6: da vvu > 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 December 22, 2002 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY. PA. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425 F.ax (501) 372-3428 Emul: mcheni'yd@swbell.net Michael E. Gans, Clerk U.S. Court of Appeals 111 South 10th Street St. Louis, MO 63102 Room 24.329 RECEIVED DEC 2 6 2002 Re: 02-3867 Little Rock School District V . Joshua Intervenors OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Dear Mr. Gans, This letter addresses several issues in connection with this appeal. Transcripts All transcripts needed for this appeal earlier for counsel's use in the District Court. had been prepared Method of Preparation of Appendix The parties will submit separate appendices. Designation of Record (Appellant) Joshua Intervenors' designation is attached to this letter. Statement of Issues (Appellant) Joshua Intervenors' statement of issues letter. is attached to this cc Chris Keller (LRSD) other counsel of record in the District Court Appeal No. Q2-3867 Little Rock School Dist. V . Joshua Intervenors date Joshua Intervenors' Designation of the Record (1.) docket entries for the period from January 1, 1998 to (2.) Exhibits 543 to 872 (end of list} (all exhibits are marked court exhibits) (3. ) Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement, March, 1989 (As Revised September 18, 1989) (4.) Joshua Opposition to Little Rock Compliance Report, 6-25- 01 (5. ) Order, 8-20-01 (6. ) Order 10-3-01 (7. ) Response by LRSD, 10-5-01 (8.) Order, 10-17-01 (item 3521) (9. ) Order, 11-13-01 (10.) Order, 11-13-Oi (11.) Order, 12-12-01 (12.) LRSD, Motion, Memorandum, and Statement of Facts Not in Dispute, 3-15-02 (13.) Order, 5-7-02 (14.) Order, 5-9-02 (15.) Order, 5-15-02 (16.) Joshua Intervenors' Opposition, 5-30-02 (17.) Order, 9-12-02 (18.) Order, 10-11-02 (19.) Order, 11-12-02(20.) Jotice of Appeal, 11-12-02 (21.) transcripts Substantive Hearings 7-5-01 7-6-01 8-1-01 8-2-01 11-19-01 11-20-01 7-22-02 7-23-02 7-24-02 Hearings on Procedural Matters 6-29-01 7-9-01 8-17-01 11-13-01 12-11-01 (22.) The Memorandum Opinion and Judgment, 9-13-02 and Order 10-11-02Appeal No. 02-3867 Little Rock School Dist. Joshua Intervenors V . Joshua Intervenors' Designation of Issues (1.) whether some of the District Court's findings of substantial compliance with the Revised Plan were induced by legal error in construing the Plan? (2. ) whether the district court made clearly erroneous findings of fact regarding student discipline, steps to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African American students, participation in extracurricular activities and advanced and enriched courses, guidance and counseling services, and plan compliance at Central High School? (3.) whether the Revised Plan required that the LRSD show progress in eliminating the racial achievement gap in order to establish substantial compliance with the Plan? (4.) whether in the course of assessing the LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan the District Court failed to employ monitoring by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) in the manner required by this Court in 1990? (5.) whether the District Court erred in holding the Joshua Intervenors to the requirement that they exhaust the Plan compliance remedies before they could contend that the LRSD did not substantially comply with a requirement of the Plan? (6.) whether the District Court erred in imposing anevidentiary burden on the Joshua Intervenors regarding the Joshua monitoring activities prior to March 15, 2001? Ir"' received JAN 1 0 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JAN 0 7 2003 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION By:. DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF CASE NO. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. LET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS NOTICE OF APPEAL The Joshua Intervenors give notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 3(a) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure with respect to Honorable William R. Wilson Jr.s order and the corresponding judgment, both entered herein on December 20, 2002. Respectfully submitted. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 ^n W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 501-374-3758 501-374-4187 Rickey H. Hicks Attorney At Law 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rock, AR 72207 501-663-9900 John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 received JAN 29 20D3 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS January 28, 2003 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENBY. P.A. DONNA J. McHenry 8210 Henderson Ro.w Little Rock, Ark.ws.^ 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425 F. (501) 372-3428 Email
mcheiiiyd@swbell.net Michael E. Gans, Clerk U.S. Court of Appeals 111 South IO* Street - Room 24.329 St. Louis, MO 63102 Re: 03-1147 Little Rock School District v. Joshua Intervenors Dear Mr. Gans: This letter addresses several issues in connection with this appeal. Transcripts All transcripts needed for this appeal were prepared earlier for counsels use in the District Court. Method of Preparation of Appendix The parties will submit separate appendices. Designation of Record (Appellant) Joshua Intervenors designation is attached to this letter. Statement of Issues f Appellant) Joshua Intervenors statement of issues is attached to this letter ,, --Sincerely I John W. Walker JWW:js cc
Chris Heller Other Counsel of Record Appeal No. 03-1147 Little Rock School District v. Joshua Intervenors Joshua Intervenors Designation of the Record (1) LRSD Petition for Writ of Mandamus, 8-22-87 (2) LRSD Brief In Support of Petition for Writ of Mandamus, 8-24-87 (3) Letter from William R. Wilson, Jr. to Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals, 9-8-87 (4) Response of the Honorable Henry Woods, United Sates District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to Petition for Writ of Mandamus (5) Motion for Hearing Regarding Relevance of 28 U.S.C. 455 to the Present Proceedings, 10-29-02 (6) Order Denying Motion for Hearing Regarding Relevance of 28 U.S.C. 455 to the Present Proceedings, 10-29-02 (7) Order, 11-12-02 (8) Motion for Recusal of District Judge and for Vacating of Orders, Ruling and Judgments, 11-25-02 (9) Memorandum from Hon. William R. Wilson, Jr. to Counsel, 11-26-02 (10) [LRSDs] Plaintiff s Response to Joshua Intervenors Motion for Vacating of Orders and Recusal, 11 -26-02 (11) Order, 12-20-02Appeal No. 03-1147 Little Rock School District v. Joshua Intervenors Joshua Intervenors Designation of Issues (I) Whether the District Court erred by holding that 28 U.S.C. Sec. 455(b)(2) did not require its recusal, in the light of his honor earlier appearance in the case as counsel while in private practice? (2) Whether the District Court erred by holding that it was not required to vacate the orders, opinions and judgments entered subsequent to its receiving this reassignment?United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Nos. 02-3867EA, 03-1147EA Little Rock School District, Appellee, V. Alexa Armstrong
Karlos Armstrong
Khayyam Davis
Alvin Hudson, Tatia Hudson, Lorene Joshua
Leslie Joshua
Stacy Joshua
Wayne Joshua
Sarah Facen
Derrick Miles
Janice Miles
John M. Miles
NAACP
Joyce Person
Brian Taylor
Hilton Taylor
Parsha Taylor
Robert Willingham
and Tonya Willingham, Appellants. ' * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * RECEIVED -3 2004 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 7 Submitted: September 11, 2003 Filed: March 2, 2004 Before WOLLMAN, HEANEY, and RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judge. !This case consolidates two appeals, both arising from the Little Rock School District's request for unitary status. First, the Joshua Intervenors' appeal from the District Court's^ denial of their Motion for Recusal of District Judge and Vacating of Orders, Rulings, and Judgments. We review a district court's denial of recusal for abuse of discretion. See In IS Hale, 980 F.2d 1176, 1178 (8th Cir. 1992)
United States y. Walker, 920 F.2d 513, 516 (Sth Cir. 1990). We conclude that Judge Wilsons representation of Judge Henry Woods at a much earlier stage of the case. and on far different issues, did not involve the same "matter in controversy" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. 455(b)(2)
thus, we affirm the denial of the Joshua Intervenors' Motion for Recusal. The Joshua Intervenors also appeal from the District Court's judgment granting the Little Rock School District (LRSD) partial unitary status. The Joshua Intervenors assert
(1) that the District Court erred by not requiring and considering additional reports from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM)
and (2) that the District Court's finding of substantial compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan was erroneous. We hold that the District Court did not err by failing to require new written reports from the ODM, and that the District Court's findings of fact are not clearly erroneous
thus, we affirm the grant of partial unitary status. Because the facts relevant to each issue on appeal are different, we address them separately. In Part I, we address the issue of disqualification. In Part II. ., we address whether the District Court should have required new written reports from the 'This group of school children and parents are, as a practical matter, the plaintiffs in the case at its present juncture. The Little Rock School District, which actually initiated the case in appeal. 1982, is effectively the defendant for purposes of this The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the m n, A -.1_________ Eastern District of Arkansas. -2-March 9, 2004 LETTER-ORDER Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. Clay Fendley 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard W. Floachell 11800 Pleasant Ridge Road Little Rock, AR 72222 Mr. Samuel Jones, III 200 West Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John Walker 1723 South Broadway LittIWIock, AR 72206 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr^S^hnis Hansen 1^1 Ce^r Street, Suite 1200 Llle Rock, AR 72201 Re
Little Rock School Districi 4:82CV00866 . Pul jTounty Special School, et al. Dear Counsel: As you know the September 11, lemorandum Order requires that the LRSD file a Compliance Report which documents its compliance with the obligations under 2.7.1 on or 15 fien, Joshua, or any other party, has thirty days (until April 15, 2004) within which to file objections to LRSD report. This missive is simply to notify all counsel that a request for any extension will likely be denied. If there are objections, they will be heard on April 26 and 27, 2004. Cordially, Wm, R, Wilson, Jr. cc: Original: The Honorable Thomas Ray Ms. Ann Marshall, ODM Mr. James W. McCormack, Clerk March 5, 2004IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. NOS. 02-3867 03-1147 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1,ETAL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO FILE BRIEF AND RELATED MATERIALS CiA cuIuIl. received MAR -7 2003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING APPELLEE DEFENDANTS APPELLANTS INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move for an order extending the time for the filing of their consolidated brief, addendum and appendix for 14 days (with corresponding adjustments to the other element's of the schedule). The basis for this motion is as follows: Joshua Intervenors lead counsel John W. Walker began a trial, as defense counsel in Case No. CR 00:40, United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, before the Honorable George Howard, Jr. on March 3, 2003. It appears that this trial will not conclude until March 14, 2003. Preparation for this trial and the trial have prevented lead counsel from working with co-counsel Robert Pressman, as well as Norman Chachkin, to complete the consolidated brief. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully pray that the Court grant the requested extension.Robert Pressman, Mass Bar No. 405900 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 (781) 862-1955 Respectfully submitted, Jmxn W~Walker, ARBar No. 64046 /OHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 374-3758 (501) 374-4187 (Fax) Rickey Hicks, AR Bar No. 89235 Attorney at Law Evergreen Place 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 (501)663-9900 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE prepaid to the following counsel of record, on this I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent bv fax and U.S. Mail, postage GdayofJIW^,2003: Mr. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Dennis R. Hansen Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Ai'kansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Marshall ODM One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3472 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL LAW FIRM 415 North McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas hhn W.^Walker(2^-- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION received MAR 1
2004 desegregation monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. l.ETAL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT COMPLIANCE REPORT Plaintiff Little Rock School District (LRSD) for its Compliance Report states: 1. On September 13,2002, the District Court issued its Order finding that the LRSD had I substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan), with the exception of Revised Plan 2.7.1. The Courts Order set forth a detailed Compliance Remedy as to Revised Plan 2.7.1. 2. On October 10, 2002, the LRSDs Board of Directors (Board) adopted a Compliance Plan designed to meet the requirements of the Courts Compliance Remedy. The LRSD filed the Compliance Plan with the Court on March 14, 2003, as Exhibit A to Plaintiffs Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Required By Paragraph C of the Courts Compliance Remedy. 3. Joshua initially raised concerns about the Board-approved Compliance Plan. The LRSD addressed these concerns in an October 25,2002 letter to counsel for Joshua, attached hereto Page 1 of 6as Exhibit A. Joshua invoked the Process for Raising Compliance Issues set for in Revised Plan 8.2, and the Joshua and the LRSD met with Ms. Ann Marshall to facilitate an agreement. The last meeting was February 28, 2003. At that meeting, the LRSD agreed to provide Joshua several documents. The last of these was mailed to Joshua on March 6, 2003. The parties never reached any agreement related to Joshuas concerns about the Board-approved Compliance Plan. Joshua waived any objections to the Board-approved Compliance Plan by failing to present them to the Court as required by Paragraph D of the Compliance Remedy. 4. The Board-approved Compliance Plan interpreted Paragraphs A and B of the Compliance Remedy as requiring the LRSD to: (1) continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04
(2) develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to Revised Plan 2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of Afiican-American students
(3) maintain written records of (a) the criteria used to evaluate each program, (b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs, and (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process
