Compliance correspondence

e *- GADBERRY, BRADY L. From: Sent
To: Subject: CARMINE, LESLIE V. Friday, March 02, 2001 12:45 PM LESLEY. BONNIE
BABBS, JUNIOUS
STEWART DONALD M GADBERRY. BRADY L.
MITCHELL. SADIE ' FW: Mathematics program evaluation Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc Subjecfc LESLEY, BONNIE Thursday, Mardl 01, 2001 1:25 PM CA^NE^ LEtS V ^bBERRY, BRADY L
STEWART, DONALD M. r^athematics program evaluation We have yet another sflrifiUfi problem concerning program evaluation, Ooew^w^ contains numarous erws of facf and anerpretetion-ao many that i1 is going to taxa me a tot of ame to 2- The District is paying Virginia Johnson full-time to do the math/science evaluation for NSF and what Nunnprv hac "T? '1 fVirginia has done and submitted to NSK We ^n Mt Into a l o^M^usion Interpretations of the project! And we are terribly vulnerable to justified criticisr^ we say two ^^reri? . .dP Dennis and I wrote for the Compliance Report-so if Nunnery's reoort is submitted and It dMsn't Jive with the Compliance Report, we are going to look like fools again submitted and 4. The Nunnery report makes many of the same errors that PRE made originally It devoid of context
it is incomplete in its data analysis
the Interoretations are nor infnr wrtten is nt^at all aligned with the reports that Virginia NSF 3. etc. is incomplete in its data analysis
the Interpretations are not mform^^bniTiatwTare District decide to spend yet more money on the NSF evaluation? esoeciallv t. neversuppos^ Bdo. .epaU evaluallop cTmSae^S hare or jS rSrSnSS Sb? iteTOF rfp^lL *iaveh,ent as b a,adoral cdor, information in one place. Why in the world are we allowina to continue decision-making the one person who can help the District avoid these embarrassing w^i^hdtoi^TT ''D' xpensive problems? The two meetings of the Research Committee have been scheduled absolutely could not attenrf-which happened as well in the scheduled meetings with Steve Ross I do not t that all these inci'dents are ^incidento^^ s=bdulS mtrngsStevl R^^ indication of what we are going to get with the other reports-then we don't just have one oroblem have multiple problems. I am VERY wearv of trvino to clean un the mecc uuhen we rriHrr4 r -------iP*i__ __ place. Itiple weary trying toclean up mess ^rn w^didn^ to hav?one in toe^t It makes NO sense to me, given the last year's events, to allow Kathy Lease to continue overseeino the orooram evaluation reouirements for this riiKthrt That le ,h., i h,o _______r-rZ J.l Z 2." Program I ra w *M wiiww ixaoiy bcci3w Lw wUliUllUC UVciScG e^luation requirements district. is why I have removed Virginia Johnson from PRE OFTI^A VA/lfn \/in A* A A a.Uikt! I U.^. _______a a.*.. . * 'uL , , mar is wny i nave removed Virginia Johnson from PRE and moved her into the office with Vanwsa. ^d that is why I have assigned Eddie McCoy to do the ESL evaluation for this school year At least StSoffier^oS SpoS accePteble quality and do not contradict what we havi SvI%Tre,!^mmeX'inn <his. Otherwise, I would just let it go. You have my concerns. You I lavo iiiy I owi III I loriQowOn. Below is a list of errors that I identified in the report from just one quick read-through 1. First sentence
The grant began in 1998-99, not 1997-98 not'2?^Athynn^?dL^^^^^ ?.''o,^''''' performance in mathematics and science" are not something we dreamed upbut required in the NSF program evaluation iak?hoS,tot&oS " 854. Lots Of capitalization and punctuation errors. 5. Tkis dra^l uses 190 as ike baseline for SATS ficopss. Tho cdhipliancs reporf used f 55T-Sfisince il was iln year before we began to implement changes 6. Disaggregation is unclear, is it "white" or is it "non-black" scores that are reported'? a M??nDDDnDT?I ' ' * sutints themselves changel n^'^mcSr WAroHid,r science scores tell us anything since that test is in no way aligned with the 12 Achievement gap scores are not as easy to interpret on the SAT9 as they are on the Benchmark Al-sn iftr..i & aS science and math that are outlined and analyzed in the Compliance Report Those are the courses that should be examined. Near the end of the first paragraph ' ----------------- . A? 'J? -^Sebra I in Sth grade faifed the cou'rse." Our very'high^t achievinqVfadente are wha?so'^vll^] " tt^at concYusion ^thouf a^^^ rVi laloU9Var 1 we have so far any is a gross error. He states that "relatively large "district is providing increasingly equitable access to Algebra 1." Well thats true but it is n or S^atiS *** GeomeS and either 4ai!?LVonSis^j^he'Co''4 """ The f<evise<i Desegregation Plan-is the title of another section of the paper f 5, G^I'Sation 2.6-the one having to do with access to and success in advanced, g/t, and AP courses^e programs that are outlined are for the most part remedial-implemented to ensure success in regular-level courses not to ensure access to or success in advanced courses, necessarily. The interpretation is all wrongX Sm and rSpTfanceWpoS"^ achievement in this area. All those programs, etc. are outlinXthe '? rekrence t^olicy IG as being the one allowing dual-credit courses. That is an error Policy IG has to do with curriculum adoption. There is another policy and set of regs having to do with college enrollment (IHOTA and WCDA- writer apparently had no understanding of the University Studies courses as our best examole of the PP<^<jnity to earn coIImc credit while still in high school. All that information is in the Compliance Report. *2 2.6.1. which is the section on teacher/counselor training having to ao will ff*' fond in the Compliance Report. Are you seeing the pattern here Pf 'ofo fais paper the stuff that we have already described and analyzed in the Compliance Report? 20. 1 he writer attempted to analyze increased enrollment in AP math and science-hut aoain had no data and nn .which is the section on teacher/counselor training having to do with .rrfr,rmaHr,r, analyzc^incre^ed enrollment in AP math and science-but again had no data and no information about the many actions taken to accomplish what we have. What we have done for remediation. An w^at we have done. including most of the prMrams that he erroneously listed under the advanced course section 22. It seems to me that if he wants to evaluation Section 2.71 that a desnrintinn nf th^ now ifhe description of the new assessments would be ap^ropnate, as well as a discussion of the Quality Index, the ACTAAP accountability requirements, etc. None of ^t is 23. Obligation 2.8. This section is pitifulagain because the writer did not understand the wunyoMun i D. , Hio ,s piuiui-again oecause the writer did not understand the program or what we have done have1)X a^bfg failure of which have been wonderfully suc^ssful, and others of which most part, student 24. This section also falls to include in the analysis all of several other partnerships. 25. Now, here's the clincher
Under "Findings and Conclusions," the writer states that "For the most di outi^mes in Mathematics (sc) and Science (sic) did not change substantially between 1997 and 2001 m! profound finding on one measurement alone-the SAT9. No ^nchmark data. No ALT data? No CRT date of t^he tremendous increases in course enrollments, participation, etc., etc.,, etc. VJe have paid big 'P'^' 'f'" fo >0 Po whatever ho has done, and now to Nunnery to declare that we tha\1<wkrat/Sl^^e^ate^at we^have*^ absolutely wrong And we are continuing to pay staff to work on the NSF reporf for LRSD students" noi Inn^aragraph about the'implementation dip," one of the phrases that I've heard Kathy use a lot of fim^. The fact of the matter is that we did NOT have an implementation dip. Fourth grade went up A LOT in the first year of implementationif we look at the one test that is best aligned with what we are doingthe Benchmark SAT9 declines are NOT due to implementation dips. They are due to the fact that the SAT9 does not correlate with the wmculum framework or the new curriculum and assessments we are using. Goodness! 27. The discussion about achievement gaps is based upon the same flaws in information and understanding. 86dLunX,'^n "? 2?^ '"' draining program-and the feet is that we have tons of also have an assessment of the oTamTkTImplementation. We also have an assessment of the quality of teacher implementation of the new curriculum-again in the Compliance Report. Vn dSRod Whdt wo hsd or for infinrmafion rwi fha tflOSe d3t3 tO N^^^d Kathy never analysis of what went wrong last year). One of 30. The Recommendations section is nothing but shallow-but then oiven what th^ writer knouu th.- ...__ . c^ld we ex^ We have some critical issJes that should ^e^ to arfo even s^ed some o^em already this school year based on our own analysis of what went wrong last vear) One of the basics in program evaluation is to derive the recommendations for improved^Kdafe^lh^te the program staff who can shed light on interpretations and on identifying what went wrong or what ' P0"ay hink about this stuff ail the tiriie, and so d<^ Dwn^nlj w do^Xs^ W^^va ewry right to be outraged that people without any direct Information, with giant gaps of information without observation of knowledge of what we are doing and why. without infixmation about NSF wrthout anv ^empt to find out what we kriTO would deem it even possible to make judgments about the work about what the outcomes mean, or what should happen next. For goodness sake! * coounne worn, aoomwnattne the Dr. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski UtOe Rock, Arkansas 72206 SO1/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fax) GADBERRY, BRADY L. From: Sent: To: Subject: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Friday, March 02, 2001 12:31 PM GADBERRY, BRADY L
STEWART, DONALD M. I , I W I hB.y W I V vr~il \ I , Ivll FW
Central High School Parking and/or Baseball Field K 3lwa^ thrTO side to the story but this Is going to go public and there will be a lot of finger not be a good Kme to visit with Baldwin Shell about the logistics of the Central renovation. That could then determine the number of portables and feasibility of the faculty parking and the other issues. Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc Subject HOWARD, RUDOLPH Wednesday, February 28. 2001 S
39 PM EATON, DOUGLAS LACEY, MARIAN G.
GADBERRY, BRADY L
CARNINE, LESLIE V. Central High School Parking anq/or Baseball Reid We keep going "around and around" in an effort to avoid the issue. det^ine whethw or not the district was going to support the building of a baseball field SPMifically.how mu^ was the district going to contnbute in order to match what the baseball boosters(Mr.Yancey) would contribute. After waitmn fnr a rmuhnn Inr nu^r 9 mnr.ke 1 _____t.___r,___ . '.. y'*!) waiting fora mating for over 2 months. I receive this memo ffom DouT^O^^^^ already been covered. Specifically, the issue about the parking lot and the portables. wouW give up the teacher parking lot in order to accommodate the portables. WE ARE NOT AGREEABLE TO GIVING UP ANY ADDITlOl^L SPACE ON THE PRACTICE FIELD. additional space for portables, but you ner tell us how many portables that n^ded. Therefore, we can never determine if the space on the parking lot and/or the space around uenvai is adequate or not. 875013744137 WALKER LAW FIRM 050 P02 JUL 24 01 11:20 GADBERRY, BRADY L From: Sent: To: Subject: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Friday, March 02, 2001 12:45 PM LESLEY, BONNIE: BABBS. JUNIOUS
STEWART, DONALD M.
