10/07'94 12:46 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst @002 DESEGREGATION REQUIREMENTS ACCEPTABLE RACIAL RANGE 1994-95 AREA ELEMENTARY: 40:00% - 60.00% AREA JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS: 51.25% - 76.88% AREA SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS: 49.11%-73.67% ORIGINAL MAGNETS (BOOKER, CARVER, GIBBS, WILLIAMS, MANN, PARKVIEW) 50% - 55% INTERDISTRICT MAGNET PROGRAMS (CENTRAL & MCCLELLAN) (HENDERSON) (DUNBAR) 49.11%-73.67% 51.25%-76.88% 40% - 60% INTERDISTRICT (KING, WASHINGTON, ROMINE) 40% - 60%*4 Desegregation Requirements/Acceptable Racial Ranges The minimum black percentage for each elementary attendance zone school will be 40 percent. The maximum bhck percentage for each elementary attendance zone school will be 12 1/2 percent above the district-wide black percentage at the organizational level. The minimum black percentage for each secondary (junior and senior high) attendance zone school will be 25 percent below the distnet-wide black percenuge at each organizational level. The maximum black percentage will be 12 1/2 percent above the district-wide black percentage at each organizational level. The rmnirnum and maximum black percenuges constitute the desegregation requirement (or acceptable range) for attendance zone schools. re- The Student Assignment Office and all building principals will be held accountable for complying with desegregation requirements. In addition to complying with desegregation requirements, building principals will be expected to assign students to classes in an equitable manner, to the greatest extent possible. The building principal should not allow resegiegation to occur in classrTOms. School desegregation requirements and equiuble classroom assignments will be monitored by the LRSD Offices of Desegregation. School based biracial advisory committees will also monitor compliance in these areas. 'S The accepuble range is listed below: .5
Elementary Junior High Senior High 40.00% . 73.75% 52.50% . 78.75% 49.25% - 73.75% 1 1ES59S (}\0/i ^'^fjze^ fc.UArkansas Democrat (l^azcllc | MONDAY, APRIL S. 2000 Judge gets revised school plan Desegregation report a trial run, and nioie, LR officials say I RvrvNTifiA HOWELL more than that. We wanted to as- One provision of the plan cal'.- - U!K,VNS.VS ni-Mn( i<AT.o,\zr.rrr. sc.s.s our progress and to show the for hiring a The Little Rock School District lin the ongoing 1982 school .ton e.xpert to -oik with staff on has issued a report aimed at reassuring the public and a federal judge that it is moving swiftly and in good faith to carry out its revised desegregation plan. parties tin the ongoing 1982 school desegregation lawsuit] and the community our good faith conipli- ance. he said. The 1998 plan, which is 24 The 129-page compliance report. sent to Chief U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright, describes the School Board policies. academic programs and staff vised plan training efforts now in place in response to the 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. pages, was negotiated by representatives of the district and the Joshua intervenors, the class of black students in the three Piilas- ki County school districts. The re- cum- bersome plan of more than 200 pages in use since the late 1980s. policies and programs, as well as on desegregation or discrimina- This year's report, available for review at all schools, is a preview of a document the district must submit to Wright next spring. That second report is a prerequisite for the district's anticipated release in June 2001 from federal court supervision. lion problems. The district has retained two experts: Terrence Roberts, now a California psychologist, who was one of the nine black students to integrate Central High in 1957
and Stephen Ross, an education policy researcher at the University of Memphis. Roberts has advised administrators on policies dealing with achievement, parent involvement, counseling, student discipline and use of conimunitj' volunteers. He developed a two-day workshop for school administrators and others on "Learning to Cope with Differences. Brady Gadberry. special assistant to the superintendent and co- .........-,rtn author of the report, said this aware of it. failure to report non- compliance also may result in disciplinary action being taken." year's voluntary report is a practice run for the 2001 report. But. ' School ' Continued Iron Page 1B The compliance report describes efforts to give school prin- XUMva --------- . cioals and the new (juupus U'ad- The philosophy of the revised plan permeates the activities ol the district, Gadberiy and Associate Superintendent Junious Babbs wrote in the new report's introduction. Employees are fully expected to comply with the Revised Plan. To ensure compliance. it is the responsibility of all ..............- ------- - - , employees to report instances of tional programs and the develop- non-compliance when they arc '''''vsiem.s a Expanding the number of 4- vear-nids in preschool program.-" from 720 to 880 in 27 schools. a I 'onverting junior higiis to middle .schools for gi'ades six IInmigii eight. Ross has focused on instruc- mcnt of new systems to measure student progi'ess and hold schools accountable for achievement. I See SCHOOL, Page 3B I ership Teams of teachers, parents and community members the au- a Establishing alternative education programs throughout the city, a Adding a double-period of English and language arts instruction in middle and high schools. thority to develop and cany out school improvement plans. The report details the new Col- ....................... _ Icctivc Responsibility Plan, which school stndent.s can get credit sets student achievement goals on ............... " ' ' which each school will be cvaluat- Establishing the Hall High University program in which high from the University of Arkansas at ed bv the district and state. The collective responsibility I plan, when completed, will de- I scribe the technical assistance to ' schools that fall short of I heir Little Kock. H Constructing the new Stephens lilemcntaiy School, which open.- in January. Also, the district has initiated
i scholarship program for pupils who graduate from a Little Rock high school after attending incentive elementary schools. Incentive ' goals and lav out the consequences of failure. Those conse- ' quences could include replacing eiemenu.i.s .............- the .school .s principal and up to .m apt pxl ra funding for pro- ' percent of the staff. oranis to help raise student i The district has enacted puli Ihe nas tnatieu pui- I cies to increase minimum gradua- arams achievement. I tion requirements to 24 units and I to increase the number of slii- , dents, particularly black students, taking pre-Advanced Placement i and Advanced Placement courses. I according to the compliance re- I port.
Advanced Placement courses 1 are rigorous courses developed by the national College Board that I enable students to gel college i credit for Inch school coursework. i The district offers 80 Advanced ' Placement courses. ' The district has loosened admis- 1 Sion requirements to the courses, allowing students who make C's or belter to take the Advanced Placement courses without getting Administrators periodicall.v collect data on 10 factors related to scliool resources. The factors include the pupil-teacher ratio at each school, the percentage ol teachers with master's degrees and nine year.s of experience, the number of new teachers, the number of computers per student, the per onpil expenditure in discre- tionaiv funds and the number of volunteer hours per student, among others. Each factor is assigned a numerical value, and those numbers are totaled for each school and compared to the district mean. Resources can be added to schools that vary from the mean. I teacher recommendations. I The compliance report de- i scribes all components of the dis- . - ...........I lii/iPnPT' j trict's new elemenlaiw literacy iriClS Uc vrujuuuiMi I program and produces details of a ! m 11111 inuIfI1 nt* Mnt.ional Sci* I multiinilliun-dollar National Sci- i ence [oundalioii grant to revise science and mathematics courses and increase student numbers in upi>er-level classes. ?\s a result. most ninth-graders are now re- quired to take physics. 1 Other initiatives addressed in ' the compliance report inclurle: SATURDAY, JANUARY 27, 2001 LR schools, state near deal on desegregation funds BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Attorneys for the state and Little Rock School District are moving closer to settlii^ school-funding and desegregation issues that might otherwise cost the state millions and complicate district efforts to end federal court supervision. They are negotiating: The Little Rock districts possible payback of a $20 million state loan. Continued state funding of Little Rock magnet schools and other desegregation-related programs worth $15 million to $20 million a year to the district. The impact of a recent tax increase in Little Rock on the states funding obligations to other Arkansas school districts. Little Rock officials would like to settle issues with the state and other parties before the district submits a March 15 desegregation compliance report to a federal judge who oversees the 18-year-old Pulaski County school-desegregation case. If there are no objections to the compliance report or if there is no proof that the district is out of compliance with its desegregation plan, then the district could be declared desegregated at the end of this school year and released from federal court monitoring. The word I get is that the negotiations are in the final stages
that we may have a deal that everyone is goiiig to agree to, Sen. Jim Argue, D-Little Rock, said Friday. Argue is one of three state senators who wrote to Gov. Mike Huckabee, Little Rock Superintendent Les Gamine, state Department of Education Director Ray Simon and Attorney General Mark Pryor in September 2000 urging that the state and Little Rock address several issues as a package and avoid relying on the courts to resolve them. Argue served as an informal facilitator at some of the earlier meetings with the leaders from the agencies and the parties in Little Rocks school desegregation lawsuit. On Friday, Argue said he didnt know the specifics of an emerging agreement. I do get the sense that both sides have given some and won some, he said, adding that the talks are now in the hands of Chris Heller, an attorney for the Little Rock district, and 'Rmothy Gauger, an assistant attorney general. Heller said Friday that he and Gauger talk almost daily and, while they do not have a final draft of an agreement to take to their respective clients, he said there exists at least the nucleus of an agreement. The Little Rock lawyer also said the district faces deadlines for resolving the issues and We need to know within a week or two whether there is substantial agreement Michael Teague, a spokesman for the attorney generals office, declined to comment at length about the negotiations but called Hellers comments an accurate assessment of the talks. Simon said Friday that he was See SCHOOLS, Page 3B ' Schools Continued from Page 1B fhistrated by the slowness of the talks between the attorneys but optimistic about an ultimate agreement. He said he may have something to report to the state Board of Education at its Feb. 12 meeting. Simon said earlier this month that the attorneys had listened to the discussions of others involved in the issues and were now attempting to put into writing a possible agreement that all the interested parties could endorse. Asked specifically whether district and state representatives have agreed to a method for determining whether Little Rock must repay a $20 million loan, Simon said, Were close. A proposal should be forthcoming A 1989 agreement between the state and district said the district would not have to repay the loan if the composite scores earned by Little Rock black students on a nationally standardized test reached 90 percent or better of the average scores earned by white students by Dec. 31,2000. In the intervening years, the district and the state never formally ' agreed on the test to be used. Heller said Friday that the focus of the talks now is not so much on the $20 million as it is on developing a process for determining whether the loan should be for^ven. He said the process described in the 1989 agreement proved to be unworkable. He also said the district and Education Department administrators have desi^ated experts to make recommendations to negotiators about possible measures of student achievement. 'Those advisers are Steven Ross, a faculty member at the University of Memphis and an educational consultant to Little Rock School District
and Douglas Reeves, a national consultant to the Education Department on several issues. One of the most pressing of the deadlines faced by the negotiators is related to the 5-mill tax increase Little Rock voters approved last year. The district must complete scheduling the sale of bonds that will be financed with the money generated by the tax increase. The longer the district delays selling the bonds and incurring new debt, the greater the districts wealth. That poses a problem for state officials because all school districts are legally guaranteed at least 80 percent of the money that Little Rock raises in state and local money per student, excluding that money that goes to pay debts. Depending on how Little Rock officials structure the debt they incur, the state would have to increase aid by $40 million to $140 million, according to preliminary projections last year. Until the debt structure and states obligation to other districts are known, legislators could be hindered in setting appropriations for state services for the next two fiscal years. Another critical issue in the school talks is whether the state will attempt to stop subsidizing Little Rocks desegregation efforts if the district is declared unitary, or a fully desegregated school system, later this year. The state pays close to $20 million a year for desegregation-related programs, including magnet schools, student transfer programs,