and (4) prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan 2.7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of Afiican-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. See Compliance Plan, p. 3. 5. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003- 04. Page 2 of 6To meet this requirement, the LRSD implemented the 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan. 6. Develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to 2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. The Board adopted regulation IL-Rl when it approved the Compliance Plan. Regulation IL- R1 set forth the written procedures for evaluating the 2.7 programs. 7. Maintain written records of (a) the criteria used to evaluate each program
(b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs
and (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process. Regulation IL-Rl outlined the criteria to be used to evaluate each program. As to the results of annual student assessments, the LRSD continues to maintain a computer database with the results of annual students assessments administered pursuant to the Board-approved assessment plan. Exhibit B attached hereto identified the members of each team. Exhibits C, D and E document informal modifications of the mathematics, elementary literacy and secondary literacy programs, respectively. 8. Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to 2,7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. The LRSD contracted with Dr. Steve Ross, an expert approved by Joshua, to prepare comprehensive evaluations of the Districts elementary and secondary literacy programs. These evaluations, combined in a single report, were completed and approved by the Board in November of 2003 and are attached hereto as Exhibit F. Dr. Don Wold, a program evaluator funded through I i Page 3 of 6a National Science Foundation (NSF) grant
Denrus Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction
and Vanessa Cleaver, Director of the NSF Grant, authored the comprehensive mathematics and science evaluation. The comprehensive mathematics and science evaluation was completed and approved by the Board in December 2003 and is attached hereto as Exhibit G. 9. The LRSD substantially complied with the Revised Plan and the Courts Compliance Remedy by implementation of the Board-approved Compliance Plan. 10. By letter dated January 12, 2004, copies of the comprehensive evaluations were provided to counsel for the Joshua Intervenors, and counsel was asked to advise the District of any questions or concerns about these evaluations. In a fax dated March 8, 2004, counsel for the Joshua Intervenors wrote: I have reviewed your evaluations and find that they are grossly inadequate and incomplete. In addition to that I am still awaiting the evaluations of the other remaining programs which were contemplated by our agreement. Because we have already invoked the process required by the court, I am putting ODM on notice of our position. The LRSD denies that it agreed to prepare evaluations other than those described in the Board- approved Compliance Plan. WHEREFORE, the LRSD submits the program evaluations as required by paragraphs A and B of the Courts Compliance Remedy. The LRSD prays that the Court find that the LRSD has substantially complied with Revised Plan 2.7.1, as specified in the Compliance Remedy
that the LRSD is unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations
and that it be released from all further supervision and monitoring of its desegregation efforts. I Respectfully Submitted, Page 4 of 6LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge & Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2OM---------- BYT Christopher Heller Page 5 of 6CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on March 12, 2004
Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Tim Gauger Mr. Mark A. Hagemeier Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Judge J. Thomas Ray U. S. District Courthouse 600 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 149 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Clayton Blackstock Mr. Mark Burnett 1010 W. Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 I Christodner Heller I Page 6 of 6 Friday Eldredge & Clark HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (im-IPM) WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR. P.A JOE D. BELL P.A JAMES A 8UTTRY. P.A FREDERICK S. URSERY, P.A OSCAR B. DAVIS. JR. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK JR. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A PAUL B. BENHAM IIL P.A LARRY W. BURKS. P.A A WYCKUFF NISBET. JR. P.A IAMBS EDWARD HARJUS. P.A I. PKILUP MALCOM. P.A 'AMES M. SIMPSON. P.A AMES U. SAXTON. P.A . SHEPHERD RUSSELL IIL P A. XJNALD H. BACON. P.A VILUAM THOMAS BAXTER P.A LICHARD D. 1A.YLOK. P.A OSBPH B. HURST, JR. P.A ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.^ CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. P.A MICHAELS. MOORE. P,A DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A WALTER M. EBEL 111. P.A. KEVIN CRASS. P.A WILLIAM A. WADDELL JR. P.A SCOTT J. LANCASTER P.A ROBERT B. BEACH. JR. P.A J. LEE BROWN. P.A JAMES C BAJCER JJL. P.A HARRY LIOHT. Pu SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A UY ALTON WADE. P.A PRICE C. GARDNER. P.A TONIA P. JONES. P.A. DAVID D. WILSON. P.A JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A DAVID M. ORAF. P.A ATTORNEYS AT LAW A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP www.frldayfinn.com 2000 REGIONS CENTER 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 FAX 501-376-2147 342S MORTH FUTRALL DRIVE. SUITE 103 FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72703*4811 TELEPHONE 470-895-2011 FAX 470-895-2147 CARLA GUNNELS SPAINHOUR. P.A JOHN C. FINDLEY. JR. P.A JONANN EUZABETH CONICUO. P.A R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON. P.A FRAN C. HICKMAN. P.A. BETTY J. DEMORY. P.A LYNDA M. JOHNSON. P.A. JAMES W. SMITH. P.A CLIFFORD 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 . KARNEY KELLY MURPHY MCQUEEN JOSEPH r. MCKA'f ALEXANDRA A JAY T. TAYLOR IFRAH MARTIN A. KASTEN 208 NORTH FIFTH STREET BLYTHEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72315 TELEPHONE 870-782-2898 FAX 870-782-2918 BRYAN W. DUKE JOSEPH C. NICHOLS ROBERT T. SMITH RYAN A. BOWMAN TIMOTHY C. EZELL T. MICHELLE ATOR Karen s. halbert SARAH M. COTTON PfflUP B. MONTGOMERY KRISTEN S. RIGGINS ALAN G. BRYAN LINDSEY MnCHAM SLOAN KHAYYAM M. EDDINGS JOHN P. PEISEJUCH AMANDA CAPPS ROSE BRANDON J. HARRISON OP COUNKL B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L TERRY WILLIAM L PATTON. JR H.T. f JOHN C ECHOLS. P.A. AD. MCALLISTER October 25,2002 JOHN C. FENOLEY. JR. LITTLE ROCK TEL SOI*370-3323 FAX 981.244-334*1 landlayQfac.ntt ( By Hand Delivery ) Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Bank of America Bldg. 200 West Cqjitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyon & Jones, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 ( By Hand Delivery ) Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Dennis Hanson Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE
Compliance Remedy Dear Counsel and Ms. Marshall: In our letter dated October 11,2002, we asked the parties to specifically identify in writing myperceived deficiency m the Board-approved Compliance Plan on or before Monday, October 21 9? October^ 1 n onno ^^^sed that Joshua would rely on the comments contained in Mr. Walkers October In ^2?? October 24, 2002, additional comments were received from Mr. Walker All of Mr. Walkers comments will be addressed in turn. - EXHIBIT AAll Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25,2002 Page 2 October 10, 2002 Facsimile 1. More consideration is needed of the programs to be identified as implementatfed] pursuant to Section 2.7 ..., which are to be subjected to comprehensive program evaluation. . Your document at page 7 identifies three areas. We note the absence of specific reference and detail regarding interventions/ scaffolding - areas of vital importance given the achievement patterns of African-American students. We note also that the LRSD compliance report cited many more programs as designed to fulfill Section 2.7. Mr. Pressman clarified this concern during our October 21, 2002 telephone conversation. Mr. Pressman explained that Joshua was concerned that interventions designed to assist low achieving students, for example SAIPs, were not being fully implemented and wanted------ some assurance that the comprehensive evaluations would assess implementation of these programs. program LI^D RESPONSfr On October 24,2002, the Board approved the Division ofinstructions Plan P^gSchools,acopy ofwhichis enclosed for your review. Under that plan, the LRSD will conduct cumculum, instruction and classroom management audits at lowperfor^g schools. Data gathered through these audits and other monitoring under the plan may be proi^am evaluation team to identify possible causes of poor performance, includine used by a implementation of interventions such n * Tr. - - ---------------------- as SAIPs. The LRSD lacks the resources to implement this lx,-. --------ivDUluvcb LU uiipicnieni uus plm at every^hool Approximately 10 schools will receive the full compliment of services outlined in the plan. Those 10 schools will be identified based on the priority system set forth in the plan. 2. to a iscussion pnor to his testimony in the hearing [before] Judge Wilson, we understood Dr. Ross to mdicate that the existing evaluation of the PreK-2 literacy program was not ^equate. The notation on page 4 of your document of the changed use of the Observation S^ey and the DRA relates to part of the concerns he expressed. This undermines the f evaluation, upon Board approval, will satisfy a part of the Courts remedy. LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this statement, Joshua objects to the LRSD considermg toe PreK-2 literacy evaluation to have been completed pursuant to Paragraph C of the omphmce Remedy. Attached are toe comments received by toe LRSD from Dr. Ross related that evaluation. As can be seen. Dr. Ross did not advise toe LRSD that toe evaluation , sense for toe LRSD to expend resources to have this evaluation completed by an outside expert while it also prepares to was of the same program with the assistance of an outside expert. anew, comprehensive evaluation iAll Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25,2002 Page 3 3. ^eLRSDdiscussionaboutsatisIyingthecourtsorderregardingtheevaluationsmentioned h comphance report does not seem to take account of e material provided wninh OT> -.-.I__J.'___ which describes an adequate evaluation. LRSD RESPONSE: As the LRSD understands this completing the evaluations identified on statement, Joshua objects to the LRSD not page 148 of the Final Compliance Report in a manngr District Court simply wants the LRSD to do what understands Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy^ the it said it did and complete the evaluations program evaluations as most prudent use of its limited true that those evaluations, even after being completed, may not be model envisioned by IL-Rl. The LRSD decided, however, that the iXTvrAfri^ to focus on the new, comprehensive evaluations' of programs desi^edto improve Afiican-Amencan achievement. 4. We question the period of implementation of a remedy which the therefore, the LRSD schedule. court has identified and, S'" between the LRSD Joshua related to implementation of the Compliance Remedy will the District Courts September 13,2002, Memorandum Opinion and not prejudice Joshuas appeal of October 24. 2002 Facsimile I I 1 I 1. In using historical student assignment results, attention should be data. In the past, LRSD has used results on given to the quality of e the [D]RA and the Observation Survey in ways ^-twithtepurposesofthoseinsmunen^^ ^res fothen- oto students, the past use made of the data was in conflict withthe dislticfs ^oS R=8ulation IL-Rl that Conflict of Interest" must be use all available data in its evaluations. . . . .. ^^^^^^P^gP^^^^ComplianceRemedyrequirestheLRSDtoiva:
ava
iauic m Its It will be the responsibility of the evaluation team to weigh the reliabilitv and ahdity of the available data. The Arkansas Department of Education ZZis .O dcennme whete smdenm are learning dre essential T curriculum. As to the integrity of the data from those LRSD monitored student scores assessments, the to show improvement. Moreover, the ultimate year-to-year to discourage teachers from inflating scores in an effort success of the LRSDs early literacy program willAll Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25,2002 Page 4 be judged by performance on the States Benchmark examinations, rather than the DRA Observation Surveys. 2. and We are concerned about the manner in which the regulation describes the team process for prep^g evaluations, again in the context of conflict of interest. In order to insure that conflict of mterest is avoided, the external consultant needs to write the report and control the -context of the analysis. Paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 of the Procedures do not guarantee that the external expert wiU have these roles. Of course if reports were prepared in the manner which we describe, there would be no bar to LRSD staff preparing comments to the Board with a differing interpretation of the evaluation results. LRSD RESPONSE: The LRSD rejects the implication that LRSD Program Evaluation personnel cannot be trusted to wnte an honest program evaluation. The LRSDs commitment to improving student achievement IS second to none. To fulfiU that commitment, it is in the LRSDs best interest to effectively evaluate ite progr^s.. The success of the programs and program evaluations will ultimately be measured by the State s Benchmark evaluations. All evaluation team members wiU be actively mvolved in the evaluation process and are expected to provide a check against the self-interest of any one teammember. The evaluation team WiU decide who writes the report basedon the expertise team members will be actively of te^ members. The outside expert will be asked to take to the Superintendent any concerns about the evaluation not bemg addressed by the evaluation team. The outside expert will also be asked to be present when the evaluation is presented to the Board so that the Board can be advised of any concerns the outside expert may have about the final evaluation. 3. We continue to be concerned about the global, general manner in which the content of planned evaluations is described (page 7 of the document, first paragraph). For example ^d has adopted a policy and two regulations dealing with remediation for students whose performance IS below par. Studying the actual implementation of these standards (in all or of schools) is of vital importance to the Intervenor class because . :so much more likely than other students to exhibit unsatisfactory class members are performance on the Benchmark and Stanford Achievement Tests. the whose A satisfactory description by e School Board of the evaluations which i, requires tire sufflo uud^e shortir^rZ mrplementation o(rentediatiort activities in district schools is to receive This is surely an important contextual factor (see Accuracy careful consideration. Standards, para. 2). LRSD RESPONSE