GADBERRY, BRADY L
MITCHELL, SADIE FW: Mathematics program evaluation I understand your concern and there are some issues that should be discussed but this no more serious than the errors found in the NSF evaluation grant that we sent to the visiting team. I am sorry but I hope the other Associates can be objective. Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc Subject: LESLEY, BONNIE hiursaay, March 01, 2001 1:25 PM BAB8S, JUNIOUS, MITCHELL, SADIE
GADBERRY, BRADY L
STEWART, DONALD M. CARNINE, LESUE V. Mathematics program evaluation We have yet another serious problem concerning program evaluation. I received on Monday afternoon a copy of the draft of the mathematics program evaluation that Kathy has apparently asked John Nunnery to do. I have these urgent concerns
1. The draft contains numerous errors of fact and interpretation-so many that if is going to take me a lot of time to document. 2. The District is paying Virginia Johnson full-time to do the math/science evaluation for NSF, and what Nunnery has written is not at all aligned with the reports that Virginia has done and submitted to NSF. We can get Into a lot of confusion with such different interpretations of the project! And we are terribly vulnerable to justified criticism if we say two different things. 3. The draft is not aligned with what Dennis and I wrote for the Compliance Report-so if Nunnery's report is submitted and it doesn't "jive" with the Compliance Report, we are going to look like fools a^ain. 4. The Nunnery report makes many of the same errors that PRE made originally. It is based on wrong assumptions
it is devoid of context
it is incomplete in its data analysis
the Interpretations are not informed by what we are doing this year, etc. My question is this: Why in the world did the District decide to spend yet more money on the NSF evaluation? especially when what is written is of such poor quality? PRE was never supposed to do a separate evaluation of math/science from what we are required to do for NSF. NSF is just as concerned about African American achievement as is die federal court here or Joshua. Aii the relevant information will be in the NSF reports. And again, I am the only person vi^o has all the of information in one place. Why in the world are we allowing to continue the practice of excluding from decision-making the one person who can help the District avoid these embarrassing problems? these very expensive problems? The two meetings of the Research Committee have been scheduled at times when I absolutely could not attend-which happened as well in the scheduled meetings with Steve Ross. I do not believe that all these incidents are coincidental. If this first paper is any indication of what we are going to get with the other reports-then we dont just have one problem. We have multiple problems. I am VERY weary of trying to clean up the mess when we didn't need to have one in the first place. It makes NO sense to me, given the last year's events, to allow Kathy Lease to continue overseeing the program evaluation requirements for this district. That is why I have removed Virginia Johnson from PRE and moved her into the office with Vanessa. And that is why I have assigned Eddie McCoy to do the ESL evaluation for this school year. At least this way I can be sure that the reports to NSF and OCR are of acceptable quality and do not contradict what we have written in other official reports. There are serious legal and financial implications in all this. Otherwise. I would just let it go. You have my concerns. You have my recommendation. Below is a list of errors that I identified in the report from just one quick read-through. 1. First sentence
The grant began in 1998-99, not 1997-98. 2. The "drivers that he says "ostensibly influence overall levels of student performance in mathematics and science" are not something we dreamed upbut required in the NSF program evaluation. 3. The example given about CPMSA activities makes no sense. Everything the project has done involves ail those stakeholders, not just policy formulation." 855013744187 UALKEP LhU firm 050 P03 JUL 24 01 11:21 4. Lots of capitalization and punctuation errors. 5. Tkis draft uses imi as Ike basalins for 8AT9 scoras. Tka ccmplianca reporl used ^95?-58-Slnce it was Ike year before we began to implement changes. 6. Disaggregation is unclear. Is it "white" or is it "non-black" scores that are reported? 7. A big problem with cohort studies is also that students themselves changel 8. MAJOR PROBLEM: Scores are reported without any context that describes where we were in program implementation. No where does the paper establish when specific grade levels were implemented-and that is the only way to look at the data in any meaningful way. Grade 10 scores, for example, could not have been impacted before f^l 2000 because we didn't have any interventions before then that could have made a difference. 9. ANOTHER MAJOR PROBLEM: This report excludes the all-important Benchmark data. The grade 4 data are the BEST evidence that we have so far that the project is working. The grade 8 data are the best evidence that we have so far that change is imperative. 10. It is a terrible error to assume that SATO science scores tell us anything since that test is in no way aligned with the new curricula. We could use the scores, I suppose, but they surely need to be Interpreted with caution. Again, there is no context laid for making interpretations in this draft. 11. Inteipretations of the cohort data are the same problem. He looked at T-scorss for grades 5 and 7 without any explanation of when the reforms were implemented. 12. Achievement gap scores are not as easy to interpret on the SAT9 as they are on the Benchmark. Also, if we are truly trying to figure out if black kids are gaining, we need to look at their movement from Below Basic to Basic since when we started all this, the vast majority 13. There is a section called "A< were in the Below Basic level. access to High-Level Math and Science Courses." The ONLY course that is examined is Algebra l~hardly a high-level course, especially now that it is required of all students. We have pre- and post-data on course enrollments for both science and math that are outlined and analyzed in the Compliance Report. Those are the courses that should be examined. Near the end of the first paragraph is a gross error. He states that "relatively large proportions of students who enrolled in Algebra I in Sth grace failed the course." Our very highest achieving students. the ones who take Algebra I in grade 8, and almost none of them fail! He drew that conclusion without any data are whatsoever! 14. The paper states that the "district is providing increasingly equitable access to Algebra 1." Well, that's true, but it is grossly understated. We are requiring ALL students now to take not only Algebra I, but also Geometry and either Algebra II or Statistics. 15. This section fails to look at any of the data on Pre-AP, and there is a note that he didn't have the AP data to examine. Again, all of this is in the Compliance Report. 16. Fulfillment of Obligations Contained in the Revised Desegregation Plan-is the title of another section of the paper. The first topic is Obligation 2.6-the one having to do with access to and success in advanced, g/t, and AP courses. The programs that are outlined are for the most part remedial-implemented to ensure success in regular-level courses, not to ensure access to or success in advanced courses, necessarily. The interpretation is all wrong. Also, the section iarnores many other initiatives taken by the District to impact achievement in this area. All those programs, etc. are ouBineo in the Interim and final Compliance Reports. 17. There is a reference to policy IG as being the one allowing dual-credit courses. That is an error. Policy IG has to do with curriculum adoption. There is another policy and set of regs having to do with college enrollment (IHCDAand IHCDA- R). 18. Further, the writer apparently had no understanding of the University Studies courses as our best example of the opportunity to earn college credit while still in high school. All that information is in the Compliance Report. 19. The writer attempted to write about Section 2.6.1, which is the section on teacher/counselor training having to do with advanced courses. He had no data-and all of that is found in the Compliance Report. Are you seeing the pattern here? Why put into this paper the stuff that we have already described and analyzed in the Compliance Report? 20. The writer attempted to analyze increased enrollment in AP math and science-but again had no data and no information about the many actions taken to accomplish what we have. 21. The writer attempted to analyze Section 2.7, but he only mentioned SAIPs as what we have done for remediation. An examination of the Interim and final Compliance Reports would reveal MANY more examples of what we have done, including most of the programs that he erroneously listed under the advanced course section. 22. It seems to me that if he wants to evaluation Section 2.71 that a description of the new assessments would be appropriate, as well as a discussion of the Quality Index, the ACTAAP accountability requirements, etc. None of that is here. 23. Obligation 2.8. This section is pitiful-again because the writer did not understand the program or what we have done to engage parents, and we've done a million things, some of which have been wonderfully successful, and others of which have been a big failure. 24. This section also fails to Include in the analysis all of several other partnerships. 25. Now, here's the clincher
Under "Findings and Conclusions," the writer states that "For the most part, student outcomes in Mathematics (sic) and Science (sic) did not change substantially between 1997 and 2001 for LRSD students" He based that profound finding on one measurement alone-the SAT9. No Benchmark data. No ALT data. No CRT data. No acknowledgement of the tremendous increases in course enrollments, participation, etc., etc.,, etc. We have paid big bucksto staff to write a first report, then to Ross to do whatever he has done, and now to Nunnery to declare that we have failed-and for that declaration to be absolutely wrong. And we are continuing to pay staff to work on the NSF report that looks at ALL the data that we have. 26. Then there Is a big long paragraph about the "implementation dip," one of the phrases that I've heard Kathy use a lot of times. The fact of the matter is that we did NOT have an implementation dip. Fourth grade went up A LOT in the first year of implementatlon~if we look at the one test that is best aligned with what we are doing-the Benchmark. SAT9 declines are NOT due to implementation dips. They are due to the fact that the SAT9 does not correlate with the curriculum framework or the new curriculum and assessments we are using. Goodness! 27. The discussion about achievement gaps is based upon the same flaws in information and understanding. 865013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 050 P04 JUL 24 01 11:22 2^ The paragraph on access to higher-level courses is very disappointing. Again, he only looked at Algebra I. There is innovative freshrnan Physics course. There Is no mention of the data we already have In the NSF data reports about course completions. This section is tembly Inadequate. And again, much of it is already rn the Com^iance Report. 29. The writer states that we have no documentation about our training program-and the fact is that we have tons of documentation throughout the Compliance Report-both on advanced courses and on the curriculum Implementation. We also have an assessment of the quality of teacher implementation of the new curriculum-again in the Compliance Report. I want to note here again the arrogance of PRE in even attempting to make judgments about these programs without meeting with the program staff and me to ensure that they know what they need to know to write a report. We are collecting data everywhere, and we are analyzing those data, and we are reporting those data to NSF-and Kathy never even asked what we had or for information on the phase-in of the reforms, for documentation on training, etc., etc., etc My insistence on being included was to prevent these kinds of errors and misinterpretations. 30. The Recommendations section is nothing but shallowbut then given what the writer knew of the program, what else could we expect? We have some critical issues that should be addressed (and we are in fact addressing many of them and even solved some of them already this school year based on our own analysis of what went wrong last year). One of the basics in program evaluation is to derive the recommendations for improvement both from data analysis and from deep conversations with the program staff who can shed light on interpretations and on identifying what went wrong or what could be done better. I personally think about this stuff all the time, and so does Dennis ano so does Vanessa. We have every right to be outraged that people without any direct information, with giant gaps of information, without observation of the program implementation, without knowledge of what we are doing and why. without information about NSF. without any attempt to find out what we know would deem it even possible to make judgments about the work, about what the outcomes mean, or what should happen next. For goodness sake! Or. Bonnie A. Lesley, Associate Superintendent for Instruction Little Rock School District 3001 S. Pulaski Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501/324-2131 501/324-0567 (fex) GADBERRY, BRADY L. From: Sent: To: Subject: CARNINE, LESLIE V. Friday, March 02, 2001 12:31 PM GADBERRY, BRADY L
STEWART, DONALD M. FW: Central High School Parking and/or Baseball Field As both of you know there is always three side to the story but this Is going to go public and there will be a lot of finger pointing, would this not be a good time to visit with Baldwin Shell about the logistics of the Central renovation. That could then determine the number of portables and feasibility of the faculty parking and the other issues. Original Message From: Sent: To: Cc Subject: HOWARD, RUDOLPH Wednesday, Fetxuary 28, 2001 5:39 PM EATON, DOUGLAS LACEY, MARIAN 6.
GADBERRY, BRADY L
CARNtNE, LESUE V. Central Htgri School Parking and/or Baseball Reid We keep going "around and around" in an effort to avoid the issue. I asked for a meeting to determine whether or not the district was going to support the building of a baseball field. Specifically, how much was the district going to contribute in order to match what the baseball boosters(Mr.Yancey) would contribute. After waiting for a meeting for over 2 months. I receive this memo from Doug- 2/22/01- rehashing what has already been covered. Specifically, the issue about the parking lot and the portables. Now. I have indicated and the CLT has indicated that we would give up the teacher parking lot in order to accommodate the portables. WE ARE NOT AGREEABLE TO GIVING UP ANY ADDITIONAL SPACE ON THE PRACTICE FIELD. Doug, you continue to talk about the need for additional space for portables, but you ner tell us how many portables that are going to be needed. Therefore, we can never determine if the space on the parking lot and/or the space around Central is adequate or not. 875013744187 walker LAW FIRM 050 P01 JUL 24 01 11:20 JOHN IT. WALKER. P.A. Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-5758 Fax (501) 574-4187 TRANSMISSION COVERSHEET Date: [, To: [. ] Fax: L 1 Re: L J Sender: J YOU SHOULD RECEIVE [ rmcluding cover sheet)] PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVERSHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL "<(501) 574-3758>" The information contained in this facsimile message is attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not die intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, piease immediate notify us by telephone, and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. I JOHN w. walker SHAWN CHILDS 5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile 682-3479 March 26, 2001 388 P02Z05 MAR 26 01 13:17 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 HENDsnsoN Road LlTn. Rock, Askans.vs 72210 Phone: (5U1) 372-3425 Fax (SOl) 372-3428 Em-aiL: inchenryd@8wboU.nrc Representative Pat arker Bond House Of Represer