transportation, and teacher retirement and health insurance costs. We think it helps everybody if the Little Rock School Board is free to consider unitary status without having to worry about potentially disastrous financial consequences, Heller said. Hopefully we can reach an agreement that will work for everybody./via,Ie4 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 September 9, 1999 Dr. Les Carnine, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Les: Thank you for your recent letter in response to our August 1999 report on the districts preparations for this school year. Im glad to hear that you and your staff have read the document, and we hope you have found it helpful. I appreciate the additional information that you provided in your letter. As for your speculation that the information may not have been available at the time of our research. I want to emphasize what our reports introduction notes: LRSD staff members who had contributed to our research (either through direct interviews or by providing documentation) received the rough draft of our findings a few days before our report was finalized and published. On August 3 we hand delivered the drafts, invited your staff to offer corrections or updated information, and picked up their written comments on August 5. We reviewed those comments, made appropriate changes in the report, and then filed the completed document less than a week later on August 1 f. This advance review of our findings is designed to assure the accuracy and completeness of our reports. How successfully we reach that goal depends in great part on the accuracy and completeness of the information upon which we base our reports. I believe that we afforded your staff a fair opportunity to help us get this report right. Sincerely yours, Ann S. BrownI IIssm Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT RECEIVES) August 24. 1999 AUG 2 1399 OFHCEGr DESEGREGATION MONITORING Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation and Monitoring 201 E. Markham - Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Brown
The August 11 Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) report examining LRSD preparation to implement our Revised Desegregation and Education Plan provides a solid barometer of reference as we enter the 99-2000 school year. In keeping with LRSD plan commitment, careful consideration and review of this report document has been enacted in each division / department area, addressing preparation activities toward compliance and provisions of the revised plan. In an attempt to offer additional information that may not have been available at the time of report findings, the following is provided
Overall Alternative Education Program seats for 99-2000 are being expanded. Greater student opportunity and success has been recorded for the 98-99 school year, resulting in increased student / school retention and reduced suspension / dropout numbers. Periodic assessment of performance indicators will be monitored toward necessary program adjustment and/or revision. Revised School Profile Report documentation is being compiled. Expanded information is to include Equitable Allocation of Resource equity indicators and participation data for all extracurricular and AR Activities Association (AAA) sanctioned activities. The LRSD Talent Development Committee will explore potential funding sources for AVID and/or programs unique to LRSD, especially for the high schools. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 73301 (501) 834-8000 August 24, 1999 Page 2 A training of trainers model to deliver cultural sensitivity training is being established. Dr. Terrence Roberts will help in reviewing training on prejudice reduction and cultural sensitivity. Determination for future utilization of Garland and Mitchell Elementary Schools is one of the 99-2000 LRSD priorities. Approved funding sources for new Stephens Elementary School Construction have been determined (03/11/99 board action). Long term expenditure projections for Stephens Elementary have been developed. Possible location, funding and construction of the new west LR school is one of the 99-2000 priorities. An immediate timeline has been established. At present, the school is not anticipated to be built prior to the 2000-2001 school year after LRSD issues a 3/15/01 report indicating the state of compliance with the revised plan. Personnel Recruitment goals and procedures are being enacted where African- Americans are under represented. LRSD ombudsman role clarification was provided in the 8/05/99 Principals Nuts and Bolts inservice session. Training activities are being scheduled. After more than a year of intense planning and training, numerous changes and program initiatives have been put in place as we now enter this 99-2000 school year. Recognizing that substantial efforts must be provided toward obligations set forth in the revised plan, it constitutes a work in progress. The Office of Desegregation Monitoring serves as an important resource whose expertise, insight and direction is appreciated and continually sought. Sincerely, Superintendent of Schools Date: August 26, 199 To: All Associates From: Re: .espouse from Carnine Attached is a copy of the letter I received from Les Carnine yesterday. As you will see, he purports to be adding information to our transition report that "may not have been available at the time of report findings. Please find those points in the letter that were covered (or not) in the section of the report you wrote. Then write me a brief note telling me your comments on Dr. Carnines point. For example, he says that funding sources for Stephens were determined in the March 1999 board meeting
he asserts that the role of the ombudsman was clarified in early August. Do you agree? If so, is this what the report said? Who at the LRSD reviewed that finding? Did he or she agree or disagree with the way we handled that information? And so on. 1 may respond to Les to emphasize that his staff read our findings and had the chance to correct or update them. Your comments will help me decide how much to say to him. Thanks very much.Date: September 3, 1999 To: All Associates From: Re: Response from Carnine 2^1^ A week ago Thursday (August 26) I asked for your comments on Carnines letter about our report. If you havent already done so, please get me that information in writing immediately. If your sections of the report werent touched upon by Carnine, just say so in a note to me. Thanks.Memo To: Ann From: Margie Subject: Carnine Response Date: August 27, 1999 Alternative education program seats: Nothing new. We complimented the district for expanding alternative education. No disagreement. Ombudsman role: Notice that training occurred week before report published. The clarification recommended in our report was not for the administrators as much as it was for the ombudsman. 1 have received several visits from the ombudsman and, although 1 didnt quote him, it was clear to me that he was not sure of the exact nature of his role. In fact, his role is still being defined. He informed me last week that the duty of dropout prevention had been added to his job description. He still has not been formally trained for the position. He mentioned that he was going to apply for a training session designed for ombudsmen being held in Canada. I am curious as to what the inservice traiing on 8/5/99 entailed. I dont disagree with with Carnine. 1 figure his comment was more in the nature of an update.Memo To: From: Date: Ann Brown Skip Marshall Septembers, 1999 Subject: Comments on Carnine response to Transition Report I found none of his responses were directed to any portion of the report to which I made a contribution. To: Ann X From: Gem As I read it, Les Carnines letter regarding the recent ODM report did not touch on any of the topics I wrote for the report. Accordingly, I wrote no comments on his letter.To: Ann Brown From: Horace Smith Re: Response to Dr, Carnines Observations Talent Development Committee I am glad that the district is formally researching ways to fund AVID and related approaches to develop minority academic talent. I had pointed out to Bonnie during our early discussions that the district seemed to have few contingencies for funding some very ambitious and expensive programs. Cultural Sensitivity Training I am encouraged by the news that Dr. Terrence Roberts will be helping the district implement a training of trainers model for cultural sensitivity. I talked to Marian Woods regarding the training this week. No one mentioned this model or Dr. Roberts involvement during my research for the report. I talked to both Kathy Lease and Marian Woods while preparing the report. Kathy even reviewed our findings and did not take issue with the fact that we said that the district had not identified a training model for cultural sensitivity. My one continuing concern remains whether the district will: A) Evaluate specific needs regarding cultural sensitivity B) Tailor types of training to those building needs C) Develop and implement a process for evaluating the degree of change in attitude and behavior in the school environment. Personnel Recruitment If the district is preparing recruitment goals and procedures for areas in which African Americans are underrepresented, that is great. Again, the district representative, Dick Hurley, reviewed our report findings and did not indicate that goals and procedures were being enacted.To: Ann From: Melissa Re: Carnine Memo Date: September 7,1999 I highlighted the items that deal with my section on school construction. The information presented in the report was as accurate as I could make it and reflected the facts as given me by Mark Milhollen, Sadie Mitchell, and Doug Eaton. All three of these individuals also reviewed the report prior to filing. Sorry for the delay!I K Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT RECEnrss August 24, 1999 AUG 2 S 1359 OFHCfcCr DESEGREGATION MONITORING Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation and Monitoring 201 E. Markham - Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Brown: The August 11* Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) report examining LRSD preparation to implement our Revised Desegregation and Education Plan provides a solid barometer of reference as we enter the '99-2000 school year. In keeping with LRSD plan commitment, careful consideration and review of this report document has been enacted in each division / department area, addressing preparation activities toward compliance and provisions of the revised plan. In an attempt to offer additional information that may not have been available at the time of report findings, the following is provided: Overall Alternative Education Program seats for '99-2000 are being expanded. Greater student opportunity and success has been recorded for the 98-99 school year, resulting in increased student / school retention and reduced suspension / dropout numbers. Periodic assessment of performance indicators will be monitored toward necessary program adjustment and/or revision. Revised School Profile Report documentation is being compiled. Expanded information is to include Equitable Allocation of Resource equity indicators and participation data for all extracurricular and AR Activities Association (AAA) sanctioned activities. The LRSD Talent Development Committee will explore potential funding sources for AVID and/or programs unique to LRSD, especially for the high schools. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 824-2000 August 24, 1999 Page 2 A training of trainers model to deliver cultural sensitivity training is being established. Dr. Terrence Roberts will help in reviewing training on prejudice reduction and cultural sensitivity. Determination for future utilization of Garland and Mitchell Elementary Schools is one of the 99-2000 LRSD priorities. Approved funding sources for new Stephens Elementary School Construction have been determined (03/11/99 board action). Long term expenditure projections for Stephens Elementary have been developed. Possible location, funding and construction of the new west LR school is one of the 99-2000 priorities. An immediate timeline has been established. At present, the school is not anticipated to be built prior to the 2000-2001 school year after LRSD issues a 3/15/01 report indicating the state of compliance with the revised plan. Personnel Recruitment goals and procedures are being enacted where African- Americans are under represented. LRSD ombudsman role clarification was provided in the 8/05/99 Principals Nuts and Bolts inservice session. Training activities are being scheduled. After more than a year of intense planning and training, numerous changes and program initiatives have been put in place as we now enter this 99-2000 school year. Recognizing that substantial efforts must be provided toward obligations set forth in the revised plan, it constitutes a work in progress. The Office of Desegregation Monitoring serves as an important resource whose expertise, insight and direction is appreciated and continually sought. Sincerely, ,e^e V. amine Superintendent of Schools I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU^ LED EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSASU.S. DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DIVISION EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JAN 2 11993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JAMES W By
,C5 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 JOINT MOTION OF LRSD AND JOSHUA FOR APPROVAL OF LRSD'S REVISED DESEGREGATION AND EDUCATION PLAN Plaintiff Little Rock School District ("LRSD) and the Joshua Intervenors ("Joshua") for their Joint Motion For Approval of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan state: 1. Joshua and LRSD move for tentative and, ultimately, final approval of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1998 (attached hereto as Exhibit A) On September 26, 1997, LRSD submitted and reguested 2. approval of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated September 18, 1997. Following submission, LRSD and Joshua engaged in extensive negotiations in an effort to develop a revised plan which both parties could support. Those negotiations resulted in LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1998 ("January 16 Revised Plan"). On that date, counsel for Joshua confirmed in writing Joshua's agreement to support approval of the January 16 Revised Plan. See Exhibit B. Also on that same date. the LRSD Board of Directors approved the January 16 Revised Planand authorized submission of the plan to this Court for approval. 3. LRSD and Joshua stipulate to the following facts in support of this Motion
a. that the record in this case supports modification of LRSD's desegregation obligations
b. that the January 16 Revised Plan is an appropriate modification of LRSD's desegregation obligations
c. that the January 16 Revised Plan is constitutional, workable and fair to Joshua class members
and, d. that, if LRSD substantially complies with its obligations under the January 16 Revised Plan during its term and implements in good faith the programs, policies and procedures related thereto, LRSD will be unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations at the end of the 2000-01 school year. 4. As a part of the compromise and settlement between LRSD and Joshua, Joshua has agreed that they will request that the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit hold their two pending appeals in abeyance, and LRSD and Joshua have further agreed that they will attempt to resolve Joshua's past, present and future claims for attorneys' fees and costs by mediation. 5. LRSD and Joshua recognize that their compromise and settlement cannot be approved by this Court without notice to Joshua class members. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). Accordingly, LRSD and Joshua propose dissemination of the notice attached hereto as Exhibit C. This notice shall be published no less than thirty (30) days before a deadline established by this Court for Joshua 2class members to submit written objections to approval of the January 16 Revised Plan. LRSD shall bear all costs associated with publication of the notice. LRSD shall cause the notice to be published in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
