably has consistently denied responsibility for quality of the information it' processes. - iii. Data input has been well coordinated by a single employee without sufficient resources to check and correct new data. iv. Blaming any department or employee for incorrect data is inappropriate. The failure has been in not addressing information issues globally. C. More resources devoted to completing the data warehouse: i. The current difficulty of assembling data (as well as its unknown validity) hampers the capacity to assess programs efficiently and confidently. Therefore, finishing and testing the ambitious construction of LRSD's data warehouse should proceed quickly. ii. Of equal importance is estimating error rates in previously collected data and proceeding systematically with correcting it as indicated by investigation. iii. The data warehouse should include the additional information needed by PRE for assessments, portfolio, ACSIPs, and other functions. iv. If the application now under construction proves inadequate, LRSD should reconsider PRE's vendor or another which satisfies current and anticipated needs. _ D. Protection of PRE and LRSD from senior administrators' actions: i. Because assessing LRSD's programs is parallel to auditing its finances, the Board will benefit from direct communication with and directi_on of PRE, similar to the internal auditor's. ii.Accordingly, the Board would directly detennine PRE's budget. iii_ LRSD's senior officials have demonstrated that they are not trustworthy with this essential function of faithfully communicating expert opinion to the Board. iv. Their behavior has also rendered the Board at risk of non-compliance. v. The Board could protect itself from such behavior by replacing senior officials. E. Transparency: i. While its operations have grown more open over the past decades, LRSD must maintain and increase its accountability to all stakeholders regardless of historical conflicts, political alignments, personal conflicts, and other influences. ii. Its Board may set an example of enthusiastic compliance and insist on like practices throughout the organization. Posturing and abuse of regulations are not consistent with transparency. iii. A question which seems not to have been asked often enough, "Do we want to teach our students this kind of behavior?" Page 4 of 5 Attachment 1 7 : \l~ Summary of Compliance and Recommendations USDC requirements Compliance Status Recommendations LRSD hired another PhD-level evaluator as director and two masters-level Rejuvenate PRE. statisticians but ended a support position and failed to hire a full-time test Hire an administrative assistant and coordinator for more than_ a year. Unprecedented numbers oftest vio_lations two assistant test coordinators. occurred during that period. External evaluators undertook all eight, finding many errors in dat_a from Review needs for comprehensive data PRE oversee eight management. Implement a policy and step-2 evaluations. LRSD and encountering delays in access to "high-stakes" test results. . procedures with sufficient resources. Board approved new assessment policy written by PRE. Complete currently partially complete PRE produced a draft district "portfolio" with three of five intended kinds of information. data warehouse, with more resources if Embed assessments PRE began plans for a "data warehouse'.' to support :frequent assessments, necessary. Test and further develop in LR.SD operations. but LRSD substituted an inferior alternative. warehouse for usability. LRSD stopped PRE's stakeholder surveys, intended for the portfolio, and PRE report directly to Board (parallel plans for wellness data. with internal auditor). PRE write eight . PRE wrote each in time for the Board's consideration and approval, but PRE report directly to Board (parallel quarterly updates. LRSD deleted critical comments about LRSD information in the eighth. with internal auditor) . LR.SD cooperate with LRSD maintained its adversarial relations with Joshua, while PRE gradually Reform LRSD's effo1ts toward Joshua. became cooperative. transparency. LRSD submit LRSD submitted on due date, October 16, 2006, with significant errors Reform LRSD's efforts toward compliance report. which it corrected the following week. transparency. ...... 00 Page 5 of 5 - - - - - - - - --------------- JOSHUA COMMENTS REGARDING LRSD'S DRAFT EVALUATIONS One purpose of Section 2. 7 .1 is to assess [ or evaluate] programs to determine whether they work to "[improve] African American achievement .. " In the eight court-required evaluations, the principal method for determining such effectiveness of programs is to consider changes in the test scores of students served, compared to similar students not in the programs . Other information provided about the programs evaluated is more subjective ( the opinions of principals, teachers, students and parents about the programs). . The evaluations recognize the importance of descriptions of the programs and the extent ofimplementation. E.g., Read 180 evaluation at 3; 21 st Century Community Learning Centers _ Evaluation at 5. There are some shortcomings in this regard. The value of the evaluations would be greatly enhanced if these matters were addressed. It has been noted previously that without such information there is a limited basis for attributing the observed pattern of student outcomes to the program.being evaluated. Read 180 The problem is most clear with regard to the Read 180 evaluation. There