As the LRSD understands this comment, it is a restatement of the first number ?eZS ftere^ ** incorporates itsAll Counsel and Ms. Marshall October 25,2002 Page 5 4. We understand from the Plan that the LRSD plans evaluations of programs deemed partcularly directed to achievement of African-American students for the indefinite not simply for the penod necessary to satisfy the court. We would like to receive the Boards assurance that this is the case. LRSD RESPONSE: The Boards approval of IL-Rl was to be term, not limited to the term of the Compliance LL aner tne term nt the ' IL after the of Compliance Remedy, Conclusion The LRSD hopes that it has been able to address all of Joshua: o address aU of Joshuas concerns. If any party has y questions a^ut Ae LRSDs responses to Joshuas comments, we ask that those be submitted m wntmg, and the LRSD will nmmntlv _________ j>uuuuiiea writing, promptly provide a written response. LRSDs Compliance Plan, Joshua should noncompliance in accordance with Revised Plan 8- to Revised Plan 8.2.4, Joshua has 15 days of receipt of this letter to submit the issue to ODM for facilitation of an agreement. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, ohn C. Fendley, Jr. John 'endley, cc
Dr. Ken James (via hand-delivery)Elementary Literacy PROGRAM EVALUATION TEAMS Underwood, Director of Early Childhood and Elementary LiteracyTeam Leader Pat Busbea, Literacy Specialist Judy Teeter, Literacy Specialist Judy Milam,, Literacy Specialist Mehnda Crone, Literacy Specialist Ann Freeman, Literacy Specialist Dr. Ed Wilhams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator Secondary Literacy Suzi DavisDirector of Secondary English, Team Leader Sarah Schutte, Middle School Literacy Speciahst Dr. Karen Broadnax, Supervisor of ESL Eumce Smith, Supervisor, Special Education Dr. Mona Briggs, Safe Schools Grant Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator Mathematics and Science Vanessa CleayerTeam Leader Dennis Glasgow, Interim Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction I Marcelhne Carr Beth Clifford Annita Paul Dr. Ed Williams, statistician Ken Savage (technician) Dr. Don Wold, NSF Program Evaluator Dr. Steve Ross, External Program Evaluator EXHIBITProgram Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Elementary Mathematics 2001-02 An item analysis of 4* Grade Benchmark Data for 2000-01 -----------1 reveals that students geometry strand. (Note-Tne State Math Framework and NCTM National Standards for Mathematics contain 5 strands: number sense. geon^try, probability and statistics, algebra, and measurement.) The analysis of data from the Benchmark Exam consisted of identifying the strand of each item rankmg the items from highest to lowest, and looking for trends in the data. w^^^ O! the low performance on geometry items > > Train teachers to do item analyses for their own schools. Work with teachers to discern reasons why students struggled with the > specific geometry items (the released items were O- available for review). Develop strategies for mcreasing the focus on geometry in the elementary TTlnPm2)tlPC cnmnnbfTM mathematics curriculum. School by school analysis of 4 Grade Benchmark Data for 2000-01 (and prior years) revealed different levels of achievement by schools that demographic^ly similar. Classroom observations in these schools by elementary math/science lead teachers confirmed that the level of implementation of the cumculum was different from school to school. Schools with a mgner level of implementation were having higher student achievement man schools who were not imnlementino- tbp ('iirrienhim ot t i__i were implementing the curriculum at that high level. A program modification made based on uneven achievement at similar schools was to have principals identify a lead person in their schools to and sustained training to serve as receive intensive Support Personnel for LRSD). a coach for other teachers (See list of Math Sara Hogg, UALR Mathematics Specialist, was utilized to provide monthly coaches training so that additional implementation support would be available at each school. A variety of types of training has been provided by Ms. Hogg much of It directed at greater knowledge of strategies for implementing elementary mathematics curriculum. our Another program modification made as a result of uneven achievement schools was to begin a -------among process ofchanging the way professional development for .... o J p* wxwwoiwxxttl Ul/ V VlUUlilCIll IO_ teachers is stmctured. In the past most professional development for elementary ma&ematics has-been district-led (e.g., all third grade teachers go to a district-led trai^gon theS grade mathematics curriculum). The modification has been shift more focus on site-based professional development. The Lesson Study and Study Group approach was begun with elementary mathematics teachers allow them more responsibility and accountability for their own training needs to to - exhibit2002-03 pie same item analysis was completed for 2001-02 4* grade Benchmark Data. Tu analysis showed that students had gained in the area of geometry Tn6 InUZAcf ___________V-VJV..______J The lowest strands were probability and statistics, XXXV, XU,.,,, audiius were proDaoility and statistics, measurement, and algebra. Staff and teachers reviewed the LRSD elementary mathematics curriculum to determine if there was a correlation between extend to strand coverage in the curriculum and student performance on ose strands on the Benchmark Exam, ^e cumculum analysis revealed that there were some gaps in the curriculum that likely resulted m low performance on certain items on the exam. Staff and teachers worked over the summer of 2003 use the Benchmark data to determme the big ideas or concepts students need to have a deen nnHrfitanHiT,n . - concepts students need to have a deep understanding about m ^ades K-5. Using several years worth of data, grade level teams of teachers in grades 1-4 (see list of teachers who worked on curriculum revision) revised the mathematics standards and benchmarks according to the five strands State Framework. Kindergarten and fifth grade ^11 do siimlar work during the summer of2004. Curriculum resources in grades were aligned to those standards assessed most frequently on the exam. Supplemental curriculum resources were identified from several sources for use to broaden the scope of the cumculum at certain grade levels. Maril^ Bums and Associates materials, and other materials compiled into a notebook for use by teachers. Internet resources, were identified and Benchmark results show that district students generally perform less well open-response test items compared to the multiple choice items. * Program modifications based on this data were
> Developed packets of open-response items for teachers students. > Trained teachers to on the to use with score open-response items using a rubric. i --------------CLXLlL/llV. > Developed and administered District-developed end-of-quarter semester exams that included open-response items. or end-of- 4 grade Literacy and Mathematics Benchmark Results over a period of three ye^s caused some schools to be given School Improvement status by the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE). Schools in which the total population or one or more sub-populations (white, Afidcan-American, Hispanic, Limited English Proficient, Low Socioeconomic Status, and Special Education) did not meet Adequate Yearly Progress as defined by ADE were sanctioned with Year 1 not Year 2, or Year 3 School Improvement Status. * i detailed School Support Audit was done for schools in Year 2 or Year 3 School Improvement. (An attachment explains the school audit process) Ihe schools that were audited were Fair Park. Baseline. Park, Baseline, Mabelvale Elementary^ Wakefield, and Southwest Middle School). A variety of program modifications were made in schools on School Improvement as a result of the audit findings. One major common finding from the audits was that effective questions strategies were not being routinely used in the audited schools. The modification made las to brmg in an expert on questioning strategies (Dr. Lee Hannelauthor of HighlyEffective Questioning: Developing the Seven Steps of Critical Thinking) to lead a workshop for all LRSD principals. 2003-04 All grade level teachers were trained in the use of these new curriculum resources that were developed by the math staff and teachers during the August, 2003, school conference. pre- Item analyses of the 4* Grade Benchmark Exam showed that the statistics and probability strand was the lowest area for students. s A program modification made was to strengthen concept development in probabihty by added a replacement unit on probability fi-om Marilyn Bumss materials. Twenty-six primary teachers and coaches and twenty-five intermediate teachers and coaches participated in full-day training on the Marilyn Bums materials. Three elementary schools on School Improvement Status collaborate to bring in Dr. Hannel to provide training for all teachers in the schools. * Hannel provided full day training for all elementary principals. 21 of 24 principals responded that they were interested in having the questioning strategies training for all faculty in their schools. Additional schools received School Support AuditsChicot, Bale, Mitchell. Program Modifications made by selected schools were to hire math coaches to assist with professional development and training related to implementation of the elementary mathematics curriculum. Uneven achievement among schools was evident in the results of the 2002-03 4 Grade Benchmark Exam. A Program Modification strategy used was to hire Dr. Linda Griffith to check the alignment of the mathematics curriculum, grades K-8, to the State Framework. The results of this alignment will include recommendations for improving the alignment in the curriculum.Program Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Secondary Mathematics 2001-02 Item analyses of 6*, 8*, Algebra I, and Geometry Benchmark Data for 2001 . end-of-quarter tests for Algebra I - Pre-Calculus Uistnct-wide end-of-module tests for grades 6-8 calculator training provided for aU secondary math teachers * &r stazdards-based inabucdon/materiala in nndh teachers -02 District leveraged support of professional development for all math ux piuicbsionai aeveiopment for aU math teachers bv ^vrdmg funds to pay substitute teachers and stipends for teachers rec^ trainings ^ad teach^ continued to provide technical assistance inside and outside the assroom by conductmg professional development workshops observations
and classroom devd^n Umversity of Arkansas ac Litdc Rock develop and offer graduate courses based on the needs of the District The followmg course was developed and offered during the 2001 o Stratcsies for Tftflr.hino- at Little Rock (UALR) to Strategies Teaching Geometry -02 SY: distributed pacing guides for secondary mathematics and to address the issue of student mobility within the District High school mathem Atics (---------' courses courses (Algebra I - Precalculus) were revised to reflect a closer ahgnment with the national and state standards The SMART (Summer Mathematii and fiameworks
ICS Sl^T, IS a Saturday academy for students currently enroUed in Algebra I These progr^ sr. ahgned wi the State Goals for Algebra I. ^Xl EQC "ho participate in these programs are companaJ with if overall District results o SMART /Project THRIVE served more than 200 students in Algebra Calculus) are developed around the results of the benchmark concentrate on areas of weakness for students and work exams. Teachers on modifications in sturhed to measure the impact of instructional practices in the classroom SS? in all high odlUOlS o are 2002-03 Changed format of pre-school conference meeting to involve more teachers doinv presentations on standards-based activities JST" < high 1 Provided training from College Board Pacesetter for Algebra I - Pre-calculus teachers - over 80% of secondary math teachers were train eH Continued District-wide end-of-quarter test for 6 grade - Calculus
Continued to provide professional development for aU secondary mkth teachers on topics mcluding: o o Riverdeep Interactive Software TI-83 plus calculators o UALR Graduate Courses Strategies for Teaching Algebra Integrating the Graphing Calculator Revised and enacted procedures for ensuring that students who are Limited English Proficient (LEP) achieve the curriculum content standards and benchmarks established by the State of Arkansas and LRSD
Continued to implement high-quality standards-based instruction for grades 6-12 mathematics
Continued to hold monthly vertical team meetings for secondary math teachers Held horizontal team meetings (one per semester) for each secondary math course
2003-04 Classroom sets of graphing calculators provided for all Algebra I - Calculus teachers
Offered UALR graduate course on Using Handheld Technology to Enhance the Mathematics Classroom used the TI-Navigator system
Continued vertical and horizontal team meetings including 6 Wo^hop by Dr. Linda Griffith for calculus teachers on integrating calculator to teach calculus
th -8 Continued end-of-quarter tests
, th ' f X to reflect a closer alignment with the national and state standards and frameworks
Marcelline Carr and Vanessa CleaverFY 2002-03 Actions of the LRSD Elementary Literacy Department related to Literacy Program Evaluation Elementary Literacy Department continued n-wvidv p. literacy, Reading Recovery) to all LRSD schools LRSD Pre-K-3 Literacy Plan. to provide professional development (ELLA, to support implementation of the Ihnnk examined the Spring 2002 CRT Literacy data to identify the schools most m need of assistance m the area of literacv with nartiniUr ____ of ^simnce in the area of literacy with particular attention to the academic achievement of Aft can Amencan students and their needs. The data indicated that the writinn program was the weak component of the literacy instructional ~ Department provided staff development related to writing instruction. program. The Elementary Literacy - and the writing programs in schools were modified to include best practices. Ihe Spring 2003 CRT L^'a schools reflected the schools efforts to improve their students academic achievement in writing The District used the assessment data to also provide the low performing schools with the oppo^mty to participate in the LRSD Reading First Project. The project, which is federally funded funding to schools to implement research-based instructional strategies Twelw cJhon ?? n Project to begin in the fall of2003. The project requi^s the schools to follow an assessment schedule related to program improvement.^Because of lack of movement m smdent ^j-vem^t ,ools on school improvement decided to move 1 program to the research-based instruction recommended in Reading First. with the an from the Success for All FY 2003-04 August - December 2003 Response to the Literacy Program Evaluation Department reviewed the literacy program evaluation report developed by folln^ina developed a plan to continue program evaluation in the future which included the following
groups for each of the professional development ^LLA EflFeimve Literacy, Reading Recovery, Literacy Coaches, Success programs develop a table of the most and least effective elements. for All) and The information fi-om the XU A M, , . ------------------------------------ wawxxxwxxLQ. A lie lluul uiauon iToin rne focus groups will then be used to modify the Districts professional development plan Compare student data from the CRT and District asscssr/.v.