shall print and distribute copies of the notice to teachers
shall prominently post the notice at all school
and shall cause the notice to be broadcast over the cable television channel controlled by LRSD. 6. In light of their agreement, LRSD and Joshua respectfully request that the hearing currently scheduled for the week of February 2, 1998 be cancelled. 7. LRSD and Joshua have prepared for the Court's consideration an Order (attached hereto) granting the relief sought in this Motion. WHEREFORE, LRSD and Joshua pray that this Court tentatively approve LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1997, pending the filing of objections filed by Joshua class members
that the notice attached hereto as Exhibit C be published at least thirty (30) days the deadline for Joshua class members to submit written objections
that the hearing currently scheduled for the week of February 2, 1998 be cancelled
and that this Court finally approve LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1997 upon consideration of any objections filed by Joshua class members. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS 3FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 374-3758 BY: BY: Christopher Walker CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people hy-depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on this day of January, 1998. Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Worthen 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 Mr. Richard Roache11 Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Kristopher' Heller^ 4 Little Rock.School District Revised Desegregation and Education Plan January 16, 1998 SECTION 1: Prior Agreements and Orders. 1.1. This Revised Desegregation and Education Plan ("Revised Plan") shall supersede and extinguish all prior agreements and orders in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, U.S.D.C. No. LR-C-82-866, and all consolidated cases related to the desegregation of the Little Rock School District ("LRSD") with the following exceptions: a. The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989 ("Settlement Agreement")
b. The Magnet School Stipulation dated February 27, 1987
c. Order dated September 3, 1986, pertaining to the Magnet Review Committee
d. The M-to-M Stipulation dated August 26, 1986
and, e. Orders of the district court and court of appeals interpreting or enforcing sections a. through d. above to the extent not inconsistent with this Revised Plan. 1.2. This Revised Plan does not affect the Joshua Intervenors' ("Joshua's") right to enforce the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan with respect to the Pulaski County Special School District ("PCSSD") and the North Little'Rock School District ("NLRSD"). 1.3. Although this Revised Plan supersedes the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, LRSD expects to continue to work cooperatively with PCSSD and NLRSD in the areas addressed by the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. * EXHIBIT I f i ASECTION 2: Obligations. 2.1. LRSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African-American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools. 2.1.1. LRSD shall retain a desegregation and/or education expert approved by Joshua to work with LRSD in the development of the programs. policies and procedures to be implemented in accordance with this Revised Plan and to assist LRSD in devising remedies to problems concerning desegregation or racial discrimination which adversely affect African-American students. 2.2. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that LRSD hires, assigns, utilizes and promotes qualified African-Americans in a fair and equitable manner. 2.2.1. LRSD shall maintain in place its current policies and practices relating to the recruitment of African- American teachers which have allowed LRSD to maintain a teaching staff which is approximately one-third African-American. 2.2.2. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to increase the number of African-American media specialists, guidance counselors, early childhood teachers. primary grade teachers and secondary core subject teachers. including offering incentives for African-American teachers to obtain certification in these areas, and to assign those teachers 2to the LRSD schools where the greatest disparity exists. 2.2.3. LRSD shall establish a uniform salary schedule for all positions within the district, including a salary range for director and associate and assistant superintendent positions, designed to provide compensation in accordance with qualifications and to minimize complaints of favoritism. 2.2.4. LRSD shall implement policy for the centralized hiring and assignment of teachers by the LRSD Human Resources Department designed to provide an equitable distribution of teaching resources and to prevent nepotism and preselection by a school principal. 2.2.5. LRSD shall implement a policy of promotion from within which shall include procedures for notifying district employees of open positions. 2.2.6. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that the teaching staffs at all LRSD schools are substantially similar with regard to average years of experience and percentage of teachers with advanced degrees. 2.2.7. LRSD shall negotiate with the Knight a Intervenors to establish a procedure for the mandatory reassignment of teachers as necessary to enable LRSD to meet its obligations under Section 2.2 of this Revised Plan. 2.3. LRSD shall implement student assignment programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure the desegregation of LRSD schools to the extent practicable, including but not limited to Sections 3 and 4 of this Revised Plan. 32.4. LRSD Shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination in the referral and placement of students in special education or in other programs designed to meet special student needs. 2.5. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline. 2.5.1. LRSD shall strictly adhere to the policies set forth in the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook to ensure that all students are disciplined in a fair and equitable manner. 2.5.2. LRSD shall purge students' discipline records after the fifth grade and eighth grade of all offenses, except weapons offenses, arson and robbery, unless LRSD finds that to do so would not be in the best interest of the student. 2.5.3. LRSD shall establish the position of "ombudsman the job description for which shall include the following responsibilities
ensuring that students are aware of their rights pursuant to the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook, acting as an advocate on behalf of students involved in the discipline process, investigating parent and student complaints of race-based mistreatment and attempting to achieve equitable solutions. 2.5.4. LRSD shall work with students and their parents to develop behavior modification plans for students who exhibit frequent misbehavior. 2.6. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures 4designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in extracurricular activities, advanced placement courses, honors and enriched courses and the gifted and talented program. 2.6.1. LRSD shall implement a training program during each of the next three years designed to assist teachers and counselors in identifying and encouraging African-American students to participate in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses. 2.6.2. LRSD shall implement programs to assist African-American students in being successful in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses. 2.6.3. LRSD shall provide transportation to students othei-wise eligible for transportation to school to allow those students to participate in after-school activities required for participation in an extra-curricular activity. 2.7. 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. 2.7.1. 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 African-American achievement. LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of 5either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. 2.8. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures during each of the next three years designed to promote and encourage parental and community involvement and support in the operation of LRSD and the education of LRSD students. 2.9. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure an equitable allocation and/or reallocation of financial, technological and educational resources to LRSD schools. 2.9.1. Within 60 days of the district court's approval of this Revised Plan, LRSD, after consultation with Joshua, will develop a process or standard for assessing the equitable allocation of resources. 2.9.2. Within 180 days of the district court's approval of this Revised Plan, LRSD shall report by school the results of its assessment of the allocation of resources. 2.10. LRSD shall implement programs. policies and/or procedures designed to ensure the equitable maintenance and repair of LRSD facilities. 2.11. LRSD shall implement programs. policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination in the provision of guidance and counseling services. 2.11.1. Guidance counselors shall work with students in an effort to provide for more equity in academic honors, awards and scholarships. 62.12. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that every LRSD school provides its students a learning environment free from discrimination. 2.12.1. LRSD shall implement a training program through the United States Department of Justice, the Arkansas Department of Education and/or the National Conference of Christians and Jews in prejudice reduction and cultural sensitivity. 2.12.2. LRSD shall implement policies and procedures for investigating the cause of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing remedies where appropriate. 2.13. LRSD shall implement programs. policies and/or procedures designed to ensure LRSD substantially complies with its obligations under this Revised Plan. 2.13.1 The LRSD Superintendent shall be responsible for overseeing LRSD's compliance with this Revised Plan in accordance Section 6. SECTION 3: Student Assignments. 3.1. Attendance Zones. While this Revised Plan does not require any sudden or drastic changes to the present student assignment plan, LRSD attendance zones may be redrawn in accordance with the following guidelines: 3.1.1. Satellite Zones. LRSD may eliminate satellite attendance zones where the impact would be to reduce the transportation burden on African-American students
3.1.2. Neighborhood Schools. LRSD may assign students 71 to area elementary and junior high/middle schools based on reasonably compact and contiguous attendance zones drawn to create as many truly desegregated schools (from forty to sixty percent African-American) as reasonably practicable, except as provided in Section 3.1.3. below
3.1.3. Exception. Where a reasonably compact and contiguous attendance zone will result in an elementary or junior high/middle school which is less than twenty percent African- American, LRSD reserves the right to either: a. Draw the attendance zone at less than full capacity to allow for the voluntary transfer of African-American students to the school
or. b. Create one or more satellite attendance zones of primarily African-American students. If a satellite zone is established, it shall be of sufficient size to ensure substantial desegregation at the school. 3.1.4. High Schools. LRSD may assign students to area high schools based on attendance zones drawn so that the percentage of African-American students at each high school shall be within plus or minus twenty percentage points from the percentage of African-American students for high schools as a whole and so that. to the extent practicable, a stable and predictable feeder pattern exists from LRSD junior high/middle schools. 3.2. Voluntary Student Transfers. Beginning in the 1998-99 The term "area" school shall refer to all LRSD schools except magnet and interdistrict schools. 8school year. the following guidelines shall govern voluntary student transfers: 3.2.1. Desegregation Transfers. LRSD students whose race constitutes more than sixty percent of the population at their attendance zone school shall be permitted to transfer to another LRSD area school where their race constitutes less than forty percent of the student population subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD
3.2.2. Racial Isolation Transfer. LRSD students whose attendance zone school is a one race, African-American school (> 90% African-American) shall be permitted to transfer to a racially balanced LRSD area school subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD
3.2.3. Magnet Program Transfer. LRSD students shall be permitted to transfer to another LRSD area school to participate in a designated magnet program subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD
3.2.4. Employees'.Child Transfer. LRSD employees who reside in the LRSD may choose to have their children attend the same school or campus at which the employee works, not including Magnet schools, subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD
3.2.5. Special Circumstances Transfer. Upon a showing of a special need arising out of circumstances unique to a particular student, a student may, at the sole discretion of LRSD, be permitted to transfer to another LRSD area school subject to 9capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD
3.2.6. Outside Students. LRSD schools shall be open to students who reside outside Pulaski County where the acceptance of the transfer will improve the racial balance of the district as a whole and of the school to which the student wishes to transfer and subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD
and. 3.2.7. Transportation. LRSD shall provide transportation to voluntary transfer students with the following exceptions: (i) employee's child transfers, (ii) special circumstances transfers, and (iii) transfers from outside Pulaski County. 3.3. Magnet Programs. The designated magnet programs at this time are the following: a. Rockefeller Early Childhood Program
b. King High Intensity Learning Program
c. Washington Math Science Program
d. Henderson Health Science Program
e. Dunbar International Studies/Gifted and Talented Program
Central International Studies Program