atives State Capitol, Rooi i 350 Little Rock, AR 7201 Dear Ms. Bond: 1 understanc annex or detach the that your bill which is now under consideration by the Legislature to deJacksonville area from the Pulaski County Special School District has not received comments from us and possibly from other interested panics in the long stating Pulaski County Desegregat on case. 1 am writing to inform you that while the bill may be popular with some of the Jacksoj ' desegregation plan
ville constituents, it may also have negative impact upon the court approved and that any legislation being considered will have to pass muster under the 14* Amendment as kvell as the law of the case concept. As you are
robably aware, no one has sought input from the Joshua Intervenors with respect to the legist ition or to the charter school which was approved for the Maumelle area. While our approval resort to the Coun is not required, our lack of knowledge and input will tend to cause us to o have matters ferreted out. Rather than get into a public dispute with you and the other propc nents of your legislation, 1 respectfully request that you and the other proponent legislate s meet with possibly the ODM, school officials and myself so that you have a better under landing of why opposition from Joshua, at least, is well placed. can Would you suggest that you sp :indly get in touch with me regarding this matter as soon as possible. I also with Ms. Ann Marshall of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring in order to obtain that office s perspective regarding pending legislation. !hn W. Walker f JWjS 5013744187 walker LAW FIRM 388 P03/05 MAR 26 01 13:17 cc
Ms. Ann Marshal Dr. Gary Smith Dr. Leslie Carni Mr. James Smitj Mr. Ray Simon le Ail Counsel of I ecord5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRd 388 P05/05 MAR 26 01 13:18 With due re peci lo the court, I remain, JWWjs cc: Mr. Chris Helle Ms. ,Ajin Brown Mr, Sam Jones Mr. Steve Jone: Mr. Richard Ro / Walker Sincerely yours, .chcll Mr. Timothy Gs iger '' I^EQSIVSO ^AR 3 0 200! GrBCECf ^^SESREGfiJJQSi^^- ^JIS C> CF John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile March 26, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone
(501) 372-3425 F.ax (501) 372-3428 Email
rachenryd@swbell.net Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright Chief Judge United States District Court 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD v PCSSD Dear Judge Wright: Due to the fact that I was in trial before the Honorable George Howard Jr. in Pine Bluff, Arkansas from March 19-22, 2001 and in intense preparation for the days preceding the 19* I am just getting in position to address the Little Rock filing. Notice of Filing Compliance Report and Request for Scheduling Order. I further note that Little Rock has indicated that it wishes to limit our time for filing challenges to twenty (20) days. This letter is being written to request that the Court set a time for a conference before addressing the issue of a scheduling order so that all parties, as well as the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, would have an opportunity to address the propriety of the scheduling order request. The compliance report is extensive. It appears to be more than two hundred (200) pages in length, is very detail oriented and it makes many claims which are unfamiliar to us and probably to the ODM as well. I am writing the Court this letter, rather than filin
Heller, who I am advised is away until Wednesday, expressed an ig a motion, because Mr. interest in having some dialogue regarding this matter, and the State settlement as well, before this matter becomes, if it ever does. a public dispute which the Court must resolve. I understand that the Court intends to schedule a hearing in the near future regarding the middle school issues raised by the PCSSD. May I suggest that the matter of the hearing of the scheduling order be set for the same day inasmuch as all parties are expected to be in court for the PCSSD matter. Although I have been unable to speak with Mr. Heller and I have not attempted to reach his co-counsel, Mr. Clay Fendley who I intend to try and reach immediately, I have informed Ms. Ann Marshall regarding my concerns herein and will be having further conversations with the parties until such time I receive the Courts reply to this letter.With due respect to the court, I remain, JWW.js cc: Mr. Chris Heller Ms Ann Brown Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Steve Jones Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Timothy Gauger Sincerely yours. n W. Walker ro mx JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS John w. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 1 4 ZOQi. urfluE OF B^eSA'nGK5fiOtSITORIM& OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY. P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Hender.5O.\ Road Little Rock. Ark.a.\s.as 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425 F.ax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenrydSswbell.net Via Facsimile - 310-822-4824 April 9, 2001 Tr'mfl'i on g^ECESVc Dr. Terrence Roberts 932 South Oakland Pasenda, CA 91106 Re: LRSD Dear Terrence:' Joy gave me a report of your brief conversation with her on Friday. I am writing to inquire of your opinion as to whether the Little Rock School District has made it to the point where it can be established to be a unitary school system. I need a written response to this by the end of the week. The expectancy of the plan was that the Joshua consultant would be closely associated with Joshua as policies and procedures were being developed and established. In addition, the plan contemplated that we would be integrally involved in all aspects of policy devisation and promulgation. I thought we had established that during our several conversations with you. We had the same expectancy from Dr. Ross. To date, our involvement has been superficial and mostly nonexistent except for our initiative. Accordingly, when you provide your opinion regarding the readiness of the District for unitary status, would you kindly address our non involvement, i.e., in communication with you and District officials and in the reporting process in which you were involved. We believe that good faith was required of school officials in implementing the plan and that at minimal we were not to be circumvented by any persons in the process. I am sending Mr. Junious Babbs a copy of this letter because Junious has not kept us involved and, in our opinion, has actively sought to prevent our involvement, I believe, as provided for in the plan. His position seems to be that if you were invo.lved then we were involved, for you were our consultant rather than theirs. At a hearing, he, of course, will be a necessary witness regarding this point. Please let me hear from you as requested. Furthermore, if Mr. Babbs chooses to address these points with you, would you please let us know his position in your response to us. Office of Desegregation Monitoring FILE COPYWith warm personal regards, 1 remain, Sincerely, John W. Walker JWW:js cc: Mr. Junious Babbs Ms. Ann BrownAn. O' OOXQZ.H-^Z01 L K S D Rpr 1601 10:17a RITA ROBERTS SRD 626-793-7654 PAGE 02 P-2 Terrence J. Roberts, Ph.D. P.O. Box 96 Pasadena, CA 91102 (626) 644-4956 April 16, 2001 John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 RE: Your April 9,2001 letter to me Dear John: As always, it was good to hear from you, and I trust the report frna Joy was useful and informative. I will schedule lime lo meet with you when I am in Little Rock in the future. The work in the School District is going well and my feeling is that the employees have found the Coping With Difference program to be challenging and substantive. You ask, in your letter, about my opinion as to whether or not the School District has marie it to the point where it can be established as a unitary school system. Briefly, in my opinion, possibly. But, it is imperative to note that there arc many factors to be weighed and my opinion is but one of many to be considered. I add this because until all interested parties can come together and the available evidence, it is simply, and only, a matter of opinion. I feel ill equipped to comment on your level of non involvement in this process since I dont have enough information about communications between you and the District When I spoke to Mr. Babbs, he was surprised to find that you were of the opinion that he has actively sought to prevent your iiivolvement. As to Uk matter of whether or not T nm a Joshua consultant or a District consultant, I must say I find this rather confusing. In one sense it bespeaks an adversarial process which seems to pit you against the District with me somewhere in the middle. On the other band, it suggests a need for me to decide where my loyalties lie. In either case, the focus appears to be on things other than those that might benefit the children of the District. John, I am in this process because I want to see positive change that will result in greater educarional opportunities for children in this school system. My commitment is to do whatever it might take to realize that goal. If that end result is best achieved by unitary Office Of Desegregation Monitoring FILE COPYai/ ib / zooi 14: 04 501-324-2281 Apr IG 01 10:18a RITR ROBERTS LRSD SRO 62B-793-7G54 PAGE 03 P-3 status, so be it. However, if the opposite is true, I will support non-unitary status with a vengeance. You see, for me, this effort has never been about integration per sc. Integration in the absence of changed mind sets about the worth and value of children of color is an unworthy goal Obviously, there remains much to be done io this arena. Thats why I say, possibly, the District is ready for unitary status. In any case, we will talk further. Sincerely, A Terrence J. Rober^ PhJ), Cc: Mi. Junious Babbs, Ms. Ann Brown Received John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JUL 2 - 200J Off ICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile - 376-2147 June 29, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425 Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd^wbeU.net Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 Regions Center Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Chris: Please provide all the information that has been provided to you by District officials at any time since June 10, 1999. Our tentative list of witnesses includes your senior administrators, beginning with Dr. Carnine and going to the level of Director. I am unable to give specific names because your letter of June 29, 2001 does not give specific names of the people responsible for [the] specific section of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. These are the names that I think are responsible: Dr. Les Carnine, Dr. Bonnie Lesley, Dr. Kathy Lease
Dr. Marion Lacey
Dr. Linda Watson
Dr. Richard Hurley
Dr. Ed Williams
Dr. Don Stewart
Dr. Gary Smith
Ms. Sadie Mitchell
Mr. Junious Babbs
Ms. Jo Evelyn Elston
Mr. Brady Gadberry
Mr. James Washington
Mr. Robert Robinson
Ms. Pat Price
Mr. Leon Adams
Ms. Vanessa Cleaver
Mr. Dennis Glasgow
Ms. Frances Jones: Ms. Kay Rainey
Mr. Michael Oliver
Mr. Everett Hawks
Mr. Larry Mitchell
Ms. Gayle Bradford
Mr. Lionel Ward
Mr. William Broadnax
Mr. Ray Gillespie
Ms. Levanna Wilson
Mr. Gene Parker
Mr. Michael Oliver
Mr. Larry Mitchell
and Mr. Jim Mobsy. Other tentative witnesses include: Dr. Terrence Roberts
Dr. Steven Ross, Dr. John Fluker
Dr. Ray Simon, Dr. Charity Smith
Dr. Ken James
and Mr. Willie Morris. I will supplement this list on Monday after receipt of all the requested information. With respect to exhibits, I intend to use some of the documents that you submit to me by the end of the day, the ODM reports, and the FOIA responses that you have received copies of as you requested those copies from the school staff. I also may find it necessary to use correspondence between us and yourself, Dr. Carnine and staff members of the Little Rock School District. I also expect that we may make reference to information provided to the District from Drs. Steven Ross and Terrence Roberts, as well as the ADE. We have asked Dr. John Fluker to look at some of your statistical data and are not certain what he has done with it at this time. I will share any reports from him as soon as I receive them. Finally, I expect to use the Monitor and Associate Monitors of the ODM as witnesses as well. Siiicerely, / ^hn W. Walker JWW:js cc: Ms. Ann Brown Counsel of Record Friday Eldredge & Clark HERSCHEL H FRIDAY (1922-1994) WILLIAM H SUTTON. P A BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR.. P.A. JOE D. BELL. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY, P.A FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS, JR., P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR , P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM UI. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL UI. P.A. DONALD H- BACON, P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD D. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR . P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN UI. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR., P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR.. P A HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER. P.A. TONIA P. JONES. P.A. DAVID D. WILSON. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 237 EAST MILLSAP. SUITE 7 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72703 TELEPHONE 501-695-2011 FAX 501-695-2147 JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GRAF. P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JOHN C FENDLEY. JR . P.A. JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO. P.A. R- CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.A. GREGORY D TAYLOR, P A. TONY L. WILCOX. P.A. FRAN C. HICKMAN. P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY, P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W. SMITH. P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT, P.A. DANIEL L. HERRINGTON, P.A. MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B TIDWELL MICHAEL E. KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH TAMARA G. MARTIN RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON OFCOUNSEL B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. A.D. MCALLISTER 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2896 FAX 870-762-2918 June 29, 2001 JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-3323 FAX 501-244-5341 fendleyOfec.net Via Hand Delivery RECEIVED The Honorable Susan Webber Wright 522 U.S. Post Office and Courthouse JUN 2 9 2001 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3325 OFRCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITIM RE: Little Rock School District v. PCSSD Dear Judge Wright: Enclosed please find two documents which the Little Rock School District may introduce as exhibits in the hearings beginning July 5, 2001, pertaining to Little Rock School Districts compliance with its revised desegregation and education plan. Little Rock School District will also rely on its interim Compliance Report filed March 15,2000, and its Compliance Report filed March 15,2001, which have already been filed with the Court. We thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Respectfully, JCF/jm Enclosures John C. Fendley, Jr. cc via hand delivery: Mr. John Walker Ms. Ann Marshall The Honorable Susan Webber Wright June 29, 2001 Page 2 cc via U.S. mail: Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Steve Jones Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Sammye TaylorLittle Rock School District Pupil Services Department Scholarship Awards 2000-2001 School Year School # Scholar^ip Recipients BM BF WM WF OM OF Central 4 4% 11 10% 25 23% 64 4 1 HIS Male 0 HISF Female 1 58% 4% 1% 0 1% Total no BM J.A. Fair 6 22 4 8 0 0 1 1 42 14% 52% 10% 19% 0 0 1% Hall McClellan Parkview TOTALS 15 13 5 5 0 0 1 0 39 38% 8 21% 7 10% 40 13% 33% 26 68% 19 26% 91 30% 13% 0 0 7 10% 41 14% 13% 3 8% 31 42% 111 37% 0 0 0 2 3% 6 2% 0 0 0 4 5% 5 2% 1% 1 0 38 1% 0 3 73 0 3 1% 4% 5 302 2% SCHOLARSHIP AWARD TOTALS 5185,242 $32,600 $406,458 $91,496 $332,781 $1,048,577 BF WM WF HisM HisF OM $309396 $278,606 $284,752 $334,680 $425,881 $1,633,315 $454330 $116,640 $342,450 0 $97,610 $1,010330 $963,662 $40,072 $240,000 $46,316 $647,566 $1337,616 $74,000 0 0 0 $82,192 $156,192 $16,000 0 0 0 $195,662 $211,662 $10,000 $10,000 $60,000 0 0 $80,000 deceived JW 2 9 2001 OF 0 $4,000 0 0 $500 $4300 Total Award By School $2,012330.00 $481,918 $1333,660 $472,492 $1,782,192 $6,082,792.00 ScholarshipAwards.OlHighlights of Grades K-2 Results Developmental Reading Assessment 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 2 9 25