is no one place in the evaluation where a comprehensive description of the program is found. Thus, there is no basis for a reader to consider v..rhether the content of this program would, logically, be expected to improve a student's scores on either the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, or the Arkansas Benchmark examinations or both. An answer to this question in the light of a strong program description, by a person(s) knowledgeable about the skills and knowledge addressed in the two varieties of standardized tests , would be most helpful. Attachment 19 One problem with the Read 180 program description appears on page 50. The text reads: "The Read 18 0 program was equally used to replace or to supplement Standard English courses." This would see1:1 to mean that in one-half of the 10 participating schools ( at 12, 10 schools in the study), Read 180 operates as what could be termed a "pull out" program, replacing the regular curriculum. In the other five, it seemingly supplements the regular program. It is hard to understand the latter answer given the time involved in the Read 180 program. The exposure of students to the regular curriculum content (or lack thereof) is of great importance. We understand that the Arkansas Benchmark exams are designed to test mastery of that curriculum. If, in tact, Read 180 is a pull out program, the test result analysis suggests that exposure to the regular curriculum is a better option. Without a good description of the Read 180 program, however, one can't tell .if this outcome is due to a disconnect between Read 180 content and test content. In brief, we are unclear about these matters: is the Read 180 program a pull out program replacing the regular curriculum? Is it a supplemental program so that students receive both the regular curriculum and Read 180? How does the content of Read 180 compare with the regular curriculum and the content of the relevant tests? The Read 180 evaluation at page 89 states: "The design employed to assess Read 180 effects, while quite rigorous, cannot rule out the possibility of selection effects because students were not randomly assigned to treatment conditions." We understand this to mean that despite the overall success of the matched pair approach, statistical.ly, the method of selecting students might have placed weaker students in the Read 180 program. The discussion of how students were selected is very terse. [Draft at 50; one 3-line sentence] It is also problematical. It begins [at 2 Attachment 20 I I I I I I I I I 50] "Students were primarily selected on the basis of Benchmark scores (77%) . .. " We understarid that there were other.students with the same scores in each school. Thus some other selection criteria were seemingly employed. The matter of the selection criteria requires more attention due to the caution about "selection effects." 21st CCLC A dominant feature of this evaluation is the content showing that in most schools student participation was insufficient to allow strong conclusions on the program's effectiveness in improving African American achievement as shown by test scores. [Evaluation at 68-76] Beyond this, the evaluation could be strengthened with regard to description of the content of the program at each school, particularly as it related to content which could be expected to contribute directly to improved test scores. 1 The initial description of program content is very general. It identifies a slate of possible activities and then states: "Each school develops a slate of activities specific to the needs of the student population." [At 1] There is additional description of program content at pages 45-47. However, it appears to be insufficient to allow a judgment of whether students ' skills and test outcomes could be e;xpected to grow due to the content of the program, it attendance were adequate. There is here no description of program content at Southwest Middle School where somewhat more than one-half of the participants were "substantially served." [At 69] The impact of the program at Southwest [at 72, 75] must be read in this light. 1 . Participation might have indirect effects on achievement, if, for example, it lead to positive feelings on individual worth, or to good feelings about school, leading in turn to better attendance, more attention in the classroom, greater diligence regarding homework, etc. 3 Attachment 21 ., f\lOV 14 uo IL:4.UP Kooen 1-'ressman JORN" ~r. 1rVALKER., P.A. ATTOR.L"\i'"EYS AT L~ W . 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, AR...CU.NSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FA.,X (50 i) 3'7.i-4187 p.11 JOENW. WALKER OFCOUNSEI. SHA \v-::{ CHILDS Via. Facsimile - 447-7609 December 1, 2005 ROBERT McHEl'l"R.Y, ? .A 3210 ? .. BfDERSCN csOAI LlTTLE ROCK, A.R ..'Z ..