and, g- McClellan Business Communications Program. LRSD reserves the right to modify or discontinue designated magnet programs and to establish new magnet programs. However, LRSD f. agrees that during the term of this Revised Plan it will not modify 10or discontinue a magnet program which is successful. 3.4. Middle Schools. LRSD shall establish a schedule for the orderly conversion of some or'all of its junior high schools to middle schools for grades six, seven and eight and move the ninth grade to high schools. As a part of this conversion, LRSD reserves the right to change the grade level structure at all of its schools, including magnet schools. 3.5. Ninth Grade Schools. Because of limited capacity at LRSD's high schools, it may be necessary as a part of the orderly conversion to middle schools to establish two or more schools composed entirely of ninth grade students. If so, LRSD shall assign students to the ninth grade schools based on attendance zones drawn so that the percentage of African-American students at each ninth grade school shall be within plus or minus ten percentage points from the district-wide percentage of ninth grade African-American students. 3.6. School Construction/Closina. LRSD shall construct at least two new area elementary schools, one in west Little Rock and one at the site of the former Stephens school. When the new Stephens Elementary opens, it shall receive additional funding as described in Section 5.5 of this Revised Plan and one or more of the schools identified in Section 5.5 will be closed. When a school identified in Section 5.5 is closed, LRSD shall exercise its best efforts to find a community or educational use for the property. Otherwise, LRSD shall not seek to close schools in African-American neighborhoods solely because of age or poor 11maintenance except when a new school will be located in the same general area. 3.7. Modification Standard. During the term of this Revised Plan, LRSD shall not recommend modifications to attendance zones or grade level stiructure or the construction, enlargement or closing of a schools other than as provided in this Revised Plan unless: 3.7.1. Such action would further the goal of desegregating LRSD or eliminating the vestiges of past discrimination to the extent practicable
or. 3.7.2. The LRSD Board of Directors determines (i) that the educational benefits expected from such action substantially outweigh any adverse effects of the proposed action, (ii) that no practical alternative to the proposed action exists which will accomplish the educational objective, and (iii) that to the extent practicable measures will be initiated to counteract any adverse affects of the proposed action. 3.8. Racial Balance. This Revised Plan recognizes that the desegregation of LRSD to the extent practicable does not require that every LRSD school be racially balanced. Accordingly, nothing in this Revised Plan shall be construed as requiring a particular racial balance at every LRSD school or as obligating LRSD to recruit students to obtain a particular racial balance in every LRSD school. 3.9. Housing. LRSD and Joshua commit to promote housing desegregation within segregated neighborhoods. They pledge to work together and use their best efforts to dismantle, and prevent 12recurrence of, segregated housing patterns. SECTION 4: Interdistrict Schools. LRSD and PCSSD shall operate Interdistrict Schools in accordance with the following: 4.1. PCSSD Interdistrict Schools. PCSSD shall operate Baker Elementary, Clinton Elementary, Crystal Hill Elementary and any new elementary school constructed in Chenal Valley as Interdistrict Schools
4.2. LRSD Interdistrict Schools. LRSD shall operate King Elementary, Romine Elementary and Washington Elementary as Interdistrict Schools
4.3. Racial Composition. The ideal composition at interdistrict schools shall be as close to 50%-50% as possible with the majority race of the host district remaining the majority race at the Interdistrict School
4.4. Reserved Seats. PCSSD shall reserve at least 200 seats at Clinton Elementary and up to 399 seats at Crystal Hill Elementary for interdistrict transfer students from LRSD
4.5. Recruitment. LRSD and PCSSD agree to implement programs at Interdistrict Schools designed to attract interdistrict transfers and to work cooperatively to recruit interdistrict transfers to Interdistrict Schools
4.6. Outside Students. Interdistrict Schools shall be open to students who reside outside Pulaski County where the acceptance of the transfer will assist the Interdistrict School in achieving its ideal racial composition
and, 13^.1. Transportation. Transportation shall be provided by the home district for interdistrict transfers from Pulaski County to Interdistrict Schools. SECTION 5: Student Achievement. 5.1. Early Childhood Education. LRSD shall implement an early childhood education program which shall include a HIPPY program and a four year-old program with no less than 720 seats. LRSD contemplates that the four year- old classes will remain at their present sites or in the same general location. 5.2. seajii33aZldacaua3e Ats. 5.2.1. Primary Grades. LRSD shall implement at least the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in kindergarten through the third grade: a. Establish as a goal^ that by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and show understanding of words on a page
b. Focus teaching efforts on reading/language arts instruction by teaching science and social studies content through reading/language arts and mathematics experiences
c. Promote thematic instruction
^The identification of specific goals in this Revised Plan is not intended to create an obligation that LRSD shall have fully met the goal by the end of the plan's term. LRSD's failure to obtain any of the goals of this Revised Plan will not be considered a failure to comply with the plan if LRSD followed the strategies described in the plan and the policies, practices and procedures developed in accordance with the plan. 14d. Identify clear objectives for student mastery of all three reading cueing systems (phonics, semantics and syntax) and of knowing-how-to-learn skills
e. Monitor the appropriateness o f teaching/learning materials to achieving curricular objectives and the availability of such materials in all classrooms
f. Establish uninterrupted blocks of time for reading/language arts and mathematics instruction
g- Monitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices
h. Provide parents/guardians with better information about their child's academic achievement in order to help facilitate the academic development of the students
1. Provide pre-kindergarten, kindergarten and first grade learning readiness experiences for students who come to school without such experiences
j- Train teachers to manage successful learning for all students in diverse, mainstreamed classrooms
k. Use the third and/or fourth grade as a transition year from focused reading/language arts and mathematics instruction to a more traditional school day
and. 1. Provide opportunities for students to perform and display their academic training in a public setting. 5.2.2. Intermediate Grades. LRSD intends to implement at least the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in grades four through six: 15a. Adopt as a goal that by completion of the sixth grade all students will master and use daily higher level reading comprehension skills for learning in all subject areas, for making meaning in real life experiences and for personal growth and enjoyment
b. Promote thematic instruction
c. Establish uninterrupted blocks of time for reading/language arts, mathematics, science and social studies instruction
d. Monitor the appropriateness o f teaching/learning materials to achieving curricular objectives and the availability of such materials in all classrooms
e. Monitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices
f. Provide parents/guardians with better information about their child's academic achievement in order to help facilitate the academic development of the students
g- Train teachers to manage successful learning for all students in diverse, mainstreamed classroom
and. h. Provide opportunities for students to perform and display their academic training in a public setting. 5.2.3. Secondary Schools. LRSD intends to implement the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in grades six through twelve
LRSD recognizes that the sixth grade was previously included as an intermediate grade. The sixth grade is also 16a. Adopt as a goal that upon graduation all students will read independently with comprehension in all subjects areas and be proficient in language arts, as necessary to be successful workers, citizens and life-long learners
b. Establish specific reading comprehension learning objectives for the language arts, mathematics, science and social studies curricula
c. Revise the language arts curriculum to include greater emphasis on reading for meaning and on expressing comprehension of reading through writing and speaking
d. Expand the use of a second Language Arts class at all secondary grade levels and establish procedures for identifying eligible students' and. where practical. assigning students to their regular Language Arts teachers
e. Provide appropriate training to secondary teachers for implementation of these strategies
f. Monitor student progress and achievement using appropriate assessment devices. 5.3. Mathematics. LRSD shall implement the following strategies to improve mathematics instruction: 5.3.1. Revise the mathematics curriculum to include a smaller number of concepts at each level, the use of manipulatives and problem solving and critical thinking and train teachers on its implementation
included here since there will be a period of transition into middle schools. 175.3.2. Develop appropriate assessment devices for measuring individual student achievement and the success of the revised curriculum
5.3.3. Provide resources for early intervention with students with mathematical problems and for training teachers on early intervention
and, 5.3.4. Revise the mathematics curriculum to increase the nximber of students successfully completing Algebra I and higher level mathematics courses. 5.3.5. Adopt as a goal that all students in regular classes will complete Algebra and Geometry by the end of their eleventh grade year and that students will be proficient in mathematics by graduation. LRSD shall provide assistance to those students experiencing difficulty with Algebra and Geometry. 5.4. Computer Literacy. LRSD shall adopt as a goal that all primary grade students f- will be trained in the use of computers and upon graduation shall be computer literate. 5.5. Incentive Schools. LRSD shall continue to provide double funding to Franklin, Garland, Mitchell, Rightsell and Rockefeller elementary schools, in accordance with the current formula as described in August 16, 1995 report of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring ("ODM). These schools shall be renamed and refocused. The plant services department shall provide the maintenance and upkeep necessary to preserve the comparable physical equality of these schools. 185.6. Alternative Education. 5.6.1. LRSD shall provide alternative educational opportunities to the extent practicable for those students unable to succeed in a traditional learning environment. 5.6.2. LRSD shall implement programs, policies or procedures designed to ensure equity in the facilities, staff and resources provided for alternative education. 5.7. Parental and Community Involvement. LRSD shall establish a "^parental and community relations linkage system to facilitate parental and community involvement in LRSD schools and the operation of LRSD. 5.8 Scholarships. Within one calendar year from the date of the district court's approval of this Revised Plan, LRSD shall establish or participate in a program for providing college scholarships to designated schools for LRSD students who graduate from an LRSD high school after having attended a racially identifiable elementary school. This program shall be maintained at least until graduation of the class that begins kindergarten during the 2000-01 school year. SECTION 6: LRSD Compliance Program. LRSD shall implement a desegregation compliance program which shall include the following components: 6.1. Compliance standards and procedures reasonably capable of reducing the prospect of noncompliance
6.2. Oversight of compliance with such standards and procedures by the Superintendent
196.3. Communication of compliance standards and procedures to all employees
6.4. Utilization of monitoring and auditing systems reasonably designed to detect noncompliance
6.5. Utilization of a reporting system whereby employees can report noncompliance without fear of retribution
6.6. Enforcement of compliance standards and procedures through appropriate disciplinary mechanisms, including the discipline of individuals responsible for compliance and individuals responsible for any failure to report noncompliance
and, 6.7. After noncompliance has been detected, implementation of all reasonable steps to correct past noncompliance and to prevent further noncompliance, including modification of the compliance program as necessary to prevent and detect further similar noncompliance. SECTION 7: Plan Modification Process. Before filing with the district court a proposed modification of this Revised Plan, LRSD shall follow the procedure set forth below: 7.1. Notice. LRSD shall submit to the other parties and to the ODM its proposed modification along with an explanation of the circumstances justifying modification and the educational and financial impact of the proposed modification. 7.2. Comment Period. Along with its notice of the proposed modification, LRSD shall establish a reasonable period of time (no 20less than ten days) for the parties and ODM to submit comments, recommendations or suggestions related to the proposed modif ication. Joshua shall be entitled to receive from LRSD the information which LRSD believes supports its request for modification. 7.3. Recommendation and Response. After the close of the comment period, LRSD shall file with the district court and serve on the parties its recommended modification and, at LRSD's discretion, a response to comments made by the parties and ODM. 7.4. Hearing. Absent good cause shown, no party shall be permitted to raise an issue in opposition to LRSD's recommended modification unless that issue was raised by the party during the comment period. SECTION 8: Continuing Jurisdiction. 8.1. General Rule. The district court shall have continuing jurisdiction to address issues regarding compliance with and modifications of this Revised Plan during its term. Nothing in this Revised Plan shall affect the district court's jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement in the manner required by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. 8.2. Process For Raising Compliance Issues. Before requesting the district court exercise its jurisdiction with regard to a compliance issue, the party seeking to raise the issue shall follow the procedure set forth below: 8.2.1. The party shall as soon as reasonably 21practicable give the LRSD Superintendent or his designee specific written notice which includes the following
a. the paragraph(s) of this Revised Plan at issue
b. the names of all students involved, if any
c. the names of all LRSD agents or employees involved, if any
d. all facts of which the party is aware relevant to the compliance issue