,I OmCEOF All three grade levels improved in spring 2001. 1999-2000 Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 72.2 53.6 67.5 2000-2001 80 7 63.8 75.4 First grade showed the greatest improvement in spring 2001. Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Change +8.5 +10.2 +7.9 More than 75 percent of the schools improved in spring 2001. Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 # of Schools Improving 27 (77%) 29 (83%) 29 (83%) 1Both area and magnet schools did well. The five highest performing schools at each grade level for each year follow. 1999-2000 2000-2001 Kindergarten McDermott* Fulbright* Rightsell* Terry * Grade 1 Grade 2 Mitchell* Woodruff* Williams Wilson* Western Hills* McDermott* Rightsell* Williams Forest Park* Western Hills* Otter Creek* Denotes area schools. McDermott* Baseline* Fulbright* Gibbs Brady* Williams Carver McDermott* Booker Forest Park* Carver Williams Western Hills* Otter Creek* McDermott* 2Many schools improved dramatically in spring 2001. Schools improving 20 or more points are as follows. All are area schools, and most are high poverty schools. Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 _______2000-01 Baseline (42.9)* Badgett (28.4)* Forest Park (27.1) Cloverdale (26.1)* Stephens (25.3)* Wakefield (44.6)* Watson (41.9)* Baseline (41.2)* Stephens/Garland (27.5)* Western Hills (25.8) Chicot (24.4)* Badgett (20.6)* Dodd (31.1) Badgett (31.1)* Stephens/Gariand (30.1)* Pulaski Heights (29.3) McDermott (22.5) Denotes schools with 75% or higher eligible for free/reduced lunch. 3The Incentive Schools are, in general, improving. With the exception of Mitchell and Rightsell at grade 1, a majority of the students are performing at or above the "readiness" level. Kindergarten Franklin Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Stephens 1999-2000 64.3 90.6 92.1 75.8 40.8 2000-2001 58.6 92.3 80.5 76.2 66.1 Change -5.7 1.7 -11.6 0.4 25.3 Grade 1 Franklin Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Stephens 1999-2000 57.6 25.0 35.7 76.3 23.5 2000-2001 58.9 25.0 41.7 65.2 51.0 Change 1.3 0.0 6.0 -11.1 27.5 Grade 2 Franklin Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Stephens 1999-2000 81.2 48.6 94.7 71.4 31.3 2000-2001 83.6 50.0 70.5 84.2 61.4 Change 2.4 1.4 -24.2 12.8 30.1 4The Newcomer Centers are improving, except for Terry at kindergarten and grade 2. Kindergarten Brady Chicot Romine Terry Washington 1999-2000 76.9 56.1 66.7 91.9 81.2 2000-2001 93.4 70.9 86.4 86.7 84.1 Change 16.5 14.8 19.7 -5.2 2.9 Grade 1 Brady Chicot Romine Terry Washington 1999-2000 34.9 26.8 59.6 47.1 35.5 2000-2001 53.5 51.2 76.5 59.8 41.1 Change 18.6 24.4 16.9 12.7 5.6 Grade 2 Brady Chicot Romine Terry Washington 1999-2000 70.8 38.6 68.8 81.2 63.3 2000-2001 79.6 52.1 81.6 67.1 81.4 Change 8.8 13.5 12.8 -14.1 18.1 5There are seventeen (49 percent) elementary schools in the District where 75 percent or more of the students are eligible for free/reduced lunch. Many of these schools improved dramatically in spring 2001 and/or some are performing in the highest range of scores (80 percent or higher). Kindergarten Badgett (94%)____ Franklin (90%) Stephens (90%) Chicot (87%) Baseline (86%) Woodruff (86%) Cloverdale (85%) Wilson (85%) Mabelvale (85%) Mitchell (84%) Watson (83%) Geyer Springs (83%)____________ Rightsell (82%) Meadowcliff (81%) Wakefield (80%) Fair Park (78%) 1999-2000 21.6 64.3 40.8 56.1 51.1 69.2 56.4 66.7 61.0 90.6 56.4 85.1 2000-2001 50.0 58.6 66.1 70.9 94.0 46.2 82.5 80.0 73.3 92.3 73.7 87.7 Change 28.4 -5.7 25.3 14.8 42.9 -23.0 26.1 13.3 12.3 1.7 17.3 2.6 92.1 77.4 46.8 68.3 80.5 77.1 61.1 75.6 -11.6 -0.3 14.3 7.3 6Badgett (94%) Franklin (90%) Stephens (90%) Chicot (87%) Baseline (86%) Woodruff (86%) Cloverdale (85%) Wilson (85%) Mabelvale (85%) Mitchell (84%) Watson (83%)_____ Geyer Springs (83%)____________ Rightsell (82%) Meadowcliff (81%) Wakefield (80%) Fair Park (78%) Grade 1 1999-2000 5.9 57.6 23.5 26.8 29.6 84.2 28.4 82.9 50.8 25.0 24.7 46.8 2000-2001 26.5 58.9 51.0 51.2 70.8 61.5 33.9 53.8 60.5 25.0 66.6 38.6 Change 20.6 1.3 27.5 24.4 41.2 -22.7 5.5 -29.1 9.7 0.0 41.9 -8.2 35.7 70.0 22.0 62.5 41.7 66.6 66.6 72.7 6.0 -3.4 44.6 10.2 7Badgett (94%)____ Franklin (90%) Stephens (90%) Chicot (87%)_____ Baseline (86%) Woodruff (86%) Cloverdale (85%) Wilson (85%) Mabelvale (85%) Mitchell (84%) Watson (83%)_____ Geyer Springs (83%)____________ Rightsell (82%) Meadowcliff (81%) Wakefield (80%) Fair Park (78%) Grade 2 1999-2000 11.8 81.2 31.3 38.6 47.1 78.3 57.9 60.4 43.4 48.6 54.4 72.5 2000-2001 42.9 83.6 61.4 52.1 60.5 86.5 45.1 61.4 63.0 50.0 51.2 66.0 Change 31.1 2.4 30.1 13.5 13.4 8.2 -12.8 1.0 19.6 1.4 -3.2 -6.5 94.7 57.9 40.0 62.9 70.5 75.0 54.4 67.7 -24.2 17.1 14.4 4.8 8Most of the Success for All (SFA) schools improved in spring 2001. Most are now enriching the SFA program with ELLA strategies. Kindergarten Brady Baseline Cloverdale Fair Park Meadowcliff Romine Woodruff 1999-2000 76.9 51.1 56.4 68.3 77.4 66.7 69.2 2000-2001 93.4 94.0 82.5 75.6 77.1 86.4 46.2 Change 16.5 42.9 26.1 7.3 -0.3 19.7 -23.0 Grade 1 Brady Baseline Cloverdale Fair Park Meadowcliff Romine Woodruff 1999-2000 34.9 29.6 28.4 62.5 70.0 59.6 84.2 2000-2001 53.5 70.8 33.9 72.7 66.6 76.5 61.5 Change 18.6 41.2 5.5 10.2 -3.4 16.9 -22.7 Grade 2 Brady______ Baseline Cloverdale Fair Park Meadowcliff Romine Woodruff 1999-2000 70.8 47.1 57.9 62.9 57.9 68.8 78.3 2p00E20Ql 79.6 60.5 45.1 67.7 75.0 81.6 86.5 Change 8.8 13.4 -12.8 4.8 17.1 12.8 8.2 Schools with the Reading Recovery program in grade 1 are performing well. Grade 1 Booker Chicot* 1999-2000 69.3 26.8 2000-2001 87.4 51.2 Change 18.1 24.4 9Dodd Franklin Fulbright** Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson Otter Creek Pulaski Heights** Williams Wilson* 58.3 57.6 61.0 46.8 65.9 69.1 67.7 50.0 84.1 82.9 *2000-2001 was a training year. Reading Recovery not continued in 2000-2001. Grade 2 1999-2000 73.5 58.9 66.6 38.6 71.4 73.9 69.6 61.7 97.1 53.8 2000-2001 15.2 1.3 5.6 -8.2 5.5 4.8 1.9 11.7 13.0 -29.1 Change Booker Chicot* Dodd Franklin Fulbright** Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson Otter Creek Pulaski Heights** Williams Wilson* 79.8 38.6 51.7 81.2 79.3 72.5 80.5 71.1 87.2 45.2 81.4 52.1 82.8 83.6 88.7 66.0 82.9 85.0 90.5 74.5 1.6 13.5 31.1 2.4 9.4 -6.5 2.4 13.9 3.3 29.3 89.7 60.4 92.6 61.4 2.9 1.0 The number of schools with a majority of students performing below the "readiness" level is declining. Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 1999-2000 3 (9%) 13 (37%) 8 (23%) 2000-2001 1 (3%) 6 (17%) 2 (6%) 10The number of schools with at least 80 percent of the students performing at the "readiness" level is increasing. Kindergarten Grade 1_____ Grade 2 1999-2000 15 (43%) 5 (14%) 10 (29%) 2000-2001 21 (23%) 5 (14%) 18 (51%) The gap between the lowest and highest performing schools is decreasing. Kindergarte n Grade 1 Grade 2 1999-2000 73.2 2000-2001 48.1 Change 25.1 78.3 82.9 72.1 50.2 6.2 32.7 11Black students are improving at every grade level and at a higher rate than Non-Black students. 1999-2000 Kindergarte n Grade 1____ Grade 2 69.3 48.3 63.8 2000-2001 77.0 57.4 69.8 Change 7.7 9.1 6.0 Non-Black students are improving at every grade level. Kindergarte n Grade 1 Grade 2 1999-2000 84.7 71.2 81.6 2000-2001 88.8 77.3 86.8 Change 4.1 6.1 5.2 The achievement gap is much lower in grades K-3 now than in higher grade levels and is decreasing. It is lowest at kindergarten. Kindergarte n Grade 1 Grade 2 1999-2000 15.4 2000-2001 11.8 Change -3.6 22.9 17.8 19.9 17.0 -3.0 -0.8 12John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 RECEIVED JUN 2 9 2001 ^Of JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425 Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd^wbell.net Via Facsimile June 28, 2001 Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright Chief Judge - United States District Court 600 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al., Case No. 4:CV82-866 Dear Judge Wright: I am writing this letter to request that you schedule an informal conference between the Little Rock School District counsel and us regarding the forthcoming hearing. The timing of the hearing appears to be insufficient for us to prepare to make our case. The District officials simply have not cooperated with us in providing information on a voluntary basis. We are now met with the inability to communicate with any District official without going through counsel and we are experiencing other problems as well. This is due to instructions and advice of counsel. Let me cite an example of the problems that we are having. We met with Chris Heller, Clay Fendley and Ms. Marshall on Monday of this week. We were informed that there were large numbers of evaluation reports regarding the many programs that have been undertaken by the District in the past three years and before that are sitting, according to Clay, in Clays office. Those reports have been requested by us many times and we were essentially informed that no such reports existed. We still have not seen the reports. Now Clay and Chris do not make them and other District data available to us as has been the normal expectation and practice. That practice has abated since Joshua filed their objections. The timing problem also involves our inability to meet the courts directive that we provide our exhibits by tomorrow. With the Districts lack of cooperation, without there being formal discovery, and with the obstruction directed by Clay and Chris, we simply need much more time to meet our burden of proof. We request that we be allowed to use the time that you have set for trial in July and August to engage in discovery and that the matter be reset for a period of time thereafter. We also note that the District is in the process of preparing reports that it intends to submit in its portion of the hearing. If they attempt to do this, it will prejudice our presentation.This is so because they were obliged, at the time of their report in March, to have fiilly met their obligations and to have that established by documentation. A conference is sorely and urgently needed so that we can address these and other concerns of the parties. May we meet with you either by telephone, or in person, either later today or tomorrow? Sincerely, John W. Walker JWWjs cc: Mr. Chris Heller Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Richard Roachell Counsel of Record C Cu/ RECEIVED JUL 2 - 7001 received JU12-2O(I1 OmCEOF desegregation MONITORING OmCEOF OESEgfGKnONIMHgm OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF ARKANSAS Mark Pryor Attorney General Samrayc L. Taylor Chief Barrister Direct dial: (501)682-1320 E-mail: sammvet@aq.state.ar.us KL4 FACSIMILE Honorable Susan Webber Wright 302 U.S Post Office and Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 604-5169 Re: LRSD V. PCSSD
USDC
4:82CV866SWW Dear Judge Wright: Mark and I would like to thank you for excusing us from the hearing currently being scheduled by the court for the morning of June 29, 2001. I was not scheduled to be in the office tomorrow and Mark has a deposition scheduled to begin at 10:00 a.m. If we were to attend the hearing, we would object to Mr. Walkers untimely request to continue the hearing dates in July and August, as these dates have been set by court order since April 4, 2001. Again, we appreciate your granting us leave to not attend the June 29 hearing. Respectfully yours, Chief Barrister SLT/alh cc: Counsel of Record via Regular Mail 323 Center Street Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 FAX (501) 682-8084 Internet Website http://www.ag.state.ar.us/ Q:\Civil\Sammye Taylor\Deseg\Judge 6-28-01 .doc 954 Peaces ju. 03 01 18:29 JOHN W. walker SHAWN CHILDS John W. Walker, P.a. AitorneyAt Law 1723 Broadway Lmts Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile - 376-2147 July 3. 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENKYEa. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Hbjdsrson Boao Email: nwhcnrydgawbelhaet Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 Regions Center Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Chris
Joshua may use the following documents as exhibits during the hearings on July 5** and 6*: 1) Compliance Plan dated June 10, 1999 and any subsequent plans I D n________ J - 1 _______________ * * -2) LRSD Interim Report dated March 15. 2000
-3) LRSD Compliance Report dated March 15, 2001
ODM Report dated June 21, 1995
^5) ODM Repon dated October 26, 1999
*^5) ODM Repon dated March 29, 2000
^7) ODM Repon dated April 11, 2001
t-^) ODM Repon dated August 11, 1999
9) Draft Ev^uations from PRE
10) Responses to request for information dated 6-8-01 to Mr. Babbs
11) Responses to request for information dated 6-13-01 to Dr, Lesley 12) Documents listed in Dr, Lesleys letters dated 6-14-01 and 6-27-01 to Ms, Springer
13) Responses to request for information dated 6-20-01 to Ms, Mitchell
14) Responses to request for information dated 6-27-01
15) Responses to request for information dated 6-28-01 to Mr. Heller 16) Loan requests to State of Arkansas from LRSD
17) Responses to requests for information dated 6-27-01 to Ms, Mitchell
18) Responses to requests for information dated 7-2-01 to Dr, James
19) LRSD 2000-01 Recruitment and Placement Service Annual Report 20) Dept, Of Exceptional Children Strategic Plans - 1998 and 2001 21) Budget and Enrollment data for LRSD elementary schools
22) Manpower Reports for 1998-99 through 2000-01, 23) Standardized test results (SAT, ACT, Stanford) from 1982 to present 24) Leners dated April 14, 1999, April 20, 1999, May 12, 1999 to Dr. Carnine5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 954 803/03 JUL 03 01 18:29 ----- 25) Letters dated July 8, 1999 and October to John Walker
18, 2000 from Christopher Heller - 26) Letter dated September 13, 1999 to Mr. Larry Berkeley
Lumpkin to Junious Babbs- ^'garding equitable allocation 1-29) Settlement Agreement dated 1989 pages 15-16
26-27
of resources