. h. .aJ ' African-American students with others as related to the instru^onal program and provide specific professional development based Identified needs of the students. assessments in each school to compare on the EXHIBIT JX_T^e staff also reviewed the section of the report related to the most effective and least effective elements of each staff development offered by the District. The following actions were taken to address the weaknesses of the professional development
Provided additional guided reading materials to all schools to support small groun instruction to ensure equitable instruction for all students. Provided a diverse collection of books to low performing schools to ensure that a variety of texts is available for independent reading. Modified the testing schedule (except in Reading Excellence and Reading First schools) to accommodate the need for a more streamlined assessment plan. Literacy Achievement Data Review Dr. Ed Willies met with the Elementary Literacy Department regarding the 2003 Primary Literacy Rftnnnmflrir hyqtti o++an+i/>n j___i____v _ . Benchmark Exam with attention to the academic achievement of African American , , ---------- - J students &s compared to other students. Schools most in need were identified and assigned to specific Literacy Specialists who had the task of reviewing the testing data more closely with the assigned schools. ^e Elernentaiy Literacy Department employed the services of a consultant to discuss with the Literacy Specialists the most effective approach to use with the schools in examining their data and using It to make program modifications or changes. After the consultants visit, the staff developed a plan for working with the schools. Assistance provided to the schools was varied based on the needs of the school but included inservice on the Primary Benchmark Exam and data analysis. In some schools, the pnncipal and staff had already examined the data and outside assistance was not requested. on the Results of the data review confirmed that the professional development provided by the Elementary Llteracv DenartmAnt chmilrl in^lnzlA kAntp*. ____ Literacy Department should include heavy emphasis on addition to the professional development being offered content area reading and writing. In on an ongoing basis to teachers grades 2-4, T?! T -------------- uaois LU Lcduiicis Hraaes z-h the Elementary Literacy Department and the Social Studies Department began working collaboratively to provide the training, resources, and materials for 5"* grade teachers to integrate readmg and social studies mstruction. Three training sessions were held in January 2004 to model for teachers how to integrate the two areas. LRSD Reading First Project Schools Project Schools have been visited several times during the year (2003-04) bv the LSRD Readmg First Coor^ator, District Literacy Specialists, and the ADE Reading First Technical Assistant. J^e purpose of the visits is to provide assistance and to monitor the instructional program of the schools. Momtoring was done using a structured observation protocol and assistance was provided to schools in various ways such as the following: Classroom demonstrations Classroom observations with post observation conference Colleague visits to exemplary classrooms Sessions for problem-solving various aspects of the instructional program3 The Reading First Literacy Coaches and classroom teachers administered assessments in addition to those required by the district. In the fall of 2003 kindergarten students were given the DIBELS letter identification
first grade students were given the letter identification and phoneme segmentation tests
and the second and third grade students were given the oral reading fluency test. The coaches and classroom teachers used this information to determine students in need of intervention, .and intervention plans were developed for each school. Progress monitoring was conducted on those students considered at risk or some risk in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions and to make needed changes. In January 2004 kindergarten students were given the DIBELS letter identification and phoneme segmentation, first grade students were given the DIBELS phoneme segmentation and oral reading fluency test
and second and third grade students-------- ' ------- were given the DIBELS oral reading fluency test. The Developmental Spelling test was also administered to K-3 students in Tannary 2004. The Literacy Coaches entered all of the LSRD Reading First schools data and intervention plans into the Arkansas Reading First Data Bank. Pat Busbea and Renee Dawson, Reading First Technical Assistants monitored the data input and the development and implementation of the intervention plans. Because the Reading First Schools are predominantly Afncan Amencan, particular attention is being given to how the students are responding to the intervention and technical assistance is provided to schools when the data indicates it is needed. Professional Development Specialized Training Based on examination of CRT, DRA and Observation Survey data, as well as teacher observation, it w determined that support and services were needed in the following areas of literacy in the low- performing schools
phonemic awareness/phonics, spelling, oral language and reading comprehension. Both local and nationally recognized experts in these areas of literacy were contracted to provide nmtAccinntjl *____1_______wnwv professional development to teachers of PreK through Grade 5. Ongoing Professional Development Ongoing professional development in literacy instruction is made available to all PreK - Grade 5 teachers. This professional development, a component of the State Smart Start Initiative, includes: Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (ELLA) for grades K-2 Effective Literacy for grades 2-4 The LRSD Effective Literacy 5 for grade 5 Pre Early Literacy Learning in Arkansas (PreELLA) Pre-Kindergarten. Benchmark Preparation to response to requests from principals of the identified schools, District literacy specialists provided State Benchmark Exam preparation training to the teachers of grades 3-5 focused on the areas of Writing On Demand and Constructed Response >9I f. 4 Technical Assistance Literacy was provided to classroom teachers at the Elementary Schools id^ified for School Improvement. The focus and the intensity of the assistance were based on the instruction during the 2 /a hour Literacy Block - Reading Workshop, Writing Workshop and Word Study. Reading Specialists visited each classroom in need of assistance to meet with the teacher The specialist and teacher identified the specific needs fi-om the following Physical Setting/Context for Instruction Explicit Phonics/Spelling/Word Study Literature Circles/Literature Discussion Groups Guided Reading Instruction Shared Reading Shared Writing areas
Strategy-Based Mini Lessons Literacy Comers Teacher Read Aloud Writing Workshop Reading Workshop Independent Reading Benchmark Prep The specialists then addressed the areas identified, including: setting up Literacy Comers organrring and categorizing reading materials, teaching students in both group modehng instmcUonal approaches, demonstrating the use of materials ^^ssing students and developmg mstmctional plans. Professional books, independent reading are als^^^^^ organizational materials and center supplies use of materials, employed literacy coaches to help support and accelerate change in literacy instruction to improve the achievement of all students in the area of literacy. iProgram Modifications Based on Informal Program Evaluation Secondary Literacy 2001-2002 1. 2. English faculty of each school 3. All building assistant principals at middle school program in order to provide for more------ were inserviced by director in literacv XXX tu proviae lor more consistent supervision and coordination hv including all administrators in literacy program. coordination by 4. Monthly collaboration sessions were held at all miHriix. i * i with n 1 , ' -----------utcu Liaiu Dee Bench, consultant fi-om Denver Coalition of Business to lead staff development during s..n,n, Education was employed md instiuction^ Four weeks of training took place with tochers' an four core subjects m attendance. This summer of02 for teachers to modify reading strategies (approximately 75) fi-om 2002-2003 . Evaluation of current practice and able to consistently dXw quSty pro^^^^eTX"^ for writing in order to be focus on optimum results were goals Spring - Summer 02 N w ^nd Committee of teachers for curriculum development
Brenda Bankston, Mabelvale Middle School Barbara Brandon, Southwest Middle School Lisa Lewis, Pulaski Heights Middle School Sarah Schutte, Cloverdale Middle School Alison Hargis, Central High School Dr. Rhonda Fowler, Central High School Emily Lewis, Parkview High School Carol Carter, Hall High School Peggy Thompson, Fair High School Sandra Nichols, McClellan High School Karen Shofiier, McClellan High School morning sessions to introduce 2. Director met with building principals during early morning sessions tn introH,, b^sX for purposes of effectively evaluating classroom instruction and to SoX basis for collaborative program evaluation. Fall 02. of data from all tests and sessions with individual schools to modify areas of emphasis according to areas of need. It was discovered that our students do well on theA 4. 5. 6. mechanics and usage areas while the writing in content areas is weaker Strategies developed to practice and teach these skills. English office and distributed to ever, mid noMcation of literacy program in tenns of test preparat nexTstfJ^ "7'^ comprehension for older riders next steps and current status of lowest achieving students. Summer literacy coaches m high school was determined and, a .co ' ' three lowest performing high schools , based on ACTAAP ) Teachers met during summer 2003 to evaluate and modify umculum producing an to all English teachers pnor to meeting and results discussed and useful for changes made. Committee Wes Zeigler, Southwest Middle School were to every middle school to evaluate 02-03. (Need for as a result, three are now in place to revise English Curriculum: Lisa Lewis, Pulaski Heights Middle School Billie Wallace, Parkview High School Beverly Maddox, Henderson Middle School Peggy Thompson, Fair High School Louisa Rook, Cloverdale Middle School Carol Carter, Hall High School Joan Bender, ALC Jennifer Moore, Forest Heights Middle School Alison Hargis, Central High School Cherry Robinson, McClellan High School 7. ESL Supervisor and director met to discuss and evaluate materials as they relate to program s effectiveness for ESL and low-level learners, these students as a result. Summer 03. 8. Consultant from Denver Coalition returned for instruction strategies for secondary students. Materials were purchased for one week of further training in reading 2003-2004 1. Based on being placed on School Improvement list. Associate Superintendent director met to discuss literacy program at low perfonning middle school and plan for improvement following detailed audit. 2. Director has met with middle school principals and high! ' ' discuss progress and evaluate future steps for increasing effectiveness nf ^eater achievement of lower-achieving students.. September03 and to write school principals separately to at 3. Personnel involved with audit of middle school met with building principal and vice princpal ,0 evaluate literacy progratp and dtscuss focus achievemf*nt thrnimk IfaroA,,_______ j>tLiucni achievement through literacy program. 4. Bi-Monthly meetings to evaluate programs and problems and collaborate -- t--------iUlU COIJ improvement held with director and high school literacy coaches. on strategies for August-October03. Five meetings held, 5. Session was held for disaggregating data - school by school recent performances on SAT 9 and ACTAAP and teacher by teacher - for to evaluate successes and areas and students and teachers needing improvement for high schools03.6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Meeting with department chairs and director to disaggregate data for midHU cnho i ev^te successes and denote areas needing imptovS''X"S SREB consultant meetmg with literacy coaches to evaluate effectiveness of test preparation strategies and plan for improvements. Sept. 03. In response to data, sessions have been held open-ended responses. Teachers have made to at most schools with some or all of faculty in many modifications to classroom instruction xi_ . . , . ------*Ax**xxj ixivuiiiuiiuuns co Classroom mstmrtn on the expenential sessions involving reading, writing, and scoring with a rubric * thr^S intervention for lowest performing ninth andlighth graders at high schools and two middle schools began. One middle school intervention for sixth and seventh as well. uses same tafoimafion and evaluation session held February 04 for all building principals and kev admimsfrators on reading intervention with proposals for c ' 11. All middle schools have committed expansion of program in 04-05 to a day long mservice for their English teachers to review workshop structure for literacy program. April - May 04. On-going 1. 2. 3. Director and Middle School Specialist meet often to discuss and evaluate problems, and to set trainings, meetings, and interventions to correct and further progress Attention to bo& lowest achievers and highest achievers is focus of discussions Calendars are ahgned and coordinated at these meetings. Director and Middle School Specialist of literacy program strategies and progress, meet after school visits to evaluate implementation ,, . , - content and to determine plans for improvement especially as it relates to lower-achieving students. Weekly at least --------------------O -viwixvo. rr tCM y ai icaSt. Director commumcates often and as requested to address individual problems in buildmgs with principals and teachers. prooiems in 4. Middle School Specialist works intensely with of curriculum and literacy program. 