and, , e. a copy all documents in party's possession relevant to the compliance issue. 8.2.2. The written notice is intended to provide LRSD with all relevant information related to the compliance issue known to the party so that LRSD can assess its compliance on the same basis the party. 8.2.3. LRSD shall conduct a reasonable investigation of the alleged noncompliance and shall provide the party a written response within a reasonable amount of time not to exceed fifteen (15) days from receipt of written notice from the party or such later time as agreed. 8.2.4. If the party is unsatisfied with LRSD's response, the party shall within fifteen (15) days of receipt of LRSD's response submit the compliance issue to ODM or the district court's designee for facilitation of an agreement between the parties. 8.2.5. If the compliance issue remains unresolved after good faith attempts at facilitation by ODM or the district 22court^s designee, the party may seek resolution of the issue before the district court. 8.2.6. Unless and until ordered to do otherwise by the district court, LRSD shall be free to implement the programs. policies and procedures the party alleges fail to comply with this Revised Plan. 8.3. Programs, Policies and/or Procedures. Compliance issues subject to enforcement in accordance with Section 8.2 shall include LRSD's implementation of the programs. policies and/or procedures developed in accordance with this Revised Plan. Before the end of the transition period, LRSD shall develop and/or identify the programs, policies and/or procedures to be implemented in accordance with this Revised Plan and provide them to Joshua. Joshua shall have a right to invoke the process described in Section 8.2 if LRSD fails to adopt programs, policies and/or procedures required by this Revised Plan
adopts facially deficient programs. policies and/or procedures
or. fails to implement the programs, policies and/or procedures adopted in accordance with this Revised Plan. SECTION 9: Term. The term of this Revised Plan shall be three (3) school years beginning the 1998-99 school year and ending on the last day of classes of the 2000-01 school ^'ear. SECTION 10: Transition. The 1997-98 school year and the first semester of the 1998-99 school year shall be a transition period in preparation for 23implementation of this Revised Plan. During this transition period, LRSD shall implement the May 1992 Desegregation Plan and Interdistrict Desegregation Plan to the extent they are consistent with this Revised Plan. However, there shall be no ODM monitoring or litigation concerning LRSD's implementation of the May 1992 Desegregation Plan or the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. Rather, ODM shall monitor LRSD's preparation for implementation of this Revised Plan and act as a resource for LRSD in that process. SECTION 11: Unitary Status. At the conclusion of the 2000-01 school year, the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a repprt on March 15, 2001 indicating the state of LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSD's compliance bears the burden of proof. If no party challenges LRSD's compliance, the above-described order shall be entered without further proceedings. 24John w. Walker, P.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway- Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. Via Fax January 16, 1998 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: Little Rock School District Dear'Mr. Heller
This is to advise that counsel for the Joshua Intervenors agree that we have reached an accord or agreement with respect to the revised Desegregation and Education Plan which is dated January 16, 1998, You may advise your board of this fact and that we look forward to working with you and with the administration to develop the contemplated programs, policies and procedures required by the plan for implementation. We also look forward to working with the board through counsel in the implementation phases through ombudsperson, the expert and our continued monitoring of the district. The latter will be in the vein of cooperation. The role of the state with respect to facilitating and furthering the goals herein remains to be addressed and I am sure that counsel for the district and for Joshua will approach that matter on a cooperative basis which is consistent with providing the best education possible for children of the Little Rock School District with special emphasis upon those children who are the lowest from the norm in terms of student achievement and treatment. bhn W. Walker incerely, JWW:lp J, EXHIBIT S IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE TO THE JOSHUA CLASS: ALL PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE BLACK OR AFRICAN-AMERICTkN PUPILS WHO RESIDE IN PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS, AND WHO ATTEND, HAVE ATTENDED, WILL ATTEND, OR WHO ARE ELIGIBLE, WERE ELIGIBLE OR WILL BE ELIGIBLE TO ATTEND THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF ONE OF THE THREE PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS (LITTLE ROCK, NORTH LITTLE ROCK OR PULASKI COUNTY), THEIR PARENTS AND/OR NEXT FRIENDS WHO CLAIM, HAVE CLAIMED, OR MAY CLAIM THAT THEY HAVE BEEN DENIED EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS, OR WHO CLAIM, HAVE CLAIMED OR MAY CLAIM THAT THEY HAVE BEEN OR WILL BE THE VICTIMS OF RACE DISCRIMINATION IN EDUCATION BY ONE OR MORE OF THE THREE PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND/OR BY THE STATE OF ARKANSAS. This action arises out of efforts beginning in 1956 to desegregate the Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski County school districts. In 1989 a settlement was reached and approved in which the Little Rock School District ("LRSD") agreed to implement the LRSD Desegregation Plan and the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. On September 26, 1997, LRSD submitted and requested approval of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated September 18, 1997. Following submission, LRSD and counsel for the Joshua Intervenors (hereinafter "Joshua") engaged in extensive negotiations in an effort to develop a revised plan which both EXHIBIT i iparties could support. Those negotiations resulted in LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1998 ("January 16 Revised Plan"). On January 21, 1997, LRSD and Joshua filed a joint request with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, the Honorable Susan Webber Wright, for approval of the January 16 Revised Plan. The January 16 Revised Plan basically provides as follows: Section 1: Prior Agreements and Orders. The January 16 Revised Plan will replace the current LRSD desegregation plan, the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan and all existing agreements and court orders with some exceptions. It will have no effect on the September 28, 1989 Settlement Agreement
the Magnet School Stipulation dated February 27, 1987
the district court's order dated September 3, 1986, pertaining to the Magnet Review Committee
and, the M-to-M Stipulation dated August 26, 1986. Section 2: Obligations. same LRSD's basic desegregation obligations remain essentially the under the January 16 Revised Plan as under the current desegregation plan. The obligations are clearly and simply stated and cover every aspect of school operations. The January 16 Revised Plan includes an even stronger commitment to an equitable distribution of faculty by race, education and experience. Although some specifics are included, the January 16 Revised Plan contemplates that during the transition period the district will identify and/or develop programs, policies and procedures related to each obligation. An expert selected by the district and approved by Joshua will assist the district in this process. Section 3: Student Assignments. Under the January 16 Revised Plan, the emphasis moves from racial balance to quality education. During the term of the plan, elementary and junior high/middle school attendance zones may be redrawn to create neighborhood schools with as many of those neighborhood schools being desegregated as practical. High school attendance zones may be redrawn to achieve racial balance within plus or minus twenty percentage points from the percentage of African-American students for high schools as a whole and, to the 2extent practicable. maintain a consistent feeder pattern. Volunta^ intradistrict transfers will continue to be allowed under rules similar to the current student assignment plan. The student assignment plan also provides for the conversion of all LRSD junior high schools to middle schools for grades six, seven and eight. Because of capacity limitations at LRSD's High Schools, the conversion to middle schools may require the creation of two ninth grade schools. Finally, the January 16 Revised Plan calls for the construction of at least two new area elementary schools, one in west Little Rock and one at the site of the former Stephens school. When the new Stephens Elementary opens, one or more the Incentive Schools will be closed. Section 4: Interdistrict Schools. Interdistrict schools will continue to operate as they did under the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. Section 5: Student Achievement. The January 16 Revised Plan is founded on the belief that providing every student a quality education is the most promising means to the long-term desegregation of LRSD. It outlines LRSD's basic strategy for ensuring its students receive a quality It includes an early childhood education program, education. a revised reading/language arts curriculum emphasizing the primary grades, a revised mathematics curriculum, an alternative education program and parental and community involvement program. Another important piece of the student achievement section is a college scholarship program all students who attend : "* for identifiable elementary schools. racially Section 6
LRSD Compliance Program. LRSD will implement a comprehensive compliance program to ensure it substantially complies with its desegregation obligations and its other legal and ethical obligations. Section 7: Plan Modification Process. The January 16 Revised Plan includes a process for plan modification designed to facilitate cooperation and discourage LRSD will submit proposed plan modifications to the litigation. other parties who will have an established time frame for comments and suggestions. LRSD will then submit its recommended plan modification for court approval. Parties would generally be prohibited from raising issues before the district court not raised during the comment period. 3Section 8: Continuing Jurisdiction. The district court shall have continuing jurisdiction to address issues regarding compliance for three years. The plan establishes a process for addressing compliance issues again designed to facilitate cooperation and discourage litigation. compliance issues will first be submitted to LRSD. All If no agreement is reached, the issue will be submitted to ODM for facilitation. Only if ODM's efforts at facilitating an agreement fail would the issue be submitted to the district court for resolution. Section 9: Term. The term of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan will be three school years beginning the 1998-99 school year and ending on the last day of classes of the 2000-01 school year, court supervision will end at that time, Federal Section 10: Transition. The 1997-98 school year and the first semester of the 1998-99 school year will be a transition period in preparation for full implementation of the January 16 Revised Plan. Section 11: Unitary Status. If LRSD substantially meets its obligations under the January 16 Revised Plan, LRSD will be unitary at the conclusion of its term and released from court supervision. The above is not intended to be a full, detailed statement of the January 16 Revised Plan. The January 16 Revised Plan, along with the current LRSD Desegregation Plan and Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, will be made available to Joshua class members during regular business hours at LRSD's administrative offices at 810 W. Markham, Little Rock, Arkansas. The purpose of this notice is to advise Joshua class members of the January 16 Revised Plan and to give them an opportunity to show cause or to provide written objections which demonstrate why the January 16 Revised Plan should not be approved by the District Court. Joshua Class members have until the day of 4, 1998 to file written comments or objections with Mr. James McCoirmick, U.S. District Court Clerk, U.S. Courthouse, 600 W. Capitol, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201. All Joshua class members will be bound by the District Court's decision approving or rejecting the January 16 Revised Plan. Absent good cause shown. there will be no hearing on the whether the January 16 Revised Plan should be approved. Accordingly, this Notice provides Joshua class members their only opportunity to object to approval of the January 16 Revised Plan. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS, WESTERN DIVISION 5IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER Upon consideration of the Motion by LRSD and Joshua for Approval of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1998 is tentatively approved pending the Court's consideration of written objections filed by Joshua class members on or before the ___ day of , 1998
2. LRSD is hereby directed to provide notice to Joshua class members as described in the Motion by LRSD and Joshua for Approval of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan
and. 3. The hearing currently scheduled for the week of February 2, 1998 is hereby cancelled. On this ___ day of , 1998. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGEO *^)iwaisss^\ ..<4ssssssiississ^.^<^^^ I Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT RECB?V'S August 24, 1999 AUG 2 > ^353 OFRCtOr DESEGREGATION MONITORING Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation and Monitoring 201 E. Markham - Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Brown: The August 11* Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) report examining LRSD preparation to implement our Revised Desegregation and Education Plan provides a solid barometer of reference as we enter the 99-2000 school year. In keeping with LRSD plan commitment, careful consideration and review of this report document has been enacted in each division / department area, addressing preparation activities toward compliance and provisions of the revised plan. In an attempt to offer additional information that may not have been available at the time of report findings, the following is provided