>,NSAS 7221 ( ?HC-NE: (:50l ) 374-3425 ?A..:((501) J-;2-342~ E~i(A.Il : m:h,m-...ctr.:r1s-.vbcU .n~ Dr. Karen DeJ an1ette Director, PRE Little Rock School Disu-ict 80 West Mar.kham Little Rock, .AR 72201 Dear Dr. DeJ a.mette: \Ve note that tn your first quarterly report to the Court, you have identified seven persons including their positions. as members of the team of highly trained professionals for the PRE. Would you, therefore, please provide the following: l) the period of time each PRE staff person b.:;s served in their position; 2) whether any additional persons have been hired since June 30, 2005; 3) whetherthere have been any replacements since June 30, 2005; 4) whether any persons have left and the reasons therefor since June 30, 2005; 5) whether any vacated position was a result of an administrative decision to do,,;,,nsize PRE; and 6). whether there are currently any vacancies in PRE, if so, what position, Thank you for your attention to this request. Jv,rrN :j s c::: l\'fr Gene Jones, ODivI Nrr. Chris Heiler Attachment 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF DEPOSITION RECEIVED TO: Mr. John W. Walker, Attorney 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 NOV 3 0 2006 OfflCEOF IRtGRE6ATION IIONITOBING You are hereby notified that we will take the deposition of Gene Jones, Office of Desegregation Monitor, on December 6, 2006 at I :30 p.m. at the offices of Friday, Eldredge & Clark, 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000, Little Rock, Arkansas, by stenographic means before a certified court reporter. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 400 West Capitol Avenue, #2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 By:~ jjJ}L b'l~ ChristophrHeller CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 29, 2006, I have electronically sent the above notice to the following: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us sjones(cv,mwsgw.com siones@jlj.com j ohnwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Mr. John W. Walker, Attorney 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Gene Jones and Margie Powell Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 2 [~~ Chri; herHeller 2 RECEIVED NOV 3 o 2006 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OFflCEOF EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS DESEGREGATION MONITORING WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF DEPOSITION TO: Mr. John W. Walker, Attorney 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 You are hereby notified that we will take the deposition of Margie Powell, - Office of Desegregation Monitor, on December 6, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. at the offices of Friday, Eldredge & Clark, 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000, Little Rock, Arkansas, by stenographic means before a certified court reporter. \ Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 400 West Capitol Avenue, #2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 ~ fJ,JL 1;, t;e,,.. Christopherelle . . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 29, 2006, I have electronically sent the above notice to the following: mark.hagemeier@ag.state.ar.us siones@mwsgw.com sjones@jlj.com jolmwalkeratty@aol.com and mailed by U.S. regular mail to the following addresses: Mr. John W. Walker, Attorney 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Gene Jones and Margie Powell Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U.S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 2 2 HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1922- 1994) BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR., P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY, P.A. FREDERICKS. URSERY, P.A. E CLARX, JR., P.A. P. LEGGETT, P.A. WY WATSON, P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM 111, P.A. LARRY W. BURKS, P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR., P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS, P.A. )AMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSEU Ul, P.A. DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST, JR., P.A. ELLZABETH ROBBEN Ml/RRAY, P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMlnt, P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A. WlLUAM M. GRlmN Ill, P.A MICHAELS. MOORE, P.A. WALTER M. EBn Ill, P.A. KEVlN A. CRASS, P.A. WILUAMA. WADDELi.JR., P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER, P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH, JR., P.A. J. LEE BROWN, P.A. )AMES C. BAKER, JR., P.A. HARRY A. UGHT, P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER, P.A. GUY ALTON WADE, P.A. PRICE C. GARDN'ER, P.A. TONIA P. JONES, P.A. DAVID D. WILSON, P.A. JEFFREY H, MOORE, P ,A, DA VtD M. GRAF, P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR, P.A. JONANN C. CHILES, P.A. R.. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON, P.A. DEITY J. DEMORY, P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON, P.A. JAMES W. SMITH, P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT, P.A. DANIELL HERRINGTON, P.A. VIA HAND DELIVERY Ms. Joy Springer John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Re: Deposition Dear Joy: FRIDAY ELDREDGE & CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.frldayflrm.com 400 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 2000 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3522 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-3762147 3 25 NORTH FUTRALL DRIVE, SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 727034111 TELEPHONE 4711152011 November 30, 2006 J, MICHAEL PICKENS, P.A. MAR VIN L. CHlLOERS K. COLEMAN WESTIIROOK, JR., P.A. AULSON J. CORNWELL P.A. ELLEN OWENS SMITH. P.A. JASON B. HENDREN, P.A. BRUCE B. TLDWEU, P.A. JOSEPH P. MCKAY, P.A. ALEXANDRA A. lFRAH, P.A. JAY T. TAYLOR. P.A. MARTIN A. KASTEN, P.A. BRYAN W. DIJJCE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHEUE ATOR. P.A. KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON KRISTEN S. ROWLANDS ALAN G. BRYAN LINDSEY MITCHAM LORENCE KHAYYAM M. EDDINGS JOHN F. PEISERICH AMANDA CAPPS ROSE STEVEN L BROOKS H, WAYNE YOUNG, JR. JAMIE HUFFMAN JONES