5. Continue to provide training in new teachers to improve implementation preparing teachers in ACTAAP open-ended 6. Middle School Specialist working closely with social studies dep'anment 1 PartSn?tr^ practice framing to assist in reading in social studies content. /. Participation in faculty meetings by director and implementation across curriculum. responses. department in providing specialist to modify program 8. tacrease efforts to provide literacy coaches in all secondary schools 9. Create, distribute and compile data from a survey evaluating the effectiveness of the literacy coaches. (In May 04 set date for survey June Ml SpriSoM" "S" EtSlisIt teachers 11. Department Chairs meet monthly to discuss hurdles, ioou commumcate openly about the literacy programs. These middle school and high school. These meetings ----- cumculum iteiK, special evenu, new developments, and reminders teachers from the distnct office as well as collaboration----------------------- issues, celebrations, and to meetings are separate for serve as a means of communicatingSecondary Literacy Evaluation Team January 16, 2004 Suzi Davis, Chair Program Modifications as a Result of Analysis of the CREP Report Continue to provide training to whole faculties in ACTAAP open-ended responses and T_ _____________T7_1.___ r M rubric scoring. January, February, March, 2004 Continue cross-curricular unit development and training in workshops . Communicate with principals on the need for intense support for the literacy program January, 2004 j f Increase efforts to provide literacy coaches for all secondary schools Create, distribute and compile data from a survey evaluating the effectiveness of the literacy coaches. A date will be set in May for a June meeting to discuss the results of this survey. All eight middle schools have committed to a day long inservice for their English teachers to review the ReadAVrite Workshop structure. During this inservice, plans will be made for collaborations among schools for next year. April, 2004 Develop an action plan for providing specific inservices for high school English teachers Spring 2004IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. No. 4:82CV00866 WRW/JTR PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. LET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL RECEIVED MAR 1 4 2003 DEFENDANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF FILING PROGRAM EVALUATIONS REQUIRED BY PARAGRAPH C OF THE COURTS COMPLIANCE REMEDY Plaintiff Little Rock School District (LRSD) for its Notice of Filing Program Evaluations Required by the Courts Order of September 13, 2002 states: 1. On September 13, 2002, the District Court issued its Order finding that the LRSD had substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan), with the exception Revised Plan 2.7.1. The Courts Order set forth a detailed Compliance Remedy as to Revised Plan 2.7.1. Paragraph C. of the Compliance Remedy stated
LRSD must use Dr. Nunnerly or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations on each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. I will accept all pro^am evaluations that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnerly or someone with similar qualifications and approved by the Board. All program evaluations that have not yet been completed on the remaining programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report must be prepared and approved by the Board as soon as practicable, but, in no event, later than March 15, 2003. In addition, as these program evaluations are prepared, LRSD shall use them, as part of the program assessment process, to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving African-American achievement and whether, based on the evaluations, any changes or modifications should be made in those programs. In addition, LRSD must use those program evaluations, to the extent they may be relevant, in assessing the effectiveness of other related programs.1. On October 10, 2002, the LRSD Board of Directors adopted a Compliance Plan designed to meet the requirements of the Courts Compliance Remedy. A copy of the Compliance Plan is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. As to Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy, the LRSD concluded that the following evaluations had already been completed as required by Paragraph C and only needed to be submitted to the Board for approval: Early Literacy, Mathematics and Science, Charter School, English-as-a-Second Language, Southwest Middle Schools SEDL Program and Collaborative Action Team. The Charter School and Early Literacy evaluations were approved by the Board on October 24, 2002. The Southwest Middle Schools SEDL Program, 2000 and 2001 ESL and Collaborative Action Team evaluations were approved by the Board on November 21, 2002. The Math and Science and the 2002 ESL evaluations were approved by the Board December 19, 2002. These evaluations are bound together in volumes I and II attached. on 4. The LRSD concluded that the following evaluations needed to be completed by an outside expert before being submitted to the Board for approval
Extended Year Schools, Middle School Implementation, Elementary Summer School, HIPPY, Campus Leadership Teams (CLT), Lyceum Scholars Program, Onward to Excellence and Vital Link. The LRSD sought guidance from Dr. Steven Ross, a desegregation and education expert approved by Joshua. Dr. Ross prepared, Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in the Little Rock School District, attached hereto as Exhibit B. The LRSD subsequently contracted with experts, including Dr. Ross, to complete the evaluations in accordance with Dr. Ross guidelines. The Onward to Excellence, CLT, Vital Link and HIPPY evaluations were approved by the Board on February 13, 2003. The Lyceum Scholars Program, Elementary Summer School, Extended Year Education were approved by the Board on February 27, 2003. These evaluations are bound together in volumes III and IV attached. 2WHEREFORE, the LRSD submits to the Court program evaluations on each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report as required by Paragraph C of the Compliance Remedy. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Friday, Eldredge & Clark Christopher Heller (#81083) 2000 Regions Center 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501)376-2011 BY: Christopher CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on March 14, 2003: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm Plaza West Building 415 N. McKinley, Suite 465 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Nations Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Ms. Ann Marshall Desegregation Monitor 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Collette D. Honorable Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 1100 Little Rock, AR 72201 e. istopher F:\HOME\FENDLEY\LRSD 2001Vdes-unitary-Marchl 5-2003.wpd 3 Little Rock School District Compliance Plan Revised Plan 2.7.1 Approved by the Board on October 10, 2002 : exhibit I 5 I AB. C. F. LRSD must maintain written records regarding its assessment of each of those programs. These written records must reflect the following information: (a) the written criteria used to assess each program during the 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year
(b) the results of the aimual assessments of each program, including whether the assessments resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs
and (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the assessment of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the assessment process {e.g., all fourth grade math teachers
all eighth grade English teachers, etc.). LRSD must use Dr. Nunnerly^ or another expert from outside LRSD with equivalent qualifications and expertise to prepare program evaluations on each of the programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report. I will accept all program evaluations that have already been completed by Dr. Nunnerly or someone with similar qualifications and approved by the Board. All program evaluations that have not yet been completed on the remaining programs identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report must be prepared and approved by the Board as soon as practicable, but, in no event, later than March 15, 2003. In addition, as these program evaluations are prepared, LRSD shall use them, as part of the program assessment process, to determine the effectiveness of those programs in improving African-American achievement and whether, based on the evaluations, any changes or modifications should be made in those programs. In addition, LRSD must use those program evaluations, to the extent they may be relevant, in assessing the effectiveness of other related programs. * * * On or before March 15, 2004, LRSD must file a Compliance Report which documents its compliance with its obligations under 2.7.1. Any party, including Joshua, who wishes to challenge LRSDs substantial compliance with 2.7.1, as specified above, may file objections with the court on or before April 15, 2004. Thereafter, I will decide whether the LRSD has substantially complied with 2.7.1, as specified in the Compliance Remedy, and should be released from all further supervision and monitoring. ^The Court is clearly referring to Dr. John Nunnery. 2Board-Approved Compliance Plan On October 10, 2002, the Board adopted this Compliance Plan to meet the requirements of the District Courts Compliance Remedy. Pursuant to this Compliance Plan, the LRSD will: 1. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04
2. Develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to Revised Plan 2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students
3. Maintain written records of (a) the criteria used to evaluate each program
(b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs
and (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process
4. Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to Revised Plan 2.7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of Afiican-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program
and 5. Submit for Board approval the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSDs Final Compliance Report that have been completed, and complete, with the assistance of an outside expert, the remaining evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSDs Final Compliance Report. Each element of the Compliance Plan is discussed in more detail below. 1. Continue to administer student assessments through the first semester of 2003-04. The LRSD will implement the 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan. The 2002-03 Board-approved assessment plan calls for the administration of the following student assessments in English language arts and mathematics: Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Observation Surveys (5) Developmental Reading Assessment Observation Surveys (5) Development Reading Assessment Observation Surveys (3) 3Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 7-10 Grades 9-11 Grade 10 Grade 11 Development Reading Assessment Norm-referenced test to be identified for gifted/talented screening Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination SAT9 Total Battery Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination SAT9 Total Battery Benchmark Literacy examination Benchmark Mathematics examination End-of Course Algebra I examination End-of Course Geometry examination SAT9 Total Battery End-of-Level Literacy examination All of these assessments are administered in the spring. Consequently, the final student assessment before March 15, 2004, will be administered in the spring of 2003. 2. Develop written procedures for evaluating the programs implemented pursuant to 2.7 to determine their effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students. The Board approved IL-Rl in conjunction with approving this Compliance Plan. IL-Rl sets forth the written procedures for evaluating the 2.7 programs. 3. Maintain written records of (a) the criteria used to evaluate each program
(b) the results of the annual student assessments, including whether an informal program evaluation resulted in program modifications or the elimination of any programs
and (c) the names of the administrators who were involved with the evaluation of each program, as well as at least a grade level description of any teachers who were involved in the evaluation process. IL-Rl mandates that the criteria used to formally evaluate a program be identified as the research questions to be answered, the first of which will be, Has this curriculum/instruction program been effective in improving and remediating the academic achievement of Afncan- American students?. Recommended program modifications and the members of the evaluation team are routinely included in formal evaluations. The Compliance Committee originally proposed IL-R2 to cover informal evaluations not 4The District Courts Compliance Remedy On September 13, 2002, the District Court issued its Memorandum Opinion (hereinafter Opinion) finding that the Little Rock School District (LRSD) had substantially complied with all areas of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (Revised Plan), with the exception Revised Plan 2.7.1. Section 2.7.1 provided: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7* after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve Afncan-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. The District Courts Opinion set forth a detailed Compliance Remedy to be implemented by the LRSD. The Opinion first stated: Because LRSD failed to substantially comply with the crucially important obligations contained in 2.7.1, it must remain under court supervision with regard to that section of the Revised Plan until it: (a) demonstrates that a program assessment procedure is in place that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented under 2.7 in improving the academic achievement of Afncan-American students