Overall Alternative Education Program seats for 99-2000 are being expanded. Greater student opportunity and success has been recorded for the '98-99 school year, resulting in increased student / school retention and reduced suspension / dropout numbers. Periodic assessment of performance indicators will be monitored toward necessary program adjustment and^r revision. Revised School Profile Report documentation is being compiled. Expanded information is to include Equitable Allocation of Resource equity indicators and participation data for all extracurricular and AR Activities Association (AAA) sanctioned activities. The LRSD Talent Development Committee will explore potential funding sources for AVID and/or programs unique to LRSD, especially for the high schools. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (301) 824-2000 August 24, 1999 Page 2 A training of trainers model to deliver cultural sensitivity training is being established. Dr. Terrence Roberts will help in reviewing training on prejudice reduction and cultural sensitivity. Determination for future utilization of Garland and Mitchell Elementary Schools is one of the 99-2000 LRSD priorities. Approved funding sources for new Stephens Elementary School Construction have been determined (03/11/99 board action). Long term expenditure projections for Stephens Elementary have been developed. Possible location, funding and construction of the new west LR school is one of the 99-2000 priorities. An immediate timeline has been established. At present, the school is not anticipated to be built prior to the 2000-2001 school year after LRSD issues a 3/15/01 report indicating the state of compliance with the revised plan. Personnel Recruitment goals and procedures are being enacted where African- Americans are under represented. LRSD ombudsman role clarification was provided in the 8/05/99 Principals "Nuts and Bolts inservice session. Training activities are being scheduled. After more than a year of intense planning and training, numerous changes and program initiatives have been put in place as we now enter this 99-2000 school year. Recognizing that substantial efforts must be provided toward obligations set forth in the revised plan, it constitutes a work in progress. The Office of Desegregation Monitoring serves as an important resource whose expertise, insight and direction is appreciated and continually sought. Sincerely, Superintendent of Schools S01J7441tf-' UALKhK LAW KIKM /ay HUL AUb -.b 'yy lb:L4 JOHN W. walker Ralph Washington MARK BLTiNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Auguoi jvnii AXZ IXfATVirn OA J Tnuivuix* A Mr. Larry' Berkley President Little Rock School Soard 810 west Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 , Dear Mr. Berkley
Utank vou for vour call of a minutes ago wherein you informed me that you had receiveo mformafion from District souixes that we (Joshua) have had a fair opportunity to p^icipate in the devisation of the policies which arc on your agenda for consideration tonight. That means IDC QcVlSaUOIl Ui iiJC rM*w** .m < j w . 5 v c a A That you choose not believe me and Ms. Springer when we told you that we had not been afforded an opportunity to participate in the process pnor to any ccnsiderauon by the Boar requfred by the re'^sed desegregation plan. In that you choose not to credit our representaiions and that you plan to proceed despite our objections, I believe that your decision is inconsis^t of and that you plan to proceed despite------------- , . , . the direction of the Board during the July regular meeting and the August agenda meeting that we be meaningfully included as parties in the process. We have document^ our requests and ^e M _____i...2.L...,..-,tUartkantArAArttrtffnnrt prepared to demonstrate that we have sought to work 'svith you rather than to resort to court action. I am still hopeful that this will be the path that the Board takes. In the meantime. however, I renew my request including adoption of the Chamber of Comme< that the Board defer further action with respect to plan revision management study until we have had full and fair opportunity to share our views at the pertinent administrative level before the Board is presented recommendations. I also renew my request that no policies be developed in a vacuum by Ms. Lmda Young. 'Ns have repeatedly stated our objection to her involvement in the devisation of pohetes, plans and procedures that purport to be in the interest of African Amencan chUdren. Our objecuon is further lughlighted that this task and her job were not posted and that she has no e^enence objective qualification for addressing the needs, curricular and r.----- or non-curricular, of the class, which we represent. Mr. Berkley, your position and that of Dr. Carnines with respect to a definition of participation in the process leaves us in a position where we must seriously consider whether we must seek a different method and forum for addressing our concerns.5013744187 walker LAW FIRM 789 P05 AUG 2b 99 15:25 The letter which we just received dated August 20, 1999 is a good example of the administrations bad faith. Today is the board meeting, I just received a draft of administrative regulations KF and KLG-R from Dr. Anderson. Please note that they are presented for our review and comment. Review and comment is far removed from the process leading up to these documents. Good faith was the premise of our revised plan. It is not evident fiom the writings or from the note dated August 20, 1999 as an example which we just received on August 26, 1999 at 2:00 p.m. I am addressing a copy of this letter to each Board member and others listed below. Sincerely, fohn W. Walker rWW:js cc: Ms. Ann Brown Chris Heller Members of the Board: Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. Mike Daugherty Ms. Judy Magness Mr. R Baker Kumis Mr. Mike Kumpuris Ms. Sue H. Strickland P.S. ODM has now issued two reports in the last month or so. They have not been placed on the agenda for discussion leaving the impression that the Board as a Board ignores and disregards the Court of which ODM is its official arm. That seems to be rather contemptuous.. /fn. Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 TO: Board of Education FROM
Dr. Kathy Le:
as^^: ssistant Superintendent, PRE il' THROUGH: ^es Gamine, Superintendent '. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent DATE
August 24, 1999 SUBJECT
LRSD Assessment Program The Planning, Research and Evaluation Department has spent a year studying e modifications needed in the Little Rock School Districts assessment plan in order to adequately address e requirements of the various documents that are guiding our work. The primary document that impacts the development of a comprehensive assessment plan for the district is the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (RDEP). There are fourteen sections of the RDEP that impact assessment planning. One component of assessment is the evaluation of instructional programs. Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan states: 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 African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. A very critical part of any assessment program is parmering with parents to facilitate student success. Section 2.8 of the RDEP states, LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures during each of the next three years designed to promote and encourage parental and community involvement and support in the operation of LRSD and the education of LRSD students. Assessments will be more frequent in the proposed plan, thus facilitating frequent communication with parents and fostering strong partnerships in the support of students. Section 5.2.1. of the RDEP sets up four expectations for the Primary grades that impact assessment: 1) 2) By the completion of the third grade, all students will be readin: independently and show understanding of words on a page
3) 4) Clear objectives for student mastery of all three reading cueing systems (phonics, semantics, and syntax) and of knowing-how-to-leam skills will be identified
Student performance must be monitored using appropriate assessment devices
and Parents or guardians must be provided with better information about their childs academic achievement in order to help facilitate the academic development of the students. ig The intermediate grades are addressed in Section 5.2.2. These goals include the mastery and daily use of higher level reading comprehension skills for learning in all subject areas, for making meaning in real life experiences, and for personal growth and enjoyment by the end of the sixth grade. This section also requires that student performance be monitored using appropriate assessment devices, and that parents/guardians get better information about their childs academic achievement in order to help facilitate academic development. Secondary schools are addressed in Section 5.2.3. This section requires that the district, adopt a goal stating that upon graduation, all students will read independently with comprehension in all subject areas and be proficient in language arts, as necessary to be successful workers, citizens and life-long learners. Once again, there is a requirement to Monitor student progress and achievement using appropriate assessment devices (5.2.3.f.). Section 5.3.2. addresses the requirement to, Develop appropriate assessment devices for measuring individual student achievement and the success of the revised (mathematics) curriculum. The districts Strategic Plan also states some very specific criteria that must be measured by the assessment plan. By 2003, at least 9 out of 10 students will meet or exceed LRSD standards of performance identified in the core curriculum. By 2003, at least 65% of students in every identified sub-group of race and gender will perform at or above the national average in reading and mathematics on standardized tests
at least 30% will perform at the highest quartile in reading and mathematics on standardized tests
and no more than 10% will perform at the lowest quartile in reading and mathematics on standardized tests. One of the strategies set forth in the Strategic Plan states, We will construct a delivery system that allows us to plan and implement individualized educational goals for all LRSD students and that does not predetermine or limit options at an early age. In addition to the documents guiding the work of our district, the State Board of Education has adopted the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). This plan carries specific requirements to participate in norm-referenced testing for grades 5, 7, and 10, and criterion- referenced testing for grades 4, 6, 8, and end of course exams in Algebra I, geometry, and literacy. The State has implemented the Smart Stan Initiative to provide specific strategies and resources to ensure a successful start K-4. Smart Start will be expanded in future years to higher grades. In researching options for a comprehensive assessment program for LRSD, various members of the PRE staff and the Curriculum and Instruction staff met with representatives from a variety of testing companies. We also visited with Dr. Steven Ross (University of Memphis), and Dr. Sean Mulvenon and Dr. Ronna Turner (University of Arkansas) to explore feasible options for Little Rock. Drs. Mulvenon and Turner also met with Drs. Carnine, Williams, and Lease to discuss assessment proposals. Once information was obtained about the various options, I met with Dr. Ross and Dr. Lesley to determine the criteria that would guide the decision-making. After considering all proposals, coordinating with the state assessment plan, reviewing the requirements of our guiding documents, and considering our budget, the following K-12 Assessment Plan is being proposed for your approval
Kindergarten Grade, and 2"** Grade Pre-and post-assessments using Marie Clays Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement will be administered to all kindergarten, first, and second grade students. These individual assessments are in line with the States Smart Start Initiative. A meeting was held with all district kindergarten teachers to gather input on what kind of assessment they preferred. They overwhelmingly opted for individual assessments at this age. 2"** Grade (spring) During the spring semester, 2"^ graders will be screened for the districts Gifted and Talented Program. A nationally normed and locally designed criterion referenced test provided through consultation with Northwest Educational Association (NWEA) will be used as one indicator in the G/T identification n process. Identified 2"* graders will also take the Raven, a non-verbal intelligence test. Grades 3-11 Beginning with the 3'* grade, we will administer a pre- and post- criterion- referenced test developed to align with our curriculum. We are proposing a partnership with NWEA to develop these assessments. Our students will be assessed in reading, language arts, and math. By using pre-and post-tests, we will be able to monitor the growth of every student. We can calculate the value-added growth of attending a particular school over time, or simply determine the amount of growth in one year. The use of these assessments gives us an opportunity to track longitudinal data to monitor student achievement. In addition to these pre- and post-tests developed with teachers and curriculum staff with the assistance of NWEA, we will utilize released items from the state's criterion referenced tests to develop additional assessments that can be administered during the second and third nine weeks. These assessments will be developed with teachers and can be incorporated into a students grade within a course. State Assessment Program The state accountability program designates the following assessments (not fully implemented until 2003)
Criterion-Referenced Primary Benchmark Intermediate Benchmark Middle Level Benchmark End-of-CourseAlgebra I End-of-CourseGeometry End-of-CourseLiteracy Grade 4 Grade 6 (not complete) Grade 8 When completed When completed Grade 11 April April April Jan/April Jan/April Jan/April Norm-Referenced SAT-9 Grades 5, 7, 10 September We believe this program of varied assessments affords the Little Rock School District the greatest opportunity to have timely measures of student achievement. We will be able to monitor student achievement, offer enrichment or remediation as needed, and plan for the success of each of our students. Both the Curriculum and Instruction Division and Planning, Research, and Evaluation appreciate your endorsement of this proposal.Section: Commitment to Desegregation (pg. 1) Goals and Objectives This section contains an overview of the districts plan of action for providing quality desegregated education in aU schools, and features nine beliefs or commitments, beginning with 1) The belief that all students can learn
2) eliminating achievement disparity
3) improved educational quality and academic performance, including double funding for incentive schools
4) improving race relations, 5) equity in all phases of school activities and operations
6) promoting positive public reaction to desegregation
7) inter and intradistrict recruiting
8) infusion of multicultural education into the curriculum