Agreement between State and LRSD dated 3-19-2001 321 Walker d^ed 5-11-13-99- Correspondence between Mr. Babbs and Drs. Ross and Roberts- 341 from Mr. Babbs office on 7-2-01- and -34) Dr. Camine s Pnonty Repons. There are several requests that are still outstanding and documents as exhibitc Tf ana we may use some of those all documents that are given to tbs XVwkh "structed District personnel to share you. Your cooperation is appreciated. Sincerely, John W. Walker JWWjs cc: Ms. Ann Marshall5013744187 UfiLKER LfiW FIRM 954 P01Z03 JUL 03 01 18:29 W. WALKER, P.A. Anorney at Law 5723 Broadway Tittle Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 FAX transmission COVER SHEET Date: To: Fax: [. [, r 'Ll3-^0! J ] Re: L Sender: YOU SHOULD RECEIVE S J ] - ---------(including cover sheet)]PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVERSHEET. TF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THEPAGES PLEASECALL "<(501) 374-575S> . only for th use of the individiiBi or andconfideatial infonnationintentted ___ I entit-y- -n--a-m---e-d-- -a--b- ove. I*f t*he rea*der of' th-is mIessSage is HnOoTt tmhee iinmteenaodeedd J Wsibie to deUver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissenunation, distribution or copying of this communication is strirrlv i_____ received this communication in error, please immediate notify or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank us by telephone, and return the original message :you. a 1015744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 932 P02/03 JUL 03 01 06:50 JOHN w. walker SHAWN CHILDS John w. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway LmtE Rock, Arkansas 72206 TELEraoNE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile July 3, 2001 O' COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY. Ra pONNALMcHENW 8210 Hknoceson Road Ti. . Liras Rock AaxANBAs 72210 Phons: (501) 87^3426 Faz (501) 372-3428 Email
mcbeniydaswbellnat Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright Chief Judge - United States District Court 600 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 7220] Re: LRSD v. PCSSD, et al. - Case No, 4
CV82-866 Dear Judge Wright
nought to meet with Little Rock school officials since our * Honor on Friday. After providing names of possible witnesses to Mr Heller nn R a u------- to them available on Monday. On yesterday 1 snnke m u n Fnday, he agre the inteiviews and he indicated that he would ge?btk wth^me At Wn m that we will be unable to make thL Since our conference 5vith Her on Friday, agreed interviews this week, we will be unable to make them available for requesting a conference with the Court to assist us with an amicable resolution of this matter. ificerely, ictated but not read John W. Walker JWW:js cc
Mr Chris Heller Ms. Ann Brown Qffioeof OMsgregation MonRoring FILE COPYrxioAYdni.)^) H. lUTTOW. px. ,nm K. nioua. j., r.. ^AavmT.fA uluny. C Aavtx. JAMtt C. CXaAX. JV F.A, tvomaa Lcocxrr. zx. iotoi OCWT wanea. 7.A. FAUL X SXMXAM lU. r A. LAArrw auxxAF.A. A **cxurrpiSMr^jx..zA. MMXS C9WMP "AAAiA. f-A. h FWUJF MaLCAM. F.A JAHJJ M. aWSAN. FJL ZAMttM. UXTAH. F.A. J siienBKo pj, H. MCON. A. *nXlAMTTMH lAXrn. M AWY s. conm. f.a. UatAAA 0. TAVLOt. 7.A 5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM iKLUAi liWKjbliGt
a CLARK 932 P03/03 JUL 03 '01 0002 06:50 Josmo. WMT. nu. i.a UZAtlTH kOMCN MUAXAt * a CttKTOnrBl Htuat F A. w/MWjunm iomTs.:RAPMu?.A vn.UAH M. oxtmw tn. f a. X noctt. ZA. iNAFCt. MACxrr r.A. OVtNA. fA. TA. A. WAPOBU. JtL. f.A. tCOTT I. a.A M.0AVVlC0V.tY..A. *O*<*T >. aCACM. flL. tjL. J. LZE BXOMr, r,A. jAMsac aAax.JK.. *y A. LWWI. F.A. rT K. rargy j fluy ALWN VAOe. FtlOSCOAMM&Lrx YONlA f. town. >.A. OAvw 0. YOMt. e.A. Friday Eldredge A Clark ATToaxeys t law * JMITSC tlAgiuTY rAfiTNBtSfllf ".friosyflrm.com 2000 AEQlONS CCNTgft 468 WZ6ST CAPITOt. ttls rock. ARKANflAa rzzovjAss TCLfPhone 501-378-4011 Fax 501-378-2,47 EAST utusAp. wire 'Avengviue. awcum >jj I^IEFMONE sei.AM.20lt Fax Ml.sMeMAT zM pipTM sneer eurrneviLtt. AMfA/tStit >ia TBLW<^< 70.m24M FAX x7eeTi.aia VIA FAZ No, 374-4187 July 2,2001 n MOOXX. ClAA F. A MO(Ar ALBteMVtA A trXAM Mtrna * CwJTOMttl tJhVSON. fJL ------------- OAlCAay a. TaVX^ Pji. WRXOX. zx. C meXMAN. r./i, tWOA K fOWiOt^ f,/c UMXX V. AMtTK r.A. msocrrr. oafju, t MtuuiiQmi XAKVatLORLOCM colbmam wunoLoox. m. AUUOKX OOwrVBU. aUXHHdWlK 'ASON 4. WN0A1N IUJC8 *. nowiu. WA.l.XAJlV OLLY ituKnrr Wttxro. woiQu nom TAMAAU MARYW ctaita. wmiAM C O'" t T. WOBUZ ATOt s. 4AUrr <a<AAM. OITTQa XCAAXC *RiUM u. nouiT <r. LABxeLsix Kfk & COMU. F A. A> MGAtUlTEfc CMMstOPNCA malsx LiTTUenOCX rev Crt<47*tuA FAX CMeaMeMM Mr. John Walker JOHNW
WALKER,?,A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Re: LRSD V. PCSSD Dear John
me know the order in which they will testify so that I can mnlfB time. In accordance wrth your letter. Dr. Lesley wiU not be avaailrarbalneg uenmtieln tthse t oA hauveg thuemst pSreJseSnt? at the appropriate You have said fiiat you plan to call Ann Marshall, Gene Jones and Horace Smith fiom Desegregation Monitoring. I have called ODM to attempt as I hear something, I will let you know. to the Of&ce of arrange ameetingin advance of their testimony. As soon We also discussed tfaeavailability of Steve Ross and Terrence Roberts, Itold you that we have not made any arrangements to have them present on Thunday or Friday. Lk Camine is in the process of moving to FayetteviUe. Dick Hurley has not yet remmed firm not yet returned from a trip out the available for interviews" this week to make them Yoj Christopher J. Heller CJH/dh I John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS July 3, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, PA DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road LnTLE Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone
(501) 372-3425 Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd^wbell.net Mr. Ray Simon Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED JUL 5 - 2001 Dear Mr. Simon: OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Would you please let us have access today to your correspondence files and other files regarding the 20 million dollar loan forgiveness discussions that you have been having with Little Rock. You will recall that we asked to be included in those discussions and have not been. This is to also inform you that we expect to call you as a witness in the existing case. We may not get to you on Thursday or Friday of this week, but if we dont we, please expect to be called on either August I" or August 2". With best regards, I remain, Sincerely, John W. Walker JWW:js cc
Ms. Sammye Taylor Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Chris Heller / 5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 260 P02 AUG 15 01 11:22 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE: IMH Effective
July 11,2001 CLASS INTERRUPTIONS Purpose The purpose of these regulations is to increase significantly the amount of time on task or engaged learning time without increasing the school day or school year. The organization of the school and the use of time in the allotted school day send a powerful message to teachers and students about the value of learning. Keeping instructional time sacred is respectful of both teaching and learning. Extending engaged learning time" is a research-based strategy for improving student achievement. I Interruptions to Instruction The principal and the Campus Leadership Team of each school are directed to protect instructional time from interruptions for non-instructiona! matters to every extent possible. Schools should periodically audit the amount of potential engaged time that is being lost due to teacher absences, student absences, tardiness in beginning lessons, time lost due to discipline infractions, time lost due to assemblies or presentations unrelated to the course benchmarks, early releases, field trips not tightly correlated with the course benchmarks, and similar losses. These data collections will enable the school to find ways to increase the amount of instructional time without adding to the school day, week, or year. Some specific guidelines follow: 1. 2. 3. Principals and other office personnel should not use the intercom more than twice per day (once in the morning and once in the afternoon), except when an emergency justifies the interruption of instruction. Students should generally not be allowed to miss core instruction, especially English language arts and mathematics, for field trips, presentations on non-academic topics, health screenings, school pictures, non-academic assemblies, events to reward students, early dismissals for athletic participation, etc. Principals should generally forbid the showing of rented videos to classes, even when they are loosely connected to curriculum topics. Rather, teachers should use video that is tightly correlated to the course benchmarks or use only clips from longer videos to illustrate~a point. Entertainment videos should not be used during core instructional time. 4. Allowing students during the instructional day to play games of any kind that do not have an instructional purpose (i.e., related to the course standards and/or benchmarks) is inappropriate.I [ 5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 260 P03 AUG 15 01 11:23 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE: IMH Effective: July 11,2001 -continued- 5, Schools should not engage in the practice of giving students free time' at the beginning of school year, the day before holidays, days during semester examinations, the last week of school, for "team" days, and so forth. 6. Instruction should not be interrupted by pulling students out to take care of library business, to see the nurse, to see the counselor, to take unnecessary phone calls. Rather, the support staff should make arrangements with teachers ahead of time to send students at their convenience. These guidelines are not meant to suggest that classrooms should be devoid of joy. Rather, they are intended to communicate a climate of respect for teaching and learning, to communicate to students a consistent message that their learning is important, and to enable all of the Districts students to be successful learners. Each Campus Leadership Team shall include in its work a review of current practices that interrupt instruction and shall design strategies to eliminate or radically limit the times during any school day when teaching and learning are interrupted for unplanned, non-instructional issues.OlACutl/jy 5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 260 P01 AUG 15 01 11:22 fOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorn^ at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET To: Date: Tax: Te: Sender: YOU SHOULD receive [ (including cover sheet)] PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS CO VEE SHEET IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL "<(501) 374-3758>" The information contained in this facsimile message is attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for die use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of tliis message is not the intended recipient, or die employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediate notify us by telephone, and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Marshall. Federal Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 July 23, 2001 Dr. Ken James Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ken: My associate, Gene Jones, has been closely monitoring the districts program evaluation efforts. Gene has been able to obtain some program evaluations, but he has been unsuccessful in procuring others, so Im asking for your help. While the districts March 2001 Compliance Report reads that PRE has evaluated a number of specific programs (page 148), most of those evaluations were not available when we made our latest request for them on June 26, 2001. Below is a list of the 12 evaluations we need in order to continue our monitoring. All are for 2000-01 unless otherwise indicated. 1. NSF (We received a copy on 6-26-01, but are unsure that its a final version.) 2. Middle schools 3. Extended year schools 4. Summer schools (for 1999-00) 5. HIPPY 6. Charter school 7. Campus Leadership Teams 8. English as a Second Language 9. Lyceum Scholars Program 10. Southwest Middle Schools SEDL program 11. Watson Elementarys Onward to Excellence 12. Collaborative Action Team Please forward these program evaluations to us as soon as possible. If any are still not available, please let us know the status of their preparation and when we may expect to receive them. Thank you very much for your assistance. Sincerely yours. Ann S. MarshallFriday Eldredge & Clark HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY {1M2-I994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P.A. BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR,, P.A. JOE D. BELL. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY, P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR.. P.A JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY 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. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL 111. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD D. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN HI. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S MACKEY, P.A WALTER M EBEL III. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT B BEACH. JR . P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR.. P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER. P.A. TONIA P, JONES, P.A. DAVID D. WILSON. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayfirm.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 601-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 237 EAST MILLSAP. SUITE 7 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72703 TELEPHONE 501-695-2011 FAX 501-695-2147 JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GRAF, P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR., P.A. JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO. P.A. R CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.A GREGORY D. TAYLOR. P.A. TONY L. WILCOX, P.A. FRAN C. HICKMAN. P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY. P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W. SMITH. P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT. P.A. DANIEL L. HERRINGTON. P.A. MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B TIDWELL MICHAEL E. KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN A. KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON OFCOUNSEL B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. A.D. MCALLISTER RECEIVED 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2898 FAX 870-762-2918 JUL 17 2001 CHRISTOPHER HELLER LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-1506 FAX 501-244-5344 hnrg?c.rot OmCEOF DESEGREGRniianDRm July 16, 2001 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor One Union National Plaza RECEIVED 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 JUL 1 7 ZOOl Re
LRSD Compliance Report - March 15, 2001 OFFlGfcOl DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dear Ann
I will attempt to arrange a meeting among the representatives of the parties and the members of your staff in accordance with our conversation last week. In the meantime, I would like to request that you share with the parties any written information developed by your office concerning errors in LRSDs March 2001 Compliance Report. This would make it easier for the parties to prepare for possible meetings with the members of your staff as well as the hearing scheduled in August and November. Thank you for your consideration. very Christopher Heller CJH/bk cc
Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Samuel Jones Ms. Sammye Taylor Mr. Steve Jones Dr. Ken JamesJohn W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKEK SHAWN CHILDS Via Facsimile - 604-5106 July 23, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, PA. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Hendekson Road Little Rock, Aekansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425 Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mcheiuyd^wbell.net Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright Chief United States District Judge 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 RECESVED JUL 25 2001 Re: Case No. LR-C-82-866 OmCEOF OESEGi&GMlONHQWTOHifjS Dear Judge Wright: This IS to inform you that we have experienced some difSculty in obtaining documents from the Little Rock School District. We informed your office while you were away of one set of problems we were experiencing last week. We are mindful of the courts deadline to provide Mr. Heller and Mr. Pendley with a listing of our exhibits, which is tomorrow. Our FOIA requests were dated June 5, 2001, July 2, 2001 and July 11, 2001 respectively, well in advance of last Friday s deadline and we have not been given the data. As I am writing this letter, Mr. Hellers secretary is on the telephone requesting that we must come to his office, look at and copy whatever is in two boxes. That is entirely unacceptable and fhistrates our ability to be prepared I will ask the secretary to have the boxes delivered to our offices in order to see whether the matenal being provided is what we requested. We will safely keep the boxes and return them to Mr. Heller on tomorrow. The Court is being asked to schedule a conference for identification of documents and document delivery for Wednesday, assuming that we have been unable to get the information that we have requested. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ictated but not read John W. Walker JWW:js cc: Mr. Chris Heller Ms. Ann MarshallOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Marshall, Federal Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 July 23, 2001 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday Eldredge & Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 Dear Chris: Your letter of July 16, 2001 arrived while I was out of state last week, so please understand my delay in responding to your request for information about errors we identified in the LRSDs March 2001 Compliance Report. Enclosed is a list of the math errors we found in the pages of the Compliance Report. These are solely errors in mathematical calculations, based on figures that the district used in its report. For example, page 13 charts the Masters Degree Plus Nine or More Years of Experience for elementary schools. In the 1999-2000 column, the numbers for Garland are 6/26 24% when 6 is actually 23% of 26. Most of the math errors we found were minor, but some are significant. For example, page 27, last paragraph, 6' line: The report claims that 66% of the districts African-American students participated in a co-curricular activity during the 1999-00 school year. The correct calculation is between 46% and 48%, depending on which enrollment numbers the district used to arrive at 62% as the corresponding proportion of African-Americans who participated in extracurricular activities, which is cited in the paragraph at the top of page 27. We have not catalogued any other errors we may have found in the report, such as a chart that erroneously lists a school as closed in a year when the building was actually open, inconsistencies among charts, or discrepancies between what a chart shows and what the accompanying narrative asserts. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Marshall Enc. cc: All Counsel of Record Dr. Ken James . ^4 Math Errors Found by ODM in LRSDs March 15, 2001 Compliance Report 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. 8. 9. Page 7, bottom chart, 1997, Percent A-A Page 13, bottom chart. Garland, 1999-2000 Page 13, top of page. Rockefeller, 1" column Page 13, bottom chart, ACC-Metro, 1998-99 Page 17, bottom chart, 1996-97 Page 17, bottom chart, 1998-99 Page 22, middle chart, 1998-99 Percents, White Females Page 22, middle chart, 1998-99 Percents, Other Females Page 22, middle chart, 1999-2000 Percents, Other Females 10. Page 22, middle chart, 2000-01 Percents, White Males 11. Page 24, 1* paragraph, 3"* line 12. Page 27, last paragraph, 6* line 13. Page 27, last paragraph, b* line 14. Page 40, bottom row, 2000-2001, Other 15. Page 40, bottom row, 2000-2001, Total 16. Page 40, 1 bullet, second line 17. Page 40, 2"** bullet, last line 18. Page 47, bottom row. Total 19. Page 47, bottom row. Total 20. Page 92, bottom row. Change 21. Page 93, bottom row. Change 22. Page 124, bottom row, 4"' column 23. Page 127, 2"* chart, 1999, Total 24. Page 129, 1 chart, 2000, Total 25. Page 129, 1* chart, Increases, Total 26. Page 129, 1* chart, % Change, Total 27. Page 132, 1 chart. All Students, % Change 28. Page 132, 1' chart. A-A Students, % Change 29. Page 145, ALC, 1999-2000, Total 30. Page 145, Totals, 1999-2000, Total 31. Page 146, ALC, 1997-98, D/0 32. Page 146, Total, 1997-98, D/0 33. Page 146, Total, 1999-2000, D/0 34. Page 146, Ft. Hgts., 1997-98 D/0 35. Page 146, Ft. Hgts., 1998-99, D/0 36. Page 146, Mann, 1998-99 D/0 37. Page 146, Pul. Hgt., 1997-98 D/0 38. Page 146, TOTAL, 1997-98 D/0 39. Page 146, TOTAL, 1999-00 Enr 40. Page 146, GRAND TOTAL, 1999-2000 Enr 41. Page 147, 1 paragraph, 4* line 42. Page 161, TOTALS, 1998-99 White 43. Page 161, 1" paragraph, 4* line 1 /in/ 1*4 0 O-xn/ Z*4 /O 00X1/ Zo /O er\n/ TZU 9 FL 7% -1% 1 on/ 1V / 0 1 /rn/ 1 0/0 ^on/ J V / o z-z-n/ 00 0 1 gn/ 1 3/0 . 1 gn/ 1 3/0 +5 +5 +22 ono/ oTTO 1 n ACi lo.4o F+tSO 669 1200 22 OTT 1 o 4 1 r\ 1 n/ IvO 7% J fyv 690 oz~ *400 /in/ *4/0 6% F% 3% 339 67323 12733F YH} 3
29e-
46+ eight 15% 23% 26% 58% 8 9 0 0 9% 18% 42% 46% to 48% 19% 18% 18 19 135 81% 18.49 11.81 577 1282 2220 1061 92% -7% -7% 277 795 38% 600 466 5% 4% 0 0 326 5,343 12,351 173 3,290,452 nineArxwwAc -fo e.1- JOHN W. Walker, RA. Attorney Ar Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, RA. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Hendebson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425 Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenrydi^wbell.net Via Facsimile: 324-2146 July 24, 2001 Dr. Kenneth James Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 received JUL 2 5 2001 Re: FOIA Office Of OSESKKfflONMONHOfflWe Dear Dr. James: This request is pursuant to the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act. Would you provide for review, inspection, and copying the responses received to the e-mail request dated July 12, 2001 from Dr. Lesley to members of the Cabinet for : the ways that ODM has been involved in our work- committees, reviews of materials, etc. By copy of this letter to Ms. Ann Marshall, we are asking that she allow us to inspect any documents that she has related to this request. We also intend to call Ms. Marshall as a witness on the good faith issue and her knowledge of the Districts implementation activities during the next hearing, if time permits. Please make all of these responses available to me by Friday, July 27, 2001 at 1:00 p. m. Sincerely, W. Walker cc: Ms. Ann Marshall JWW:fcJohn w. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKEE SHAWN CHILDS July 24, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHenry pa. DONNA J. McHENEY 8210 Hendeeson Road Little RocxAskansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425 Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mcheiiryd@swbell.iiet Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED JUL 2 5 2001 Re: LRSD Compliance Hearings OFHCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dear Chris
Please find enclosed ave been told that they did not exist, we shall ask the court for sanctions that Jumous Babbs lied, i.e., perjured himself many times. It appears that r I hope that this pattern of deception and misrepresentation does not up m your exhibit list after we It is already evident continue. it was with your advice. JWW
js Enclosure cc: Ms. Ann Marshall All Counsel of Record EXHIBIT LIST -Job description - Associate Superintendent for Desegregation -Job description - Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services -E-mails from J. Babbs desegregation folder provided by Clay Pendley on 7/18/2001 -E-mails to and from Junious Babbs provided by Clay Pendley on 7/18/01 -E-mails to and from Sadie Mitchell provided by Clay Pendley on 7/19/01 -Response from Dr. Bonnie Lesley dated July 20,2001 in response to POIA request dated 7/12/01 for test data and other data regarding Rightsell, Otter Creek, Pulaski Heights and Central -Response from Dr. Bonme Lesley dated 7/20/2001 in response to POLA request dated 7/12/01 for written instructions regarding the DRA and validation studies regarding DRA -Letter dated July 18, 2001 from Clay Pendley to Joy Springer regarding requests for information -Response to request dated June 13, 2001 requesting dis-aggregated summer school data for each of the last three years -Letter dated September 5, 2000 to Ray Simon from Brady Gadberry and Juniuos Babbs -Resource C: Standards from Programs Evaluation -Letter dated 6/26/01 from Dr. Bonme Lesley indicating that information regarding summer school should be obtained from School Services - Sadie Mitchells division -Letter dated 7/13/01 from Sadie Mitchell indicating that information regarding school should be obtained from Instruction - Dr. Bonnie Lesleys division summer -Letter dated November 16,2000 to Dr. Carnine from John Walker regarding Joshuas lack of participation in the development of program, policies and procedures -Memo dated 8/28/01 from Busbea and Preeman re: observation survey and DRA testing -Test results four (4) schools - Rightsell, Otter Creek, Pulaski Heights and Central -formats for reporting test results -Email dated 3/1/2001 from Dr. Lesley to Dr. Carnine-Letter dated 6/26/01 frora Dr. Lesley to Joy Springer -Letter dates 7/13/01 from Sadie Mitchell to Joy Springer -Email dated 8/23/99 from Bonnie Lesley to Associate Supts -Email dated 1/10/2000 re: Public Information Folder on compliance -Email dated 10/16/2000 from Babbs to Dr. Camine -Email dated 10/19/2000 from Dr. Lease to Babbs & Dr. Camine -Email dated 10/24/2000 from Dr. Ross to J. Babbs -Email dated 11/3/2000 from Babbs to Dr. Ross -Email dated 11/9/2000 from Babbs to Dr. Lesley -Email dated 11/19/200 and 11/18/2000 from Babbs to Dr. Lesley -Email dated 11/30/2000 from Dr. Camine to Babbs -Email dated 1/3/2001 from Lease to Camine -Email dated 1/11/2001 from Babbs to Lesley -Email dated 7/12/2001 from Lesley to Cabinet -Email dated 3/14/2001 from Babbs to Camine -Revised Desegregation Education Plan/Compliance Checklist -West Little Rock School -Letter dated 10/7/99 from Babbs to Compliance committee -Memo dated 4/20/99 from Babbs to Board -Parent Survey Results 1999-2000 -Letter dated 8/16/99 to Dr. Camine and othersE-mail dated 8/24/99 from Dr. Lesley to Compliance Committee members Arkansas Department of Education File regarding loan forgiveness Exhibits included by Little Rock School District on their exhibit listJOSHUA WITNESS LIST AUGUST 1-2, 2001 1. Dr. Leslie Camine 2. Sadie Mitchell 3. Dr. Bonnie Lesley 4. James Washington 5. Dr. Linda Watson Joshua also reserves the right to call the witnesses listed by Little Rock School District4 Friday Eldredge & Clark HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1932-1994) WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. BYRON M. eiSEMAN. JR.. P.A. JOE D. BELL. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR.. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM III, P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL ID. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P A. BARRY E. COPLIN. F.A. RICHARD D TAYLOR. P A JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT 5. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN HI. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. M GAYLE CORLEY. P A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR.. P.A. J. LEE BROWN. F.A. JAMES C BAKER. JR.. P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.fridayfirm.corn 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 HARRY LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P A. PRICE C GARDNER. P.A. TONIA P. JONES. P.A. DAVID D. WILSON. P A. 237 EAST MILLSAP. SUITE 7 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72703 TELEPHONE 501-695-2011 FAX 501-695-2147 JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. DAVID M. GRAF. P.A. CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P.A. JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR.. P A. JONANN ELIZABETH CONIGLIO. P.A. R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.A. GREGORY D. TAYLOR. P.A. TONY L. WILCOX. P.A, FRAN C. HICKMAN. P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY. P.A. LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W SMITH. P.A. CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT. P.A DANIEL L. HERRINGTON. P.A MARVIN L. CHILDERS K. COLEMAN WESTBROOK. JR. ALLISON J. CORNWELL ELLEN M. OWENS JASON B. HENDREN BRUCE B TIDWELL MICHAEL E. KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH P. MCKAY ALEXANDRA A. IFRAH JAY T. TAYLOR MARTIN KASTEN BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH G. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR KAREN S. HALBERT SARAH M. COTTON orCOUKSEL B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. AD. MCALLISTER 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-762-2698 FAX 870-762-2918 JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL 501-370-3323 FAX 501-244-5341 fndl*yQfc.ntt Via Hand Delivery Mr. John W. Walker Attorney at Law 1723 South Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 RE: LRSD V. PCSSD Dear Mr. Walker: July 24, 2001 RECEIVED JUL 2 5 2001 OmCEGF DESffiRESAnOHMGWnDfWS Enclosed please LRSDs Witness and Exhibit Lists for the August 1-2,2001, hearing. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, John C. Pendley, Jr. JCF/jm Enclosurescc w/enc.
Ms. Ann Marshall Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Samuel Jones Ms. Sammye Taylor Mr. Steve Jones Dr. Ken JamesLRSD WITNESS LIST FOR AUGUST 1-2, 2001 1. Dr. Bonnie Lesley 2. Sadie Mitchell 3. Dr. Leslie V. Camine 4. Dr. Linda Watson 5. James Washington 6. Jo Evelyn Elston LRSD would also reserve the right to call any witness listed by Joshua and to call witnesses solely for the purpose of rebuttal. H EB BQ LRSD EXHIBIT LIST FOR AUGUST 1-2,2001 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Summary of Assessment/Evaluation Activities by LRSD Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to elementary principals, Oct. 20, 1998, providing information on Smart Start training on standards, assessments, and accountability Copy of handout from ADEs training for educators on Smart Start: Higher Student Achievement through Standards and Performance Assessment, fall 1998 Plan and Process Alignment for Improved Student Achievement, Little Rock School District (Matrix showing relationship of various required plans to District processes), created fall 1998 Invitation to meeting on Systemic Planning Session for Assessment and Program Evaluation, May 18, 1999 Agenda for Assessment and Program Evaluation Work Session, May 18, 1999 Portfolio of Services of Division of Instruction, 1999-2000 Agenda for Division of Instruction, June 17, 1999 meeting
presentation on the LRSD Assessment Plan Memorandum in July 28, 1999, Learning Links with attached article on Changing the Entitlement Culture -emphasis on results rather than process. 10. LRSD Assessment Plan
Using Assessment to Enhance Student Achievement (PowerPoint presentation slides)presented to Board of Education in August 1999 11. Reading List prepared to distribute at the summer 2000 Campus Leadership Institute