and (b) prepares the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the Final Compliance Report and uses those evaluations as part of the program assessment procedure contemplated by 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan. The Opinion then outlined the details of the Compliance Remedy as follows: A. For the entire 2002-03 school year and the first semester of the 2003-04 school year, through December 31, 2003, LRSD must continue to assess each of the programs implemented under 2.7 to improve the academic achievement of Afncan-American students. LRSD now has over three years of testing data and other information available to use in gauging the effectiveness of those programs. I expect LRSD to use all of that available data and information in assessing the effectiveness of those programs and in deciding whether any of those programs should be modified or eliminated. 'Revised Plan 2.7 provided, LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan. 1covered by IL-R2, However, the administration decided that IL-R2 was unnecessary and would be redundant of information to be included in the evaluations prepared pursuant to IL-Rl. Rather than a separate written record, the program description in evaluations prepared pursuant to IL-Rl will include a description of program modifications made during each year of implementation satisfying the requirements of Paragraph B of the Compliance Remedy. As to the results of annual student assessments, the LRSD will continue to maintain a computer database with the results of annual students assessments administered pursuant to the Board-approved assessment plan. 4, Prepare a comprehensive program evaluation of each academic program implemented pursuant to 2.7 to determine its effectiveness in improving the academic achievement of African-American students and to decide whether to modify or replace the program. The District will prepare the following new, comprehensive evaluations: (a) Elementary Literacy, (b) Middle and High School Literacy and (c) K-12 Mathematics and Science. Each evaluation will be prepared in accordance with proposed Regulation IL-Rl and will incorporate all available student assessment data relevant to the program being evaluated. These evaluations will be submitted to the District Court on or before March 15, 2004. 5. Submit for Board approval the program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSDs Final Compliance Report that have been completed, and complete, with the assistance of an outside expert, the remaining program evaluations identified on page 148 of the LRSDs Final Compliance Report. The following evaluations will be submitted for Board approval without additional work: Early Literacy, Mathematics and Science, Charter School, ESL, Southwest Middle Schools SEDL Program and CAT. If approved by the Board, they will be submitted to the District Court on or before March 14, 2003. The following evaluations will be completed by an outside expert and then be submitted for Board approval: Extended Year Schools, Middle School Implementation, Elementary Summer School, HIPPY, Campus Leadership Teams (CLTs), Lyceum Scholars Program, Onward to Excellence and Vital Link. These evaluations will be completed as follows
Extended Year Schools. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Middle School Implementation. An outside expert will be retained to rewrite the report 5and, if possible, prepare an evaluation based on the existing data. Elementary Summer School. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. HIPPY. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. CLTs. An outside expert will be retained to review the CLT survey data and, if possible, prepare an evaluation based on the existing survey data. Lyceum Scholars Program. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Onward to Excellence. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. Vital Link. An outside expert will be retained to review the report and, if possible, draw conclusions and make recommendations based on the existing data. 6Action Plan Timeline The Compliance Plan will be implemented in accordance with the following timeline. B it 1, Place 2002-03 Program Evaluation Agenda on the Boards agenda for review and approval. 2. Place on Board agenda for approval two previously presented program evaluations (early literacy, and charter school). 3. Place on Board agenda for approval the evaluations of Southwest Middle Schools SEDL program and the Collaborative Action Team (also conducted by SEDL). 4. Place on Board agenda for approval the previously presented ESL program evaluations for 1999-2000 and 2000-01, plus the new evaluation for 2001-02. 5. Place on Board agenda for approval the three previously presented program evaluations for the NSF-funded CPMSA program, plus the new Year 4 report for 2001-2002. 6. Issue Request for Proposals (RFPs) from available external experts to review and complete the eight remaining program evaluations listed on page 148. October 24, 2002 October 24, 2002 November 2002 November 2002 December 2002 Mid-October 2002 Ken James Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Linda Watson Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Karen Broadnax Bonnie Lesley Vanessa Cleaver Dennis Glasgow Bonnie Lesley Darral Paradis 7"UtetiSBiK" 7. Form a screening team to determine recommendations to the Superintendent for designating external experts to review and complete the eight remaining program evaluations listed on page 148._____________________ 8. Select and negotiate consulting contracts with designated external experts. 9. Assign appropriate staff to each external expert to provide needed information, data, access to program staff, etc. 10. Monitor the work to ensure timely completion. 11. As each paper is completed and ready for circulation, send copies to ODM and Joshua for their review and comments. 12. As each paper is completed, place on the Boards agenda the item to be reviewed and approved. 13. Write Interim Compliance Report relating to programs on page 148 to be completed. 14. Establish staff teams for each of the three programs on the Boards Program Evaluation Agenda to be completed for 2002-2003 (Elementary Literacy, Secondary Literacy, and K- 12 Mathematics/ Science). J, Late October 2002 Mid-November 2002 Mid-November 2002 Mid-November 2002February 2003 December 2002February 2003 December 2002February 2003 March 15, 2003 March 1, 2003 Ken James Compliance Team Bonnie Lesley Ken James Bormie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Ken James Boimie Lesley Attorneys Compliance Committee Bonnie Lesley 81^. TrLviitiiYTT* ir ...... 15. Publish RFPs to identify external experts to serve on each of the two staff teams for the Boards Program Evaluation Agenda (K-12 mathematics/science external experts are provided by NSF). 16. Establish consulting contracts with the two external experts required for the Elementary Literacy and Secondary Literacy program evaluations. 17. Train each program evaluation team, including the external expert, on the requirements of the approved Compliance Plan and IL-R. 18. Monitor the completion of the work on all three program evaluations required in the Boards Program Evaluation Agenda. 19. Send copies of the completed Elementary Literacy program evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information. 20. Complete the evaluation of the Elementary Literacy program and place on the Boards agenda for approval. March 1, 2003 Late March 2003 May 2003 MayOctober 2003 With October 2003 Board agenda packet October board meeting, 2003 Bonnie Lesley Darral Paradis Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Ken James Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Pat Price 9'! ISnicalirc- I W3J
j I fOTjstihTPf.i &' I 21. Send copies of the Secondary Literacy program evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information. 22. Complete the evaluation of the Secondary Literacy program and place on the Boards agenda for approval. 23. Send copies of the completed CPMSA program evaluation to ODM and Joshua for information. 24. Complete the five-year evaluation of the CPMSA project (science and mathematics) and place on the Boards agenda for approval. 25. Write Section 2.7.1 Final Compliance Report for federal court and file with Court. With November 2003 Board agenda packets November board meeting, 2003 With December 2003 Board agenda packet December board meeting, 2003 March 15,2004 10 Ken James Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Pat Price Ken James Bonnie Lesley Bonnie Lesley Vanessa Cleaver Dennis Glasgow Ken James Attorneys Compliance Team1 Guidelines for Completing Eight Program Evaluations in Little Rock School District Prepared by Steven M. Ross, Ph.D. The present guidelines are based on my review of the Revised Compliance Plan, the LRSD standards for program evaluation, and evaluation report drafts and associated materials related to the eight programs identified as requiring final evaluation reports. My analysis of this material, combined with my experiences as an educational researcher and familiarity with the Joshua case as it affected LRSD, was influenced by the following assumptions: Invalid or questionable evaluation results can be much more detrimental than helpful to efforts to improve educational practices, and should not be disseminated without strong cautions and qualifications. Accordingly, studies that lack proper controls against bias or contamination from extraneous factors (e.g., differential sampling, history, diffusion of treatments) have limited value for guiding policies. Program evaluations that focus predominately on student achievement outcomes while lacking sufficient implementation data have reduced value due to inability to determine the nature of the treatment. The study will also fail to inform policymakers about the practicality of the program, how it was used and reacted to by stakeholders, or whether and/or how it needs to be improved to impact at- risk learners. Evaluations of programs that have been discontinued in the district are of much less interest relative to ones that are presently being implemented or informing ongoing practices. To raise the achievement of African American students in LRSD, attempting to resuscitate existing studies that have insufficient data available, limited relevance to current practices, or require substantial time and resources with little promise of yielding useful information for policy decisions would be less productive than employing the lessons learned from the prior evaluation work to support high quality and informative future studies. One such lesson is that the LRSD research department (formerly PRE) was understaffed to perform evaluations of the quality and quantity needed. Based on the above assumptions, I will recommend below a basic strategy for the third-party evaluators to use in preparing the eight identified evaluations for approval by the school board. Four of the evaluations concern programs that are no longer in use by LRSD and have limited or no relevance to programmatic decisions (Lyceum Scholars, Elementary Level Summer Schools, Vital Link, and Onward to Excellence). Of the remaining four evaluations, two have limited available data (Middle School Transition and Campus Leadership Teams) that, even with supplementary analyses, would not permit confident (valid) decisions to be made about program effectiveness : exhibit 32 in general or about African American student achievement resulting from program participation. A seventh evaluation (Extended Year Education) could possibly yield informative evidence about an ongoing program, but to be sufficiently refined would require time and resources extending significantly beyond the current conditions for project completion. An eighth evaluation (HIPPY) also deals with an ongoing program, but unlike the others could possibly provide useful evidence through revisions completed within the available time frame. Accordingly, the HIPPY report is currently being rewritten by Dr. Ed Williams from LRSD. The suggested plan for the third-party evaluators is presented below followed by a brief review of each evaluation. A. B. C. D. Submit the current evaluation report as an attachment to a supplemental document as described in B-D. The supplement should begin with an expanded description of the program, its goals, and its history in LRSD. It should then describe the evaluation methodology and summarize and interpret the key findings. Most importantly, the supplement should discuss the limitations (and any strengths where indicated) of the evaluation with regard to: (a) informing current practices in LRSD
(b) using appropriate methodology
and (c) addressing student achievement effects, especially in reference to African American students. Finally, the supplement should present suggestions for conducting stronger studies of similar programs in future evaluation studies. 1. Middle School Transition (Moore) This evaluation is in near-completed form and needs mostly editing and expansion. Because the middle school program is current and continuing, this evaluation study can be useful (mostly for guiding professional development and implementation improvement) for informing district strategies. The achievement results are fairly minimal and uninformative, but at the time of the evaluation (1999-2000), only baseline data existed. Thus, aside from providing additional description of the results (the tables and the narrative are sparse) and a more meaningful interpretation of trends (especially with regard to Afiican American vs. Caucasian students), there is probably little more that needs to be done for this essentially baseline time period. The survey data appear to be reasonably analyzed and reported, but the interpretation and discussion should be extended to provide more meaningful conclusions and recommendations. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section.3 2. Lyceum Scholars (McNeal) The Lyceum Scholars High School Program, which was evaluated in 1998-99 and 1999- 2000, is no longer being implemented in LRSD. The latter consideration, coupled with the obvious limitations of the evaluation design with regard to rigor, depth, and meaningfulness of the data, substantially reduce the value of the study and the need for devoting more than minimal resources to it, beyond perhaps a supplemental summary and explanation. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 3. Elementary Level Summer School (McNeal) Similar to the Lyceum Scholars High School Program (#2 above), the Elementary Level Summer School program is no longer being implemented in LRSD. In addition, the evaluation study conducted in the summer of 2001 is limited in its design and methodology. Among the major concerns are the lack of: (a) implementation data to describe the program strategies and the degree to which they were actually used by teachers, (b) an adequate control group or norms to which the achievement scores of summer school students could be compared, and (c) qualitative data to describe the experiences of students and teachers in the program. Due to differential sampling the multiple tables provided are neither overly meaningful nor informative regarding the progress of summer school students in general and African American summer school students in particular. Seemingly, there is little useful information to be gained for informing future policies by investing substantive resources in revamping the study. While more suitable control samples might be established using archival data, the absence of implementation assessments would still make the treatment essentially unknown. Therefore, suggestions similar to those made for the Lyceum Scholars program are also offered here. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 4. Vital Link (Ross) The Vital Link program, designed to provide students with on-the-job experiences, was offered to 394 middle school students in the summer of 1999. Because the program was of very limited duration (only one week) and is not focused on either academic curriculum or learning strategies, it is highly xmlikely to have affected students academic achievement. Although such a program would still potentially serve a useful purpose for fostering student motivation to achieve and complete school, it is no longer being implemented in LRSD. Further, the evaluation study conducted was so limited (a brief post-test only, closed-ended survey) that the policy implications of the results are minimal and even potentially misleading if derived. Therefore, suggestions similar to 4 those made for the Lyceum Scholars Program and the Elementary Level Summer School Program (#s 2 and 3 above) are again offered here. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 5. Onward to Excellence CSRD Program (Ross) The OTE model was implemented at Watson Elementary School for several years, starting in 1999. It has since been discontinued and was never formally evaluated, except for achievement data reports sent by the principal to ADE. Thus, in essence, there is no longer any program in LRSD to evaluate and no evaluation report to revise, expand, or redraft. It would seem wasteful of resources to reexamine historical data from this program, especially since implementation data are lacking. That is, if positive or negative results were found, it would be impossible to determine whether OTE or numerous others factors were the main cause. Suggestions, therefore, are similar to those for #s 2-4 above. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 6. HIPPY (Ross) Because HIPPY is a continuing program, this evaluation can be potentially useful to LRSD by providing initial program results on student achievement and benefits to African American children. A limitation of the study, which unfortunately cannot be remedied retroactively, is the lack of implementation data to describe the fidelity with which HIPPY program components were actually used. The quantitative achievement results must therefore be viewed cautiously, but should still be at least suggestive regarding program influences. Substantive expansion and revision, however, are needed to increase the readability and meaningfulness of the report. For example, there is inadequate description of the program, context, methodology, and analysis design. Tables and findings need to be presented in a more readable (user-friendly) manner. Suggestions: A. Reorganize and expand the introduction and methodology to be in line with district evaluation standards (i.e., more context, more detailed methodology, clearer questions and organization). B. Ed Williams needs to run the revised analysis and write up results by January 31, 2003. A program description needs to be provided. Results need to be disaggregated, if possible, for African American and Caucasian students. Expand the Results sections to provide more informative reporting of outcomes, clearer tabular presentations, etc.5 C. Expand the Conclusions section to: (a) directly address whether there are implications for the achievement of African American and other disadvantaged groups (there probably are not at this stage), (b) more fully discuss implications and recommendations associated with the findings, and (c) propose further evaluation research that will validly determine both implementation quality and influences of HIPPY on student achievement. D. The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy in expanding this report. 7. Extended Year Education (EYE) Report (Moore) The EYE program is relevant to LRSDs current interests in improving academic achievement of its students. Unfortunately, the present evaluation design does not seem sufficiently sensitive to detect effects that might be attributable to EYE. Specifically, usage of whole-school data compared descriptively to district norms gives only a very surface examination of the schools progress, with susceptibility to contamination by student mobility, differences in SES, etc. A more precise analysis would match students at the three schools to similar students at comparable schools not using EYE, and then examine progress using a multivariate-type (regression or MANOVA) analysis. It is questionable, however, that such analyses could be completed in the time remaining for the required submission of the final report. Also, the findings would be limited by having only two years of post-program data. Aside fi-om the design limitations, the organization of the report is difficult to follow due to the many tables and brief but not very informative narrative descriptions. The survey data might be interpretable, but also need a much clearer and better organized presentation. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 8. Campus Leadership Teams (Ross) This initiative seems highly relevant to current and future goals of LRSD. However, the evaluation data collected to date consist of only results from two district-wide surveys that assessed team members reactions to various activities. No information exists to verify the representativeness of the samples, the validity of the data collection in general, or the implementation of the CLTs at the various schools. The aggregate survey results on the 24 combined items (14 in the team member survey
10 in the certified/non- certified staff member survey) do not appear overly interesting or meaningful with regard to informing practice. Suggestions: The third-party evaluator should follow the basic strategy outlined in the introductory section. 12/3/021 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 Overnight Delivery 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
mchenryd@swbell.net March 20^ 2003 Mr. Michael E. Gans, Clerk United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse Ills. lO'h St., Room 24.329 St. Louis, MO 63102 Re: received MAR 2 0 J003 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MOMITORING Little Rock School District, Appellee v. Pulaski County Special School District No.l, Defendants, Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al.. Appellants, Katherine Knight, et al.. Intervenors
Appeal Nos. 02-3867, 03-1147 Dear Mr. Gans: Enclosed you will find ten copies of Brief of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al. and Addendum and three copies of the Appendix of Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al. for filing in the above matter. Also enclosed you will find a diskette as required by the rales. Sincerely, W. Walker JWW:lp cc: All Counsel of RecordB IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT I APPEAL NOS. 02-3867, 03-1147 fl fl LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE V. received 20 2003 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., APPELLANTS I KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas I Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. I BRIEF OF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. a a a Elaine R. Jones President & Director-Counsel Theodore Shaw Norman Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013-2897 212-965-2200 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Ark. 72206 501-374-3758 Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Mass. 02421 781-862-1955 Rickey H. Hicks 1100 North University Suite 240 Little Rock, Ark. 72207 501-663-9900 aN IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APPEAL NOS. 02-3867, 03-1147 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE V. received M PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL., DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., APPELLANTS MAR 20 2003 OFFICEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING fl KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. BRIEF OF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. Elaine R. Jones President & Director-Counsel Theodore Shaw Norman Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013-2897 212-965-2200 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Ark. 72206 501-374-3758 Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Mass. 02421 781-862-1955 Rickey H. Hicks 1100 North University Suite 240 Little Rock, Ark. 72207 501-663-9900I I IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APPEAL NOS. 02-3867, 03-1147 I I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE V. RECEIVED I PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL., DEFENDANTS MAR 2 0 2003 I OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., APPELLANTS I KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS I I Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas I Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. ADDENDUM OF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. I I I Elaine R. Jones President & Director-Counsel Theodore Shaw Norman Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013-2897 212-965-2200 John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Ark. 72206 501-374-3758 Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Mass. 02421 781-862-1955 I R Rickey H. Hicks 1100 North University Suite 240 Little Rock, Ark. 72207 RI IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT I APPEAL NOS. 02-3867, 03-1147 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLEE V. RECEIVED I I PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL., DEFENDANTS MAR 2 0 2003 n OFFICE OF I MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., APPELLANTS DESEGREGATION MONITORING KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., INTERVENORS I Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr. I APPENDIX OF MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. I I Elaine R. Jones President & Director-Counsel Theodore Shaw Norman Chachkin NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10013-2897 212-965-2200 I I John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Ark. 72206 501-374-3758 Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, Mass. 02421 781-862-1955 Rickey H. Hicks 1100 North University Suite 240 Little Rock, Ark. 72207 501-663-9900nrr,, :? ^OHi1 JUMI '1 W WHLKt-K H H NO.097 P.2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT iiwS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS' WESTERN DIVISION APR Ma LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JAMES W, MeCORMACK, GLERK Byx_________ PLAINTffiP]P-?RX V. LR-C-82~866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. intervenors KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors' Comments on the Submission of Paoe lae "Evaluations" The Joshua Intervenors comment as follows on the *[LRSD] Notice of Filing Rrogran Evaluations Required by Paragraph C o the Court's Compliance Remedy and the accompanying "evaluations. This court held that the LRSD did not substantially comply with Sec. 2.7.1 of the Revised Plan, addressing "Program Assessment/Prograrn Evaluation [at ISO]." [At 168] The court noted the importance of this commitment. I find that the purpose of Sec. 2.7.1 was to make sure that the programs promised under Sec. 7 ' improve the academic achievement of African-American students. 2.7 actually worked to I further find that LRSD's substantial compliance with Sec. 2.7.1 was crucial to its commitment to improve the academic achievement of African-American students
tor. without performing a rigorous annual assessment of each of the many dozens of programs implemented under Sec. 2.7, it would be impossible to determine which programs were working and should be continued and which programs were not working and should be discontinued, modified, or replaced with new programs. [At ISO] The court's "Compliance Remedy" for the Sec. 2.7.1 violation 1 1 JUHII JUHM W WHLKLH P a HO.097 P.3 addxe&Bed in part program evaluations identified in page 148 of on each of the programs 171] The court discuseed the the Final Compliance Report." [At 17O, completion of these evaluations and their submission to the court and the parties, by March 15, after their approval by the LRSD school board. 2003, [At 171-72] The court also required, in effect, additional evaluations of "each of the programs ia^lemented under Section 2.7 to improve the academic achievement of African-American students." are to be submitted on or before March 15, [^t 170] These materials 2004. [At 172] This court also discussed the criteria to exiting court supervision. govern the LRSD's substantially comply with the C^cxally important obligations contained i,, ==.... vr with regard to th^ in Sec. 2.7.1, it section of the Revised Plan Gntil it" fa BTooram asBeeftmonf- .flJ- tnat a ^flgram aesessment nrocedure is in oTaoe program implemented under wSCt 417 inIraprovino_achievemn* .i.7 in improving the academic American students
" ntfAPan Hrt^. lo. i::k3t3^ n The LRSD "Notice of Piling" describes the LRSD's plan to prepare "comprehensive program evaluationfs]" as follows