and 9) ongoing staff development for all district personnel. Progress Note: Areas in this section are also addressed elsewhere in this review: see achievement, discipline, recruitment, incentive schools, public relations, and staff development. 1. The district has a history of demonstrating that it believes that all students can learn, and has an inclusive academic program. That program includes an alternative learning program that, the record shows, needs much improvement. 2. Achievement disparity between the races is still a problem and has not improved. 3. Incentive schools have a mixed history. Double funding has sometimes fallen short, but mostly the district has unnecessarily exceeded the double funding level. In some instances incentive school students are out-performing those in area schools, but the record contains no evidence that correlates student performance with double funding (although that s a major purpose of double funding). The record does show that implementation of many incentive school features has been slow and uneven. 4. The LRSD has a history of generally positive race relations overall, although racial incidents no doubt occur. Some inservice training on race relations has occurred, but generally it has been hit- and-miss. 5. Equity in all phases of school activities and operations is hard to measure and neither ODM nor the record has made this call. However, we are aware of no policies that are uinately inequitable nor aim to tolerate inequities
yet some practices appear to be inequitable, such as the disproportionate disciplinary sanctions received by black students.. 6. The extent to which the district has promoted positive public reaction to desegregation is also hard to measure. Persistent squabbling (for example, among school board members and between the parties, along with the districts tendency to blame desegregation and the Court for its woes, doesnt present a positive record in this area. 7. The districts student recruitment record is uneven, both intra- and interdistrict. The numbers that each district gives us on M-to-M transfers conflict, but generally show that PCSSD has more M- to-M students than the LRSD. However, we dont know whether the PCSSD or LRSD was responsible for promoting the transfers (they each claim that they did it). 8. The district has been released from Court supervision in the area of multicultural education. 9. Staff development is directed by the LRSD department so named, but inservice is scattershot and often poor. ODM has not done a report that focuses solely on inservice, but we have touched on it in our reports on the incentive schools, Alternative Education, McClellan, and Four-Year-Old Programs. In these reports we found that inservice was often inconsistent or altogether absent
when it was offered, it was frequently inadequate.Conclusions The record shows that the LRSD has had mixed results in meeting the objectives of this section. Most notably, the gap in achievement between the races has not narrowed. The district did a good job of infusing multicultural education and has been released in this area. Bottom Line The goals and objectives in this section are reasonable and worthy, but none of them has been fuUy met (except in multicultural education), due to various factors that include foot-dragging, poor planning, and inept follow-through.Area: Achievement Disparities (LRSD Plan, pg. 1
Interdist. Plan, pg. 6) Goals and Objectives To eliminate the educational achievement disparities between black and white students on normreferences and criterion-referenced test. Progress Little. See ODM report: Status on Achievement Disparity: LRSD, NLRSD, PCSSD (1994). Issues Many forces affect achievement, such as socio-economic status, ineffective teaching strategies, racism, and low expectations. Many of these factors are outside the control of the district. However, our report was clear: the district promised equitable education for its students. We pointed out that assessing the links between programs, process, and results had to occur in order to evaluate program and service concepts, determine the scope, quality, and consistency of implementation, and made informed decisions about where to make changes. Conclusions A laudable but very difficult goal to reach. The gap will not be narrowed to the extent named in the Settlement Agreement, especially utilizing current assessment standards. However, the district can do much more to improve minority achievement. Our report on achievement was clear about the kinds of approaches that could help the districts make gains in narrowing the achievement gap.Section: Leadership (pgs. 2-3) Goals and Objectives To provide coherent and consistent leadership for change from the superintendent and board of directors. The primary thrust of this section is to delineate that: the school board is representative of the populations it serves the superintendent and board is answerable to its public and should keep the public informed about the schools the superintendent and board members should model the behavior of an effective desegregated school setting the superintendent and school board should provide clearly articulated leadership the district promises equitable hiring practices and budgetary decisions that will be consistent with desegregation policies the board and staff are to participate in ongoing staff development that responds to the needs of a desegregated school system the board and staff are to conduct annual self evaluations in six areas that mostly deal with relations (board, superintendent, community, staff, fiscal management, and instructional programs). the district promises to end all vestiges of discrimination, segregation, or unfair treatment, and promises to ensure that all students have a fair chance to learn. Progress The history of the district had been discord and dissension among many of its board members, superintendents, and employee groups, as illustrated by telecasts of the board meetings and board minutes (which arent an official part of the Court record, but ODM attends all board meetings and reads the minutes of them.) Superintendents seemed to do everything except try to implement the plan
the record contains little evidence that the have superintendents articulated or demonstrated their beUef in the plan. The record shows that the objectives in this section have been only partially met. Other indicators of the extent of comphance arent on the record, although we know about it. (For example, they havent done the annual self evaluations for several years. Evidently the evaluations stopped after responsibility for them was transferred to Ed Jackson from Sterling Ingram. We dont know why.) Conclusions The objectives of this section make sense, but the record indicates mixed results, partly because of changing superintendents, multiple agendas, and inept leadership. Except for recent history under Don Roberts (which largely isnt in the record because of the moratorium), the superintendents and board have a miserable history of working together. The LRSD Strategic, under Williams, does show evidence of an attempt at collaboration, but that plan was never filed with the court, so technically isnt part of the record. Don Roberts was able to mobilize the district for some concerted action as demonstrated by the moratorium and motion for plan modification. The board and superintendent worked through Task Forces with staff, parents, community members, and ODM to develop some of the ideas that Roberts has said will underpin plan. However, the districts submission doesn t reference the extent to which the work of the Task Forces will be used. Bottom Line The objectives of this section are fine, but none of them has been completely realized. On-the-record documentation of their failures in these areas will be spotty. Section: Early Childhood Education (pgs. 4-5)The Eight Circuit ruled that early childhood education, at least in the incentive schools, is crucial and that no retreat should be approved. Goals and Objectives This section is an introduction to the broad area of early childhood education. The authors speak to the importance of early educational experiences, quote from expert sources, and cite statistics related to the need for school-sponsored early childhood education. The section proposes expanding of existing early childhood programs developing new programs to meet the needs of at-risk students and to remediate racial achievement disparities. These programs will have three components: -HIPPY -four-year-old program -City-wide Early Childhood Education Program. Progress Since this section is little more than an introduction to early childhood education, it is not an area where we would appropriately measure the districts progress. In reviewing the following four sections, we can examine the progress made by the LRSD.Section: Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) (pgs. 6, 14-16) HIPPY is part of the early childhood education program. The Eighth Circuit stated that, at least in the incentive schools, ECE is crucial. Goals and Objectives The HIPPY program targets parents of economically deprived children and works with mothers to help them teach their four- and five-year-old children at home. The plans states that the HIPPY cannot be continued at present levels without the continued receipt of JTPA and Chapter program 2 funds. The LRSD and PCSSD are to collaborate on HIPPY
HIPPY and the school-based four-year-old program are to collaborate in the areas of parental involvement and teacher training. Early Prevention of School Failure (EPSF) screening (or a comparable model) will be conducted on HIPPY participants as they exit kindergarten and a standardized test will be given at the end of third grade. These measures will be used to judge the success of HIPPY as an early childhood intervention strategy. Progress . The district has had a HIPPY program since the 1986-87 school year. To save money, the district proposed in a March 1995 business case to drop the program from all schools except the incentive schools. The proposal failed for lack of board approval. In August 1995 the district filed for unitary status in the area of HIPPY. However, during the hearing on unitary status, testimony was not given on HIPPY because the director was ill and couldnt attend the hearing. The districts 1994-95 extended evaluations claimed that, based on the SAT-8 scores earned by some former participants, HIPPY was helping to reduce achievement disparity. The districts claim could not be substantiated from the data presented. Test results for students in 1989-90 and 1990-91 were presented, but these results were not compared to a control group or to the district average for all students of the same age. Conclusions Nationally and internationally HIPPY has a proven track record and a sterling reputation. Its implementation in the LRSD has long left much to be desired. The 1994-95 extended evaluation of the program was poorly done and says little for the competence and professionalism of the staff. Bottom Line HIPPY functions as described in the LRSD Plan, but it effectiveness has not been measured by the districtSection: Four-Year-Old Program (pgs. 7-8, 17-18) The Eight Circuit stated that early childhood education, at least in the incentive schools, is crucial and no retreat should be approved. Goals and Objectives The program for four-year-olds was designed as a means to meet the educational needs of disadvantaged students and to help racially balance schools that had been difficult to desegregate. This section of the plan contains several provisions that have been modified by subsequent District Court orders. The plan originally required that the district locate a four-year-old classroom in each of the elementary schools. The May 1992 Order of the District Court required the district to establish the number of classes needed to serve at least as many students as would have been served under the original scheme, but the district could locate the classes where they were most likely to serve desegregation and reduce achievement disparities. (This requirement equates to a capacity of 720 students.) This section also addresses the need for developmentally appropriate curriculiun, areas of collaboration with PCSSD, and program evaluation. Progress ODM has published two reports on the four-year-old program (7-31-92 and 5-26-95). In both instances, we found the instructional program offered in the LRSD to far surpass the educational offerings usually available to children of this age. In ODMs monitoring report that covered the 1995-96 school year, we examined the following areas
enrollment, recruitment, staffing, curriculum and instruction, parent involvement, staff development, program evaluation, and facilities. Several of these areas are not part of this section of the plan, but requirements in these areas emanate from court orders or other section of the LRSD or Interdistrict Plan. The district is meeting both the letter and the spirit of the early childhood section of the plan. The four-year-old classes are evaluated annually by outside experts using a standardized observation form. Trained evaluators visit each classroom for a full day. Ratings compiled from the annual assessment continually rank the LRSD classes well above the score needed to be termed a quahty child care program, and in some areas the district composite score is at the very top of the rating scale. Conclusions The district has done a fine job in early childhood education. In the last five years, they have met their deadlines for establishing new classrooms and have created a high quality program. Our only wish would be for more programs to accommodate the high demand for ECE.Section: Citywide Early Childhood Education Program (pgs. 9-11,19) The Eight Circuit stated that early childhood education, at least in the incentive schools, is crucial and no retreat should be approved. Goals and Objectives This section deals with developing a coordinated early childhood effort between the LRSD, the City of Little Rocks child care program, and Head Start. Much of this sections narrative is devoted to a description of the program requirements for the three entities. The plan also sets forth ways that the three entities will work together in: parent involvement, staff development, student referrals, student assignment, long-term monitoring, and facilities. Progress During the 1991-92 plan modification hearings, the LRSD submitted a long-range plan for early childhood education that would have relied on outside agencies such as Head Start to fulfill part of the districts requirement to provide early childhood education. The May 1992 Order of the District Court instructed the LRSD to limit reliance on four-year-old programs that are provided through 95 agencies, such as Head Start, which the district does not control and the goals which do not parallel the settlement agreement goals of program scope, racial balance, location, and so forth. For a year or two after the May 1992 order, the LRSD concentrated its efforts more on meeting the terms of the plan related to the school-based four-year-old classes rather than making extensive efforts related to the Citywide program. In recent years, the district has demonstrated good-faith efforts working with outside agencies that deal with early childhood issues. Representatives of a variety of other agencies are included on the LRSD early childhood council and in training activities. Conclusions Many portions of this section are dated. The LRSD currently collaborates with more agencies than the two mentioned here, and some of the activities described in this section may no longer be the most practical approach to ensuring quality early childhood education. In this area, the district has made some good-faith efforts. The LRSD and the city leaders now appear to work cooperatively on a variety of projects. The relationship between the district and city hall has changed positively but could also change again depending upon the districts and citys leadership. Although were aware of this information through board meetings and the public record, including newspaper articles, the official court record will be essentially bare in this area. Bottom Line This section is out-of-date.Section