KlMBERLY D. YOUNG JASON N. BRAMJ.ETT ORI.AN C. SMITH D. MICHAEL MOYERS SETH M. HAINES ERIN E. CULLUM KRISTOPHER B. KNOX KATHRYN A. KIRKPATRICK 1, ADAM WELLS LAt.TRA I. ASBURY Of COUNSll W1I.LlAM H. SUTTON, P.A. WILLLAM L TERRY WtLUAM L PATTON, JR. H.T. LARZELERE, P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS, JIL, P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER LITTLE ROCK TEL S0l ,J70-1506 FAX S01-2H-Sl"1 heller@ftc.ne:c RECEIVED J)e,v ) 2006 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING . I understand December 7, 2006 is a more convenient day for your deposition. We will change the date and time to December 7, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. Enclosed please find a deposition notice and subpoena for that day. Christopher Heller CJH/bk ~Hclosw:--es oc w/enc. Notice: All counsel ofrec,oni IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF DEPOSITION TO: Mr. John W. Walker, Attorney 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 You are hereby notified that we will take the deposition of Joy Springer on - Dece~ber 7, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. at the offices of Friday, Eldredge & Clark, 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000, Little Rock, Arkansas, by stenographic means before a certified court reporter. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 400 West Capitol A venue, #2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 501/376-2011 @.~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on November 30, 2006, I have electronically sent the above notice 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: Mr. John W. Walker, Attorney 1 723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Gene Jones and Margie Powell Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U, S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 2 2 ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF Dr. T. Kenneth .James, Commissioner CducatiWn 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 (501) 682-4475 http:/ /ArkansasEd.org November 30, 2006 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner, Ivers & Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon & Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. M. Samuel Jones ill RECEIVED DEC -4 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, et al. U.S. District Court No. 4:82-CV-866 WRW Dear Gentlemen: 'Per an agreement with the Attorney General's Office, I am filing the Arkansas Department of Education's Project Management Tool for the month of November 2006 in the above-referenced case. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, 2eu4~ ~6JSmith General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education SS:law cc: Mark Hagemeier STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION: Chair: Diane Tatum, Pine Bluff Vice Chair: Randy Lawson, Bentonville Members: Sherry Burrow, Jonesboro Dr. Calvin King, Marianna Dr. Tim Knight, Arkadelphia Dr. Ben Mays, Clinton MaryJane Rebick, Little Rock- Dr. Naccaman Williams, Springdale An Equal Opportunity Employer UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED DEC -4 2006 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF FILING In accordance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education hereby gives notice of the filing of the ADE's Project Management Tool for November 2006. Respectfully Submitted, cott Smith, Bar General Counsel Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall, Room 404-A Little Rock, AR 72201 501-682-4227 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott Smith, certify that on November 30, 2006, I caused the foregoing document to be served by depositing a copy in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to each of the following: Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 400 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Mark Burnette Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes Wagoner, Ivers & Sneddon P. 0. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon & Jones 425 West Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr.M.SamuelJones,ill Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard 425 West Capitol, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 ~Smith IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEIVED DEC - 4 2006 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFD~EGREGffi~:~bNITORING V. NO. LR-C-82-866 WRW PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ADE'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL In compliance with the Court's Order of December 10, 1993, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) submits the following Project Management Tool to the parties and the Court. This document describes the progress the ADE has made since March 15, 1994, in complying with provisions of the Implementation Plan and itemizes the AD E's progress against timelines presented in the Plan. IMPLEMENTATION PHASE ACTIVITY I. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS .f.. Use the previous year's three quarter average daily membership to calculate MFPA (State Equalization) for the current school year. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. 2. Actual as of November 30, 2006 8. Include all Magnet students in the resident District's average daily membership for calculation. 1. Projected Ending Date Last day of each month, August - June. This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.