. District will prepare the followinq nen Elementary Literacy, (b) Middle and (C] K-12 Mathematics and Science, ach evaluation will be prepared in accordance with proposed Regulation IL-Ri and will incorporate all available st^ent assessment data relevant to the program being evaluated. These evaluations will be submitted to the District before March 15. 2004. [Exhibit A at S] student Court on or Joshua Interveners have raised an issue about the scope of this plan pursuant to Section 8 of the Revised Plan. The page 148 "evaluations" were, as noted, submitted on March 14, 2003. A review of these materials and other relevant documents 2NO.097 p.4 Show that if LRSD is to "[demonstrate] that a program assessment procedure is in place that can of each program implemented accurately meaaure the effectiveness under Sec. in improving the I H 2.1 academic achievement of African-American students" it will have to be by a future submission, were either not evaluations, In general, the documents submitted or very deficient evaluations. Joshua Intervenors offer the following examples of deficiencies identified in the page 154 "evaluations." Early Literacy [vol. 1-2]' Dr. Ross described the report as "one of the best written reports from LRSD i^ve read. [At 2] He also discussed "a number of weaknesses . . - [Id-] Dr. Ross* critique includes the following content: "Of greatest concern overall is the writer's obvious efforts to 'prove' gap reduction even where the data support is weak or spurious." [At 3] "Statistically, a very serious weakness is the lack of validity of the 'Percent Improvement' (Pl) index. [At 3 ] "Another major statistical weakness is emphasizing the comparison of growth ratios (GR) between B and KB students. . . The reason is the obvious ceiling effects on most of the measures." [At 4] "Not surprisingly, on the two literacy tests that do ngx have low ceilings Writing Vocabulary and DRA Ratios are much less supportive of gap reduction [e.g.. the Growth see p. 54, bullet 4), and could even be used by critics as showing extensions of the gap in a number of places." [At 5] "The present data are , This segment is based upon a critique by Dr. Ross, titled Review of Year 2 Evaluations." It was submitted to counsel a^d Mrs. Marshall of QDM, by counsel for the LRSD, on October 25, 2002. 3. C.VJCJO r?* ozwi i. jut-in w wHL_r.t.K r h NO.097 p.5 suggestive of definite xU. students' literacy performance. early progress made by lrsd in improving e^e also indicators some progress in gap reduction in certain skills. of However, given that we are dealing with teacher-administered tests having very ceiling levels, the overall evidence low conveys. There is is weaker than this report no reason to reduce the findings by presenting them credibility of the [At 7] "Conduct more studies that with such an obvious positive bias. and impacts on the school and Charter schog-[ [Vol. 1-2} "Performance data for examine implementation quality the classroom." [At 8] the program evaluation were disaggregated by African American. not race. The student body, however, was 87 percent N [Vol. 1-2 at 1
Dr. Lesley] Southwest Middle school's smni. Program [Vol. The "evaluation" documents produced by 1-2] the Southwest Educational Development Lab contain of the program implemented at Southwest Middle achievement data. [Vol. 1-2 at 243-63] neither a detailed description School, nor student C<? 1 labor at ive Action Plan [Vol, 1-2] "Although the 249-page study produced by SEDL that evaluated the project included student achievement data, those data were not disaggregated by race, and LRSD's short-term [one year) in the project would not predict that the involvement this relatively small of parents and community vo)ynte^rs would result in improved student performance. Dr, Lesley] N [Vol. 1-2 at 528
4 I. C-WtJO 3 COMI'I JUMU W whlklh h h HO.097 P.6 Bctended Year Schools [Vol. Vol. 4] "Unfortunately, the present evaluation sufficiently sensitive to detect effects that design does not seem might be attributable . to BYE. Specifically, usage of whole^school data compared descriptively to district examination of the schools' norms gives only progress. a very surface with susceptibility to contamination by student mobility, differences in SES, etc." [Exh, B at 5
Dr. Ross] "The external evaluator's conclusion was that 'Unfortunately, the limited nature of the original design and existing data do not afford us an opportunity to answer in a rigorous manner the key evaluation question of the extent of impact of the initiative on black student performance.'" [Vol. 4 at 1732
Dr. Lesley
see also Vol. 4 at 1813 (Youth Policy Research Group, Inc.] Middle School Imnlementatien [Vol. 4] "The study conducted by the external evaluator did not attempt to draw any conclusions related to this research question [impact on African-American achievement] since the student performance data available for the study were 'baseline'. and there are serious questions about the appropriateness of the achievement measures and about the validity of some of the other performance outcome measures." [Vol. 4 at 1870
Dr. Lesley] "The data presented in the original report does not support the interpretation of program effects on student performance. It provides a baseline for examining future effects, but needs to be extended and verified." [Vol. 4 at 1911
Youth Policy Research 5 MtiHi'i JUI-iri W WHLK.t.K h' H NO.097 ' P.7 Group< Inc.] Elementary Summar SehonT [Vol. 3] There is a lack of implementation data to describe the i program strategies and the degree to which they were actually used by teachers." There is not "an adequate control group or norms to which the achievement scores of the summer school students could be compared." [Eh. B at 3
Dr. Ross] "unfortunately, there are no additional details in the evaluation that describe the precise treatment afforded the students in the program. Missing is any indication of precisely how much of the curriculum was delivered. how and when it was delivered. and neither by whom, nor its relationship to the previously identified objectives." [Vol. at "] "No adequate control group or norms . . [Vol. at -J (By Quality Education and Management Associates, Inc.] Hippy [Vol. 3] "A limitation of the study, which unfortunately cannot be remedied retroactively. is the lack of implementation data to describe the fidelity with which Hippy program components were actually used. [Eh. B at 4
Or. Ross] M "Conclusions are difficult due to limitations of the study." [Vol. 3. at 1554
Dr. Lesley] "A third weakness is the gap between the HIPPY experience and the achievement scores analyzed. ... By that time, several years had elapsed subsequent to the HIPPY interventions." [vol. 3 at 1567
Dr. Ross] 6 -ttJMI I J s-'ni W H NO.097 p.8 gamPUS T.<adez-Rh<o T)ms [Vol. 3] consist of only . However, the 'evaluation data' collected to date results from two district-wide assessed team nenbers surveys that reactions to various information exists to activities. No the validity of verify the representatives of the samples t the data collection in implementation of the CLTs Dr. Ross] general, or the at the various schools." [Eh. B at S
"These surveys were not intended although they to he a program evaluation., Vere mistaKenly characterized as District's Compliance such in the report to the court. data were collected, and, therefore, No student performance no conclusions could be drawn as to whether the improved academic achievement African American students. campus Leadership Teams' work has resulted in for any students, nor specifically H [Vol. 3 at 1256
was no formal evaluation Dr. Lesley] of CLT by the LRSD." [vol. at 1259
Dr. Ross] Lyceum scholars Program [Vol. 3 4] "Approximately one-half of the students small participating in this program (8 to 10 students total) were African American. Because the numbers were so small, neither performance data nor survey data were disaggregated by race. Neither the staff study nor that of the external evaluator could determine whether this had any positive benefit on the academic performance program of African American students." [Vol.4 at 1607
(inadequate description of treatment Dr. Lesley
see also at 1635 provided students in program
7<1 jurrn w WHUKt-K k h NO.097 P.9 Dr. Ross)] Qnwara to Exceiieneg fvoi. 3] The program "was never formally evaluated. achievement data except for reports sent by the principal to ADE." As "i iaplejnentation data are lacking, It n if positive or negative results were found, it would be impossible to determine whether OTE or numerous other factors were the main cause. [Eh. B at 4
"In view of these factors, Dr, Ross] is no basis for evaluating the 'study,' since none existed." [Vol. 3 at 1217
Dr. Ross] Vital Link [Vol. 3] ^Drthar, the evaluation study conducted was so limited (a h brief post-test only, closed-ended survey) that the policy implications of the results are minimal and even potentially misleading if derived." [Eh- B at 3
Dr. Ross] There is [iInsufficient description of the program and its N implementation.* There is a "[l]ack of pre-program (pretest).data for judging change following program completion." "Mo examination of results for different subgroups (e.g., by ethnicity)." [Vol.3 at 1542
Dr. Ross] 8 1 i_? CJMl I J 1 w wHL-\c.r< H NO.097 P.10 sonciueion The need for high quality evaluations, court supervision, is clear. if XJISD IS to exit Respectfully submitted. Robert Pressman 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862'-1S55 Mass. 405900 'J in W. Iker John w. Walker, p.a. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 Ark. 64046 Ricky Micks Attorney at Law 1100 North University, Suite 240 Little Rock, AR 72207 501-663-9900 9 jvmi w wHLrLr r H NO.097 P. 11 CERTmCATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleadi pre-paid, to all the counsel of record this day of has been mailed, postage ohn W, Walker IMrr,, 1^. iiukUO cJtJHI'i JUm W WHLKLK H W " NO. 097------P. 1 JOHN IV WALKIR, P.A. 7 Date: Attorney at Law 1723 Broadwey Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET To: Fax: Re: Sender: YOU SHOULD RECEIVE [JJ(mduixni sheet)] PACE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER 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 i^onnation intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of tlus message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immec^w not^ us by telephone, and return the original message to us at the above address via atcomey privileged and confidential the U.S. Postal Service. Tliank yoi lU-BN district AW" EAST^NOist^' IBAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS.ygsW. WESTERN DIVISION _____ APR 15 2W MCCORMACK. CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. RECEIVED DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. APR 1 9 2004 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors' Opposition to the Motion of the LRSD to Be Released from Further Supervision and Monitoring of Its Desegregation Efforts The "LRSD has [not] substantially complied with [Plan] Section 2.7.1, as specified in [the court's] Compliance Remedy." [Mem. Opin. , September 13, 2002, at 172] Therefore, the LRSD must continue to be subject to further supervision and monitoring of its implementation of the court-ordered remedy, until it demonstrates substantial compliance with that remedy. The LRSD motion should be denied and supervision and monitoring should continue for a minimum of two additional years. 1 The Intervenors' Opposition is based upon record in the case. the accompanying memorandum. and evidence (including expert ^This two year period of time will afford the^LRSD the minimum time it needs to achieve compliance with t'he remedy/ and, as well, give the Joshua Intervenors and the ODM the time to determine whether compliance is not merely transitory. 1testimony) and arguments to be submitted at the hearing scheduled by the court. (esmectfu y suj^itted, Robert Pressman Ro: 'W. Walker 22 Locust Avenue Lexington, MA 02421 781-862-1955 Mass, 405900 fe^key Hicks YJohn W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 o Elaine R. Jones President & Director-Counsel Norman Chachkin Theodore Shaw N7\ACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street New York, NY 212-965-2200 10013-2897 2 JCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE day of April, 2004 by placing on I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing has been served all counsel of record on this IS*^ a copy of same in the United States mail postage prepaid. 3s filed district court eastern district ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ADD 1 5 gflfli EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ' WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By:_____________________________ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DEP CLERK PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. received DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. APR 1 9 2004 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING INTERVENORS The Joshua Intervenors' Memorandum in Support of Their Opposition to the Motion of the LRSD to Be Released from Further Supervision and Monitoring of Its Desegregation Efforts The LRSD has [not] substantially complied with [Plan] Section 2.7.1, as specified in [the court's] Compliance Remedy [Memorandum Opinion, September 13,2002,at 172, para. F]. Therefore, the LRSD must continue to be subject to further supervision and monitoring of its implementation of the court-ordered remedy, until it demonstrates substantial compliance with that remedy. The retention of jurisdiction should be for a new period of two school years . This court's September, 2002 opinion identified the purpose of Section 2.7.1, the importance of substantial compliance with its terms, and the capacity which the LRSD must demonstrate as one element of its burden to justify the termination of the court's 1supervision. This court wrote: . I find that the purpose of 2.7.1 was to make that the programs under 2.7 actually worked to improve sure the academic achievement of African-American students. I further find that LRSD's substantial compliance with 2.7.1 was crucial to its commitment to improve the academic achievement of African American students
for, without performing a rigorous annual assessment of each of the many dozens of programs implemented under 2.7, it would be impossible to determine which programs were working and should be continued and which programs were not working and should be discontinued, modified, or replaced with new programs [at 150
emphasis in original] . . . . I conclude that the court should continue supervision and monitoring of LRSD's compliance with this crucially important section of the Revised Plan in order to ensure that LRSD has in place an effective assessment program that will allow it identify and improve those programs that are most effective to in remediating the academic achievement of African American students, [at 168] These elements of the court's opinion help to frame the issues presented by the Joshua Intervenors' opposition to the LRSD motion. A. The Lack of the Capacity of the LRSD to Perform the Reouisite Assessments and Evaluations (1. ) For the reasons set forth in paragraphs 2 through 14, the LRSD has failed to "[demonstrate] that a program assessment procedure is in place that can accurately measure the effectiveness of each program implemented under Section 2.7 in improving the academic achievement of African-American students: . . ["Compliance Remedy," Mem. Opin., at 170
see also id. at 168] (2.) In its ruling of September 13, 2002, the court cited the recognition of the school board and upper echelon administrators that the LRSD had been without the capacity to prepare what the court termed "in-depth and analytic program evaluations. T1 [Mem. 2Opin. at 156
see id. at 153 (Dr. Lesley)
at 156-57 (school board)
at
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.