Rockefeller Early Childhood Magnet School (pgs, 12-13) The Eight Circuit stated that early childhood education, at least in the incentive schools, is crucial and no retreat should be approved. Goals and Objectives This section of the plan evolved from the Tri-District Plan. The early childhood program was designed to foster both desegregation and academic achievement and to provide excellent early childhood education while enhancing training for early childhood professionals. The school was to serve as a model for cooperation between the public schools and the community and as a demonstration site for area educators. Progress ODM has examined the progress being made in the Rockefeller early childhood program in each of the last four incentive school reports (December 1993, December 1994, May 1995, July 1996). During the period between the 1992-93 and 1995-96 schools years, the LRSD made great progress in meeting the terms of this section of the plan. Both the May 1995 and July 1996 reports found substantial evidence of good faith in implementing the Rockefeller program and substantial con^liance with the terms of the desegregation plans. Diuing the period that the LRSD had been under a hiatus from ODM monitoring, the district created a new early childhood specialist position for the Rockefeller program. This is a position that ODM recommended several years ago and the hiring of such an individual addresses one of the chief parent concerns of a lack of certified personnel on staff during the summer months. Unfortunately, the individual hired for this position (a personal friend of the principal) has created a firestorm of dissension and sharply divided the ECE staff against the principal. This isnt a matter of record, but of Ann Browns intimate knowledge of what goes on at Rockefeller. Conclusions The district has made great strides in this area since 1992-93 and has been largely complying with the terms of the desegregation plans since 1994-95. An area in which the program falls short of the promises in the plan is innovative practices. The Rockefeller program does not really develop any early childhood innovations, but this shortcoming can be overlooked when you consider that innovative education and sound practices are not always mutually inclusive. Also, the program is only minimally used as a demonstration site for the county school districts.Section: Special Programs (pg. 20) Goals and Objectives The plan describes the AP&L summer science institute as a one-week enrichment program designed to generate interest in the study of science. Progress The sponsoring company (AP&L) dropped the funding about five years ago, causing the program to be discontinued after ten years of success. Conclusions The AP&L summer science program apparently was in existence at the time the plan was being written and was included to pad the list of desegregation strategies. Bottom Line The summer science program should have no bearing on LRSDs plan modifications.Section: Summer Learning Program (pg. 21) Goals and Objectives The summer learning program was the six-week Job Training Partnership Act tutorial program which provided instruction in math and reading for a maximum of 350 underachieving secondary students employed by JTPA. Progress LRSD successfully conducted the program for several years but intermittent funding has weakened it recently. LRSD requested release from court supervision in this area and presented impressive testimony in support of the request, but dropped it, apparently in favor of other strategies including plan modification. Conclusions LRSD has an impressive record regarding the JTPA program. Recent funding issues beyond the districts control are the only flaw. Bottom Line The summer learning program should have no bearing on LRSDs plan modifications.Section: Asset Program (pgs. 24-27) Goals and Objectives The Asset Program is described in the plan as an after school tutorial program for at-risk junior high school students. Slated for four of the districts junior high schools in the 1988-89 school year, the program was to be expanded to include all junior highs by the 1993-94 school year. Progress According to LRSD personnel, Asset was discontinued about five years ago because of the loss of funding. Conclusions LRSD operated Asset as long as JTPA funding was available but discontinued it when funding ended. Bottom Line The Asset Program should have no bearing on LRSDs plan modifications.Section: School Operations (pgs. 28-47) Goals and Objectives This section of the plan consists of one and a quarter pages of narrative and 19 pages of timelines. The narrative portion of the section describes the monitoring responsibilities of the LRSD Office of Desegregation. The office is responsible for monitoring 15 areas that cover the full spectrum of school operations from staffing to school climate, student services, and beyond. Progress Any record in this area would relate to the individual areas the Desegregation Office is to monitor, but as far as we know (but not as part of the court record), any type of oversight by the LRSD Office. of Desegregation ended when Russ Mayo left in June of 1996. Nancy Acre, who serves as director of student assignment, concentrates her efforts exclusively on issues related to assignment and enrollment. The Associate Superintendent of Desegregation has been an unfilled position throughout Dr. Roberts tenure. Recently the position has been advertised, but we have no word that a person has been selected to fill the position. The monthly desegregation update that is included in the LRSD Boards agenda is yeiy brief
it deals only with enrollment or the bi-racial committee, and is prepared by an admimstrative assistant. This worries us, as it indicates a profound shift away from the previous focus on desegregation. Conclusions During Dr. Roberts tenure, he seemed to take the lead in issues related to desegregation. Dr. Roberts did not focus on issues related to enforcement or compliance with the April 1992 Desegregation Plans. Instead he seemed to concentrate his attention to the work groups and developing the new, very abbreviated plan that was filed with the court on September 26, 1997. Bottom Line The Desegregation Office has lacked leadership for nearly two years. It seems logical to conclude that this vacancy has resulted in a diminished focus on issues related to the current plans. Because of the moratorium, we have no official record of what the district has done recently.Area: Discipline (LRSD Plan, pg. 28) Goals and Objectives to develop and implement polices that improve discipline to reduce the disparity of disciplinary actions. Progress The districts own monitoring reports indicate a continuing disparity in disciplinary sanctions. Past policies of zero tolerance and strict adherence to discipline policies have only served to exacerbate the problem. ODM has received numerous complaints from teachers, parents, and Joshua concerning unfair discipline practices, and while informal investigations have not proven the allegations, neither have they disproved them. ODM staff has provided the LRSD with many workshops that focused on working with minority youth and cultural differences. A major problem has been teachers who do not relate well to minority students, especially black males. Additionally, minority students ( black males in particular) have taken advantage of the teachers who fear them or who were uncomfortable with them. ODM has not published a report that solely focuses on discipline, but it has been considered in our reports on the incentive schools and alternative school. The LRSD has done a major overhaul of its discipline policies. The new pohcies provide a great deal of flexibihty at the building level and contain provisions for addressing schools that have high discipline statistics. The new approach should make a big difference. The changes on not in the record. Conclusions The district has a long way to go in solving its discipline problems, but safe and orderly schools are essential for community confidence in them. Some of the districts pohcies and practices have worked against minority youth, as has the lack of understanding between white teachers and minority students. Cultural sensitivity training in the LRSD has been spotty at best.Section: Program for Accelerated Learning/Academic Support Program (pgs. 48-57) This program was replaced pursuant to a Court order dated May 1, 1992. The new program is entitled Academic Support Program (filed with the Court on March 24, 1993). Goals and Objectives The objectives are to provide equitable language arts and mathematics learning experiences to improve achievement and decrease disparity among students. The plan proposes to identify and serve at-risk students, prescribe personalized intervention plans, reduce pull-out programs, and provide parents with the skills needed to assist their children at home. Services are provided indirectly, whereby math and reading speciaUsts assist the regular classroom teachers with implementing remedial services, and directly, whereby students identified with severe reading problems attend reading classes designed to assist them with reading skills. Schools could opt for indirect, direct, or a combination of delivery services. All remediation programs fall under the Academic Support Program (ASP) umbrella. Progress Initially, the program started with a bang. AU of the schools in the district participated in the ASP. Two ODM associate monitors visited several of the programs and felt that they were being implemented sufficiently. In the 1994-95 school year, the LRSD combined the language arts specialist and math specialist positions into one position at the elementary level. This measure was intended to be a budget cutting device. However, the district did not submit the change to the Court. Conclusions The LRSD took three steps forward and two steps back. The original model seemed to work well and, since the schools could modify the ASP to meet their needs, the program was very user fiiendly. But language arts specialists are not math teachers. Math scores on the standardized tests were showing improvement prior to the elimination of the math specialists
however, overaU math scores for aU students have declined in the last two years. Ironically, language arts scores have improved, but reading scores have fallen. Issues The ASP was never designed specifically for black students
however, as a group, black students stood to gain the most from the program, simply because a greater percentage of black students needed remedial help in math and language arts. The district should assist schools with developing site-based ASPs, utilizing a variety of services provided by the district. Bottom Line The results are mixed. Students are doing better in language arts, poorer in math.Section: Gifted Education (pgs. 58-62) Goals and Objectives While the plan indicates that the district operates in compliance with the ADE gifted and talented standards, the plan also commits to devoting special attention to the identification and placement of black students and students from low and middle socio-economic levels. The plan further commits to collaborate with the other two districts on curriculum, staff development, and research and administration. Progress Gifted and talented education in the LRSD is still fairly new. Except for trying to eliminate a coordinators position and reducing the number of specialists (both of which did not occur), the program has continued to grow and develop. The LRSD does a good job of identifying potential G/T students, especially minority students. Conclusions The LRSD has to follow federal and state guidelines in G/T placements. To our knowledge the district has never been cited for any violations in placement. The quality of G/T education is another matter. The program is still weak and has trouble enrolling and keeping some students, particularly minority students at the secondary level. G/T education in the LRSD is more often than not more work, not better, challenging, or interesting work. The program often lacks originahty. The G/T coordinators in the three districts do meet at least twice a year and participate in joint inservice programs. While they may collaborate on showcasing promising models and programs, they are very protective of their students and have been reluctant to recommend gifted programs in each others district to potential M-to-M students. Issues The biggest number of complaints we hear are from black parents whose children cannot attend one of the magnets, especially Dunbar. Since G/T education is offered in all LRSD schools, theoretically, it shouldnt matter where children attend school as long as they are enrolled in a G/T program
but in reality, all G/T programs are not created equal. Bottom Line The record is sparse on G/T. We have not done an independent report on it, but have referred to it in some reports, primarily those on incentive schools. We testified in a hearing that to eliminate the G/T coordinator would negatively affect the program. The information above is what we know through our experiences. We believe that what is in the plan for G/T is fine, and the district is meeting the letter of its obligations in G/T education, but could do so much better where quality and equitable inclusion are concerned. This is an area in which Mr. Walker is very interested.Section: Multicultural Curriculum (pg. 63) Goals and Objectives The districts approach to multicultural curriculum includes
1) integration into all subject areas
2) a focus which permeates the entire school environment
3) opportunities for students to develop self- esteem
and 4) opportunities for students to examine the accomplishments of varied cultural groups. Progress The district was released from court supervision and monitoring of multicultural curriculum.Section: Focused Activities and Academic Progress Incentive Grants (pg. 81) Goals and Objectives The goal here was to promote each elementary area school as a community of learning among parents, students, and staff by providing various enrichment activities at the building level. Supported by annual allocations, each area elementary school was to develop a focus or thematic emphasis which would be unique to that school. In addition to enriching the curriculum, the focus would also act as a recruitment tool for desegregation. The district also committed to provide
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.