section on Building and Maintaining Accountability Systems is about assessment and program evaluation 12. Transparencies used in July 19, 2000, Curriculum Day for principals, assistant principals, and brokers. 13. Notebook/handouts for July 19, 2000, Curriculum Dayfocus on quality management, data-driven decisions, and LRSD assessment programs 14. Memorandum in August 23, 2000, Learning Links with attached Primer on Assessment Literacy for distribution to Campus Leadership Teams 15. District Assessments: The Assessment Program for 2000-01 116. Memorandum to the Board of Education for July 26, 2001, agenda on Proposed Amendments to the Assessment Program Memorandum to elementary and junior high principals, Nov. 16, 1998, on schedule for picking up SAT9 testing materials 17. Memorandum to elementary school principals, Dec. 14, 1998, on procedures for upcoming administration of the criterion-referenced tests in reading and mathematics 18. Memorandum to elementary and junior high principals, Jan. 5, 1999, on the testing procedures for grades 4 and 8 ACTAAP Benchmark examinations 19. Memorandum to elementary and junior high principals and counselors, Jan. 26, 1999, on inservice schedule for test coordinators for the ACTAP Benchmarks for grades 4 and 8 20. Memorandum to selected administrators on Data Quality with attached paper written by Dr. Glynn Ligon 21. Memorandum to elementary principals, Aug. 17, 1999, relating to use of released items from Smart Start assessments 22. E-mail to curriculum staff, Aug. 23, 1999, relating to use of released items from Smart Start assessments 23. E-mail to elementary and middle school principals, Sept. 17, 1999, inviting them to an overview session on the new pre- and post-test Achievement Level Tests developed by Northwest Evaluation Association. 24. Memorandum in Sept. 22, 1999, Learning Links to principals identifying training needs to administer the Observation Survey and Developmental Reading Assessment 25. Memorandum to principals and K-2 teachers in March 15, 2000, Learning Links setting up an assessment training review for the Developmental Reading Assessment and Observation Survey 26. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley on Mar. 17, 2000, suggesting a resource on how to assess technology knowledge 27. Memorandum in Apr. 5, 2000, Learning Links to elementary and middle school principals and test coordinators on new information relating to ACTAAP Benchmark examinations in grades 4 and 8 and the field testing in grade 6. 28. Document entitled Description of the Assessment System prepared in April 2000 in response to a request from the National Science Foundationrelating to the assessment of mathematics and science 229. Document entitled Procedures for Providing Data Analysis/Interpretation to Decision Makers prepared in April 2000 in response to a request from the National Science Foundationrelating to the assessment of mathematics and science 30. Document entitled Orientation to the Analysis and Interpretation of Test Results prepared in April 2000 in response to a request from the National Science Foundationrelating to the assessment of mathematics and science. 31. E-mail to Kathy Lease, May 23, 2000, providing feedback to proposed survey of middle school students and teachers. 32. E-mail to principals, Aug. 25, 2000, providing information on upcoming administration of the Achievement Level Tests in September. 33. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Aug. 31, 2000, providing information on new middle school report card 34. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Aug. 31, 2000, providing copy of new middle school report card report 35. Memorandum from Linda Austin to Marian Lacey providing Middle School Report Card Update 36. E-mail to middle school principals, Jan. 3, 2000, setting up training for teachers on how to administer the State Benchmark examinations 37. Memorandum to Division of Instruction, Feb. 1, 2000, setting agenda for Feb. 2 meeting, includes information on the District Assessment Plan 38. E-mail to elementary principals, Feb. 1, 2000, providing information on the use of calculators on Benchmark examinations 39. E-mail to principals, Feb. 3, 2000, providing copy of assessment schedule/matrix to distribute to teachers 40. Document prepared in fall 1999 by PRE on Achievement Level Tests: Assessments that Make a Difference 41. Memorandum to all principals and test coordinators, Mar. 17, 2000, establishing training sessions for the administration of the Benchmark and end-of-course examinations 42, Memorandum in Apr. 5, 2000, Learning Links to high school principals and test coordinators providing new information from ADE on the end-of-course literacy examination 343. E-mail to Kathy Lease and Les Carnine, Apr. 7, 2000, providing rationale for adding science assessments to the Achievement Level Tests 44. Memorandum in Aug. 30, 2000, Learning Links to elementary principals and K-2 teachers including pre-testing instructions for the Observation Survey and Developmental Reading Assessment 45. Memorandum in Aug. 30, 2000, Learning Links to all principals and test coordinators establishing inservice schedule for administration of the SAT9 and ALTs 46. Memorandum in Sept. 8, 2000, Learning Links to elementary principals relating to K- 2 assessment and the importance of the language arts instructional block 47. Memorandum in Sept. 27, 2000, Learning Links to elementary and middle school principals relating to the administration of the end-of-module tests in mathematics and the end-of-unit tests in science 48. Memorandum in Sept. 26, 2000, Learning Links to elementary principals relating to instructions to complete the Observation Survey and Developmental Reading Assessment 49. Memorandum to principals, Oct. 13, 2000, requesting feedback through a survey for consideration by the Assessment Focus Group
copy of survey attached 50. Memorandum to principals, Feb. 13, 2001, with information on the administration of the climate surveys for parents, teachers, students, and administrators 51. E-mail, Feb. 26, 2001, relating to administration of surveys for the Extended Year Education school evaluation 52. E-mail to curriculum directors, Feb. 27, 2001, relating to discussion of the potential purchase of an electronic curriculum/assessment management system 53. E-mail to principals and selected others on Mar. 1, 2001, relating to an information session on ALT online testing 54. E-mail to principals. Mar. 1, 2001, providing spring testing schedule for elementary, middle, and high schools 55. E-mail to Les Carnine, Mar. 8, 2001, providing outline of PRE responsibilities for Dr. James, incoming superintendent 56. Memorandum to elementary principals. Mar. 14, 2001, providing information on end- of-module mathematics criterion-referenced tests 457. E-mail between various staff. Mar. 14-15, 2001, relating to analysis of results of mathematics and science criterion-referenced tests 58. Document entitled Mathematics, Reading, and Language Achievement Tests
Administration Guide prepared by PRE for use in training sessions for the ALTs, 2000-01 59. Memorandum to elementary principals and teachers in Feb. 3, 1999, Learning Links. attaching the results for the second quarter reading and mathematics CRTs 60. Memorandum to Les Camine, June 1, 1999, providing status report on the development of the Quality Index and reporting on recommendations of Dr. Steve Ross relating to the assessment program 61. E-mail to Cabinet, Sept. 28, 1999, providing preview of grade 8 Benchmark examination results 62. E-mail to middle school principals, Oct. 8, 1999, relating to dissemination of Benchmark results 63. E-mail between Lucy Neal and Kathy Lease, Oct. 28-Nov. 2, 1999, relating to need for SAT9 scores to evaluate Title VI 64. Memorandum to Judy Milam, Nov. 4, 1999, requesting report on quarterly SFA assessments 65. Memorandum to Kathy Lease, Nov. 4, 1999, requesting report on DRA results for fall 66. E-mail to Kathy Lease, Dec. 3, 1999, advising her of Dr. Camines request for results of climate surveys 67. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Apr. 3, 2000, with report on Advanced Placement scores 68. Memorandum to principals in Apr. 5, 2000, Learning Links providing information on packets being sent to schools on ALT results 69. E-mail to John Ruflfins and Kathy Lease, Apr. 12, 2000, requesting course enrollment data for NSF report 70. Memorandum to principals and teachers in Apr. 26, 2000, Learning Links with comparisons of second quarter CRT results for 1998-99 and 1999-2000 71. E-mail to Diane Barksdale, Apr. 19, 2000, providing feedback on ALT scores 72. Memorandum to all principals in May 10, 2000, Learning Links providing information about a data interpretation workshop to be conducted by NWEA staff 573. Memorandum to counselors and ALT coordinators in May 10, 2000, Learning Links providing information about a data interpretation workshop to be conducted by NWEA staff 74. Memorandum to professional staff of Division of Instruction in May 10, 2000, Learning Links providing information about a data interpretation workshop to be conducted by NWEA staff 75. E-mail to Dennis Glasgow and Ed Williams, May 15, 2000, requesting a special report on the middle school ALT mathematics scores 76. E-mail to SFA principals. May 23, 2000, relating to training for SFA schools for improved academic achievement 77. E-mail to Virginia Johnson, May 19-23, 2000, relating to data collections for NSF evaluations and results of middle school student survey 78. E-mail to elementary principals, June 1, 2000, relating to results of 1999-2000 Developmental Reading Assessment 79. E-mail to Kathy Lease, June 7, 2000, requesting report on Science ALTs 80. E-mail to Virginia Johnson and Ed Williams, June 7, 2000, relating to data requests from Dr. Gamine 81. E-mail to Kathy Lease, June 7, 2000, requesting results of middle school student survey 82. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, June 23, 2000, requesting interpretation of DRA results 83. E-mail to Les Gamine, July 7, 2000, providing information on interpretation of DRA results 84. E-mail to Kathy Lease, Ed Williams, and Linda Austin, July 13, 2000, requesting data for Southwest Education Development Lab relating to implementation of the Collaborative Action Team 85. E-mail to Sadie Mitchell and Frances Cawthon Jones, July 14, 2000, relating to DRA interpretations 86. E-mail to Pat Busbea, Patricia Price, and Ed Williams, July 14, 2000, relating to interpretation of DRA results
attached document defines proficient 87. E-mail to Patricia Price and Pat Busbea, July 17, 2000, requesting correlation of teacher participation in ELLA training and student achievement 688. E-mail to elementary staff, July 21, 2000, attaching copy of presentation slides to the Campus Leadership Institute on DRA results 89. E-mail to Leon Adams, July 28, 2000, providing rationale from Mitchell Academy for the abandonment of Success for All, based on data analysis 90. E-mail to selected SFA principals, Aug. 8, 2000, with report on achievement of SFA schools as compared to others and with suggestions on possible abandonment of SFA based on data analysis 91. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Aug. 9, 2000, from Freddie Fields relating to possible modification of SFA and requesting ELLA training, based on data analysis 92. E-mail to Kathy Lease, Sept. 14, 2000, from Linda Austin requesting copy of LRSD Assessment Notebook 93. Memorandum to curriculum division, Oct. 25, 2000, announcing available reports on grades 4 and 8 Benchmark examinations 94. Memorandum to Board of Directors, Oct. 25, 2000, announcing available reports on grades 4 and 8 Benchmarks 95. Memorandum to Cabinet, Oct. 25, 2000, announcing available reports on grades 4 and 8 Benchmarks 96. Memoranda to selected principals, Nov. 3, 2000, congratulating them for achievement on grade 4 Benchmarks 97. E-mail to Kathy Lease, Nov. 6, 2000, requesting several sets of data to include in Compliance Report 98. E-mail to Patricia Price and Dennis Glasgow, Nov. 8, 2000, attaching spreadsheets on Benchmark data by SES status 99. E-mail to Kathy Lease from Tara Adams, Jan. 17, 2001, requesting information on interpretation of the ALT results 100. E-mail to principals and cabinet, Jan. 17, 2001, with attached reports on SAT9 scores, five-year comparison
SAT9, three-year comparison
and SAT9 quartile report. 101. E-mail to principals. May 30, 2000, with attached sample letter to parents that can accompany the ALT results 7102. Document entitled Identified Issues from Data/Attendance Focus Group prepared by PRE 103. Group Document entitled Assessment Window prepared with advice from Focus 104. Document entitled Assessment Advisory Committee, 2000-01 with names of advisory committee members 105. Copies of PowerPoint presentation to Board of Education, Nov. 16, 2000: A Quick Look at the 4* Grade Benchmark Exam and a Preview of the SAT-9 106. E-mail to Steve Ross, Nov. 20, 2000, including feedback to a draft plan he had written relating to Ioan forgiveness 107. E-mail to principals and Cabinet, Nov. 29, 2000, with information on how to access test data on the ADE web page 108. Memorandum to IRC Staff, Dec. 1, 2000, relating to available SAT9 and Benchmark reports 109. Memorandum to middle school principals, Dec. 11, 2000, attaching reports on assignments of eighth graders to high schools 110. E-mail to SFA principals and facilitators, Feb. 23, 2001, announcing training on the SFA Student Data Base 111. E-mail to Virginia Johnson, Mar. 14, 2001, relating to analysis of end-of-module test results 112. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Apr. 23, 2001, with attached information on the Duke Talent Search 113. E-mail to middle school principals, June 29, 2001, reminding them of information sent to them earlier about how to access test data on the ADE web site 114. E-mail to principals, June 29, 2001, attaching copies of DRA test results 115. Memorandum to Division of Instruction staff and others, Nov. 15, 1999, providing information on new requirements from the state on a personalized education plan, appointing a committee to develop a plan, and stating the committee charge 116. Memorandum to Board of Education, Aug. 24, 2000, requesting approval of the attached administrative regulations (IHBDA-R2) and review of other information 8117. E-mail to Dennis Glasgow, Patricia Price, and Suzi Davis, Sept. 15, 2000, requesting that they develop sample SAIPs for the teachers to use 118. Memorandum in Sept. 20, 2000, Learning Links to all principals from Bonnie Lesley stating a philosophy relating to the SAIPs 119. Memorandum in Sept. 20, 2000, Learning Links to elementary principals from Patricia Price clarifying the use of data in SAIPs and attaching sample SAIPs 120. Memorandum in Sept. 27, 2000, Learning Links to all middle school principals from Suzi Davis providing information on SAIPs and attaching sample SAIPs 121. Memorandum in Sept. 27, 2000, Learning Links to all middle school principals from Suzi Davis on how to use the SAtP form for parent conferencing 122. Memorandum in Sept. 27, 2000, Learning Links to middle school principals on how to use the SAIP form for middle school mathematics, how to use the ALT data to interpret need, and including a sample SAIP 123. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Sept. 21, 2000, from Lillie Carter expressing appreciation for the copy of the SALP philosophy and the sample SAIPs 124. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Sept. 27, 2000, from Eleanor Cox expressing appreciation for the SAIP philosophy and for the sample SAIPs 125. E-mail to middle school principals, Sept. 29, 2000, from Suzi Davis providing more assistance with SAIPs 126. Memorandum to Pat Price, Pat Busbea, and Ed Williams, Apr. 3, 2001, with attached document from Connecticut on interpretation of the DRA and use of that data with SAIPs 127. Memorandum to Division of Instruction, Dec. 3, 1998, with agenda for Dec. 9 meeting
includes reports on District-Level Curriculum Maps 128. Memorandum to Mona Briggs, July 16, 1999, with copy of a training notebook on curriculum mapping and with charge to put together a training program on curriculum mapping 129. Memorandum to Division of Instruction, Aug. 30, 1999, with agenda for Sept. 1 meeting
includes discussion led by Mona Briggs and Eddie McCoy on Curriculum Mapping Project 130. Memorandum in Nov. 9, 1999, Learning Links providing information on curriculum mapping with attached article 9131. Memorandum in Nov. 17, 1999, Learning Links to selected principals establishing training schedule for curriculum mapping training 132. Memorandum in Dec. 1, 1999, Learning Links to selected principals establishing training schedule for curriculum mapping 133. Memorandum in Jan. 12, 2000, Learning Links to selected principals establishing training schedule for curriculum mapping 134. E-mail to Mona Briggs, Eddie McCoy, and Kathy Lease, Jan. 18, 2000, requesting that they develop a plan for April inservice on curriculum mapping 135. Memorandum in Jan. 19, 2000, Learning Links to selected principals establishing training schedule for curriculum mapping 136. Memorandum in Feb. 16, 2000, Learning Links to selected principals establishing training schedule for curriculum mapping 137. E-mail, Feb. 15-17, 2000, relating to training for curriculum mapping trainers 138. Memorandum in Apr. 5, 2000, Learning Links to Brokers and IRC Specialists establishing training schedule on cuniculum mapping 139. E-mail to Mona Briggs and Marion Woods, Apr. 14, 2000, relating to additional curriculum mapping training 140. E-mail, Apr. 26~May 2, 2000, relating to plans for curriculum mapping 141. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, June 6, 2000, with information on curriculum mapping 142. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, June 6, 2000, relating to results of curriculum mapping training 143. Memorandum to designated principals from Mona Briggs, Aug. 23, 1999, providing information on standards for accreditation from ADE 144. Memorandum to elementary staff, Jan. 20, 1999, relating to an ADE evaluation of Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) 145. Memorandum to Kathy Lease and Ed Williams, June 29, 1999, on program evaluation with attached articles on qualitative research and an example of a research report from Austin ISD by Glynn Ligon 146. Memorandum to Division of Instruction, Feb. 1, 2000, with agenda relating to program implementation 10147. E-mail to Virginia Johnson and Debbie Milam, Feb. 4, 2000, suggesting a model for the evaluation of ViPS programs 148. Memorandum in March 15, 2000, Learning Link relating to progress made by schools implementing the ALT assessment program 149. Document from Kathy Leasecalendar of meetings with Dr. Steve Ross since March 15, 2000
attached planning document on program evaluation 150. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Mar. 24, 2000, providing information about a meeting with Dr. Steve Ross to discuss the middle school evaluation 151. E-mail to Kathy Lease, May 23, 2000, providing feedback on proposed middle school student survey 152. E-mail to Bonnie Lesley, Marian Lacey, and Sadie Mitchell, June 12, 2000, from Les Camine requesting information about the middle school evaluation 153. E-mail from Steve Ross to Kathy Lease, June 27, 2000, with attached design notes for Title I/Elementary Literacy Program Evaluation 154. E-mail from Kathy Lease to her staff, Aug. 6, 2000, requesting them to place the memorandum and program evaluations on the Board agenda 155. E-mail from Kathy Lease to Les Camine, Aug. 10, 2000, providing copies of drafts of the ESL and middle school evaluations, then his questions and her answers. 156. Memorandum to Board of Education, Aug. 24, 2000, from Kathy Lease presenting the program evaluations: Title 1/Elementary Literacy, LRCPMSA (mathematics and science), English as a Second Language, and Middle School Transition and Program Implementation. Attached is her PowerPoint presentation
Program Evaluation. 157. E-mail from Steve Ross to Les Camine, Sept. 7, 2000, giving his feedback to the program evaluation reports. 158. E-mail from Debbie Milam to Cabinet members, Sept. 20, 2000, requesting permission to conduct interviews of parents on the subject of parental involvement. 159. E-mail from Kathy Lease to staff, Oct. 11, 2000, advising them of an upcoming meeting with Dr. Steve Ross related to program evaluation 160. E-mail from Virginia Johnson to Bonnie Lesley and Vanessa Cleaver, Oct. 20, 2000, relating to our required participation in an evaluation study conducted by the National Science Foundation 11161. Memorandum to Gene Jones, ODM, from Kathy Lease, Oct. 27, 2000, inviting him to an intensive work session with Dr. Steve Ross on program evaluation 162. Document prepared by PRE in November 2000 that lists Additional Programs and Strategies Requesting Evaluation 163. E-mail to Cabinet members from Kathy Lease, Nov. 28, 2000, attaching Dr. Steve Ross planned presentation to the Board of Education on Using Evaluation for Program Improvement: Lessons Learned 164. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to Virginia Johnson, Jan. 2, 2001, setting up a meeting to finalize CPMSA program evaluation plan 165. E-mail from Virginia Johnson to Bonnie Lesley, Jan. 3, 2001, attaching her tentative plan 166. E-mail from Kathy Lease to Les Carnine and Junious Babbs, Jan. 5, 2001, providing information relating to outsourcing program evaluations to Dr. John Nunnery 167. E-mail from/to Virginia Johnson, Jan. 5-20, 2000, relating to submission of Core Data Elements to the National Science Foundation 168. E-mail from/to Virginia Johnson, Apr. 14-16, 2000, relating to CPMSA program evaluation issues 169. E-mail from Kathy Lease to Les Carnine, Jan. 22, 2001, attaching a draft of the work from Dr. John Nunnery 170. Memorandum (one of several) from Kathy Lease, Jan. 24, 2001, inviting participants to the first meeting of the Research Committee 171. Memorandum from Kathy Lease to John Walker, Jan. 24, 2001, inviting him to participate in first meeting of Research Committee 172. Agenda for Feb. 5, 2001, meeting of the Research Committee and sign-in sheet 173. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to Eddie McCoy, Ed Williams, and Karen Broadnax, Feb. 16, 2001, to set up a meeting to discuss ESL program evaluation 174. Memorandum from Kathy Lease to Research Committee setting up Feb. 26, 2001, meeting 175. Agenda for Feb. 26, 2001, Research Committee meeting and sign-in sheet 12176. 2001 Invoice from Dr. John Nunnery to LRSD for services rendered, February-March 177. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to CPMSA staff, Feb. 21, 2001, setting up a meeting to discuss the CPMSA program evaluation 178. E-mail from Virginia Johnson to Bonnie Lesley, March 14, 2001, providing updates 179. E-mail to middle school staff from Bonnie Lesley, Mar, 15, 2001, summarizing a meeting to plan for a Middle School Team Leaders Institute, including recognition of need to train team leaders on assessment and using data 180. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to CPMSA staff. Mar. 19, 2001, setting up follow-up meeting to discuss CPMSA program evaluation 181. Memorandum to Carnegie Management Team, March 20, 2001, from Bonnie Lesley with information about counseling program and need for a program evaluation 182. Memorandum from Kathy Lease to Research Committee, Apr. 16, 2001, setting up next meeting on summer school evaluation and program evaluation for the National Science Foundation grant 183. Sign-in sheet for Apr. 23, 2001, meeting of the Research Committee 184. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to Dennis Glasgow, Suzi Davis, and Laura Beth Arnold, April 17, 2001, to discuss program evaluation for Element 5 of the Safe Schools/ Healthy Students project 185. E-mail from Virginia Johnson to Bonnie Lesley, Apr. 18, 2001, relating to next steps in providing information about SAT9 item analyses for teachers 186. E-mail from Mona Briggs to Bonnie Lesley, Apr. 25,2001, relating to survey needs for national evaluation of Safe Schools/ Healthy Students project 187. E-mail from Dennis Glasgow to elementary and middle school staff, Apr. 26, 2001, summarizing a large scale study that links classroom practices to student achievement in mathematics 188. E-mail among team working on CPMSA program evaluation, Apr. 18-May 2, 2001, relating to model for program evaluation and data analysis 189. E-mail from Kathy Lease to Research Committee, May 2, 2001, with attached latest version of the Guidelines for Program Evaluations 190. Agenda for May 7, 2001, meeting of the Research Committee and sign-in sheet 13191. E-mail from Don Crary to Bonnie Lesley, May 24, 2001, announcing that a program evaluator had been hired by New Futures to conduct the program evaluation for Safe Schools/ Healthy Students 192. E-mail from Kathy Lease to Research Committee with attached memorandum relating to ne?d meeting on June 11, 2001 193. Agenda for June 11, 2001, meeting of the Research Committee and sign-in sheet 194. E-mail from Junious Babbs to Bonnie Lesley, June 12, 2001, relating to information on program evaluation 195. E-mail from Kathy Lease to Compliance Team, June 14, 2001, with an outline of a plan for the completion of the Middle School Evaluation 196. E-mail from Kathy Lease to Research Committee, June 14, 2001, attaching a copy of final draft of Dr. Nunnerys evaluation of the mathematics/science programs 197. E-mail from Dennis Glasgow to Ed Williams, July 3, 2001, requesting additional ALT reports 198. E-mail from Vanessa Cleaver to others working on CPMSA program evaluation, July 10, 2001, requesting help in publishing a three-year progress report on the CPMSA 199. PreK-3 Literacy Plan (with needs assessment, see pp. 12-26), June 1999 200. Memorandum to Board of Education from Bonnie Lesley, June 24, 1999, requesting their review of the proposed PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan 201. Report on Level of ELLA training for K-2 teachers, May 10, 2000 202. Definition of Proficient for the Developmental Reading Assessment, K-2, May 2000 203. Report on Spring 2000 Developmental Reading Assessment, Percent At or Above Readiness 204. Correlation StudyAmount of Training Hours and Student Achievement on the Developmental Reading Assessment, Spring 2000 205. Correlation StudyMultiple Comparisons of Effect of Four Approaches to Literacy Development, Spring 2000 206. Executive Summary, Title I/Elementary Literacy Program Evaluation, July 2000 14207. Title I/Elementary Literacy Program Evaluation, August 2000 208. 2000 Updated Draft of Title I/PreK-3 Literacy Plan Program Evaluation, December 209. 2001 Progress Report on Elementary Literacy Plan to Board of Education, January 210. Update on Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan, June 2001, presented to Board of Education 211. Copies of slide presentation to Board of Education on PreK-3 Literacy Program, June 2001 212. E-mail to principals and Division of Instruction from Bonnie Lesley, June 29, 2001, attaching copies of the formal Update on Implementation of the PreK-3 Literacy Program Plan to the Board of Education, plus the Highlights documents, and a copy of the presentation slides. 213. E-mail to elementary principals and other staff from Bonnie Lesley, June 29, 2001, attaching tables of DRA results by middle school feeder pattern. 214. Evaluation of Success for All Programs, Little Rock School District, Year 1: 1997-98 by Steve Ross, Mary McNelis, Tracey Lewis, and Steve Loomis, University ofMemphis 215. Evaluation of Success for All Program, Little Rock School District, Year 2: 1998-99 by Weipling Want and Steven Ross, University of Memphis, July 1999 216. Memorandum to elementary principals from Bonnie Lesley in Sept. 1, 1999, Learning Links, assigning supervision of the Success for All program in the Division of Instruction for greater effectiveness 217. Memorandum to Kathy Lease from Bonnie Lesley, Mar. 31, 1999, attaching a copy of a contract for the evaluation of the Success for All program 218. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to selected SFA staff, Oct. 8, 1999, setting up training on Success for All 219. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to SFA principals, Nov. 11, 1999, providing to them copies of their contracts with the University of Memphis for SFA services 220. Memorandum from Bonnie Lesley to SFA principals, Nov. 15, 1999, providing them a study on SFA effectiveness
attached article, Success for All: A Summary of Evaluations, by Jeanne Weiler, ERIC. 15221. E-mail from Bonnie Lesley to selected SFA principals, Aug. 8, 2000, suggesting that data analysis indicates SFA not being effective in their schools
attached tables. 222. Report on Success for All Inservice activities, 1999-2000 School Year 223. Reports from eight-week assessments in Success for All schools, 1999-2000. 224. Success for All Implementation Report for December 1, 1999 (site visit reports from the University of Memphis that are done twice annually) 225. Success for All Implementation Reports for Spring 2001 (site visit reports from the University of Memphis that are done twice annually) 226. Executive Summary, English as a Second Language Program Evaluation, July 2000 227. English as a Second Language Program Evaluation (submitted to Office of Civil Rights), October 2000Proposal to National Science Foundation, Aug. 1, 1998, to fund Collaborative Partnerships in Mathematics and Science Achievement (see pp. 2-4 for needs assessment). 228. Management Plan for Year One, 1998-99, CPMSA (based on proposal for funding to the National Science Foundation. 229. 1999-2000 Strategic Plan, CPMSA (based on data analysis and decisions about next steps) 230. September 2000February 2002 Strategic Plan, CPMSA (based on data analysis and decisions about next steps) 231. September 1, 2000August 31, 2003 Strategic Plan, CPMSA (based on data analysis and decisions about next steps) 232. Revised Three-Year Strategic Plan, April 11, 2001, CPMSA (based on data analysis and decisions about next steps) 233. Annual Progress Report, 1998-99, submitted to the National Science Foundation. 234. Letter from National Science Foundation to Dr. Les Carnine, May 20, 1999, with follow-up report to Site Visit of April 27-29, 1999. 235. Document prepared for December 3, 1999, Site Visit: Relationship of CPMSA Goals and LRSD Quality Indicators 236. Agenda for NSF Site Visit, December 3, 1999 16237. Letter from National Science Foundation to Dr. Les Camine, January 24, 2000, with follow-up report to Site Visit of December 1-3, 1999. 238. Annual Progress Report, 1999-2000, submitted to the National Science Foundation. 239. Copy of slide presentation to the National Science Foundation Site Visit team. December 1-3, 1999. 240. Letter from National Science Foundation to Dr. Les Camine, January 16, 2001, with follow-up report to Site Visit of December 6-8, 2000. 241. Copy of slide presentation to Board of Education relating to CPMSA progress. January 2001. 242. Copy of slide presentation to the National Science Foundation Midpoint Review (reverse site visit) in Washington, DC, February 5, 2001. 243. Letter from National Science Foundation to Dr. Les Camine, March 15, 2001, with follow-up report on Midpoint Review presentation in Washington, DC (reverse site visit) of February 5, 2001. 244. Systemic Initiatives Core Data Elements, 1998-99: Results for Little Rock, report submitted to the National Science Foundation relating to implementation of new mathematics/science programs 245. Systemic Initiatives Core Data Elements, 1999-2000: Results for Little Rock, report submitted to the National Science Foundation relating to implementation of new mathematics/science programs 246. Program EvaluationSigns of Success: Trends in Mathematics and Science Student Performance, 1997-98 and 1999-2000, report submitted by CPMSA Program Evaluator to project staff. 247. Program EvaluationBenchmark ExaminationOpen Response Mathematics Items: Student Outcomes of a Targeted Initiative with 4* Grade Students, 1998-99. 248. Program EvaluationACTAAP Benchmark Examination Mathematics Results, Grades 4 and 8, 1997-98 to 2000-01. 249. Program EvaluationDistrict Criterion Referenced Tests (CRTs), Higher-Level Mathematics and Science, 3^^ Quarter, 2000-01 250. Program EvaluationStanford Achievement Test, 9* Edition, Mathematics Results, 1997-98 to 2000-01. 17251. Program EvaluationStanford Achievement Test, 9* Edition, Science Reasoning Results, 1997-98 to 2000-01. 252. Program EvaluationAdvanced Placement Test: Mathematics Results, 1997-98 to 2000-01. 253. Program EvaluationAdvanced Placement Test
Science Results, 1997-98 to 2000-01. 254. Program EvaluationAmerican College Test Results for 8* Grade EXPLORE, 1997-98 to 2000-01. 255. Program EvaluationAmerican College Test Results for 10* Grade PLAN, 1997-98 to 2000-01. 256. Program EvaluationAmerican College Test Results for 12* Grade ACT Test, 1997-98 to 2000-01. 257. Program EvaluationCompre
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 Resoources.